Bill Pierce
Well-known
Did a couple of searches on Digital vs. Film. There were a huge number of entries that said, basically, “Digital is the devil’s work.” or “Film is a relic of the past.” There weren’t too many balanced presentations, and those that were, often, were highly technical reports on image quality rather than picture quality.
I thought it would be interesting, since many folks here shoot both film and digital to try to come up with a list of advantages and disadvantages for both mediums without descending into the screaming, one-sided craziness I encountered on my web search. I’ll start.
DISADVANTAGES OF DIGITAL CAMERAS COMPARED TO FILM
1) A lot of digital cameras have less dynamic range than negative film. There are some newer CCD’s challenging this, but for now, the difference exists.
2) Total dependence on an electrical supply, usually rechargeable batteries.
3) The fact that a digitalimage can easily be altered has tested the ethical resolve of some of my fellow photojournalists.
ADVANTAGES OF DIGITAL CAMERAS COMPARED TO FILM
1) For a journalist, less lag between the news event and publication is wonderful. It used to be that you were out of the country and had to ship film rather than wire a few images, you shipped color film on Thursday if you wanted to see it in the magazine that hit the stands on Monday and reached many of its subscribers by mail even later in the week. Of course, now, after the event, you have to stay up to transmit your digital images rather than going to the hotel bar. I guess that’s a digital disadvantage.
2) You can email your friends jpegs much more quickly than mailing prints from the drugstore - sort of the non professional version of the journalists deadline advantage.
3) The ability to change ISO settings without changing film.
4) You can shoot a lot and erase the bad ones.
I would like to know what other folks think are the advantages and disadvantages - just no remarks about the devil’s work or living in the past.
I thought it would be interesting, since many folks here shoot both film and digital to try to come up with a list of advantages and disadvantages for both mediums without descending into the screaming, one-sided craziness I encountered on my web search. I’ll start.
DISADVANTAGES OF DIGITAL CAMERAS COMPARED TO FILM
1) A lot of digital cameras have less dynamic range than negative film. There are some newer CCD’s challenging this, but for now, the difference exists.
2) Total dependence on an electrical supply, usually rechargeable batteries.
3) The fact that a digitalimage can easily be altered has tested the ethical resolve of some of my fellow photojournalists.
ADVANTAGES OF DIGITAL CAMERAS COMPARED TO FILM
1) For a journalist, less lag between the news event and publication is wonderful. It used to be that you were out of the country and had to ship film rather than wire a few images, you shipped color film on Thursday if you wanted to see it in the magazine that hit the stands on Monday and reached many of its subscribers by mail even later in the week. Of course, now, after the event, you have to stay up to transmit your digital images rather than going to the hotel bar. I guess that’s a digital disadvantage.
2) You can email your friends jpegs much more quickly than mailing prints from the drugstore - sort of the non professional version of the journalists deadline advantage.
3) The ability to change ISO settings without changing film.
4) You can shoot a lot and erase the bad ones.
I would like to know what other folks think are the advantages and disadvantages - just no remarks about the devil’s work or living in the past.
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
For me the two major advantages of digital are the simplicity and immediacy. Where I live film is getting more expensive and harder to process. Why on earth would I want to contend with the ongoing cost of film and developing and also have to wait for days to get film developed? Digital is just so much more convenient and honestly, I can't tell the difference between film and digital images when I see them.
I shot a lot of film in my younger years but I have no regrets about embracing digital as fully as I have. For me it's the right way to go. I do, however, have great respect for people who do shoot film on a regular basis because, to my mind at least, it's definitely doing things the hard way. Ultimately, it's a personal choice and I think it's great that many people still enjoy film as much as they do...
I shot a lot of film in my younger years but I have no regrets about embracing digital as fully as I have. For me it's the right way to go. I do, however, have great respect for people who do shoot film on a regular basis because, to my mind at least, it's definitely doing things the hard way. Ultimately, it's a personal choice and I think it's great that many people still enjoy film as much as they do...
kshapero
South Florida Man
For me the disadvantage of digital is that I would not be able to use my M3. The advantage of digital is like white sugar (or high fructose corn) it gives instant gratification.
adeir
Member
For me personally, it's not so much the medium - as both can obviously be used to produce great images - it's more about the cameras. I prefer simplicity when I shoot, and I like that many film cameras (modern SLRs excluded) have only four "dials" - shutter, aperture, ISO, focus. I realize it's not too difficult to use digi in much the same way, but sometimes there are just too many options for my taste. That being said, I still use a dSLR from time to time.
I also enjoy the process of film more so than digital. I prefer pouring chemicals to adjusting curves, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.
I also like that film is tactile. I guess it's maybe the same reason I prefer vinyl records over mp3s. Then again, a print is a print is a print... I seem to be talking myself in circles here, so I'd best end it!
I also enjoy the process of film more so than digital. I prefer pouring chemicals to adjusting curves, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.
I also like that film is tactile. I guess it's maybe the same reason I prefer vinyl records over mp3s. Then again, a print is a print is a print... I seem to be talking myself in circles here, so I'd best end it!
SciAggie
Well-known
I agreee with the pros and cons listed by the OP for digital. I was a happy camper with my DSLRs and my M8 - until film came back into my life about 6 months ago. I will continue to use and enjoy digital imaging for all the reasons you stated; I would also like to add what film does for me:
Disadvantages of film:
1) It has a continued expense. There is a hassle to stay stocked with film and chemicals (assuming you soup your own stuff).
2) It's time consuming to develop. Scanning takes up valuable time - in addition to any other post processing.
Advantages of film:
1) It is making me a MUCH more thoughtful photographer. I am far more intentional about what I do with film and that is helping my digital work.
2) It is time consuming. I know I listed that as a disadvantage, but to me it is an advantage as well. Sometimes I need to slow down and enjoy photography more - after all, I'm not a pro.
3) Film is still FUN. I like the process. I like the smells. I like seeing the wet negatives hanging in the shower. Somehow I feel like I have created something when I develop my negatives. For me the difficulty in choosing the proper exposure/ develolping time/ devoper is part of the appeal.
Disadvantages of film:
1) It has a continued expense. There is a hassle to stay stocked with film and chemicals (assuming you soup your own stuff).
2) It's time consuming to develop. Scanning takes up valuable time - in addition to any other post processing.
Advantages of film:
1) It is making me a MUCH more thoughtful photographer. I am far more intentional about what I do with film and that is helping my digital work.
2) It is time consuming. I know I listed that as a disadvantage, but to me it is an advantage as well. Sometimes I need to slow down and enjoy photography more - after all, I'm not a pro.
3) Film is still FUN. I like the process. I like the smells. I like seeing the wet negatives hanging in the shower. Somehow I feel like I have created something when I develop my negatives. For me the difficulty in choosing the proper exposure/ develolping time/ devoper is part of the appeal.
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
I'm with you on this. While I love the convenience of digital I really appreciate the feel and handling--and viewfinders--of some of my older film cameras--probably why I've hung on to some even though I don't use them at all. Digital is more complicated, at least in the sense that it gives one many more options when shooting. This is probably one reason why the digital Ms are as popular as they are; they're relatively simple and do a very nice job of replicating the handling of older film cameras. It's likely this very thing that makes my Digilux 2 my favourite camera...
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The specific advantage offered by my Lumix G1, digital m-4/3 camera is the capability to previsualize live the image through the lens at the taking aperture with the full effects of depth of field, focus and shutter speed in evidence, prior to releasing the shutter, in virtually any kind of light, using a full-color electronic viewfinder.
There is a secondary advantage to the G1 that I often make use of, which is to invoke the Dynamic B/W JPEG mode (while still capturing in RAW), enabling me to previsualize the live view scene in black and white, which helps me tremendously with composition and shot selection.
My Minolta MD lenses and X-370 film body I absolutely love for their mechanical feel and solidity. I love manually focusing these lenses (which I also adapt to the G1, albeit with a more restricted angle of view), but the tradeoff is the time and effort required to process film and create high-quality prints.
~Joe
There is a secondary advantage to the G1 that I often make use of, which is to invoke the Dynamic B/W JPEG mode (while still capturing in RAW), enabling me to previsualize the live view scene in black and white, which helps me tremendously with composition and shot selection.
My Minolta MD lenses and X-370 film body I absolutely love for their mechanical feel and solidity. I love manually focusing these lenses (which I also adapt to the G1, albeit with a more restricted angle of view), but the tradeoff is the time and effort required to process film and create high-quality prints.
~Joe
craygc
Well-known
Im a serious amateur and deeply committed to film - 10 bodies across 4~5 systems, plus a freezer with 400+ rolls. However, I do sometimes think that digital would really simplify the process - developing and scanning is definately a sink hole for time and effort.
Out of all the systems I have, the bulk of my investment is in Leica M mount glass - both in Leica and Voigtlander - so for me, the M9 is currently the only option I would really consider. However, contrary to the often stated fact that "digital is cheaper" in my case I have to disagree. I never machine gun shoot and given the cost of the M9 it would take me a decade to offset that against film. Not the strongest business case.
The other issue that creeps up on you is the equipment post capture. Im still running a 2004 Apple G5 PowerMac that does everything today just as well as it did 7 years ago - but that wouldnt necessarily be the case if I had gone digital. The number of applications that are no longer supported on the non-Intel Apple platforms is staggering. I use LR 2.6 and PS CS 3, both run fine but PS CS 5 would be nice to get access to more RAM; and for the more recent digicams, RAW converters are just simply not supported on a non-Intel Mac. As an example, I could not process RAW from the Fujifilm X100 on my machine.
I also appreciate that others will chime in and suggest that I should have upgraded my system years ago, but the point being that with shooting film and scanning, I havent needed to.
Digital would certainly be nice but when I stand back and consider the TCO (total cost of ownership) of moving to digital, as a serious amateur it just doesnt make sense :bang:
Out of all the systems I have, the bulk of my investment is in Leica M mount glass - both in Leica and Voigtlander - so for me, the M9 is currently the only option I would really consider. However, contrary to the often stated fact that "digital is cheaper" in my case I have to disagree. I never machine gun shoot and given the cost of the M9 it would take me a decade to offset that against film. Not the strongest business case.
The other issue that creeps up on you is the equipment post capture. Im still running a 2004 Apple G5 PowerMac that does everything today just as well as it did 7 years ago - but that wouldnt necessarily be the case if I had gone digital. The number of applications that are no longer supported on the non-Intel Apple platforms is staggering. I use LR 2.6 and PS CS 3, both run fine but PS CS 5 would be nice to get access to more RAM; and for the more recent digicams, RAW converters are just simply not supported on a non-Intel Mac. As an example, I could not process RAW from the Fujifilm X100 on my machine.
I also appreciate that others will chime in and suggest that I should have upgraded my system years ago, but the point being that with shooting film and scanning, I havent needed to.
Digital would certainly be nice but when I stand back and consider the TCO (total cost of ownership) of moving to digital, as a serious amateur it just doesnt make sense :bang:
maddoc
... likes film again.
My biggest concern with any kind of digital imaging is the lack of proven long-term storage ability. Either the storage media get corrupted, the file format obsolete or data mistankenly deleted. The big advantage of digital images is that storage of 1:1 copies can be hold at various locations simultaneously but still access to the file format is necessary.
kievman
Kievman
Digital Vs Film
I could write a book on the subject. but I will stick to bullet points
For starters I use both Digital and film for my landscape and nature photography work, which I sell as fine art prints on my website,www.michaelmaltese.com and at galleries and art fairs. I see many advantages and disadvantages in both mediums. overall I prefer film. but digital has it's uses . Bill has cover just about all the advantages digital has over film and I will add my own version of one point and a few others- Digital gives one immediate confirmation that you have got the shot or not - and that very important if you just spent days or hours travel or hiking back in to some remote area, etc a canyon etc to photograph a specific landscape or animal etc.... At least you know you got some kind of usable image. Polaroids used to do it, but they don't work so well with 35mm-
And that one of the big reasons I use digital the other two reasons are
The APS sized chip DSLRs with their smaller chip and higher magnification are great for shooting wildlife and sports The higher magnification turns a 400mm lens into a 600mm lens, which is great for getting closer to animals etc.
The even higher magnification of the micro 3/4s format is great for doing close ups of flowers or small subjects where the extra depth of field you get from the smaller format is important. and hard to duplicate with film.
Now Digital's Big disadvantages-
First the big one- Digital is NOT ARCHIVAL AND NEVER WILL BE-
In other words- there is no way to store a digital file of a image- as on a hard drive or disk or flash drive etc for a extended length of time- say 25 years
The image has to be constantly re-saved to a new medium and file format as the old hard drive, CD, DVD, flash drive etc. becomes wore out, or becomes obsolete. This is one of digitals big failings and it has always been a problem since insurance companies started storing customer's data on big mainframe computers back in the 60's. They still have not found a solution to this problem. So those digital baby pics you took of your kids? Chances are their kids will never see those images. and I could go on about how many images I have lost to crashed hard drives and CD's that went bad, but I won't. I have never lost a image on film that was proper processed and stored and I know that my film will be good for 25 or even 40 years from now. but digital- forget it.!...............
One of Films other big advantages over digital besides a wider dynamic range is that film captures a wider color spectrum, or films ability to capture more colors.(A fact I learned from a Fuji film Rep) This was very evident on a image I took of a moonrise over Lake Superior recently. The film shot captured many more colors than the digital. plus there was much more detail on the moon. In the digital image the moon just washed out but the film image got everything. Plus film is much more fun to shoot!!!!!!!! Love those old rangefinders!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Kievman PS I use a Nikon 300s and G1s for digital and 35mm and Med Format for Film-
I could write a book on the subject. but I will stick to bullet points
For starters I use both Digital and film for my landscape and nature photography work, which I sell as fine art prints on my website,www.michaelmaltese.com and at galleries and art fairs. I see many advantages and disadvantages in both mediums. overall I prefer film. but digital has it's uses . Bill has cover just about all the advantages digital has over film and I will add my own version of one point and a few others- Digital gives one immediate confirmation that you have got the shot or not - and that very important if you just spent days or hours travel or hiking back in to some remote area, etc a canyon etc to photograph a specific landscape or animal etc.... At least you know you got some kind of usable image. Polaroids used to do it, but they don't work so well with 35mm-
And that one of the big reasons I use digital the other two reasons are
The APS sized chip DSLRs with their smaller chip and higher magnification are great for shooting wildlife and sports The higher magnification turns a 400mm lens into a 600mm lens, which is great for getting closer to animals etc.
The even higher magnification of the micro 3/4s format is great for doing close ups of flowers or small subjects where the extra depth of field you get from the smaller format is important. and hard to duplicate with film.
Now Digital's Big disadvantages-
First the big one- Digital is NOT ARCHIVAL AND NEVER WILL BE-
In other words- there is no way to store a digital file of a image- as on a hard drive or disk or flash drive etc for a extended length of time- say 25 years
The image has to be constantly re-saved to a new medium and file format as the old hard drive, CD, DVD, flash drive etc. becomes wore out, or becomes obsolete. This is one of digitals big failings and it has always been a problem since insurance companies started storing customer's data on big mainframe computers back in the 60's. They still have not found a solution to this problem. So those digital baby pics you took of your kids? Chances are their kids will never see those images. and I could go on about how many images I have lost to crashed hard drives and CD's that went bad, but I won't. I have never lost a image on film that was proper processed and stored and I know that my film will be good for 25 or even 40 years from now. but digital- forget it.!...............
One of Films other big advantages over digital besides a wider dynamic range is that film captures a wider color spectrum, or films ability to capture more colors.(A fact I learned from a Fuji film Rep) This was very evident on a image I took of a moonrise over Lake Superior recently. The film shot captured many more colors than the digital. plus there was much more detail on the moon. In the digital image the moon just washed out but the film image got everything. Plus film is much more fun to shoot!!!!!!!! Love those old rangefinders!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Kievman PS I use a Nikon 300s and G1s for digital and 35mm and Med Format for Film-
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Staying on topic...
Digital has the following going for it. Some of this may be re iteration..
• it is immediate. A photograph can be taken and sent anywhere in the world in minutes. If the photographer is a pro the image quality can be as good as film when shown on computer screens or in printed media
• the elimination of the 'processing' step for film reduces chemical waste going into municipal drains either amateur or pro
• the image quality is more than adequate for the modern electronic media based world of screen viewing
• adjustments can be made in the actual camera on the fly
• digital images can be reviewed and if the shot is not acceptable another can be taken immediately before leaving the site. Film only lets you know of mistakes after the fact and leaves no opportunity for a review until after the fact.
Film has the following going for it
• Large format film and medium format film can still render more in a print than a digital camera is capable of delivering. The technology for digital backs on MF and LF is there but the entry cost is tens of thousands of dollars.
• film based photography is possible without an immediate power source like batteries or battery rechargers.
• film photography does not rely on electronic metering for successful exposure nor electronic focusing
• film photography is not as susceptible to below zero temperature issues affecting the ability to shoot. Most digital cameras have issues with power loss during use in sub freezing temperatures.
• film photography is analog. I like analog and think that way.
Digital has the following going for it. Some of this may be re iteration..
• it is immediate. A photograph can be taken and sent anywhere in the world in minutes. If the photographer is a pro the image quality can be as good as film when shown on computer screens or in printed media
• the elimination of the 'processing' step for film reduces chemical waste going into municipal drains either amateur or pro
• the image quality is more than adequate for the modern electronic media based world of screen viewing
• adjustments can be made in the actual camera on the fly
• digital images can be reviewed and if the shot is not acceptable another can be taken immediately before leaving the site. Film only lets you know of mistakes after the fact and leaves no opportunity for a review until after the fact.
Film has the following going for it
• Large format film and medium format film can still render more in a print than a digital camera is capable of delivering. The technology for digital backs on MF and LF is there but the entry cost is tens of thousands of dollars.
• film based photography is possible without an immediate power source like batteries or battery rechargers.
• film photography does not rely on electronic metering for successful exposure nor electronic focusing
• film photography is not as susceptible to below zero temperature issues affecting the ability to shoot. Most digital cameras have issues with power loss during use in sub freezing temperatures.
• film photography is analog. I like analog and think that way.
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
Have to politely disagree. With 1TB or larger hard drives becoming quite cheap I don't see long term storage as a big issue. Flash memory is getting faster and larger and will someday surpass hard drives as a storage medium. It's funny how technology always seems to be able to keep up with the problems it faces...
Copying a file from one hard drive to another does not change it in any way. It's only when you tinker with a file that it begins to break down.
Digital archiving has the great advantage of allowing one to properly catalogue images for retrieval purposes. Some people do manage to properly organize slides, prints and negatives but I'd be willing to bet that a majority of photo collections will be found in disarray in boxes in a closet...
igi
Well-known
One of digital's advantage is convenience. I've never heard of convenience ruining a shot.:angel:
For disadvantage, it's quite personal for me but I don't like the look of digital. You have spend considerable time to work in front of a computer to get a look you want... and for me who works with computers all day... thanks but I'll pass
For disadvantage, it's quite personal for me but I don't like the look of digital. You have spend considerable time to work in front of a computer to get a look you want... and for me who works with computers all day... thanks but I'll pass
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Film advantages:
dynamic range
real grain
no need for electrickery to produce an image (though my scanner does and I guess an enlarger would too)
smells nice
Disadvantages:
none that I can actually think of
Digital advantages:
immediacy
limitlesss creative opportunities
cheap (in terms of actual usage)
incredible detail compared to small format film
Disadvantages:
hard to keep up with advancements
initial purchase price fairly high if you want something decent
you need a computer with plenty of processing oomph
can make you wasteful and careless
creates friction occasionally at RFF
dynamic range
real grain
no need for electrickery to produce an image (though my scanner does and I guess an enlarger would too)
smells nice
Disadvantages:
none that I can actually think of
Digital advantages:
immediacy
limitlesss creative opportunities
cheap (in terms of actual usage)
incredible detail compared to small format film
Disadvantages:
hard to keep up with advancements
initial purchase price fairly high if you want something decent
you need a computer with plenty of processing oomph
can make you wasteful and careless
creates friction occasionally at RFF
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I keep on beating on the Daguerreotype Drum: there is no way you can alter that, has better dynamic range than either "film" or "digital".
Convenient? No. But as far as pros and cons, you win some, you lose some.
But seriously, why must most people stake their flag or pledge allegiance to only one "camp"? It's not a Classroom President competition. Really. I think it's as silly as a "pencil vs. pen" debate (or graphite vs. pastel, or henna vs. erasable ink, etc etc etc).
Why on Earth not use either, as the need arises? Do the same "film vs. digital" radio talkshow personalities only have only one pair of shoes? Only one shirt color? Use cold vs. hot water for a shower (if they shower)?
True, Balanced is not the name of the game.
Convenient? No. But as far as pros and cons, you win some, you lose some.
But seriously, why must most people stake their flag or pledge allegiance to only one "camp"? It's not a Classroom President competition. Really. I think it's as silly as a "pencil vs. pen" debate (or graphite vs. pastel, or henna vs. erasable ink, etc etc etc).
Why on Earth not use either, as the need arises? Do the same "film vs. digital" radio talkshow personalities only have only one pair of shoes? Only one shirt color? Use cold vs. hot water for a shower (if they shower)?
True, Balanced is not the name of the game.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Disadvantage of digital is solely between my ears.
Trouble is this:
Since a shot is taken really easily, instantly reviewable and can be deleted on the spot if below standards, I keep just snapping away.
Although fully aware that this is what I do, time after time I try to slow myself down, take the time etc. but time after time 'pick up the digital pace' when not consciencely reminding myself not to do that.
When coming home after a session with a digital camera, I found I could have gotten more out of some shots, had I taken the time.
This is a highly unsatisfying feeling. In fact I found it so unsatisfying that I gladly accepted a decline in sharpness, tonal range, ease of use to just be able to say to myself I got everything out of a shot that was in there.
This is a little-heard opinion on the disadvantages of digital, but I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Trouble is this:
Since a shot is taken really easily, instantly reviewable and can be deleted on the spot if below standards, I keep just snapping away.
Although fully aware that this is what I do, time after time I try to slow myself down, take the time etc. but time after time 'pick up the digital pace' when not consciencely reminding myself not to do that.
When coming home after a session with a digital camera, I found I could have gotten more out of some shots, had I taken the time.
This is a highly unsatisfying feeling. In fact I found it so unsatisfying that I gladly accepted a decline in sharpness, tonal range, ease of use to just be able to say to myself I got everything out of a shot that was in there.
This is a little-heard opinion on the disadvantages of digital, but I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Digital: Better for Infrared.
My first Digital cameras were for Infrared work. Silicon Detectors, those commonly used in Digital cameras, are sensitive out to 11,000Ansgtoms. That goes deeper into the Infrared than available films.
As for archiving: Digital images are just data files. They are preserved for as long as you transfer them to the newer systems, and make back-ups. With film, how many people make copy negatives?
Advantage of film: You can easily get a roll of film developed and printed and pass the prints around for family and friends to enjoy. People tend not to print a lot of their digital shots.
My first Digital cameras were for Infrared work. Silicon Detectors, those commonly used in Digital cameras, are sensitive out to 11,000Ansgtoms. That goes deeper into the Infrared than available films.
As for archiving: Digital images are just data files. They are preserved for as long as you transfer them to the newer systems, and make back-ups. With film, how many people make copy negatives?
Advantage of film: You can easily get a roll of film developed and printed and pass the prints around for family and friends to enjoy. People tend not to print a lot of their digital shots.
literiter
Well-known
I am a amateur, I shoot only for pleasure. If my living were dependent on photography I may have a different point of view.
Digital photography is almost the perfect medium. The immediacy and quality of the image it renders is hard to beat. As time goes by the technology could improve to the point we just might expect 4x5 quality from a point and shoot.
The issue of permanent storage and retrieval, however does concern me. 20 years from now can I be assured image data can be retrieved? If the data can actually be stored for perpetuity will I be able to retrieve it?
Then there are the cameras. The utter simplicity and reliability of the Leica M2 or the Hasselblad 500CM coaxes me to concentrate on the scene rather than menus and I don't have to worry about the battery going dead....ever!
Keeping to one kind of camera (old) allows me the advantage of not having to learn the automation of a new one. I don't want to concern myself with redundant advancements, like autofocus, (Imagine! Some gadget telling me where to focus!) like facial recognition, etc....
For me, the handling of my Leica M2 is second nature, since I've had it for 30 years, as is my relatively new Nikon F2.
Digital photography is almost the perfect medium. The immediacy and quality of the image it renders is hard to beat. As time goes by the technology could improve to the point we just might expect 4x5 quality from a point and shoot.
The issue of permanent storage and retrieval, however does concern me. 20 years from now can I be assured image data can be retrieved? If the data can actually be stored for perpetuity will I be able to retrieve it?
Then there are the cameras. The utter simplicity and reliability of the Leica M2 or the Hasselblad 500CM coaxes me to concentrate on the scene rather than menus and I don't have to worry about the battery going dead....ever!
Keeping to one kind of camera (old) allows me the advantage of not having to learn the automation of a new one. I don't want to concern myself with redundant advancements, like autofocus, (Imagine! Some gadget telling me where to focus!) like facial recognition, etc....
For me, the handling of my Leica M2 is second nature, since I've had it for 30 years, as is my relatively new Nikon F2.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Hasselblad reliable? Hmmm.
As for the archival nature of either digital or film, I think it's a purely esoteric discussion. Billions of photos were taken during the "film age." Of those billions, at best millions survived. And most of those are of people family members can no longer identify, photos and negatives sitting in attics, or basements or garages stored in shoeboxes waiting to be thrown out by the next generation.
Will digital fare any better? Likely not. In my experience most folks today shoot photos to share immediate experiences online, not to preserve family history.
Modern times.
As for the archival nature of either digital or film, I think it's a purely esoteric discussion. Billions of photos were taken during the "film age." Of those billions, at best millions survived. And most of those are of people family members can no longer identify, photos and negatives sitting in attics, or basements or garages stored in shoeboxes waiting to be thrown out by the next generation.
Will digital fare any better? Likely not. In my experience most folks today shoot photos to share immediate experiences online, not to preserve family history.
Modern times.
peterm1
Veteran
Heard a quote the other day that I am going to paraphrase as a photography quote.
"Digital photography is like sex. Both have a practical outcome.....but thats not why we do it."
Ok now I have gotten that off my chest.............................................
There is one advantage of digital that really has impacted on me. For years I called myself a photographer but in reality I did not learn all that much as shooting film meant I often did not get the immediate feedback one needs to learn. Moreover shooting film is comparatively expensive (O.K. absent the capital cost of the equipment which is a disadvantage for digital if you getting tempted to buy the next great thing on the shelves.)
Butthe point is that often I would shoot a few shots and the film might be in the camera for weeks before I shot the rest and could get it developed. When I started shooting digital I really started learning and this inspired me to shoot more. As there is no marginal cost for the next shot - or the one after that - or the one after that , there was no impediment to shooting more.
So whether I am a good photographer or not I can say I am a bloody side better one than I was - thanks to digital!
Finally it allowed me to post process (or inspired me or whatever) I found that this is not only an essential part of the work flow its a creative and fun part - which I enjoy almost as much as getting the shot in the first place.
PS the quote was actually Richard Feynman my favourite genius and Nobel Prize laureate talking about science.
"Digital photography is like sex. Both have a practical outcome.....but thats not why we do it."
Ok now I have gotten that off my chest.............................................
There is one advantage of digital that really has impacted on me. For years I called myself a photographer but in reality I did not learn all that much as shooting film meant I often did not get the immediate feedback one needs to learn. Moreover shooting film is comparatively expensive (O.K. absent the capital cost of the equipment which is a disadvantage for digital if you getting tempted to buy the next great thing on the shelves.)
Butthe point is that often I would shoot a few shots and the film might be in the camera for weeks before I shot the rest and could get it developed. When I started shooting digital I really started learning and this inspired me to shoot more. As there is no marginal cost for the next shot - or the one after that - or the one after that , there was no impediment to shooting more.
So whether I am a good photographer or not I can say I am a bloody side better one than I was - thanks to digital!
Finally it allowed me to post process (or inspired me or whatever) I found that this is not only an essential part of the work flow its a creative and fun part - which I enjoy almost as much as getting the shot in the first place.
PS the quote was actually Richard Feynman my favourite genius and Nobel Prize laureate talking about science.
Last edited: