Is Digital Photography Better Than Film Photography?
July 4th, 2009
The world of photography has been changed forever by the arrival of digital cameras. Millions of people are getting involved in photography for the first time, thanks to the economy and convenience of digital photography. But the question is still often asked. Which is better: film or digital?
I use film, but if someone asks me whether they should buy a film camera or a digital camera, I almost always recommend digital. The answer is not so simple if someone asks me which is ‘better’ - film or digital?
The answer comes down what you mean by ‘better.’ Photography is many things to many people, so the merits of the medium depends on what you expect to get out of it.
In my business (a nature photography gallery), the single most important criteria is the quality of the printed photograph. For me, film still provides superior quality enlargements, even though darkroom printing has all but died out. These days, I get a high-resolution scan from the original film, and print my photos digitally. This process gives me a better quality enlargement than a print from a digital camera. I am talking about BIG enlargements here - A2 and sometimes larger.
So why do I recommend others to switch to digital photography (if they haven’t already)? Simply because not many people make their living selling framed photographs. Let’s face it, how many of us will ever print a photo larger than 8×12 inch (20×30cm)?
These days, in fact, how many of us ever get around to printing our photos at all? The day of the photo album has passed. Today most photos will only ever exist as digital files. We can share them in emails, insert them into websites, use them as screensavers…for many people the idea of actually printing a photo is little more than a novelty.
So in the age of digital photography, what does film has to offer? Well, not much, except for the high cost of developing and printing (don’t forget you have to pay for each exposure, even the bad ones). Then there is the long delay between taking the photo and seeing the result. Finally, if you want to use your photo for any practical purpose, you will probably have to scan it to turn it into a digital file anyway.
So, is digital photography ‘better’ than film photography? In the modern world, which demands speed and convenience, yes. With your digital camera you can take all the photos you like at no real cost, and see the results instantly. You don’t have to pay to print photos you don’t want, and you can simply delete your unsuccessful images from your camera.
That’s not to say digital photography is perfect; far from it. I have already mentioned that your digital files are not as good as film for very big enlargements, but there is more to it than that. The quality of a digital print is a little ‘flatter’ than a photo printed from film. It may have plenty of colour and detail, but in ways that are hard to explain, it lacks the illusion of three-dimensional real life that you can get from film.
In the past, most digital photographers would laugh at me for suggesting such a thing. I suspect that was because after investing a small fortune in their new technological treasure, they were reluctant to admit that their new toy was not perfect in every way. Today, however, even the most committed digital convert seems willing to admit that the digital revolution has, for all its advantages, brought with it a level of compromise in quality.
Is there a solution? Of course there is, and it is called software. Whichever editing program you use, it is quite easy to ‘tweak’ your photos to a standard that is as rich and three dimensional as a photo printed from film. These programs have become a fact of life for many photographers, but not everyone likes to use them or even knows how to. Then there are the grumpy old purists (like me) who feel that a well-exposed photo should not require enhancement to bring it up to standard.
So where does all this leave us? Is digital better than film? For my purposes, no. For your purposes, most likely yes. If your priority is not large, high quality prints, there is really very little reason to stick with film (other than nostalgia).
If you are shopping for a camera (SLR or compact), make it a digital. Just as important, take the time to learn how to use it. Photography is still about focus, aperture, shutter speed, composition and lighting. The digital vs. film debate means nothing if your camera is always switched to auto for taking snapshots. Oh, and get to know your computer…you’re going to need it.
By: Andrew Goodall
About the Author:
I use film, but if someone asks me whether they should buy a film camera or a digital camera, I almost always recommend digital. The answer is not so simple if someone asks me which is ‘better’ - film or digital?
The answer comes down what you mean by ‘better.’ Photography is many things to many people, so the merits of the medium depends on what you expect to get out of it.
In my business (a nature photography gallery), the single most important criteria is the quality of the printed photograph. For me, film still provides superior quality enlargements, even though darkroom printing has all but died out. These days, I get a high-resolution scan from the original film, and print my photos digitally. This process gives me a better quality enlargement than a print from a digital camera. I am talking about BIG enlargements here - A2 and sometimes larger.
So why do I recommend others to switch to digital photography (if they haven’t already)? Simply because not many people make their living selling framed photographs. Let’s face it, how many of us will ever print a photo larger than 8×12 inch (20×30cm)?
These days, in fact, how many of us ever get around to printing our photos at all? The day of the photo album has passed. Today most photos will only ever exist as digital files. We can share them in emails, insert them into websites, use them as screensavers…for many people the idea of actually printing a photo is little more than a novelty.
So in the age of digital photography, what does film has to offer? Well, not much, except for the high cost of developing and printing (don’t forget you have to pay for each exposure, even the bad ones). Then there is the long delay between taking the photo and seeing the result. Finally, if you want to use your photo for any practical purpose, you will probably have to scan it to turn it into a digital file anyway.
So, is digital photography ‘better’ than film photography? In the modern world, which demands speed and convenience, yes. With your digital camera you can take all the photos you like at no real cost, and see the results instantly. You don’t have to pay to print photos you don’t want, and you can simply delete your unsuccessful images from your camera.
That’s not to say digital photography is perfect; far from it. I have already mentioned that your digital files are not as good as film for very big enlargements, but there is more to it than that. The quality of a digital print is a little ‘flatter’ than a photo printed from film. It may have plenty of colour and detail, but in ways that are hard to explain, it lacks the illusion of three-dimensional real life that you can get from film.
In the past, most digital photographers would laugh at me for suggesting such a thing. I suspect that was because after investing a small fortune in their new technological treasure, they were reluctant to admit that their new toy was not perfect in every way. Today, however, even the most committed digital convert seems willing to admit that the digital revolution has, for all its advantages, brought with it a level of compromise in quality.
Is there a solution? Of course there is, and it is called software. Whichever editing program you use, it is quite easy to ‘tweak’ your photos to a standard that is as rich and three dimensional as a photo printed from film. These programs have become a fact of life for many photographers, but not everyone likes to use them or even knows how to. Then there are the grumpy old purists (like me) who feel that a well-exposed photo should not require enhancement to bring it up to standard.
So where does all this leave us? Is digital better than film? For my purposes, no. For your purposes, most likely yes. If your priority is not large, high quality prints, there is really very little reason to stick with film (other than nostalgia).
If you are shopping for a camera (SLR or compact), make it a digital. Just as important, take the time to learn how to use it. Photography is still about focus, aperture, shutter speed, composition and lighting. The digital vs. film debate means nothing if your camera is always switched to auto for taking snapshots. Oh, and get to know your computer…you’re going to need it.
By: Andrew Goodall
About the Author:
Andrew Goodall is a professional nature photographer of 20 years experience, with a successful gallery and two ebooks, which have helped thousands of beginners discover the art and skills of nature photography. See Andrew Goodall’s images at http://www.naturesimage.com.au and check out the ebooks at http://www.naturesimage.com.au/page/25/default.asp
