bizimage.biz

Before the recent digital photography revolution, which has thoroughly taken off in the last 5 years, film ruled the roost. And while film photography still has its adherents it’s mostly fine art photographers that still use film. In short, digital photography has officially usurped the throne.

That is not to imply that there are no downsides with digital photography. Some say there is a qualitative loss when comparing film to digital. On the other hand, software has become so sophisticated that apparent limitations can be addressed, and some argue, totally dealt with. With CDs, for example, while they can’t match the dynamic range of vinyl, they also don’t succumb to hissing noises.

Many photographers stayed loyal to film waiting for digital to get on par with the excellence of film. Now, all but the dyed-in-the-wool film-lover will admit that for most kinds of work, including contemporary wedding photography and commercial photography, digital has not only arrived, but has gone one better than film.

For a decade digital has had an advantage over film with respect to convenience. With film, first it necessitates developing the film and afterwards if one has to tweak the images in Photoshop you must scan the negatives - a tedious process. With digital you take your shots, upload them immediately and get on with it. That alone is a startling advantage. Some of the best wedding photographers, for instance, upload the ceremony and park pix onto their laptop for all to see during the reception.

One noteworthy negative to digital concerns the ability to shoot an almost unlimited quantity of images. Needless to say, this is positive, especially for candid wedding photography. Unfortunately, it also means that too many digital photographers shoot their images aimlessly.  This unconscious photography requires them to keep shooting so they don’t miss anything – this not only makes them more obtrusive, but funnily enough results in taking a zillion shots, while inexplicably managing to neglect the meaningful moments. As is often the case, less if often more. Those photographers who started with film learned to seek out those ‘moments’ and not shoot willy-nilly like there is a revolver to their head. Of course, they also had to keep in mind that more images led to more film, which led to more processing and greater cost. So, there was a self-limiting mechanism in place, which perhaps spawned a more aware photographer. So, though digital means you can take oodles of shots, the progressive photographers always pick their spots.

At any rate, recent advances in digital camera technology that are rendering film photography purely niche (other than for very narrow uses). Firstly, the image quality is now equal to (though different) film. Secondly, the low-light facility of the new top-end cameras is stunning. The fastest film is 3200 ISO and it is awfully noisy. Only those deliberately wanting this look use high-speed film.  Of course, sometimes they have to use this grainy film, even if they would rather not because they are going to be shooting in a low-light situation without flash or lighting. It’s almost inexplicable how powerful the newest digital cameras are in this regard. Top Nikon and Canon cameras can go as high as 102,000 ISO. Absurd. Now, it’s really grainy at that maximum level, but what it means is that you can have decidedly serviceable images at up to about 12,000 ISO.  This is amazing, particularly for photographers who shoot with existing light and often shoot in low-light. The days of having to sacrifice depth of field or sharpness to achieve proper exposure – or just give up on the picture all together – are over.

When utilized effectively, digital photography represents the new standard. Hail the new king.