The debate rages on. It used to be, “Oh well, I know I can get a much better result with film but digital is more convenient so I’m prepared to put up with a loss in quality.” Times have changed and digital photography has advanced way further and faster than most people expected.
Now many if not most professional and advanced amateur photographers have turned to digital after years of shooting film. The results are spectacular. The quality, particularly with higher end equipment and advanced digital editing skills, is incredible. Major newspapers made the switch at the end of the last century (1999).
Is it possible to tell the difference?
The argument is not a dead one. There are many fine art and other photographers who use film and insist they get a better result.
A key point to consider is that film and digital photography are two different media, each with its own qualities. They are not just two versions of the same thing. They are different things.
Another major point is that to say “film” vs. digital is highly inaccurate, since there are different formats of film. If you’re talking about 35mm film and small to medium prints, then you will probably get better results with digital. But if you are talking about very large prints made from 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 transparency film, then the quality of the film photography is undoubtedly better than any digital camera can give you.
Shooting 35mm negative film and sending it off to a lab to get prints made is definitely going to give you worse results than you would get with a decent digital camera and prints made at home on a good printer.
There’s another aspect to this. You can compare the entire film process, from negative or slide all the way through to final print, made in a lab using the photographic process. As opposed to digital, from digital image all the way through to digitally printed print. Then you have a proper comparison. It’s quite another matter to begin with the film process and then after you have your slide, scan it and shift over to digital and make a digital print from the digital file. That would be mixing the two media. It’s a valid experiment. But realize that the best scanners are highly sophisticated and very expensive machines and that your scan from your $350 home scanner is not necessarily the benchmark of what can be attained by this approach. So the comparison is not really fair or accurate.
If you have a question about this, the best thing to do is get a film camera and some film and a digital camera and shoot the two side by side and compare the results. If you are comparing 35mm film with a good digital camera I can predict the results. You will stick with digital. Reading about these things is not going to give you the certainty. You can go online and find comparisons which make the differences very clear. But best of all is to experiment yourself and see what you think of the results. After all, you are interested in what these two media can do in your hands, not someone else’s.
If you are an artist trying to capture the ultimate in highlights and resolution and have the money and the time to shoot large format, low ISO transparencies or B&W negatives, you will be able to attain things that you would not be able to achieve with the digital camera.
Some pointers
- Higher end digital SLRs will give you just as good or better quality than 35mm film cameras, especially if you are shooting print film. The convenience and economy of digital is very big plus.
- The best quality you can get for large prints comes from large format film cameras in the hands of experts who also control each part of the processing through to final print.
- The main problem area of digital compared to film is highlights. Highlights go quickly to stark white in digital cameras whereas film cameras are smoother at this end of the tonal range.
- The second main difference between digital and large format film photography is resolution. The ultimate digital camera cannot match the ultimate 8 x 10 film camera in terms of resolution, so for huge prints that require maximum quality at very large sizes, large format film is going to give a better result.
- For most purposes for amateurs and for professionals who are not making huge prints, posters, high quality double page magazine spreads, or other work where resolution is extremely important, digital is the way to go.
So Which is it to Be?
Film and digital photography, at the high end, are two distinct media, each with their separate uses, looks, effects and purposes. It is not a straight comparison of two similar things. Treat them as distinct media, as you would painting in oils and painting in watercolors. You will find it is a more useful comparison. The first thing to do is to decide what you want to do with your photos. Then take all the above into consideration. If your requirements fit into the category of photos best shot on large format film, then try it out. You can rent the equipment. You don’t have to spend a fortune buying it all. If on the other hand you are shooting film already but are considering moving over to digital, try the reverse process – rent (or borrow) a good digital camera, take some photos, download them and edit them and print them. See what results you get.
Then you can end the argument, at least for yourself.
And there’s no reason on earth why you shouldn’t shoot both film and digital as appropriate. You will find you are in good company.
David © Phillips is a professional writer and photographer living in Seattle, WA. You can find out more about him and his work at www.dcpcom.com.
Tags: amateur photographers, digital fim, digital SLRs, Digital vs. Film photography, digitally printed print, loss in quality, photographic process, Shooting 35mm negative film
