Articles
Thoughts on Digital
Capture
Digital photography has dominated in industry so much in the last few years that many people don't even realize that film is still being produced and enjoyed by many. Where digital has really taken over is for professionals, whether for portrait or wedding photographers, or journalists working on a deadline. In all situations, photos can be viewed immediately by the client, a huge advantage. Also, the number of shots that can be taken are essentially finite, not limited simply by how much film you have loaded in the camera or extra magazines. This benefits sport photographers and journalists who work very quickly and do not have time to reload film during the action. Another area where digital has taken over is with the general consumer.
Digital cameras are everywhere. To even choose to shoot film anymore, particularly 35mm color film is almost taking a step back in time. And finding labs that will process your film and produce high quality prints anymore are few and far between, thus pushing the general consumer even more towards digital because that is what they are told is the only way to go. They are told digital is quicker and easier to use than film. That shots can be taken without needing a lab to process them, and they don't even need to print the photos at all, but rather simply view them on the computer. All of this information is true. They are even told in some cases that digital offers better image quality than film. This however, is simply not true.
The problem with digital images is that it simply does not have much latitude, meaning the amount of over-exposure or under-exposure it can take and still produce an acceptable result. Digital is much like shooting transparency film (slide film), over-exposure a shot by a stop or less and you have highlight detail that is gone forever. Or under-expose and you have shadow detail that is a total black blob. Enter negative film, whether it is color or black and white. Negative film is capable of capturing an amazing amount of information. Over-expose or under-expose a negative film by one or two stops, no problem. There is still enough information in the negative to produce a quality print. With certain films you can over-expose or under-expose by up to 4 or 5 stops and still produce an acceptable print. Film also has a higher dynamic range than digital, meaning it can capture a wider range of lighting intensities at one time.
Many digital photographers would argue with me that today's digital SLR metering systems are so good that they can handle any lighting system. While the meters are very good, if you have a scene with a 6-stop dynamic range from shadows to highlights and your digital camera is only capable of capturing a 5-stop range it does not matter how good your meter is. You'll have to choose what's more important to you in the scene, shadows or highlights. Others DSLR shooters would argue in favor of HDR (high dynamic range) photography for situations like this. In short, HDR is when 3 exposures are take, one for the shadows, one for the midtones, and one for the highlights, then combined together to create a photo with a huge amount of information, or high dynamic range. While this is a topic for discussion in itself, HDR is limited to tripod use obviously since three separate exposures will be made, much less the fact that many HDR attempts look offly cartoonish to me.
All advanced photographers that have experience with film know there are many different formats of film. From smallest to largest there is 110 (remember that?!), APS (remember that?!), 35mm, then medium format with 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9cm film, and finally large format, which is measured in inches. The larger the film, the greater the image quality, this is a simple fact of life. Medium format is 3 to 8 times the size of a 35mm piece of film. And large format offers film sizes from 4x5 inches to up to 20x24 inches. Pieces of film this large are capable of reproducing even the most miniscule of details in a scene. The results are truly stunning. So considering that digital sensors in the most affordable DSLR cameras are smaller than even 35mm film you can see where digital falls on the quality chart. The higher end DSLR cameras have sensors which are the same size as 35mm film. In these cameras image quality pretty much equals that of a 35mm piece of film. But wait, the benefits of film, including more exposure latitude and higher dynamic range still come into play here, if so desired. Many photographers still shoot 35mm negative or slide film and scan the film with high quality scanners to produce files which are not only larger than a file coming out of the highest end DLRS, but are capable of producing larger prints with less "digital artifacts" such as halos around highlights, noisy shadows and when poorly done, pixilated details.
Digital cameras are progressing very quickly. And though DSLR cameras have equaled 35mm in terms of quality they are nowhere close to medium format. Photographers who scan medium format film and work with it digitally are capable of producing large prints with amazing details and tonal range that DSLR photographers would only dream of. Medium format digital backs are being made though, but at $20,000 - $30,000 they are not an option for most. And even if you were to purchase one, it's much like buying a computer or DSLR. It depreciates very quickly, and something new will be out a few years later, which is better and cheaper. This is promising though that if technologys continue to progress in the rate they have the past decade medium format digital may be more affordable.
So while digital photography certainly has its place in photography, those fine art photographers, like myself, who strive for the utmost quality, look and feel choose to shoot film, and will for a long time. And yes film is still being made!