Technobuddy

By Bill

April 2, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

I am probably one of those creatures described as a serious amateur in photography and I differ with your take that film is dead. I have a Nikon F5, an N70 and an old 2000 that I use for Infrared as Infrared is squirly with meters. I love messing with b&w and infrared and digital cannout compete. As far as color, yes a new D-SLR can match my film cameras but I am not convinced with all their bells and whistles they will ever take a better picture. I have several of mine blown up to 20x30 and many at 8x10 and clarity can’t be criticised. I get a disc when my film is processed so I can send pictures to my kids or friends. I am not good at altering pictures as I like to think I got them right the first time.
So, exactly why is film dead? Can you explain to me what I can do with a Nikon D 100 that I can’t with what I have now? I am consdering the purchase but so far, it seems like something I need to do to get into the digital game rather than something I need to do to produce any better pictures.

By Bill

April 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Hi Bill, this is Bill. I still shoot for pay a few times a year but once did make a living at photography. And I never thought I would move to digital. In fact, even cameras with auto-focus lenses seemed bizarre to me. So I am surprised at my move to digital. But I’ve been pleased too.

My last professional camera was two generations behind your F5 - a terrific camera. I have an F3 (I still do … I couldn’t part with it, sturdy as a tank - you could pound in fence posts with it and then still shoot 6 rolls). I also have an original F and a couple of FM2 - completely manual film cameras. I’ll keep them but I don’t really use them very often. Digital just works out better for me.

If I’m shooting something at ISO 100 and find I need 400, then I just change the setting on the camera and move on. And, with film, you might want to use one film emulsion for a portrait and another for a landscape. With digital, I can take care of that in the camera and in PhotoShop - same deal with black and white.

There is nothing in the world wrong with film. And - when I said film is dead, that’s an overstatement. But not a big one.

There will always be a few people who shoot with film. The guys with the big sheet film cameras won’t find an easy digital replacement for instance. And there will be people - including some fine photographers - who don’t want to leave film because they love it. Nothing wrong with that.

But for most of us - amateurs, advanced amateurs and professionals alike - digital has come of age. The quality is there or the National Geographic wouldn’t be using it. Many of the stock photo agencies only accept digital these days - whether it’s a scanned image from film or a digital original.

I too can make huge enlargements with images from my digital camera. I can do black & white with quality that surprises me in a good way.

All that’s great for people like you who are serious about photography. And that’s a group of people who will shoot just fine with film or digital. Put any camera in the hands of someone who is good and it’ll do just fine.

It’s just that digital can match the quality of film now and is a heck of a lot more convenient to use as well as less expensive.

The column is aimed at ordinary folks taking pictures of birthdays and vacations. Film really is dead for them.

It’s dead for a lot of professionals too. But they know more than I do and will make decisions based on what they like, what makes artist and economical sense. No matter which way they go, they’ll do fine work. It’s not the camera, it’s the photographer.

So, I don’t really want to try to convince you to switch to digital. Frankly I suspect that if you mess with digital enough (I’d upgrade from the D100 to the D200 though) you may do something I won’t be able to do - you’ll convince yourself.