Am I the odd one out for preferring old film astrophotography over digital?

I see everyone raving about these new CMOS sensors and stacking software, but I still shoot deep sky objects on film. I switched to digital back in 2018, hated it for 6 months, then went back to my old Pentax 6x7. The grain and color from Kodak Ektar just feels more real to me, like you're actually seeing light from 10 million years ago hit a real chemical reaction. I spent $80 on a roll yesterday and that's fine with me. Anyone else still hanging onto film or am I just being stubborn?

2 comments

2 Comments

christopher_west110d ago

I love that you said "light from 10 million years ago hit a real chemical reaction," that's a really cool way to put it. But I gotta gently push back on one thing - it's not really the light from 10 million years ago hitting the film in a totally different way than a sensor. I mean, digital sensors are also catching real photons that traveled that same distance, just converting them to electrons instead of silver crystals. The grain and colors you're getting are a result of the chemistry and how it interprets that light, not that the light itself is somehow more authentic. Idk, maybe it's just me but I think both are capturing the same ancient photons, just in different ways.

skyler_white10d ago

Actually have to say @christopher_west1, you're making a really good point and I don't totally disagree. For me it comes down to what I connect with personally. I spent years shooting digital and felt like I was just looking at data on a screen, not touching anything real. When I switched to film for my landscape work, something clicked. I love the physicality of it, handling the negatives, seeing the grain structure, knowing that specific chemical reaction happened right there in the darkroom. It's not that digital is worse, it's that film gives me a tangible result I can hold in my hands. Have you ever tried developing your own film or is digital all you've really worked with?