Digital or Film?

Question

Im honestly tired of people talking about how digital is so much better than film, I've only been a photographer for about 8 years, but I have always appreciated the talent of photographers who don't need photoshop, or automatic red-eye reduction, or auto balance, those are great features for taking snap shots, but I just want to know if there is a seasoned photographer who actually thinks digital is the way to go. What do you think?

Answer 1

Cliche' time:
"It's the photographer, not the equipment"

I have both film and digital. My main cameras are digital, with a film backup.

to cover some of your points, a pro photographer understands what causes red eye and prevents it when the image is taken.

For your other topics....if you don't want a photographer that shoots digital to use photoshop, then you should want any film photographer to have a set ratio of devleoper for every single roll of film they use and develop and print the same way for everything. Not push/pull, no burn or dodging.

Then we need to go back into history and ask all the greatest photographers of our history to not do any special processing to their prints. Tell Ansel Adams to forget about the zone system and printing, tell W. Eugene Smith that all his images that he post processed are junk and not true and should be disregarded.

I can agree with the assertion that the use of post processing can be overused. However, that is up to the discretion of the photographer and the target audience.

Look at Dave Hill and Susi Lawson. They post process the heck out of their images and they are winning awards left and right and people are hiring them for their work.

Everything is just a tool to be used, overused, experimented with. If people are not willing to try something new and push the envelope, then we will stagnate innovation. Sure there might be some hacks and some ugly stuff some out of the experimentation....but it something new and cool is developed...are we all not better off for it?

Answer 2

Depends entirely on what the desired end results are. The majority of professional wedding photographers in the US have gone primarily or entirely digital at this point. Same holds for the majority of sports shooters. Commercial work is a mixed bag, where 35mm digital, MF digital backs, MF film, and LF film all see use depending on the application. The fine art world is still dominated by film, but digital is beginning to make foreys here too.

IMO People who aggressively advocate film or digital as being "better" across the board are making an incorrect generalization. Both mediums have their advantages and disadvantages under various circumstances, and a true pro needs to be able to handle both.

Answer 3

I suppose you could call me "seasoned." I've been a photographer for almost 40 years, even since I bought my first 35mm camera in Viet Nam.

And, yes, digital is the way to go.

It's still photography. And the old rules of composition, lighting, technical proficiency, and the like have NOT changed.

I would never pretend to speak for anyone else. But, for my own work, I know I am better, more efficient, more creative, more willing to explore new possibilities, and ... having a lot more fun! ... using digital.

I once ran a commercial darkroom, and have had my own darkroom from time to time. I taught Photoshop in a university art department for four years, and now I teach digital photography and photoshop through private seminars and on my website.

Clearly, there are a lot of snap shooters turning out a lot of crap digital pictures and doing some really crummy things with Photoshop. They've always been with us. It's just that now they can do more crap easier and cheaper.

But that doesn't supersede the quality of real work being done by real photographers.

I loved my first car - a 1949 Ford. But I wouldn't want to drive it today.

And I've loved every film camera I've ever had ... but I wouldn't want to go back to using them today. They now occupy places of honor on a shelf in my studio.

Times change. Tools change.

That's all it is.

If it weren't for digital I couldn't be doing what I'm doing now. And I LOVE what I'm doing now!

Answer 4

Jim M, Describes my background just about exactly. 'Nam 1967, got my first 35mm 40 years ago this month, was in the trade for a few years. And I agree but I would add the following -

The big difference is the impact of photography on resources. Film involves a lot of chemistry and complex recovery of materials while digital is primarily using sand (silicon) and electrons so it is much lower over all impact on environment. AND it brings down costs dramatically!!

As a bell weather look at Kodak, they have shifted their investment AWAY from chemical based photography to digital. For some high precision and extremely technical work traditional photography will remain for some time, but digital will eventually eclipse all or most of it. This discussion hearkens back to the days when the discussion was "Is photography (real) art?"

My 2 Cents...

Answer 5

"The big difference is the impact of photography on resources. Film involves a lot of chemistry and complex recovery of materials while digital is primarily using sand (silicon) and electrons so it is much lower over all impact on environment. AND it brings down costs dramatically!!"

Pure and utter crap.

The last time I checked, the semiconductor industry was one of the most polluting industries around.

Silicon may be a very common element. In order to be used for semiconductors and retain its necessary properties, it has to be in its elemental form, and exceedingly pure. In fact, you need greater than 99.9999% purity in order for things to work right.

Purifying anything this much requires humongous amounts of energy.

Let's not also forget about the energy required to run resource-intensive editing programs like Photoshop, as well as the environmental impact of all of those batteries that digital cameras like to suck through.

By contrast, film requires substantially less purity in the chemicals used to make it. Chemical disposal is always brought up, however it's not as big of a deal as it's often made out to be. Developer is relatively harmless to the environment, and the silver in fixer is easily recovered as silver chloride, where it can be readily recycled into elemental silver or any other silver compound.

Answer 6

I use film. Its what I'm used to and I like the results.

Photography is photography regardless of whether you capture your image on film or a digital chip.

Knowing what to do and how to do it differentiates photographers from snapshooters.

I sincerely wish this topic would cease. Its as silly as debating Ford vs. Chevy. (I drive a Suzuki Aerio SX LOL!).

Answer 7

It depends how stuck in a time warp you are. All the top photographers in my country use digital. Plainly because you can do so much more at a better quality. I only use digital.