Those who know me will know I really enjoy photography. I was thinking that it's about time I wrote something about it in the blog. On top of that, I might as well tackle a subject that's been popular with photographers for the past few years... It's the argument of film vs. digital. Which is better? What constitutes 'real' photography? Are digital cameras killing the 'art of photography'?
I encountered this question a number of times, most recently in the forums yesterday at DPReview.com. But it's an old question. I remember when I first started photography 9 years ago, I took a black and white photography course. Digital cameras were just being introduced into the marketplace and many of my classmates, who have been hobbists for decades, were wary of this new technology. They didn't consider the product of digital cameras 'photography'. It was something else. Something inferior, even alien. This argument is still going on. Below is an exerpt from one of my forum entries on DPReview.com on this subject, and my arguments why this film vs. digital debate is pointless.
I still shoot B&W 35mm film, but I'd say most of my colour photographs are done on digital. The reason is that I find B&W printing on fiber paper far superior to monochrome ink jet prints. However, digital color blows away film color prints.
But to address your question, digital and film photography have way more in common than purists would like to admit. Regardless of method, it all comes down to capturing light. It doesn't matter whether it's stored on a piece of silver hailde or a CCD. It doesn't matter whether you're using a Canon 350 XT or a Pentax K1000 - It's pretty much the same.
This never-ending debate of film vs. digital rarely ever addresses the fact that photography is not only about the camera. It involves lighting; the quality of the light and the direction of the light are extremely important. And of course, there's the subject matter and composition. These all make up a 'photograph'. It's not all about the camera. The fact that one uses a digital camera doesn't preclude these other components of the image.
If you think about it, there's really nothing you can do in digital that you can't do in a darkroom. It's just that digital is much more convenient. Film purists claim that digital photography allows all sorts of editing, such as color correction and changing details in the image. However, people have been doing extensive image edits since the late 19th century. There's plenty of photos out there that were doctored on film. I've seen a few examples at the National Gallery of Canada where people were added and removed. These photographs that were taken in 1915. Editing photographs isn't anything new.
Now, since digital makes things easier, does it mean it's a 'lesser art' than film photography? No. It's different than film, but it's certainly not a lesser art. Because it's simpler doesn't mean it's dumbed down or not worthy of consideration. In the film days, people would either develop film by hand or in a lab. Developing a film in a lab is easier and more convenient. Does this mean that using lab-developed film is a lesser art than printing hand-processed film? No. And neither is digital photography.
Now I've seen all sort of arguments comparing film and digital, such as dynamic range, resolution, yadda, yadda, yadda. I think these technical aspects are besides the point. I think what matters is the end product, which is the image. And in order to create the image you want, you need to use the right tool to capture the image. If digital gets you the results you want, then it's the right tool. If film gets you the results you want, then THAT's the right tool.
Use what's right for the job.
