![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Digital and Film
Feb. 22nd, 2006 08:48 amIf I were getting started in photography today I'd almost certainly go digital all the way. However, I've been taking 35mm photos for over 20 years. I have three good camera bodies, and an assortment of lenses and flashes. Most of which won't fit on digital cameras.
I do plan to buy a digital SLR (single-lens reflex, for those out of the know) camera body when the next 35mm body of mine dies. Maybe sooner, if they all last past another three years. (My first 35mm SLR lasted almost 20 years before starting to malfunction, and then only needed the winder professionally cleaned.) I figure by that time prosumer level digital cameras will be better than 35mm for the same price or lower.
Currently, however, film still holds reign over digital in two areas. The first is image quality for price. Only one high-quality digital camera body for under $1000 matches the practical resolution for 35mm, producing images of up to 14 megapixels with excellent color fidelity.
The second is exposure latitude. Y'see, when you push or pull process film you're making available information which is already there, just not recorded properly. This actually brings out more information than you get with standard processing, if the film is over- or under-exposed. With digital, if there's too much or too little light fiddling with contrast and brightness doesn't produce any more information; it just makes what was actually recorded more visible.
And don't get me started on glass dry plates. Even the best drum scanners need considerable optical help (that is, additional magnification) to find the grain in those. ;-)
I do plan to buy a digital SLR (single-lens reflex, for those out of the know) camera body when the next 35mm body of mine dies. Maybe sooner, if they all last past another three years. (My first 35mm SLR lasted almost 20 years before starting to malfunction, and then only needed the winder professionally cleaned.) I figure by that time prosumer level digital cameras will be better than 35mm for the same price or lower.
Currently, however, film still holds reign over digital in two areas. The first is image quality for price. Only one high-quality digital camera body for under $1000 matches the practical resolution for 35mm, producing images of up to 14 megapixels with excellent color fidelity.
The second is exposure latitude. Y'see, when you push or pull process film you're making available information which is already there, just not recorded properly. This actually brings out more information than you get with standard processing, if the film is over- or under-exposed. With digital, if there's too much or too little light fiddling with contrast and brightness doesn't produce any more information; it just makes what was actually recorded more visible.
And don't get me started on glass dry plates. Even the best drum scanners need considerable optical help (that is, additional magnification) to find the grain in those. ;-)
