There has been a long-lasting debate over digital photography vs. analogue and where photographers all over the world are arguing each side. After reading an interview by James Weston discussing Ricky Adam's new book; 'Destroying Everything' points were raised on the role of post-production. See full interview here [1]. There are various factors to consider in this debate such as photographers shooting style, image quality, cost & efficiency, accessibility, manipulation capabilities, archiving, credibility, processing effects etc. which photographers take into account when shooting an image. Thus there are pros and cons of each.
Many photographers use film for its nostalgic quality however increasingly the younger generation are picking up this traditional mode and embracing the processes involved. Many regard film as being outdated though it is one of the first things one learns on a Photography course: the darkroom. Ricky Adam states 'You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film. For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting' For this reason we (photography students) are taught the importance of composition which someone doesn't seem as important in digital photography where we have the luxury of shooting many images stored on a small memory card. Especially when I was shooting on medium format film I had the added pressure of getting the 'right' shot in 10 frames meaning I carefully thought of how I created my images. Though the downfall of this is that it is difficult to experiment with ideas and adjusting lighting when you cannot see the image instantly (except Polaroid style cameras) whilst on a budget (film is expensive to buy as it isn't as in demand).
Though the digital camera is superior for image quality with incredibly advanced technology such as the Hasselblad's 200-megapixel camera [2] many pro photographers, especially in the commercial market opt for digital. The ease of transferring and uploading files quickly through the internet and having the ability to manipulate the images is favourable especially in a 'perfection' obsessed society. The 'flaws' such as grain noise, colour leaks usually found in film do not fit with non-blemished image of today.
Despite this I am firm user in Photoshop and admittedly have airbrushed and retouched both digital and scanned film images in what I believe is enhancing the image. Below are 2 photographs, one before post-production, the other after. The original image is a 120mm colour negative that I scanned in. I believe that without digital advancements and availability I would not be able to produce an image I was satisfied with.
(From my Hollie Beauty Shoot, 22/02/12, using a Mamiya RB67)
In some aspects images are a portrayal of something/someone and never the true likeness; how can one capture the 'truth' in a photograph when it is only two dimensional? Therefore digital photo-manipulation does not devalue the photograph but is a means to reach the photographer's intentions for the image. Film photography does not possess the technical capabilities unlike digital photography. It all really depends on what the photographer wants to achieve and the necessary means, either digital or film, to reach that. The question is not which is better as I believe they are equally powerful mediums in their own right.
References:
1. DigBMX.com - Ricky Adam: Destroying Everything http://digbmx.mpora.com/photo-ops/ricky-adam-destroying-everything/ [Accessed 16/05/12]
2. Hassleblad 200 mpx camera: $45,000 http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20066021-264.html [Accessed 16/05/12]
Useful Links:
Wikipedia - Digital versus film photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
Kenrockwell.com - Film vs. Digital http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment