Film or Digital

Film And Digital Photography: How Much Has Really Changed?

by: Andrew Goodall

Since digital cameras have taken over the photography world, there have emerged two types of photographers. There are old-school photographers who dismiss everything digital as fake, inferior, and not the same as 'real' photography. Then there are the digital photographers who think the film photographers are living in the dark ages. For the record, I use film. That is not because I don't like what digital photography has to offer. My reason for staying with film is simple; after 20 years of photography, I have a thousands of images on film that have yet to be put to good use. If I switched to digital now, those photos would probably be neglected for another 20 years and finally be thrown out. That's a lot of memories wasted. However, as a gallery owner, photography teacher, writer and club member, I am among digital photographers every day. Having lived and worked through all the years when photography has accellerated into the digital age, I have observed something that will surprise many people; not much has really changed. Being good at digital photography requires the same skills as traditional photography. You need to be able to work with aperture and shutter speed, understand depth of field and know how to handle moving subjects. A digital photographer requires sensitivity to light and contrast, and must develop a talent for creative composition. In teaching and writing about photography, I have been amazed by just how much things have remained the same. In some instances I have been certain that the new technology would create new challenges - only to find that for all practical purposes, nothing has really changed. Here is one example that is so similar it's spooky. In the days of film, you could buy film that was rated at different ISO speeds, relating to how quickly the film reacted to light. Faster films were great for allowing quicker shutter speeds in low-light conditions, but there was a sacrifice in quality. Photos taken on fast films had a grainy appearance, making them less suitable for printing big enlargements. Digital cameras have adopted the same ISO system. You can adjust the ISO setting on your camera, changing the speed at which your exposure will react to light. As before, this can be a great benefit, especially in low light. But here's the spooky part. When you set a higher ISO rating, your images become 'grainier.' Some people tell me it is pixellation, others tell me it is digital 'noise.' I don't know and don't really care. The point is, here is a whole new technolgy, recording images in a completely different way - and the outcome is exactly the same! Of course there are some major differences. The most obvious, and possibly the most positive change, is the elimination of film and developing costs from your photography budget. Add to that the convenience of being able to delete your mistakes and print your own photos, and your hobby just became a lot more cost-effective. That, however, has nothing to do with the actual skill of the photographer. Neither does the other revolution in the photography world. That revolution is software. With the aid of computers, people can work digital magic on their photos like never before. This has both positive and negative elements. Positive because the almost universal fascination with computers has seen a whole new generation take a real interest in photography. Negative because people too often rely on the technology to correct their mistakes, instead of learning to take better photos. Software can be wonderful. It can add a little 'zest' to a slightly flat image, or it can completely trasform a photo to portray colours and details that never existed in the real world. But software cannot overcome all the problems caused by bad technique. It cannot focus an out-of-focus image. It cannot correct a blurry photo caused by using the wrong shutter speed. And while cropping, cutting and pasting can solve some issues, they are no substitute for developing a real skill for composition. So, to return to my original theme: in the migration from film to digital photography, not much has really changed. That which is new is largely peripheral. While there are some advantages in terms of cost and convenience, most of the changes won't make you a better photographer. So here is my advice to photographers on both sides of the divide. Film photographers; don't be suspicious of new technology. Embrace it, make the most of its advantages, and you may be surprised just how easy it is to make the switch. Digital photographers; don't sneer at your more old-fashioned counterparts. The skills they have grown up with are the ones you really should be learning. ------------------------ Composition, aperture, shutter speed, depth of field...all the essentials of good photography seem simple when they are explained in terms you can understand. Visit http://www.naturesimage.com.au and check out Andrew Goodall's ebook "Photography in Plain English" to discover your own talent for photography. While you are there, subscribe to the online newsletter for even more tips...it's free! - See more at: http://designertoday.com/Articles/5347/Film.And.Digital.Photography.How.Much.Has.Really.Changed.aspx#sthash.9INbqXXY.dpuf