Who thinks digital photography has reached the level of conventional photography?

Question

Do you think digital photography has reached or surpassed the level of conventional photography (film and paper) and why. I myself think conventional photography still produces better results, but on the other hand you can't beat the convenience of digital. Comments or thoughts?

Answer 1

Inasmuch as digital photography has overtaken film technology insofar as its popularity, it is more a matter of convenience over quality. To most, the convenience of previewing one's images is the "important thing," while to some aficionados, it's the issue of shooting endlessly on a memory device they can easily replace and hook up to a computer to view and store and tweak/enhance.

But, the truth is that there are archival issues that must still be dealt with; for example, how long will the information (images) last on a CD or DVD? Surely, I cannot imagine these lasting as long as the images of my great grandmother taken during the late 1800s... or those still clear B & W images of taken of my mother taken in the 1930s or of me as a child during the 1950s...! Then, again, there's the issue of camera quality and build; it seems to me that digital camereas are being replaced every 9 months or so by avid aficionados and even most professionals, as though the camera technology has not "leveled off" and must be replaced by some new fandangled device that the current ones don't have but should've had...!

Or, how flimsy the digital cameras are, as compared with their film counterparts. There seems to be a huge price disparity in c ameras that are somewhat comparable in features, on a ratio of about 5 times to cost of a digital camera to its film counterpart. Also, remember, aside from upgrading a camera every 9 months or every 2 years for an updated one, there's also the issue of one's computer (speed, hard drive memory, RAM memory, etc) and other accessories (printers, inks, papers, etc) that must also be kept "up-to-date." The cost of being a photography enthusiast is getting far more expensive.

While the mega pixel cameras are still being introduced to the public every few months, not everyone can afford those 16+ mega pixel cameras to match the medium format cameras, even if made mostly of plastic, only to have to replace it in a couple of years for a more modern one to have to deal with dead pixels or hot pixels... the mad dash to the marketplace has manufacturers compromising with quality of product at an alarming rate! Cameras with defective hardware and softeware that require to be "overhauled" by the manufacturers, at an inconvenience to the buyers.

Digital cameras are yet to match the dynamic range of film for capturing fine details in dark and light areas within the same image! That is an undeniable fact that has yet to be accomplished by the digital technology.

What I find most amusing is how everyone is so willing to dish out so much money for equipment that is easier to manufacture and also has the manufacturers laughing all the way to the banks pushing their wheelbarrels filled with money at the expense of the willing public! Cheaper technology costing more? What's going on? For example, it costs about the same to manufacture a 1-Gigabyte memory card as it does to manufacture a 2-Gigabyte card or a 256 Mb card, and the same can be said to many multi-pixel cameras.

It seems as though the manufacturers are introducing technological improvements a little bit at a time in order to bleed the public dry of its hard-earned monies... and they do so because they have a public that is so willing to part with money!

There are still a few of us film die-hards left that are unwilling to jump onto the digital bandwagon. We much prefer the depth of image in the good ol' silver halide images and being able to "go digital" by way of a scanner.

I have no doubt that film will become obsolete in a matter of a few years but I intend to enjoy the fine quality of film for as long as I can. I prefer quality of depth in a film image to one that has had to be "worked on" digitally, by computer for a few hours of my time that I prefer to spend reading or watching TV... or whatever.

Answer 2

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 3

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 4

The great debate.

Both digital and film have their strengths and weaknesses.

You're right - digital is a lot more convenient, which is why I use it when I'm shooting sporting event photos that need to be processed by the thousands and posted on a website within 24 hours. It also adds an additional control - white balance - and lets the photographer switch ISO setttings whenever they please. You can also fit a lot more images on a card than on a roll of film. All very convenient.

But the quality? Really high-end digital sensors have easily surpassed the quality of bad 100 print films in the 35mm medium. However, the resolution, colour reproduction, and tonal range of a fine chrome film like Velvia100 or Astia100 so far still beats the pants off them all.

Here's an illustration - by scanning a 35mm chrome film, say Velvia100, at 5600dpi, I produce a 250mb (approx. 45mp) file, and I'm just beginning to see the grain clusters in the worst areas of the film. Compare that to the 18mp image you could get from the best $8000 camera body. Close, truly, because of the lossy effect of even a great scan, but still no cigar.

The two mediums are merging. I actually shoot film for my fine art work, scan it, match it to the slide in PS, and print it on a Lightjet 5000 digital printer. Best prints I've ever seen, but they sure aren't quick!

Check 'em out - http://www.markraymondmason.com

Answer 5

I believe that conventional photography still has its advantages over digital photography. Unless you can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a decent camera (not a point and shoot camera) and a decent printer, your final results will be less than that of film prints. If you bring your digital prints to places like wal-mart where most of the employees no nothing of filters, your prints will not be the correct color. So all in all, I would have to say, if you have the money to buy top of the line equipment digital photography is more convenient, and is better. But if you cant afford the good stuff, film is better

Answer 6

I think Digital has finally surpassed film. The higher resolution cameras can basically match the quality of film and they are far easier and more cost effective (over time, not initial cost) than conventional cameras. It's so much nicer being able to preview your photos and delete the ones you dont like. Instead of hoping for a few good shots on a $5-10 roll of film, you get a massive ammount on one reusable card. That ease of use, along with the flexiblilty of photoshop, definately puts digital above conventional IMO

I'll probably miss the comforting reek of dark room chemicals and go back to the old way from time to time, but untill then its all digital

Answer 7

It depends on to what level... Convenience Digital wins. Dynamic range film wins. Most digital cameras have small sensors. The area in which film captures an image is larger that that of Digital. Ultimately it comes down to the lens quality.

I think film is underestimated because of the 1 hour lab on the corner sucks at developing film. I shoot both digital and film. I like slide film or digital for color and DEFINITELY film for B/W.

Answer 8

Digital photography still has a ways to go. Large format is by far the best camera, anyone who says otherwise is an imbecile or someone who takes snapshots. Digital is suitable if you don't have time.