Film vs. Digital: Are We Really Still Discussing This?
- September 21st, 2007
- 5 Comments
Dan Havlik, our photo guy, posted a thought-provoking forum question on PDNPulse, a fairly geeky photoblog. His question is simple: How many professional photographers use film on a regular basis? The responses, needless to say, were vociferous and varied.
I came into photography after the digital revolution. A buddy of mine in Boston called me about a year ago and asked me which camera to buy. I told him the digital Rebel XT, my own camera of choice. He went instead with a cheaper 35mm Rebel. He told me that it would be the “Last film camera he ever bought” and assumed he would use it for a few years and then buy a 100-megapixel DSLR for $59.99 at Target when the prices went down. He took it back to the store a week later and bought a digital Rebel.
Say what you like about the analog “richness” of film and the sense that cameras like the Leica have defined our century. These devices defined our century because those iconic shooters didn’t have digital cameras. While pictures of fleeing Vietnamese children and poor sharecroppers look stunning in black and white on a piece of Kodak paper, these photos are stunning because a professional photographer was in the right place at the right time with a camera that didn’t suck. Give WeeGee of Avedon a Rebel and they’d probably be able to turn in some of the most striking work you’ve ever seen. Kids learning the craft of photography coming up will still be making iconic images in digital, and I think it’s time film went the way of the VHS tape.
Attack of the Luddites [PDNPulse]
ryan (Who am I?)
1 year ago
I studied photo for a while, using both film and digital cameras. Film sucks. It adds like 80 steps to the process of producing a final image.
NotMe (Who am I?)
1 year ago
today, with the infinite post-production capabilities, it makes no sence to use film.
Jeff
1 year ago
I use a nikon d80. i also shoot film. i love the whole process of developing my own film in the darkroom. its much more exciting than taking 100 photos and picking and choosing what i like better on my digitial…its nostolgic really
Reply
Mike the Photo Snob (Who am I?)
1 year ago
I think digital is fine for birthday parties and other “snapshot” events. But if you want to be serious about photography — from learning how to take The Next Great Shot to ensuring every detail is captured without any “artifacts” — you’ll shoot film.
I wrote a rather lengthy blog entry about it over here: http://mactactoe.com/blog_files/318b634456516934775cf4ed8e61c114-6.html
alex (Who am I?)
5 months ago
Digital is easy, for people with no brains or time to use them.
Digital cameras, even in $7-800 range are built like throwaway CRAP that they are- 35mm slr film cameras were built to last.
35mm SLRs gave you more control and capability- filters, depth of field, specialized lenses, exposure control, and much, much more allowed film to be used by ARTISTS or BUBBAS. Digital makes us all BUBBAS.
Have always wondered why conversion kits weren’t made to turn film 35mm SLR bodies into digital SLRs with flexibility and control-
FILM is physical- can’t be lost in a drive crash, print colors don’t fade in 5 minutes- and in my experience digital pics do degrade dependent on file and/or media types.
Film, especially slide film, is basically INFINITE MEGAPIXELS ( can be reproduced in any size)- digital will always be limited to the original file size and compression when the button was pushed….
Digital is SLOW- when doing action sequences in HiRes…any SLR will kill ANY digital camera in this regard….pretty amazing when you consider the film must be physically moved between shots…
IMHO digital is a good replacement for polaroids, as a toy for kids of all ages, for evidence photographs, for really stupid people, not much else.
I do like it for the ability to take infinite shots at no real cost to find the best one…