Digital vs. Film - H
I love film, and people have asked if I'm going to make the switch to digital. Good question! I've been wondering that myself b/c I've been wondering whether to invest in more film related equipment. My answer is that I may eventually try to become well-versed in both film and digital formats and printing techniques, but I'm not going to give up film.
My photo instructor made a good point about the whole digital vs. film argument, and it was that you can't really compare the two media b/c the effects you get from each are so different...especially to the discerning eye. Not that I know much about painting, but it would be like comparing a watercolor painting to an oil painting of the same scene and trying to determine which one is better. Neither is better per se. It's a matter of preference and the effect you wanted. So, some of the things that cause a digital print to differ from a film print is the lack of grain. If that's what you're going for that's great, but grain can add an element to a photo contributing to the final product, and of course at other times it's not appropriate. Another is the color or the shades of gray when dealing with black and white. When printing from a negative, you can get different shades of grey based on the kind of paper you use and even by using other chemical treatments. (I think my prof said that b&w paper can render some 256 shades of grey.) Some that are warmer toned, others that are cooler (bluer) in tone, etc. With digital prints, it depends on the capacity of the printer and the tones that the ink allows. Again, this isn't necessarily better or worse, just different. It gives you a different product.
Someone in my class was talking about someone who shoots in film and scans her negatives to put them on CD. (I'm not sure the exact context. It may be that she works as a photographer and her clients only want to see her work on CD...something like that.) So, many don't quite understand why she goes through all the trouble. Why not just shoot digital?! Well, b/c the image would not quite be the same. The way film captures light and renders an image is not quite the same as the way the computer chip does it. The information projected onto a sheet of photographic paper is not quite the same as the information projected onto the computer screen. It's a function of the equipment, and again not better or worse. Just different.
So, I asked my prof. if he thinks that film photography will eventually become obsolete, and he doesn't think so. It will probably become more and more difficult to find some materials, but because processing and printing with film is just different from digital, it won't completely disappear. That's comforting. My guess is that mostly fine-art artists will use film photography and darkroom printing techniques in the future. There will be a sort of nostalgia tied to it, and they will be considered skilled artisans of their trade.
Digital is great b/c it's so convenient in so many ways. No messy chemicals to deal with. No fumbling in the dark with film. Less waste and immediate feedback. I think, though, when it comes to making art, the outcome is the larger consideration, n'est-ce pas?
My photo instructor made a good point about the whole digital vs. film argument, and it was that you can't really compare the two media b/c the effects you get from each are so different...especially to the discerning eye. Not that I know much about painting, but it would be like comparing a watercolor painting to an oil painting of the same scene and trying to determine which one is better. Neither is better per se. It's a matter of preference and the effect you wanted. So, some of the things that cause a digital print to differ from a film print is the lack of grain. If that's what you're going for that's great, but grain can add an element to a photo contributing to the final product, and of course at other times it's not appropriate. Another is the color or the shades of gray when dealing with black and white. When printing from a negative, you can get different shades of grey based on the kind of paper you use and even by using other chemical treatments. (I think my prof said that b&w paper can render some 256 shades of grey.) Some that are warmer toned, others that are cooler (bluer) in tone, etc. With digital prints, it depends on the capacity of the printer and the tones that the ink allows. Again, this isn't necessarily better or worse, just different. It gives you a different product.
Someone in my class was talking about someone who shoots in film and scans her negatives to put them on CD. (I'm not sure the exact context. It may be that she works as a photographer and her clients only want to see her work on CD...something like that.) So, many don't quite understand why she goes through all the trouble. Why not just shoot digital?! Well, b/c the image would not quite be the same. The way film captures light and renders an image is not quite the same as the way the computer chip does it. The information projected onto a sheet of photographic paper is not quite the same as the information projected onto the computer screen. It's a function of the equipment, and again not better or worse. Just different.
So, I asked my prof. if he thinks that film photography will eventually become obsolete, and he doesn't think so. It will probably become more and more difficult to find some materials, but because processing and printing with film is just different from digital, it won't completely disappear. That's comforting. My guess is that mostly fine-art artists will use film photography and darkroom printing techniques in the future. There will be a sort of nostalgia tied to it, and they will be considered skilled artisans of their trade.
Digital is great b/c it's so convenient in so many ways. No messy chemicals to deal with. No fumbling in the dark with film. Less waste and immediate feedback. I think, though, when it comes to making art, the outcome is the larger consideration, n'est-ce pas?
posted by haed at 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home