What is better? Film or Digital?
Before reading this it may be worth looking at the equipment I have owned in the last eight years or so:
Film Kits
Praktica B100, 35-70mm, 70-200mm, 500mm, 2x converter, Hanimex flash Yashica 200AF, 35-70mm, 70-200mm, dedicated flash Canon EOS 10, 35-70mm, 100-300mm, Cobra 700AF flash Canon EOS 50E, 28-80mm, 70-300mm, Cobra 700AF flash Canon EOS 3, 28-80mm, 100-300mm Contax G1, 45mm, 90mm, TLA-140 dedicated flash unit Contax G2, 35-70mm, TLA-200 dedicated flash unit (current kit)
Digital
Ricoh RDC-300 Nikon Coolpix 600 Canon Digital Ixus Canon Powershot G2 Nikon Coolpix 5700 (I currently do not own a digital camera).=20
Well, no debate on photography would be complete without asking the ultimate of all questions: what is better, film or digital?
I feel it is my responsibility to answer this question because I have heard it so many times and I think it is important to address the issue seriously talking from experience of both mediums.
I have been a photographer for less than a decade, yet I have experimented heavily in both the darkroom and on the computer. There have been stages where I have ignored one medium and concentrated heavily on the other; there have also been stages where I have entertained both film and digital at the same time.
The issue is complicated, and those who claim that one is superior to the other are in my opinion wrong. The concern, ultimately, is quality. Digital in its present state suffers from this as most consumer and prosumer digital cameras can only offer something in the region of five to six million pixels which in some scenarios is inhibitive, especially when you need to create high quality and large sized prints.
For the purposes of this debate I will concentrate on two cameras that I have worked very closely and taken many pictures with. One is a digital camera =96 the Canon Powershot G2, the other is a similar sized = autofocus rangefinder film camera =96 the Contax G1 (which I have just sold to upgrade to a Contax G2).
I used the Canon Powershot G2 digital camera for about a year. In my opinion it revolutionised my photography and the way I work. I even consider it the reason for me wishing to undertake photography as a lifetime career. Why? Simply because the images I achieved with this camera were unparalleled to anything I had taken with my many previous digital and film cameras. The camera opened many new horizons to me. I was no longer restricted by film cost and quantity =96 I could simply = take as many pictures as I wanted without having to worry about reloading or processing costs. I felt, however, the most important feature of this camera was the way it allowed me to frame my shots. The Canon utilises a =91swivel and twist=92 display (similar to many camcorders) which basically meant there was never any need for me to raise the camera to my eye. The technique I used was to not even face my subject and use the camera at waist level. 90% of the time the subject was completely oblivious to my presence, let alone aware of the fact they were being photographed. The images I achieved from this technique are self-evident =96 have a look at the ones on this site.
The second most important feature of this camera was quite simply speed. After returning from the =91field=92, all I had to do was hook the = camera up to my computer and within seconds the photographs were in front of me ready for perusal. I would create a directory with the subject title and date and then create a subdirectory called =91best=92, I would then select all the images with potential from that shoot (up to forty percent!). The next step was to open Photoshop with all the best images and immediately adjust brightness/contrast and crop them to the best of their aesthetic ability. I did this for almost a year with around five thousand images. =20
Towards the end the =91buzz=92 I felt at the beginning of shooting = hardcore on digital was beginning to diminish. I felt it was time to reassess.
Presently I am studying Photography at degree level. My first term=92s work was shot entirely on digital using a Nikon Coolpix 5700 (similar to the Canon but with slightly better resolution and much more powerful zoom). I decided for the purposes of developing my photographic practice and work as a whole it was necessary to sell my digital camera.
Initially I decided I would purchase a Canon Powershot G3. After using the Canon G2, the G3 is a very desirable model. However, I have not yet made the purchase; you could say I was distracted.
I thought it would be an idea to purchase a relatively cheap film camera as well as the G3 to get me back involved with film processing and the darkroom. I wasn=92t sure exactly what I was after and how much I = wanted to spend. I even considered going back to my first ever SLR kit (Praktica). I also wondered whether it was worth paying a bit extra to get a decent EOS kit again. To be honest, either of these didn=92t particularly excite me. Something I realise now is that an SLR kit may well be the ultimate photographic tool that can be used for almost every photographic situation, but at the same time it feels big, heavy and clumsy. With my previous Canon Powershot I could take it out with me and not be at all bothered by its presence. With an SLR kit it is a different story. It is as if you have to =91shape=92 your movements and = day around the fact that you=92re lugging around a big camera with probably = a few lenses and the obligatory flashgun. That=92s when I found what I = was looking for.
I remember seeing this camera in the shop window many years ago with a ridiculous pricetag and thinking that it would never be something I would use. The more I read up on it, the more intrigued I was. Eventually I decided to purchase one on ebay with a standard lens for around =A3350 ($500).
The camera was a Contax G1. The lens was a 45mm Carl Zeiss Planar T* f2. If you don=92t know what these are I will explain. The Contax G1 = is a compact sized rangefinder camera. Rangefinder cameras have been used for decades by experienced photographers and photojournalists because of their compact size and reliability. Leica are celebrated worldwide as creating some of the best quality rangefinder cameras in the world combined with the highest quality lenses. Contax has brought this concept into the 21st Century and developed two autofocus rangefinder cameras =96 the G1 and the G2. It has also developed a range of lenses for the system which aim to match or even surpass those made by Leica. I was attracted by the level of control, compactness but ultimately the potential quality of the pictures I could create using Carl Zeiss lenses.
I have always ensured that I have had a wide zoom range in my camera kit, at least 35-200mm. The Contax was set to change all this. I was to become restricted to the =91standard=92 45mm lens.
Returning to film was not a daunting experience, in fact all the things that I had dismissed because of digital now actually appeared quite exciting to me. I was initially worried that I would be unable to achieve the kind of pictures I was getting from my digital camera. I soon realised that what I had learnt from using the Canon had transcended to the style of photography I was undertaking when using the Contax G1.
Although I had lost the advantage of instantly being able to view my pictures, I began to accept this and decided to fully engage myself in the development and printing processes once again.
I was astonished by the quality of the prints I was creating. I could happily print at 16x12=94 and achieve beautiful clarity and punchy = images. The Carl Zeiss lenses really do live up to their name creating stunning negatives that you probably did not even realise were possible with 35mm film.
Aside from the quality, I felt very comfortable with the camera. I could happily take it anywhere with me and even hide it under my jacket if necessary. Also, it does not give the impression that I am a photographer; it is just too small to be taken seriously by most people (that does not dismiss it as a professional tool =96 you have full = control over exposure and everything else that matters).
I owned the Contax G1 for just over two months before deciding to go on to the =91next level=92. I found a Contax G2 millennium black kit at a = very good price complete with 35-70mm Carl Zeiss zoom lens (the only rangefinder zoom lens ever produced!) and dedicated TLA-200 flash unit.
I am still awaiting arrival of the kit, but I have been assured of a more precise autofocus system and better handling than the G1.
I have used many cameras in the past but I think I will find it very difficult to ever sell this one. I feel it will allow me create images deserved of my talent.
But where does this leave digital? I am in a difficult predicament. I am still tempted by the Canon Powershot G3 and will very probably make the purchase if I can afford it, but when compared to the quality demonstrated by my Contax kit it will be hard to take seriously. =20
I have decided to meet halfway. I will purchase a decent quality film scanner that will allow me to easily adjust brightness/contrast and remove unwanted areas of an image as I believe the darkroom is becoming dated. Whilst I enjoy spending time there, when dealing with many photographs it is simply not possible to address everything. Digital gives the advantage of speed and accuracy, something that is not always possible in the darkroom.
Does this make one medium better than the other? No. I have learned to combine the two and if necessary just use one. However, saying that, I wouldn=92t mind a Contax G2 with a digital back that can represent the quality of Carl Zeiss lenses, but I think we are quite a few years of
