…”so, you shoot digital?”

It’s the question which pops up time and time again, and what’s interesting is that there are still people in the photographic industry who consider it a pale shadow of film in terms of quality. Shooting film has, ironically, almost now become a marketing thing. There are big names in the commercial world of advertising photography who make it a point to poo-poo digital and suggest it’s inferior, but it’s such a broad claim it renders the observation slightly irrelevant. For what they might be shooting on that particular job, film may well be the way to go, but in a general sense digital makes far more sense. Here are the main reasons why…

Live feedback : The ability to view an image instantly can transform your approach. In marginal situations for light you would often play it safe with film, go with what you know works. But with a digital recall of the image just taken, you can adjust right there and then towards your goal. While you learn to take the screen representation of the shot with a pinch of salt, it’s an accurate rendition of composition and at the very least a basic idea if things are working. Subsequently you leave a job with confidence, knowing pretty much what you have as a basis for your post production. This facility existed with polaroids, but by comparison it was cumbersome having to change backs, etc.. In the studio it’s common place now for the camera to be ‘tethered’ to a computer which in turn uses a screen to display the frames as they are shot. The net result is the client quite literally breathing down your neck as you work, examining each picture in real time.

Latitude : Depending on your area of photography you’ll find digital cameras will go on producing good results when the ambient light is poor enough to have previously given up with film. The quality of a full frame digital SLR file at something like 800 asa still blows me away. For subjects like weddings and editorial reportage you simply wouldn’t get the shots with film which you get with tonal tolerance of digital. There are also simple things like the intrusive sound of a roll of film rewinding, compared to continuos shooting on a single card. Or sudden changes of light which means a simple twist of the ISO setting on a digital body, as opposed to changing a roll (which you may just have loaded!) in the old days. All these advantages mean your mind is far more on the actual job in hand. 

Editing/filing : This is the area where digital has the slimmest advantage. I used to love spreading out transparencies onto a large lightbox to make a selection, the photographs were actual things you could pick up and feel. By comparison digital feels a little more remote at this stage of a job. Lately, software like Apple’s Aperture, and Adobe’s Lightroom have gone some way to bridging the gap, but I miss the lightbox. That said, a large display screen enables you to make picks and examine your files quickly in detail, so digital is making up ground. 

Filing is one of the great drags of photography, something you leave to others if you’re lucky enough. Digital and film are neck and neck here in my opinion. Be it cliping off dodgy frames from the film strips, or dragging unwanted files to the ‘trash’, both are dull as hell. Pulling a contact sheet out of a cabinet is also the same as calling up a bunch of thumbnails on a hard drive – so let’s call that a draw.

Presentation/turnaround : No comparison, digital makes film look prehistoric. It’s now possible for initial shots and selection ideas to be sent mid-job via ftp or email, final high res files can be viewed via password protected sections of a website, it just goes on. With film it was a case awaiting the courier, or sometimes driving them to the client – even then they still had to be scanned. 

Preservation : As with the previous sub section on presentation, the long term safety of your work is better served by the digital medium. There are few things more frustrating than a scratched (or God forbid, lost!) original. There’s almost no way back from that problem. With digital you make copies, all the exact equivalent of the file(s) in question. Personally, I keep three copies of everything spread across external hard drives and DVDs as this allows margin for error with data corruption or loss. After all, these are your assets as a professional, the foundation of everything you do, so why wouldn’t you be a little paranoid and keep several copies?

Running costs : This is explained in a simple, specific example. You shoot 10 rolls of 35mm slide film – the per roll cost was probably about £5-6, then you pay another £3-4 to process it. Shooting those 10 rolls have then probably cost you almost £100. Do this many times and you’re spending a lot of money. Alternatively, you can now purchase a 4GB compact flash card for about £30, and if you look after it it will last ages. Over a longer period this will transform how you shoot, because there’s nothing worse than trying to be sparing with frames when you’re learning, or just enjoying yourself. 

In both 35mm and medium format terms the high end digital cameras are more expensive than film versions, but in the mid-range the modern digital body is comparable with the professional film cameras of a few years ago. However, this will solve itself long-term because in the not too distant future companies like Canon and Nikon will stop production of film cameras, and they will then only be found in the realm of collectors.

Lastly on cost, it’s often put to me that as a professional I’m somehow willing to fork out huge amounts on equipment because it’s my living. I can see why people think that because you need the right tools for the job. But really the reverse is true. I’m more concerned with what I spend because it’s my living. My experience is that new cameras, lenses, computer hardware and software need to be justified far more than by a serious amateur who has income from another source to support a hobby. I know people who have spent thousands on lenses because of an article they read, and they are devastated when results don’t look professional. If I picked up Tiger Woods’ clubs, I wouldn’t score any better than I can now… it’s what you do with the gear, not the gear itself. 

_____________

This is all really just scratching the surface. Purists detest digital, they feel it cheapens photography. Magazines have come around to it slowly, and of course newspapers couldn’t operate with anything else. So it really is down to what works for you and how much you want to spend short/long term. But one thing’s for sure, film or digital, a client will always wait until about 5.45pm on a Friday to tell you something is needed quickly!