Film vs Digital & Photographer Vs. Kit?

Question

So here's the first question that I'm asking on this site:

There are many talented and experienced photographers on this site who rightly argue time and again that it is the photographer and NOT the equipment that makes a compelling image. These people argue that someone with a creative mind and technical ability can make compelling images with the lowest quality of gear: even disposable cameras! In fact, for years photographers have found technically "limited" mediums such as Lomography as an asset to creativity.

However, I consistently see many of those making the argument that "its the photographer and not the gear" turn right around and make assertions that "real artists" only use film," or that film is a superior medium for serious photography. (All real testing, on the other hand, shows that both mediums have advantages and disadvantages in different situations).

How do those who make the both assertions reconcile the two?

I wish I could edit the original... darn my lack of proofreading.

Robbie: Agreed about using whatever medium is appropriate. I'm a professional as well, and recognize that each medium has its uses.

Ace: I'm not as "up" on gallery standards, as I'm more commercially oriented... but I know I've seen digital photography in galleries and museums here in Nashville.

The point of this question is NOT to debate which is better: I totally believe both mediums have their uses. The point is to highlight this blind spot that many traditional photographers have where "its the photographer and not the equipment.... UNLESS its digital, in which case its not art."

Answer 1

I went digital 4 years ago and have no intention of looking back.

I have noticed that 'filmies' can be divided roughly into two groups, those that use film as a matter of preference because they have mastered that medium and it provides everything they want. For many of them, there is an actual appeal to working with the medium. These people are the ones who say it is the photographer and not the equipment and leave it there. What I medium I use is fine with them. Their concern is with the final photographic expression.

Then, there is another group. They are the ones that immediately put digital into a lesser catagory AND put the digital photographer in a lesser catagory. It is interesting, but so far, I have found most of them to be more pretentious than anything else. Many of them are pretenders to a throne they haven't even started climbing the steps to. They are the ones that say 'Such and such only shoots film', 'The best photographers shoot film' and 'Real men don't eat Quiche.' And they say all this and shoot film, not because they can achieve anything exceptional in that medium or can even produce examples of common excellence, but because they hope the medium will bring a quality to their work that they can't bring themselves.

Their is no digital divide between good photographers and good photography. Those that have fully embraced the potential of digital are the same ones that would be in the darkroom mastering it's techniques and taking them to expressive limits. This is what Ansel Adams did with film. It's what Eugene W. Smith did in photojournalism with his essays. I believe either one of these icons in photography would have embraced digital the moment it achieved the minimum base quality they required for what they did.

It is, always has been and always will be the photographer that makes the image regardless of equipment. I have been challenged before to make a 'professional looking' image using some 'less than ideal' camera. By understanding the limitations and capabilities of what I am using, I can consistently do that. It's not a matter of what a camera (digitall or film) can or can not do, it's a matter of what I can do with it.

Personally, I have no dog in the fight and none of the extremely good photographers I know, professional or amateur, does either. What they produce, what I produce, what you produce is the legitimate subject and what establishes it as art or pedestrian garbage. Not whether it is digital or film.

Photography is too big a subject to be contained by a camera and it's medium.

Vance

Answer 2

I would argue that all photography is art... some poor... some good. Some hangs in a gallery, some from a newspaper rack, some from a photo album... So this is the answer to you question.

An artist who is trying to make a living in one of the many fields of professional photography will use the tools that give them the edge. These tools are hugely different for the different fields.

sports photography: It is all Digital SLRs and if you hope to make it in the field that is what you need to shoot. Higher sensitivites, frame rates, a hugely faster work flow, options for long lenses, high speed operation. If I saw a pro a football game with his 4x5 view camera, it would be a joke, but not in landscape photography.

Landscape photography: Almost exclusively large and medium format film, (a small percentage medium format digital, and a even smaller percentage 35mm digital). The dynamic range, Resolution, and colors are so much better then anything you will find In a DSLR that 35mm landscape photography is not really saleable.

Portraits: Primarily DSLRs and medium format film and digital. Trade of between quality and fast workflow and versitility

Gallery art: Usually film, many times 35mm sometimes medium format: For gallery art there is usually a level of surealism or abstract aspects. At the moment the market is geared for the colors and textures of film.

Etc.

See what I mean...

If you are an amature trying to get your pictures onto Flickr's explore, it doesn't really matter what you shoot. But if you are a pro, you know what the tools you need are and they are very specific. A pro with a disposable camera may be able to take a gallery shot... but with far lower consistancy then with medium format. When its you lunch that depends on whether or not you get shown, you don't f*ck around with mediums that don't have the right features.

Answer 3

Most of the time that I hear people argue film vs digital, it's generally the older photographers that grew up with film and think that everyone MUST learn on film because it was good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.

I'm one of the ones that, yes, I grew up with film cameras, and I do have a film SLR. However, I would not be a professional photographer today if it had not been for digital. While the initial overhead cost of digital in the early years may have been more than film, it would cost me more now to run and develop film than it would to run digital. If I have a questionable scene, I don't need to bracket and blow a roll of film on three scene. I can turn on the review screen on my digital and see what I got wrong and fix it on the spot.
It was one of the best learning tools that I could have hoped for. If I make a mistake, I took up some space on a memory card and I can get it back. If I shoot a film frame and it didn't turn out....it's gone...exposed....no longer recoverable.

If for some reason I needed to use film, now i could and I would be confident that I could get the shot. Ask me that 5 years ago and I'm not so sure.

I think it tends to simply be pure bias. Just my 2 cents, though and I'm sure a lot of people will disagree. Give me the thumbs down if you wish.

Answer 4

I offer this, as being, merely, my point of view.

Regarding the film vs digital argument: Considering the OPTICALS available for both types of equiment, no one can truly say that the light reaching the image captureing surface can be any different. And, with advances in photoreceptors (and there is more than one technology out there) there can be very little said about the quality of the reproduction of "true life." The final difference, then seems to be in the amount of detail that can be captured, meaning, of course, resolution.

In the digital camera, resolution is limited to the number of receptor elements that can be crowded into the back of the camera. Bigger back, more receptors.

In film, it is the individual grains of photosensitive material that limits the film's resolution capablity. At the point the image is captured (i.e. the back of the camera) film has digital beat by far. While digital camera resolution is measured, barely in the thousands of pixels per inch, in film, the grains can be counted in the tens of thousands per inch.

Now comes the debateable part. To enlarge a digital image means to enlarge each pixel. The number of pixels does not change. Same with film and its grain. With the highest resolution cameras, enlarged to the most popular sizes, the naked eye may not be able to detect the difference between an image captured on film and that captured in a digital format. But at extremely larger sizes, say, poster and even billboard level, ANYONE with normal vision can see the huge pixels, just as one can see the pores on someone's face when close enough.

But, consider that posters and billboards are meant to be viewed at a distance. Most people don't stand one foot in front of a three by six foot poster. They stand even farther from a billboard. Again, with the naked eye, most people will not detect the difference, and, even if they could, it wouldn't matter, since the purpose of large posters and billboard is to impart a message in a very short time. So, the point of which format is better, film or digital is moot, except for the fine, technical point.

In terms of what is "real art," which, I think, is the opposite argument than the one I just presented, I think I can present a shorter argument. There are, and always have been, photograpich purists that insist that ANY manipulation of the original negative is not "pure" photography. These people do not dodge, burn, push or pull during the processing of film. They do not even believe in cropping any part of the negative's image. And yet, very few of these pruists have any issues with enlarging the image for printing purposes. To me, this is a VERY extreme manipulation of the image, since the film's grains are significantly enlarged. This is most especially true of 35mm film. Add to that, that the grain of the photographic paper is also imparted to the image, not to mention the texture, either glossy or matte.

So, again, the relative artistic merits of either format are moot, since no one really "enjoys" looking at negatives, or,even contact prints, any more than anyone takes digital photos, only to view them in the camera's LCD screen. In BOTH cases, it is the enlarged image that is the entire point of the activity.

And, in that enlarged version, ART, as is beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Answer 5

the final product is all that matters really

some dslr have "features" where you can imitate the characteristics of certain films, digi is fine for screen viewing and most pro and amateur applications,

digi has noise, film has grain...........i prefer grain,

digital causes lag, film dont

digi can "take" 100s of images before a relaod, film is 1 sheet to 38 exposures

theres pluses and cons to each, i can proform with both -that gives me an edge, i do change of light architecture, i use daylight film and push exposures to 8-120 seconds - tzhe digis are just to noisy and dont capture change of light as well.



film has reproprosity failure digi dont it has noise

the final result should dictate the medium used, 99.9% of shots are fine on digi,,,,,fine art is another thing

i use digi 95% for work, the other 5% is when i need noise free, reproprosity failure, long exposures, or want some gritty grain or the true contrast of B/w film as opposed to digi desaturation......however most people cant tell a difference - they are likely to say "that person must have a good camera"

for pleasure im happy to take a medium something and a pod and a meter (or a 35mm body to hand read exposure), drive somewhere, tramp into the nowheres, set up wait for the light to change, burn 1 or 2 shots and go home, a bit extreme for some..........i prefer one great/good image to 1000 crap images - saves alot of editing time

digi is the future no doubt, film will become more and more the domain of the great.......like the anne geddes and company....

so how i see it, digi for the bottom feeders like me and film for the true artists

a