Digital Versus Film Photography - What do you think?

[Marko]

And how is digital more susceptible to "non-steady hands" than film?

With regard to this factor, I've heard this from several other people that have recently gone digital. If this were to be true for most digital cameras, what do you think would be causing it?

Thanks
Marko

[murphyimages]

Hello My name is Justin Murphy.
I am a wedding photographer from Calgary Alberta.
My website is http://www.murphyimages.ca

Not many people that the quality of Film still exceeds digital. Even those who do the calculations on Megapixels vs. Film Grain Will say that most of the time there really is no advantage to digital. The real downside to digital to me is the obvious dynamic range issues. There isn't a digital camera that can compare to film.

But the real question is why to I shoot digital. That is because My clients want it. They expect it. They like it. They can't tell the difference between the two. they like the new 21st century products that are now available to digital. And because they want it, I use it. And because I use it now it makes my life easier, faster processing, more flexable product range.

So the real question for yourself is why use digital?

Justin Murphy

[tegan]

With regard to this factor, I've heard this from several other people that have recently gone digital. If this were to be true for most digital cameras, what do you think would be causing it?

Thanks
Marko

The weight and balance of the digital and film cameras are different. Shutter vibration may be different as well. Shutter lag may also be a factor as well as how hard you need to press the button.

Tegan

[tegan]

Instant feedback, control, and flexible editing are the main reasons.

With film, high speed film is necessary for low lighting but low ISO film provides better quality for blow-ups. Contrast is higher on low ISO film than on higher. Low ISO film can make shadows too dark and contrasty and high ISO film can blow out highlights if not exposed perfectly. Film is not very editable, for taking out distracting items in the background or at the side of the frame, changing hue, or solving relatively minor visual problems.

The advantages to film are better colour...approximately 46 bit versus 8 bit and possibly sharper blow-ups with a tripod, the right camera, a great lens, perfect lighting, and the right film.

With digital, ISO speed is somewhat irrelevant in that you can change it from photo to photo and film characteristics are equally not an issue either. Although their may seem to be picture noise or grain at high ISOs with digital, unless it is extremely visible on screen, it does not end up in the print. Some experts looking a digital noise have pointed out that on screen noise up to a certain level often results in a sharper print than a camera that reduces the resolution or sharpness to make the on-screen noise disappear.

You can also by the way use pro tricks to enlarge digital prints and maintain a very good level of sharpness and resolution. (Post processing skills in digital are extremely important and make a big difference in quality prints.) Editing in photoshop can either increase picture noise, create banding and artifacts, reduce the number of colours and tones, and mess up gradual changes in colour, or it can result in minimal loss in picture quality. It just depends on how you do it and unfortunately there are a LOT of photographers out there who have not spent the time to learn about digital postprocessing.

Tegan

[sharyrafitari]

Hello everyone,

This was my question sometime ago, and contrary to what many people thought 7 years ago, film is still alive (especially black and white). So, I still love film based photography, sepia toning, hand colouring with oil paint although I do digital for candids, as digital is more convenient in this case. This is to let everyone know that I am still shooting film in 2008/2009 and will continue to do so for as long as I can purchase b/w film.



Cheers!
Shary

[barbiepurl]

Film handles color better than digital, as in more colors better saturation, and less contrast. Somewhat surprisingly Kodak Gold in Popular Photography tested out as the best print film with more resolution than all digital cameras. On the negative(pun) side, color slide film does not often print out with a quality close to digital.
-----------------------------
Barbie Purl
Influencer

[sharyrafitari]

Indeed, film and digital sensors are two different media. It is not surprising to get two different results. I was told by our pro-store that many fine art photographers have returned to film because of its quality. In particular b/w film. When I want to do a good b/w I do it on film for sure, and print it on Fiber Based paper.

http://SharyPhoto.ca

[aophoto]

I think that film gives a better quality then digital, specially if you are going to blow up your photos into a very large format at least at the moment, and digital is of course more convenient.
Well this is my opinion.

[mnoble]

I went digital a little over two years ago and I haven't looked back. Besides the quality of digital images, my main reason for my satisfaction with the digital work flow is the incredible amount of control I have over the images I create. I don't see how you can have the same control and latitude of expression with film. With Photoshop as my digital darkroom, I can be as creative as I want. This piece of software is an incredible tool. I was in the printing industry in the digital pre-press area for 12 years. So I started using Photoshop a long time ago. As a professional, I like to have that complete control.

I still have some film cameras in a closet somewhere but I have no reason to go and find them. For those who still are devoted to film, I say go for it. We all have our preferences and art is subjective.