I had the best client request come in last week:

"I won't want to do an AI photo, I want to look like myself, but I don't want to discourage clients because I look older."

It's not often that I get a message that looks like it's from a perfect client, but this sure sounded like it! I talk on my booking page about how analog photography is so good for portraiture but this was one step beyond - an active rebuke of the current digital age.

There are two main aspects of classic/vintage analog photography that lend itself to portraiture and distinguish it from modern digital equipment. Firstly is the film grain - the tiny physical specks of silver salt (literal grains) that are photosensitive and react when exposed to light. The physical attributes of the film mean that the smallest unit of information (light/dark) that can be captured is a single grain - it's the analog equivalent of a pixel (picture element) in a digital image. Film grains are highly variable in size and shape depending on the emulsion - Acros for example is extremely fine grain, whereas the Harmon 200 I tried recently was not... Grain can also change based on how the film is developed. The important thing is that the limit of the detail that a film negative can capture is fundamentally limited by the grain size - you can't have only half a grain exposed! The really interesting thing is that grain, unlike digital sensors, is randomly arranged - the effect is such that grain can appear to show more detail than it would be expected to, while actually masking some of the minor imperfections one might see on skin. The look of film grain has recently had a resurgence, with digital photographers now adding it to their images! (note - film grain should not be confused with the "noise" of digital sensors which is due to amplification of the electrical signals at the borderline of detection)

The second aspect is the lens choice in the photography - older lenses are simply built differently, being less sharp in general than modern glass but with greater microcontrast and character. Some modern film directors have in fact had specialty lenses built to give a more vintage aesthetic. When a lot of people talk about "the film look" what I think they're actually referring to is the look of classic film camera lenses. My lenses from the 1950s and 1970s have a very distinct look, but when I use my Nikkor lenses from the late 1980s and 1990s the photos actually appear quite similar when comparing images from my F4 film camera and D750 digital camera!

Modern mirrorless cameras, with the shorter flange distances compared to DSLRs, can actually use a lot of the old film camera lenses, which has led to a modern resurgence in popularity, and skyrocketing prices on the second-hand markets.

In combination, film grain, high microcontrast, and less sharpness, all work together to create extremely flattering portraits. I joke that modern digital photographers spend thousands on ultra-sharp lenses and high-resolution sensors, then spend hours airbrushing out all the imperfections their equipment has captured! And then adding in grain :-D

This client actually went one step further though, with an active rejection of the modern use of AI (artificial intelligence) to edit, or even create images. There's no doubt that AI tools can be great additions to the arsenal of the digital artist, but the "creation" of art with AI is an extremely hot topic at the moment. Many artists are concerned that (a) AI models are trained to create derivative art based on input from other artists' work, which is possibly a violation of copyright law and (b) art created by AI simply doesn't require artistic talent beyond drafting the right kind of prompt and spending time culling out the image(s) you want. Many artists and photographers are rightly concerned that prospective clients will select AI-generated art because it is faster and/or cheaper than art created by a human - in fact I saw a photographer say just a few days ago that a client had cancelled a photoshoot because "they could just do it with AI". But I think this is an extremely short-sighted view.

AI image creation has improved dramatically just in the last year - and there is no doubt that the images created can be beautiful, dramatic, artistic, engaging...it can be art just like any human creation in Photoshop! But it's not photography - which by definition is "drawing with light". Photography has an element of authenticity to it, even with color-grading or retouching to create an ideal or stylized image. Film photography in particular has, in general I think, an even greater sense of realism than digital. If you are, say, a client looking for a true-to-life look, but one which was inherently flattering without requiring extensive retouching...then portraiture on film really is your only answer.

So I'm not worried about AI - because my ideal clients don't want it.

Images used with permission - client was Robin Wells of www.theEtiquetteteacher.com. All images Portra 160, Nikkor 180mm 2.8D lens, and of course all unretouched.