Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Digital vs. Film

I think I can safely say that, by now, late 2010, for almost all intents and purposes, film is dead.  At the enlargement sizes that 99% of the population is using, and for the subjects that 99% of the population is shooting, digital is now indistinguishable in detail and resolution to film, and has absolutely blown it away as far as convenience and usability is concerned.


Film is a pain in the ass.  It always has been but when there were no other choices we took what we could get.  But film doesn't give you the option to see what your shots look like NOW, doesn't give you any feedback as to whether your exposure is set properly, doesn't let you confirm that focus is correct, nothing.  I don't recommend "chimping" (looking at every single shot right after you shoot it), and in fact I recommend keeping any automatic preview setting turned off (so as to save on battery power), but the ability to peek at shots when you want to, instead of waiting days or even weeks for lab turnaround is a powerful ability indeed.

So, unless you're a crazy person, blowing stuff up to billboard size and still demanding detail from three feet away, digital is king.


  1. interesting blog. sad to see film as dead, i loved my APS camera back in the day, but that type of film died before traditional film. :(

  2. I have a few film cameras at home xD my mother uses them because she thinks she is not smart enough to use digital photography xD

  3. Yeah, APS was kind of a misstep by Kodak and the like...

  4. This is something I've only recently had to admit to myself. I've been in photography for over a decade and was as much of a traditionalist as I could be. I fought against the ease of digital at first, mocking it even. But now, for the reasons you listed, I'm primarily on digital. I'll still take out some of my older cameras and cheerfully load in some film, though :)