Photographers have always been prone to debate.
Ever since I got back into photography as a hobby, I`ve been genuinely surprised at the frequency and ferocity of film-versus-digital debates. I`m not sure why they get so heated, or why they even happen at all. I`d like to blame the polarization that afflicts our society – us-vs-them, all-or-nothing (and if that`s the case, maybe Perry Farrell is right and it`s time to bring in the Martians) – but I`ve been around enough to know that photographers have always been prone to debate, be it T-Max vs. Tri-X, color vs. monochrome, or Nikkor vs. Rokkor.
So, as someone who shoots both mediums, with a slight preference for film, I`d like to settle this debate once and for all. Digital is better.
I mean, of course digital is better. Digital is the logical progression of everything the photography industry has been working towards since Nic&eaigu;phore Ni&eaigu;pce discovered light-sensitive asphalt. From wet plates to roll film to Kodachrome to Instamatics to Ektar to the megapixel sensor, the goal of the industry has always been to narrow the gap between a photographer`s skill level and the quality and speed of the results they can achieve. To that end, digital is one of the industry`s greatest triumphs, even if it did prove fatal (or at least injurious) to industry giants like Kodak and Polaroid.
The goal of the industry has always been to narrow the gap between a photographer`s skill level and the quality and speed of the results achieved
Today, a snapshooter can whip out their phone and get an image that pops like slide film, without manipulating controls, and share it in an instant. Likewise, long gone are the days when professional photographers had to worry about a photo lab screw-up costing them a job. And we hobbyists and artists can produce images that, from a technical standpoint, rival those from master film photographers of decades past. And we can process those images in minutes, not ...
|
