Digital photography and camera sales had a hard time in the beginning. The cameras were slow, big, and the quality of the images were simply not that good. However just as everything else, technology grew. Camera's were faster, the image quality got better, and they got smaller. Now with the saturation of digital cameras on the market and with many consumer and pro-sumer cameras sporting full frame digital camera sensors, there are many who claim that digital is simply better than film. Because of this attitude there have been many myths and misconceptions that been sort of implanted into many people's psyche.
1. Digital Makes You A Better Photographer
This is something that I think many people take for granted. People assume that by having a digital camera or a new piece of technology they will somehow be better. This is no more true as it would be for the traditional photographer who thinks that by having a better lens that his or her work will be better. It's just not true.
The interesting thing though, is that digital does open up some new possibilities for individuals. Those who are just learning are able to experiment and see the results much quicker through digital. It's just the nature of the game. Digital has that "instant gratification" that film does not. This inherently draws people to the aspect of digital. We always "want it now". Human nature does not like to wait for things.
That is one reason why so many children snoop through their parents closet only to find all of their Christmas gifts and subsequently find out that there is no Santa Claus at an early age. What? Don't look at me like it didn't happen to you too.
Chimping
In any sense, digital does allow for us to see what we do instantly. We are able to find out what works and what does not much quicker; however, there are downsides to this. One of which is what I like to call, "chimping". If you ever stand on the sidelines of a family get together when people take photographs, I guarantee you will see them huddled around looking at the back of the camera after they take a photograph. This is what I'm talking about. The running joke among film photographers is that you look like a bunch of monkey's in a circle going "ooh ooh" "ahh ahh" who are amazed at some treasure they just found. Everybody wants to see what it is.
The issue with chimping is not that it's funny to watch (and it is), but that it takes you out of the photographic experience. It is not uncommon when taking photographs over a period of a few hours to become lost in the moment. Many describe it as a trance. You forget all time and space and your mind begins to race as you move around from every angle to photograph the world around you. With chimping, you no longer focus on taking photos. You stop and look after every shot.
I read of one photographer comparing a film and digital photographers, stating that the film users could be seen taking photos practically the whole time, while the digital users pretty much just, "dicked around".
The thing about film is that it keeps you in that "stream of conscious" movement where the camera, your head, and heart are aligned on one axis. It keeps the ideas and energy flowing. Digital is a fragmentation of that.
Laziness
The other issue surrounding digital, is that its very easy to get lazy, especially during the editing process. Especially when taking a lot of photographs over a short period. I know for sure that I've been caught up in tweaking a photograph for five hours and then realizing, "Wow, this photograph really sucks. Why the hell am I even working on it? I should have thrown this out."
Unfortunately, I think that it is this very laziness which has caused much mediocrity in the area of photography. Too many crappy photos simply because people don't take the time to slow down and pick their photos (both in taking them, and which to make 'prints' of). It brings the quality of work down.
With film, you spend more time thinking about the photos you take, so thus you have a much smaller range of photos you have taken, and in the end you also take more time to pick only the very best photos out of the bunch.
I can easily say that when looking at my digital photos in comparison to my film photography, the film photography has so much more thought and determination behind it. I find my film work to be so much more creative in many ways and in the end I see it as being much richer in both meaning and visual elements.
2. Cost Savings
Another big issue I so often hear is in regards to cost savings of digital photography. True, the initial reaction is that "Oh, I no longer have to buy and process film! Wow, that's so much cheaper", and at first glance, it is cheaper. However, whatever gains you expect from not having to buy film is quickly eaten alive by the price of digital.
Oh, the price. The wonderful price of digital. It's expensive as hell. You want a full frame digital camera (full frame meaning it has the same size digital sensor as a 35mm film frame does) is going to set you back about five grand. Yes, Five thousand dollars. Oh, did I mention that in ten to twelve months your camera will be obsolete and will only have a resale value of probably half the price you paid (if even that). Digital camera's depreciate in value. Just as all other electronic devices. Whereas you go out and look at a nice Nikon film camera that is all manual with all the controls you need can be had for maybe five hundred dollars (that's if you want all of the same features you could find on the digital version). An even more stripped down camera with only the real necessities would only run you about $200 or possibly even $150. The resale value of said camera would be at least anywhere from 75% to 90% (hell sometimes even 100&) of the original price of the you paid for it.
Say you purchased a film camera for 500 bucks and you did mainly black and white photography with it. The 4,500 bucks you saved could buy you over a thousand rolls of film. Say you shot twenty rolls of 36 exposure film each month, you would have enough film to last you four years.
Granted, this is not taking into the account of processing, but even so... say you buy a new digital camera in three years or so because the quality of it's images have become much better... There goes enough few thousand dollars.
In the end, the two really are probably close to the same price as one another. You are just trading one cost for another.
However, it can be said that with film, the cost can be considerably cheaper, especially if you develop your own film.
3. Digital Saves Time
Yeah, digital is quick, it's instant and we get more photos is the amount of time and we have to spend less time to use them.
Wrong.
I already mentioned how easy it is to get wrapped up in editing images down. Especially when taking higher quality images, it can often take much longer to process the photos in photoshop just to get them to the look that they might be with shooting certain types of film, etc. Hours spent on the computer adjusting your photos is just the same as hours spent in the dark room making prints. It's all the same.
In the end, Digital has it's hand in the market. It is obviously one of the more dominating sales figures as far as new camera purchases go. However, I think it would be stupid and irresponsible to claim that film is better than digital or vice versa. In reality they are two completely different mediums. Hell, they even have different looks to them. There are some things with digital that you just cannot get with film, without a massive ammount of work (and vice versa).
Film is not dead, and I don't think it ever will. There is a magic to traditional photography that digital does not, and never will have. Seeing your very first photograph magically appear on paper as you drop it into chemicals is something that will continue to amaze many to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment