There has been much debate over the years regarding this subject. Nowadays digital seems to be the main means of producing images, as the quality of even the cheapest cameras ( let alone some mobile phone cameras) is very good, Only the size of print decides which camera is used.
Image quality is obviously paramount. Digital cameras have a variable relationship between resolution and megapixel count, whilst film depends on upon the area of film used to record the image, 35mm, medium format or large format. Also the speed of the film and the quality of the lens has a great effect. Large format cameras are rarely digital.
Digital sensors are arranged in a regular grid pattern whereas film has a random orientation of grains, both of which affect the resolution of the image. 35mm Photograph resolution varies according to speed of film etc but a 36mmx24mm film with an ISO of 100 has equivalent pixels of approx 15 megapixels. Many professional quality cameras use medium or large format cameras. A medium format film image approximates about 50 megapixels. A medium format DSLR provides from 42 to 50 megapixels, but cannot be enlarged with the same level of detail as medium format film. However, the technology is improving all the time so it might eventually catch up.
Noise and grain can cause a problem for photographers (unless required deliberately). Noise is degradation of pixels showing an incorrect colour, whilst grain and film sensitivity are linked, in colour film grain being obvious in areas of even and delicate tone, not quite so in black and white, whereas with digital the long exposures tend to show more noise.
With film you do have the need for a darkroom, and the facilities for one, and all the paraphernalia required to develop both the film and the image as two separate actions. This is also a timely operation, whereas with digital all you need is a computer, a printer and relevant software to produce an image. There is a cost to both, but the time investment in film is more.
Dynamic range is another feature that can be assessed. It is difficult to play the two against each other but briefly;
Low-contrast film has greater dynamic range and higher contrast.
Do you use the data format as raw or jpeg?
The larger sensors in DSLRs and medium format cameras collect more light than the compact camera sensors, but the smaller sensors are getting better and the dynamic range is improving.
Variations in optics, sensor resolution, scanner dynamic range and precision of the analogue to digital conversion circuit cause variations in image quality. It is very difficult to compare the dynamic ranges between film and digital.
Optical versus digital prints differ between media and between images shown on VDUs. There is also a variable difference between venues/computers showing your images.
The effects of sensor size have an impact on your choice digital camera. Most sensors are smaller than the 36mm x 24mm exposure frame of 35mm film. With digital this has the effect of extending the effective length of the lens eg a 100mm lens then becomes approx 160mm(depending on make of camera). This is due to the manufactures using lens mounts designed for film cameras. If the camera has a smaller imaging area than the lens’ intended film frame, its field of view is cropped. This does have an advantage over the “full frame” cameras as the lens in effect becomes longer. It also affects the depth of field ( greater for digital), light sensitivity and pixel noise ( the smaller the sensor the more likely noise will develop). Here is an illustration.
Dust is the curse of photographers whether film of digital, as it can scratch the film, either in camera or in the darkroom, or get on the sensor and spoil the image. With digital this can be erased with software in the computer but adds additional time and effort to producing the image, and could occur in an awkward part of the image and be very difficult to edit.
Film can be scanned to digital with the correct equipment, and then manipulated on the computer. This is becoming an increasing part of archival life for instance, but takes a lot of time and is a very slow process. But decisions have to be made regarding archiving your images. There are many ways from keeping them on computer eg, or printing them. Archival printing is very expensive, but is keeping images in electronic form likely to last longer. This is a specialist area, and needs further investigation as to how best to preserve you images. What happens when computer software becomes redundant, how would you view your images in 50 years ? Bearing in mind that photography has only been around about 120 years??? In what medium do you store your images that you wish to keep? Many images can be transitory, but the rest???
Price is also a significant consideration. Film and digital imaging systems have different cost emphasis. Digital cameras are more expensive than their film equivalent, but are falling, and taking photographs is effectively cost free. High quality film cameras are less a complicated, therefore less expensive, ongoing film and processing costs being the major expense, and getting rarer. Film prices have risen as supply reduces.
I personally enjoy the freedom that digital photography gives me. EG when in the studio doing portraits I can connect my laptop to my camera, and can instantly show the person I am photographing the image. This makes getting the right image easier as the sitter can see the difference immediately and makes direction easier to achieve that. Also the sitter can have an impact by discussion at the same time. It also means I can change the lighting etc to suit the image I am trying to create. However I feel that the film black and white is much better than the digital version, albeit that the work has to be done in the darkroom, and depends on so many factors that are variable.
No comments:
Post a Comment