Photography ...... Is Digital or Conventional photography better?

Answer 1

It is without a doubt that digital photography has revolutionized the commercial photography industry as well as the consumer photo market. However, the decision of whether digital or film is better all depends upon your particular niche within the photo industry as well as your final output. In the commercial photography industry it is without a doubt that digital is king. Tight deadlines, clients that demand instant gratification all seem to make sense in this field. However it is not to say that clients don't on occasion demand film for final output for their particular needs. As both a fine art and commercial photographer my needs are split between the demands and interest of my clients. In terms of fine art I have gained an appreciation for the fine detail that only film can give. To clarify I make mural prints generally of a size over 8 feet wide. To do this I use an 8x10 Toyo view camera using 50 iso film. In order to get the sharpness, tonality and depth that this combination provides to me I would need a digital camera that could produce at least a minimum of 600 megapixels.
However, this is not to say that I wouldn't go digital for my fine art prints if I had the option, but if you consider that a 39 megapixel Hasselblad costs over $30,000 this is simply not worth it.
Anyway, each format has its benefits based on what your needs and demands are and I embrace both. And regardless of what people say there will always be a market for silver halide film and supplies, especially in the fine art field, just consider the myriad of people who practice alternative photo processes that were suppose to have died 150 years ago.

Answer 2

You've got to be kidding me. Digital photography has leaped a million miles beyond conventional photography. Actually, film photography is obsolete and digital is the new standard.

This is dramatically evident to any amateur that picks up even a cheap digital camera these days. For those people, simply using a digital will dramatically improve their photography.

For the prosumer, the difference is even larger. The hobbiest today with his high end digital that takes RAW images and his computer software, does things that the hobbiest of ten years ago could only dream about....and he does it as a triviality. Quite literally, it is nothing for a hobbiest to crank out what would have been professional work, not too long ago.

But for the professional.....things have just gotten out of hand. The new stuff costs a pretty penny but it does things that simply could not be done not too long ago.

No serious photgrapher uses film anymore.

Answer 3

It all depends!

Traditionaly, Chemical (Conventional) Photography had the best resolution, and was always chosen by the Pro's (some still do choose it!)..... Now resolution questions are being blurred by what people want to do with an image!..... Digital is often easier to manipulate!

Working as a Technician, and being involved in Darkroom activities, I must say that Chem is the choice for most students....... So many tricks etc that can be played to get 'THAT' Image that makes a statement!

Having said that......

I have several SLR's, but rearly use!.... These days I shoot entirely Digital..... 6Mpixel now, but upgrading to 9Mpixel in a month or so!!!...... More than enough for the things I shoot!

Last point, Digital works out alot cheaper!..... OK, good cameras can be expensive, but if you don't like a shot you can erase it later (allowing more pics!) and at least you know about it, and don't have to wait to develope, or for them to come back from the Lab!!!

Look at what Manufacturers like Kodak, Illford, etc are concentrating their business on...... The Future certainly seems to be Digital!...... Yet there will always be a nieche of 'Conventionalists' that will Print to the last drops of Chemistry!!!!

Try Both, and Enjoy!

Answer 4

In general terms, it depends upon what kind of photography you are talking about. In general terms, digital has definitely taken over from the mechanical film/paper route. THERE IS NO DOUBT. One short story, and this happened about two years ago at least so things have moved on since then, as is the rate of progression in digital imaging ... A professional portrait photographer in London, specialising in the highest quality portraiture, doubted the capability of the then latest digital equipment. So he took the plunge and equipped himself with the best digital gear that was then available. He carried out a scientific experiment in his studio, using the same subject, the same lighting ... the same everything, save that he shot with conventional film and he shot with digital. After all the processing, he could not tell the difference between the two - and that is a professional and talented eye. Since then, digital has moved even further forward with its quality. Coming back to the first sentence ... It depends what kind of photography ... If for a snaps on vacation, family around the Christmas tree - dump film NOW. If you are shooting anything that requires speed, versatility, quality, convenience, cost-effectiveness up to and including top-level professional work - dump film NOW. Only if you are determined to hang on to the old-fashioned methods, because you have a slide-projector that you just can't sell, because you have so much money invested in film camera equipment or because you really want the best that top-end film stock and top-end camera lenses can offer should you hesitate. Hasselblad now offer a digital camera with a 38 megapixel resolution. Costs a fortune but think why such a revered company should make the move into digital ... they can see the writing on the wall. Those with good film cameras should sell them NOW while there is still a market for them. In a few years, they will be worthless except to museums and quirky collectors. Personally, I am on my second digital camera. I started with a sub-1mp Sony Mavica and upgraded to a Sony DSC707 5mp a few years back, due to pressure in the pro work that I started. I have since retired and photography is now just my leisure time activity, to keep the brain ticking over, but I will be upgrading again in about a month, when I will get a Sony Alpha 100 (10mp) If you are asking the question before deciding on which camera to buy - dump the idea of film NOW.

Answer 5

It depends, but reading the answers, it's like it had have been on the begining of the 1900: paintings or photography?
Conventional photography has better resolution and is a fascinating process to be on a dark room, throw the exposed photo pape on the developer chemicals and see how the photo appears in front of your eyes.
Digital photography is great and easy to use, ideal for this "do anything in 5 minutes" culture. It's very easy to use and you can see the results right now. It is a great expression media.

The answer is: it depends. Better for what?
Speed?: Digital
Flexibility?: Conventional
Durability?: Conventional (CDs lasts close to 15 years, a good film negative or paper based photo can last 100 years)

Answer 6

After having tried both I find digital boring and unpredictable; with film I know exactly what my camera is doing and also that my colour is going to be consistent and accurate, but with digital if I try using manual settings it can completely wreck the photo, even though it looks good on the little screen it can look completely wrong once uploaded to the computer, this is due to different hue and brightness settings on the little screen and no colour-space or intensity settings to match standard ones found on the computer.
I know it's probably possible to correct using photoshop or whatever, but if the white balance is off it becomes incredibly difficult and tricky to do properly.

After learning that, I have discovered that the best setting is the Auto one, and that takes away most of the fun for me so I go back to my film SLR. Plus of course I can get some very fine lenses for hardly any money for my film SLR which I could never afford for a digital SLR.

Answer 7

They're both good in their own ways, but digital just edges it now I reckon.

I've found with scanning conventional pictures to digital you don't always get as good a quality as the original print (darker)....... while with a digital camera they're already digitised, and in some cases better quality than a conventional cam.

With Digital, you can take as many pictures as you jolly well want..... and not worry about running out of film.... while in my film camera I've had a few "incidents" where I've loaded a 36-exposure film, only for the camera to decide I've run out of film after 8-shots (such as in the middle of photographing the annual parade at the Whitby Regatta)

With Digital, the pictures are ready to share (or discover you've c*cked it up) within seconds.... while with film you sometimes have to wait weeks or months to get round to developping them. I've also got a backlog of pictures I've been meaning to scan to share with online friends from as far back as 1999 (Redcar & Cleveland College trip to flamingoland theme park & zoo), 2001 (Whitby Regatta..... 2 lots scanned, 2 more batches still to get round to)...... 2002 Whitby Regatta & from my time doing a placement on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway.

With conventional photography, if you want to take quality pictures (particularly with an adjustable zoom lens) you need a massive great SLR camera in order to see what the lens is seeing, not what a seperate view finder is seeing...... and sometimes having something as big as an SLR to carry around can leave you feeling like you wished you left the damn thing at home.
With digital photography you can do the same trick with a camera small enough to slip into a pocket and almost forget you put it in there..... and take & store practically as many pictures as you like on a memory card barely bigger than a postage stamp.

However.... one advantage I have discovered with conventional photography:
With my Digital camera, I find a get through an 8-pack of AA batteries in about 2-3months (VARTA HIGH ENERGY).
With my conventional film camera (an Olympus AM-100 from around 1989/1990).... I think the last time I replaced the 2x AAA batteries it uses was either last summer, or the one before that.

Answer 8

When I used film, I was very careful and always tried to take as few photos as I could get away with to keep down the cost of developing. Now I take as many pictures as I want and know I can disregard those that are unsuccessful, at no additional cost, and now have a much better chance of getting what I want.

Digital lets me change the ISO setting from picture to picture so that it doesn't matter if there is a lot of light or little. With film, I would have to change the entire roll of film to change the ISO.

And of course digital can be edited on a computer, which lets you do things that previously could only be done in a dark room such as salvaging pictures taken in poor light or cropping away parts that you don't want.

Answer 9

Both are plagued by granularity; the conventional 35mm photographic system depends on light sensitive material coated with chemicals reactive to the presence of light. These materials have an inherent propensity to demonstrate the granular nature of their coating treatment. This is best exhibited when a photographic negative is enlarged and becomes, 'grainy'.

With digital photography, the image is composed from pixels; coloured dots of varios tones of the spectrum and therefore, equally susceptible to exhibit a granular effect, once again particularly when the image is enlarged.

Glassware is typically of a higher quality with conventional 35mm Single Lens Reflex apparatus as opposed to digital but that is then offset by the, 'instant gratification', and immediacy of digital equipment. There are superior lens available for digital format but, of course, they attract a premium fee.

Answer 10

Digital.

Most of the big camera makers don't even make conventional cameras any more. Even Medium and Large format cameras are going digital. Conventional photography is going the way of VHS tapes, 8-tracks, and vinyl records.