I'm currently just finishing up a introductory photo course in which one of the students has a 35mm SLR and last class said she felt she was holding the rest of us back and didn't feel as advanced as the rest of us. I assured her about my thoughts between digital and film as in the above paragraph. That has led me to write up this blog post on my thoughts on digital and film.
I started in the SLR world using my wife's Pentax Spotmatic II. It's a fully manual camera with very basic center weighted metering circuitry. When I got the focus spot on and the exposure just right the pictures would come out looking phenomenal. Unfortunately I had a tendency to waste film and therefore waste money in processing and buying more film. With that I decided that a digital SLR was the way to go for me at this time. I've since clicked off 4000 plus shots on the dSLR, which would have been cost prohibitive and time consuming on the Spotmatic.
However, I find that film is more pure than digital. Not only that, but the longevity of digital is questionable as all media the files are stored on are not permanent and can fail - baring printing. Not that film negatives are permanent, but they do have a longer life than most computer media. I easily see myself stepping back into film when I'm confident in my photo taking and composition abilities.
Each photographer will have their own feeling on the subject and I'm not slamming on choice over the other as I do use both. Many pros have moved to digital but I would say the majority of them will still shoot in film if given the chance.
Of course, each blog post wouldn't be finished without some pictures. I'll post two. One is film and the other digital. You decide which is "better."
No comments:
Post a Comment