DIGITAL VS FILM -A FALSE DEBATEin Editorial
By lanycosta/Lany (2,232)
on February 8, 2003 11:16:30 AM CST
DIGITAL VS FILM -A FALSE DEBATE
DIGITAL VS FILM
Once again I' try to write in English
I am irritated with this false debate!
I have read some articles in several Photo magazines where both the readers and some editorialists seem to lack of basic common sense.
Which is better? Digital or Film
Ken Rockwell says: Neither replaces the other, neither is better.
It depends on what you want to do with it. On what people want to accomplish, and on personal taste; It's a bit like comparing a drawing by Picasso with an oil painting by Delacroix, or saying that French cuisine is better than Italian cuisine.
I have tried digital don't want to die ignorant- and even if I prefer film, I am considering the purchase of a Top Digital camera for special purposes.
It would be in my opinion a non-sense to compare both techniques.
When people tell me about the pixel issue, and the film definition I also think it's a false issue. Film technology has over 100 years and digital is just beginning.
When they ask me about the colors, it's another false debate, each film has is own color type, a Velvia is not a Kodakchrome a Tri X is not a HP5.
But film especially Pro slides reproduce the all range of colors witch is important in some cases, but without importance in more mono cromatic photos. Therefore, if color is very important I prefer film.
The only possible advantage of the film is that it has a far better dynamic range, and digital did not get than range yet (but it will get there).
Digital has also huge advantages, easier to stock, and costless (dont have to buy film, chemicals and all that stuff). But useless in photojournalism, because they are not immediately ready as soon as you push the "on" button. Film cameras are much faster to start.
Digital cameras will loose value very quickly, an old Leica M5 will cost five times more than an actual sophisticated digital camera, within ten years
The good digital cameras have practically no grain (I have tried the Nikon D1X) it's amazing but at this price, you should expect so- the quality of the picture you get. But be very careful with exposure, you can correct underexposed photos, but overexposed photos are lost.
One of the major disadvantages of the digital is the printing; it's in the lab's result that you will see de main difference. If you enlarge a very good picture on a very good paper, your result will be better than the printing of a digital photo by a printer. (But you will have to do it on your own lab); unless you can afford a pro printer.
Another problem is the Highlight reproduction. But this is too technical for the purpose of this article.
On the other hand if you loose your original film, you loose the photo, and copies are never as good as originals. This does not happen with digital, you cam make bazillions of copies with exactly the same quality.
So to end the debate, I really believe that booth are excellent, and that there is no difference between these two techniques. Its a matter of taste, money, and time and end use.
I have seen in Photosig amazing photos in Digital, and very poor ones in film, and the other way around too. I will continue to enjoy film, shooting and lab, but I will also do Digital.
Feel free to rate this article, Lany
Read 3,230 times