In the past ten years or so digital photography has surpassed film in both quality (debatable) and quantity of images produced. Digital has become the dominant way to create a photographic image, for any purpose. In my opinion, there are a few main differences between a high quality digital image and a high quality film sourced image.

Digital can (equipment dependent) capture a startling amount of detail that is free from any the grain inherent in film, in some people’s opinions too much detail.

Another difference is the easy flexibility a digitally captured image offers. A single digital capture can be manipulated into an infinite number of variations, from the simple choice to make the image color or black and white to altering colors to a surreal degree. All the variations are possible without ever losing or destroying the original image.

Environmentally, digital is the clear choice. The only time any actual material is consumed is when one decides to make a print of a digital image. Experimentation only costs time and hard drive space. All the toxic chemicals used in a darkroom never have to be touched again.

As it often is in modern life, people hearken for the “good ol’ days.” It is no different with photography. There has been renewed interest in old printing processes, such as cyanotypes and platinum prints for the unique and imperfect feel they offer.

Also in direct contrast and possibly in response to the “perfection” of digital imagery is the increased popularity of cheap, all plastic cameras. These cameras generally have one shutter speed, one aperture, and focusing that generously can be called rough. The idea is that all the thought required to determine exposure and focus is removed. The purity of compose and shoot is the point. The Holga is one of the more well-known and used variants of these toy cameras. Photography along these lines is called lomography . It’s cheap. It’s easy. It’s fun. And very unpredictable.

Alongside the popularity of imperfect, character rich film and printing processes, the popularity of digitally imitating the characteristics of these processes has increased dramatically. One of the infinite possibilities of digital is degrading an image in a specific way to give it character and imperfections usually associated with film based photography. One could argue that a critical eye could easily spot a “real” photograph versus a digital image. I’m one that doesn’t care. If it looks good, who cares how it was made. Unless you’re just curious of course.

I recently borrowed a medium format film camera from my friend, Diederik, who is a professional photographer here in Christchurch. By the way, Diederik and his team at Lightworkx Photography are a fine example of the world-class creativity that comes from New Zealand. Please take a look at both of their websites - Lightworkx and DVH . You will be impressed.

Back to the point. I borrowed this wonderful camera, a Fuji GX680 to use for a personal project. I had not shot a frame a film in at least two years. I had forgotten how fun film can be. There something a little more special about looking at a physical, tactile piece of film with an image on it than seeing an image on screen immediately after it was taken. I shot on transparency film (slide film), scanned chosen images, retouched them on the computer and then will print them with a large format inkjet printer. See the camera and examples below.

Fuji GX680 - oh yeah LisaRaik

The process I just described is another possibility for creating images - a hybrid of digital and film. An image was originally captured on film, then digitized/scanned, and then manipulated digitally, most likely with my good friend Photoshop. The film/digital combinations are also as limitless as purely digital creations.

Though in reality, nothing has changed. People, whether paying clients or your mom and dad, still enjoy and want quality imagery that causes a reaction. If it is the paying client, then they want that image to help them further their brand and increase sales. If it is a relative or friend, they want an image to remind them of a vacation or allow them to see a current image of that relative or friend from across the world. Others use photography as a strictly creative outlet for their own satisfaction. Photography is one of the most flexible mediums around. It can be a range of things, from pure fine art to strict documentation. For further thoughts on photography’s meaning, Susan Sontag’s book On Photography is a wonderful reflection on what photography was, has become, and could become.

In the end though, the final image is only as good as the photographer, no matter what tools they choose to use.

Is film or digital better? Yes.
-Mark

Share This