Digital versus Film Photography - Which is better for you?The discussion of digital versus film may be moot as digital photography has become ubiquitous, and both film and film processors are becoming harder to find. At this point, I prefer digital, though I'm not ready to dispose of my 35mm SLR.I used to think that the resolution of film made it superior for enlargements. Depending on how large of a print you're making that's still true. However, I've had great success making 16x24 prints from my 6.1 megapixel camera. That's only 125 dpi (less than half the 300 dpi standard for most printed images), but unless you're looking at it closely, it's difficult to tell - and how close do you get to a 16x24 print anyway? As with many things, there is no one answer that's correct for all people. The digital versus film question for you depends on how you're using your photographs. If you're merely sharing them via e-mail or on web sites, then digital is going to offer many advantages (and an inexpensive camera might suit you perfectly). The rest of this page will be my "ode to digital photography," as I explain many of the reasons I love my digital SLR camera.For me, the digital versus film debate is over. First of all, the ability to take many, many photos may be the best reason for most photographers to go digital. Six or seven years ago, I might shoot three or four rolls of film on a hike. Today it's not uncommon for me to return home having taken several hundred photos. In a hobby where practice is the greatest method of improving performance, being able to take more photos is a must. Then, instead of bringing my film to work the next day so I could drop it off at the processor during lunch, I can view my photos immediately after I get home. Not only have I saved over twenty-four hours of time, but a bit of money too.Once your photos are in your computer, cropping or minor adjustments to brightness and contrast are easily done with any photo-editing software. Then they're ready to share or print. Had you shot film, you would have to scan the images you liked, and hope that your scanner didn't introduce flaws because of dust or scratches on the scanner. Speed is another advantage of digital. When you buy a roll of film, its speed is fixed for the whole roll (you can "push" your film to a higher speed, and ask your processor to adjust developing time accordingly, but you have to keep it constant for the whole roll). With today's digital cameras, you can change the ISO from frame to frame, depending on your needs. Color saturation is another area where film was once thought to be superior. Many films had their own personalities, and photographers would choose "warm" or "cold" types for different applications. With several preset white balance choices, as well as more variable custom settings, digital is now on an equal footing with film. Many photographers have a tendency to increase color saturation during post-processing, while others will desaturate their images. Regardless of what you prefer the fact that you can make the choice, and do so from image to image, is another reason to work with digital. I think digital photography has won the digital versus film debate, and one could easily draw the same conclusion from reading the various magazines devoted to photography. Yet I hope film doesn't go away, as I do like to break out my 35mm now and then - if only for the fun of it.
|