Digital cameras are everywhere now. Cameras that once cost tens of thousands of dollars can now be purchased for fewer than one hundred dollars. Phones have cameras in them. Even key chains can be purchased with a camera in it for those occasions when ones front bumper kisses another’s rear bumper. Almost everything is recorded now.
The cries of “film is dead” ring out everywhere. Is it really so? Actually, no. Film is not dead, and will not be for a long time yet. Film may not be as convenient as digital devices but it is still King.
Film has higher resolution than digital SLRs.
Yes sir, it is true. A 1962 35mm camera bought at a flea market for 5 bucks can out perform that $6,000 Nikon D3. For a very technical example of this, click on this link:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html . For a more entertaining and straightforward example click on this link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm .
Film has been, and remains usable for over 100 years. I have negatives from when I was a kid that I can still make prints from. Not only can I make prints from them, I can scan them in my film scanner and produce a higher resolution, sharper image than the top of the line Canon, Nikon, Sony or any other brand DSLR. As technology marches on my old slides and negatives will march with it since there is so much detail and information jammed in those films. Sadly, the digital images we produce using DSLRs will remain the same. You will never get more information out of them, RAW file or not.
Hard drives, CD/DVDs, solid-state memory and other storage devices fail or become obsolete. This means we have to make back up after back up. I have backed up my first digital images shot that were stored on floppy discs at least five times now. They are only 15 years old1 I have never had to back up my film images. I can pull one out and print, scan or view it at any time now or in the future. I can even do that with 100-year-old negatives.
These are significant factors to take into account as a photographer. Film is a more stable, archival media as well as being a higher resolution media. So does that mean digital is not the way to go? NO.
Both digital media and film can exist, and should exist side by side if you shoot professionally. It is a sad statement to make, but many professional photographers have no idea how load a roll of medium format film in a magazine or camera let alone use a light meter to determine the exposure. Does this make them bad photographers? No not at all. It just limits their scope and possibilities. It has also limited , in many cases , their understanding of light ratios, and the ability to have full control over the final image. So many simply shoot hundreds, if not thousands of images to get what could be done in one or two hundred images. Even then it’s a gamble for some.
A friend of mine in the industry once described what he believes will be the ultimate digital camera. It will have a location mode on it. No matter where you are in the world, you will be able to point the camera at your scene , say the Eiffel Tower, and the camera will produce a perfect image by retrieving it from the millions of images stored in it's built in memory. The ultimate would be wifi retrieving the images from a central storage facility via satellite. Sound ridiculous? Take a look at where we are with cameras now. Full automation complete with anti vibration. Consumer cameras, which I see more and more pros using, have vast scene modes that do everything but tell the subject to smile. When you use film in a manual camera, you have to make the settings . You have full creative control.
Okay, that said digital has one huge advantage. Immediate gratification. The McDonalds syndrome. You have your image right away. A pretty darned good one at that. Even low cost point and shoot digital cameras can produce images as good as their higher priced DSLR kin. There is also the cost factor. Film, processing and pro scans all cost money. You buy memory cards usually once and re-use it over and over. You even keep them when you sell your gear and upgrade, which you will have to do. At least that’s what the TV tells me.
I have a medium format system that I have had for about 20 years. I have not had to upgrade it once. I have 35mm Nikon gear that spans 25 years. Nikon has been kind enough to allow use of their old lenses on the new pro and pro-sumer bodies. The Nikon film bodies I have range from 12 to 20 years old. I will continue to use them with no upgrade either. The film gear was made to work a human lifetime and more, not advertisers proclaimed lifetime like digital. My oldest digital body is one and a half years old. I will need to upgrade soon in the digital department so say the Internet chat room “experts”.
What’s that? An advertisers projected lifetime? The advertisers for the manufacturers of digital cameras have done an incredible job of convincing the consumer world that digital cameras become obsolete in a very short time. About a year seems to be maximum. Check it out yourself on eBay. Perfectly good, 4 and 5 year old pro level digital cameras sell for half to one third their original price. I can sell my medium format gear for what I paid for it 20 years ago!
Every year the manufacturers add more megapixels to their camera lines. Even low cost point and shoot cameras come with 10+ megapixels. So you run out and buy the newest latest greatest. Oh oh, now you need bigger memory cards because of all those megapixels. Megaexpensive is what this is, and megaprofitable for memory and camera manufacturers alike. The fact is you don’t need all those megapixels. In small cameras 6 megapixels is more than enough. It is sad that camera gear has now become a sort of “bling” for many people. Save your money for a trip where you can actually use your gear! If you really feel the need to upgrade a 3-year-old camera and lose 2/3s the value, please call me first. I will likely buy your old one and use it to make beautiful photos,
Film and digital need to live side by side. When shooting a wedding it makes sense to photograph the ceremony, reception, dance and other candid shots in digital. More photos for less money. Most of these are going to be viewed electronically, or at best in 8x10 size print. By the way, any image looks better on a computer monitor. Print is where the difference is seen. If there are going to be prints done for display that will be 11x14 or larger film, and more specifically, medium format film WILL give a sharper, clearer image hands down. It will also last longer and be usable in it’s native state longer. Period.
One should note that I have not even mentioned B&W film, the true archival media. You cannot duplicate the image sharpness, clarity or resolution of properly exposed and processed B&W film. You can come close, but not match. Again, check out this link:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html
That man is far more knowledgeable than I. He has likely forgotten more about film and photography than I know!
Don’t be surprised when we offer a film alternative, or supplement to our photo services if you book us for an event! We strive to deliver the whole package, not just part.
