Film vs. Digital?

**Donald Miller** · 11-Jan-2010, 08:52

Aaah those were the days my friend buying Kodachrome by the brick and burning it up in a camera with a motor drive.

**rguinter** · 11-Jan-2010, 11:08

As this thread progresses I sense that, what we fail to recognize here as a group, is that we (i.e., professional and hobbyist photographers) are in the utmost minority. The vast majority of camera users are simply looking for good snapshots of family, friends, and locations where they have visited.

These are the people that are driving the digital revolution and I doubt that they care very much about the subject of this thread. So what if they shoot 500 frames in a day? It doesn't cost them any more and they get more chances at getting good memories of the kids and their vacations. Bob G.

**David Hedley** · 11-Jan-2010, 14:05

Originally Posted by Stephen Willard

I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.

Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.

In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.

Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.

There's a lot in that, Stephen, and parts that I agree with. However, the fact that you spend a lot of time to make an image is irrelevant to my perception of that image. (And having visited your website, I think some of your photographs are very good). I'm also not sure that the film / digital thing is particularly meaningful. Your 500 frames per day digital shooter would probably also have burned a lot of film, and this is a theme that seems to have run through photography for some time. One day, Edward Weston can only use a Graflex; ... the Mexican clouds are so swift and ephemeral, one can hardly allow the thought, "Is this worth doing?" or, "Is this placed well?" - for an instant of delay and what was, is not! The Graflex seems the only possible way of working., but only five days later, he realises ... the Graflex is a spontaneous camera but lacks the precision of a view box planted firmly on a sturdy tripod. (The Graflex or 8x10 question runs like a thread through his diaries).

I think the real distinction is between spontaneity and planning, and consequently chance and art. Weston more often than not found a view camera to be the optimum tool, but it's not inconceivable that, if the Graflex had been technically more capable, he might have chosen a hand-held camera. If he had, I don't think it would alter my appreciation of his photographs - would it yours? By contrast, I see many reasonably good photographs on flickr, but precious few masterpieces; I don't think that would change if everyone used view cameras. I personally find a 4x5 and a DSLR to be an effective combination of tools.

**Ed Kelsey** · 11-Jan-2010, 17:38