June 20, 2010
Digital Photography Surpasses Film Photography
Before the recent digital photography revolution, which has largely taken hold in the last few years, film ruled the roost. And while film photography still has its enthusiasts it’s only really fine art photographers that still use film. It’s fair to say that digital photography has officially usurped the throne.
Of course, there are issues with digital photography. Some argue there is a qualitative loss when comparing film to digital. On the other hand, software has become so refined that the shortcomings can be mitigated, and some argue, eradicated. With CDs, for example, while they don’t have the dynamic depth of vinyl, they also don’t have hissing sounds.
Many photographers held fast to film waiting until digital matched the quality of film. Now, all but the dyed-in-the-wool film-lover will grant that for most kinds of photography, including modern wedding photography and commercial photography, digital has not only made its mark, but has trumped film.
For a decade digital has had it over film when it comes to convenience. With film, you have to process the film and afterwards if you want to adjust the images in Photoshop you have to scan the negatives - a time consuming process. With digital you take the pictures, upload them immediately and start working on them. That alone is redefines workflow. Some of the best wedding photographers, for instance, upload pictures from earlier in the day onto their laptop for all to view during the reception.
One notable negative to digital involves the power to shoot an almost unlimited number images. On the surface, this is a good thing, especially for candid wedding photography. Unfortunately, it also means that too many digital photographers shoot their images indiscriminately. This unconscious photography requires them to keep shooting so they don’t overlook anything – this not only makes them more intrusive, but funnily enough ends in recording a zillion images, while inexplicably managing to miss the meaningful moments. As is often the case, more is not always better. Those photographers who come from film learned to spot those ‘moments’ and not shoot willy-nilly like there is a revolver to their head. Of course, they were also cognizant that more images led to more film, which meant more processing and more expense. In other words, there was a self-limiting mechanism at play, which perhaps developed a more focused photographer. So, while digital means you can grab oodles of shots, the progressive photographers always pick their spots.
At any rate, the last two years have seen further advances in digital camera technology that are putting the nail in the coffin of film (except for super narrow capacities). Firstly, the image quality is now on par with film. Secondly, the low-light facility of the latest higher-end cameras is mind-boggling. The fastest film is 3200 ISO and it is super grainy. Only photographers purposely wanting this look decide on this film. Of course, sometimes they have to use this grainy film, even if they would rather not because they are hamstrung with a low-light situation without flash or lighting. It’s almost incomprehensible how good the latest digital cameras are in this regard. Top Nikon and Canon cameras can go as high as 102,000 ISO. Absurd. Now, it’s insanely grainy at that max level, but the upshot is that you can have decidedly serviceable photos at even 12,000 ISO. This is a god-send, particularly for photographers who shoot with existing light and often find themselves in low-light. Remember when you had to compromise your settings just to make things work? - no longer.
When used properly and to its full potential, digital photography rules. Hail the new king.