that web site is a mess.
Because digital has no soul.
Some folks shoot both, and some folks are wholly dedicated to one medium and process. It's just their choice.
I imagine that a dedicated digital shooter, forced to shoot with film, would find that soulless, because as you said, the soul/love comes through the chosen medium/process from the artist.
I love film. I'm a analog guy in a digital world.
I don't get these things. First off, it looks like their website is pretty much optimized to be viewed on a smartphone, and is pretty terribly to try and navigate on a PC.
Second, if you want the look of Velvia, why not just shoot Velvia? Even more so with B&W, the sensitivity of film differs than digital, so the digital conversions never look quite like the original.
The Plug-in pack is $120-- I know I'd tire of fiddling with digital files long before I got through the same number of images as I could get out of $120 worth of film and chemicals...
If you want the look of film, why not just shoot film? Film and digital are two very different mediums. If you like one or the other, use it, but it bugs me how much time is spent with digital files to get them 'film-like'.
I shoot both, so I might not be the best person to answer.
But if I can hazard a guess it is because film photography is a serious craft that demands dedication. If you do dedicate yourself to it, you will be producing pictures with a subjective artistic quality that is very difficult to achieve with digital.
Some people manage to use a digital component to that effect. One famous example is Sebastiao Salgado, who went from medium format film cameras to digital full frame. He still wet prints from a digital negative, though and his amazingvresults stem from a lifetime of mastery of the analogue process.
Digital is the fastest and easiest way to produce a usable image. Analogue is neither fast nor easy, but extremely rewarding.
P.S. I've tried the VSCO app and I didn't like their filters. They create a very obvious mock lomo look, ie emulating expired film that is badly exposed, developed and handled. They do not, neither can they emulate the look of professionally handled film.
I also use Film Efex filters from Nik from time to time. While they look much better than VSCO, you could never pass them off as actual film photos.
It is interesting to note that many people want to make their digital pictures look like film. I can't help but wonder why ;)
I somewhat disagree w/ the soulless description. Digital is artificial, lifeless and dead. Film is living. Digital is very inferior for B&W work. I know no other way to describe what I see. I remember Spielberg or George Lucas or some film director describing film vs digital on the movie theater screen, and they said that before the film actually started you could see the screen come alive w/ moving grain. They didn't ever want to see the end of that, which we are essentially seeing in big budget movies now in the US. Digital noise is ugly, grain is beautiful. Where's the shadow detail? One could go on and on, but my truth is that if anyone needs to ask this question they will never understand what they need to know. They're in the wrong field. It's a visual thing, not a learned skill or a philosophy or concept, and if you don't have the eye, that's that.
My first vocation is painting and printing etchings, and I have to tell you, no artist ever has this type of silly conversation w/ other artists. We just know. And I love the ignorance of these plug in creators. As if HP5 or Tri-X HAS a native look! Try developing each of these films in Rodinal vs D76 and see what you get. Well, that's the age we live in. Lies are seen as truth, truth is not believed.