Prior to the recent digital photography revolution, particularly over the last 5 years, film was king. And while film photography still has its devotees it’s only really fine art photographers who are still clinging on. It’s fair to say that digital photography has taken over.

That is not to suggest that there are no issues with digital photography. Some say there is a qualitative loss when comparing film to digital. Mind you, software has become so refined that the shortcomings can be addressed, and some argue, eradicated. With CDs, for instance, while they can’t match the dynamic depth of vinyl, they also don’t succumb to hissing noises.

Many photographers stayed loyal to film waiting for digital to rival the quality of film. Well, all but the dyed-in-the-wool film-lover will admit that for most kinds of photography, including contemporary wedding photography and commercial photography, digital has not only made its mark, but has trumped film.

For a decade digital has had it over film when it comes to convenience. With film, first it involves developing the film and afterwards if one has to tweak the pictures in Photoshop you have to scan the negatives – a tiresome process. With digital you take the pictures, upload them right away and start working on them. That alone is the price of admission. Some of the best wedding photographers, for instance, upload the ceremony and park pix onto their laptop for all to see during the reception.

One notable drawback to digital involves the power to shoot an almost unlimited quantity of images. Of course, this is a good thing, especially for candid wedding photography. However, it also means that some digital photographers think that the only good shutter is one that is constantly engaged.  This unconscious photography requires them to keep shooting so they don’t overlook anything – this not only makes them more obtrusive, but often ends in recording a ton of images, while inexplicably managing to miss the profound moments. As we all know, more is not always better. Those photographers who come from film learned to spot those ‘moments’ and not shoot willy-nilly as if they are being remunerated by the quantity of photos they snap. Of course, they were also aware that more images meant more film, which led to more processing and greater expense. So, there was a self-limiting system in place, which arguably spawned a more attentive photographer. So, while digital means you can grab oodles of shots, the good photographers always understand when to press the button.

Regardless, the last couple of years have seen increased advances in digital camera technology that are putting the nail in the coffin of film (other than for super limited uses). Firstly, the image quality is now equal to (though different) film. Secondly, the low-light ability of the new higher-end cameras is astonishing. The fastest film is 3200 ISO and it is super grainy. Only those deliberately wanting this look go this route.  Of course, at times they have no alternative because they are going to be shooting in a low-light location without flash or lighting. It’s almost unfathomable how powerful the newest digital cameras are in this regard. Top Nikon and Canon cameras can go as high as 102,000 ISO. Outlandish. Now, it’s really grainy at that top setting, but the upshot is that you will get worthwhile shots at even 12,000 ISO.  This is a miracle, particularly for photographers who shoot with existing light and often find themselves in low-light. The days of having to forgo depth of field or sharpness to achieve effective exposure – or just not be able to get the shot at all – are over.

When used properly and to its full potential, digital photography rules. Hail the new chief.

 

Technorati Tags: ,