Is digital capture easier than film?

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
5:08 AM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
Location
Canada, eh.
View My Gallery
This issue came up in another thread.

My position is that yes, digital is easier. Here's why:

If it weren't easier and more convenient, then why have most pros switched away from film to go digital?
Isn't it easier when you can see each exposure right away on the LCD screen rather than wait until after the shoot until the film is developed? If something wasn't to your liking, this allows you to make an adjustment and shoot again right away before the scene changes or the model leaves.
Isn't it easier plug a card into a computer, download, and see the results on your computer screen instead of processing film and then either scanning it, or darkroom printing it?

Your view?

This isn't a film versus digital thread. I have no issue with those who choose digital for their photography. I'm not a pro so I'm free to choose and use film which is more satisfying for me.
 
Frank, Frank, Frank, you compose, focus, get exposure, with film. With digital you shoot and then spend the rest of your life getting color balance, straightening, adjusting shadows (because of limited dynamic range: read latitude), sharpening, or softening, using curves and levels. And there is probably more stuff that real digital photographers do. So you decide, do you want to have the choice of all these wonderful B&W films and color films that are available today, or do you want to shoot one color sensor and try to make it look good. Alex West (on a recent thread here), I think that is his name, is a famous photographer, he just had some images on Magnum. They were somewhat like we would do if we were testing a new camera. Maybe he was, but they were not too good. But in the end, do what you want and be happy if people like it. But I would choose film, not being a Pro and with 3 Digital cameras (little used), my soul is still with film.
 
Last edited:
About digital, I can only repeat what Walker Evans said of Polaroid:

"It makes things awfully easy to have that thing pop out. It reduces everything to your brains and taste. . . .The damn thing will do anything you point it at. You have to really know something before you dare point it anywhere. You have to know what you're pointing it at, and why—even if it's only instinctive."
 
OMG, do you know how many great shots MIGHT have happened while you were looking at the lousy one on the LCD screen?

Photojournalists switched because of the speed the image can get to the editor's desk from anyplace on the planet. Other pros like it because it's fast and easy to manipulate in photoshop. Still, many photographers, art directors, editors, etc. just happen to like the look of film, and a lot of people prefer the look of a silver print. It can be less expensive to shoot film. Lastly, at this stage of the game the archiveability of digital images is open to question.
 
Easier perhaps, to download from a memory card to computer than develop (that said I enjoy developing, so it's a moot point really, except for speed). However I honestly find it harder to get results I like from my digital than from film.
 
I don't think it's accurate to say digital is easier. If you are shooting jpeg snapshots with a digital P&S, and getting them printed at Walmart, then, yeah, it's easier. But there is so much more you can do with a digital file in Photoshop than you can do in a darkroom with a negative.

RAW files are extremely malleable and open to infinite variations. For me, who spent many years with film in a darkroom, digital was the stuff dreams (and photos) were made of. The limited options of a darkroom were much easier but much less satisfying artistically. YMMV, of course.
 
Let's keep it mind that Evans used Polaroid and liked it. It let him depend entirely on his 'vision, taste, and intelligence'. From the Hungry Eye.

Heady stuff!
 
FrankS said:
Isn't it easier plug a card into a computer, download, and see the results on your computer screen instead of processing film and then either scanning it, or darkroom printing it?
Click to expand...

There are many who would claim that it's even easier to get someone else to do the processing, scanning and printing, and just hand you the CD + prints + negs.

What was Kodak's old slogan again? "You press the button, we'll do the rest."

I use both... it's as hard as you want to make it, and as easy as you want it to be. You can work as hard at it as you want, or be as lazy as you want. In both cases, film and digital, you'll get out of it what you put in.

It takes guts to shoot 4x5 E6 film on a 50 year old camera, especially at over $5- a shot, I still haven't taken the film into the lab yet.
 
OMG, do you know how many great shots MIGHT have happened while you were looking at the lousy one on the LCD screen?
Click to expand...
About as many as I missed while reading this thread🙂

But you do have a point -- though it's not a digital/analog point. When street shooting with a digital camera, it can be good practice to occasionally check the screen for exposure as you would occasionally check a light meter, and keep on shooting. Of course, there is the temptation; but stronger people than me resist it.
 
Many people would disagree with you - in the film days you grabbed your P&S, filled up your 24 exposures, dropped off the film and one hour later you had 4x6 prints in your hands - it doesn't get easier than that!
I on the other hand feel that it is equally challenging to produce a good picture - I have always developed my own film and prints and I do the same for digital. Digital is probably more convinient (not easier) because I don;t have to wait until the film is full, I don;t have to hide in my darkroom, I don;t have to mess around with chemicals.
Having said all that, I STILL love my darkroom as much as I love my 5D and CS3
 
I find digital easier in terms of shooting the image for composition, exposure etc.. Also, I find some of the PS digital processing to be tedious -- just as, admittedly, I do sometimes find the chemical developing of film. Yet I never find the developing film unsatisfying, whereas digital processing is for the most part unsatisfying for me because some program algorithm is doing the manipulation and not a tool ready-to-hand that I control. As far as printing, digital printing is much, much more straight-forward than working with the chemicals and the enlarger; wet printing is the soul of the printing art for me, it brings me delight that digital printing doesn't. So, Frank, overall, I think the digital workflow is easier in most ways. Ease of use is part of the convenience digital users experience. That said, digital users have to contend with awful troubles with which film folks do not have to contend, i.e., consider the focus shifting experienced on the M8.
 
not sure if digital is any easier, but it's certainly more convenient... i've shot enough digital to know that although it's convenient to check exposure, colour balance and composition quickly on an LCD it's hardly an accurate reflection of what the actual file looks like on a computer...

it's only easier for someone who is well versed in RAW conversion, colour calibrating a monitor/printer, owns the hardware and software to run the necessary 'tools' of the trade...

it's a fundamentally different work flow vs film and personally I find digital harder for me to get the results I want... (which is why I still shoot film)... the convenience factor offered by digital isn't worth it for me to switch over to a primarily digital work flow...

convenience of digital does not equate to easier when the final output i'm seeking is a print... in fact it's quite the opposite... i don't regularly colour calibrate my monitor, don't own a calibrated printer, don't have the necessary skills in PS/Lightroom etc. to fully realize the convenience of digital RAW capture...
 
printing bw and color are much faster than postprocessing digital. the only thing fast about digital is looking at your pics and maybe uploading unprocessed jpegs to the internet.
 
this is a no win question for both sides. frank speaks of digital being easier but really has not tried digital except for his p&s.
i, on the other hand have spent much time in a darkroom and in front of the computer -working on film and working on photoshop.
while i mostly enjoyed darkroom work, it was lots of work just setting it up and getting it all ready. many was the night that after going through all that i had no 'feel' for it and tore it all down. with photoshop if it's not working for me i just go back on the net.

i don't use the lcd and rarely check my images after shooting. i raise the camera to my eye same as my rangefinder.
as far as missing shots - how does one count the missed shots while changing film?

film is more manly than digital, just as a stick is no more manly than an automatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom