Which Is Better For Photography, Film Or Digital?

More than once, I've encountered folks who are unsure that a digital camera can equal the capabilities of a film camera.  And in some senses, they have a right to be concerned.  But overall, the results are clear - modern profession digital SLR cameras now have a big edge.

So, what's the difference you may ask?

Film SLR Cameras

1. Low light capabilities are determined by film speed - the higher the number, the lower the light they can handle.  Even with professional film, grain goes up considerably as you increase the film speed.  That being said, the actual grain on a film print can be desirable (and digitally duplicated) for some settings and tastes.
2. Your resolution is limited by your film.  The better the film you purchase, the better it's capability to be blown up, but with any 35mm film, enlargements beyond 8x10 will lose their crispness.

Digital Point and Shoot Cameras

These cameras often give digital photography a bad name.  Outside, with good light, the photos look great, but everyone has seen a digital photo where the person is either extremely dark, or glowing.  The color doesn't seem to be great, and anytime you take a night time shot, the background is pitch black.  Here's why you shouldn't do most shoots with this type of camera.

1. Small image sensor.  Unlike your film or digital SLR, the sensors on these cameras are a fraction of the size, enabling a compact camera.  But you lose a lot when you make this compromise.  Add a high megapixel rating, and the problem is compounded.  Simply put, these cameras will have much more noise and less clarity whenever you encounter anything but bright light.
2. No external flash.  Having only a small onboard direct flash makes for photos that are either washed out or too dark - if you have multiple subjects, sometimes you'll get a bit of both. 
3. No interchangeable lenses - having only one fixed lens means usually you have a high aperture (which doesn't allow lots of light in) as well as issues with wide angle and zoom shots.  And as a note, never use digital zoom - turn that feature off.

Digital SLR Cameras

Sigital SLRs have come a long way in the past 15 years.  From being an expensive novelty, to professional mainstream.  Even in the past 6 years (since I started our business), the gains have been noticeable and wonderful.  I started with a 6.0 MP Canon that worked well, but still didn't handle low-light scenarios as well as a nice film SLR.  Today, we shoot with a 21 MP Canon that blows even your high end film cameras out of the water in both resolution and low light capabilities.

1. Bigger image sensor.  Whether you are shooting a 4/3 sensor or a full size sensor with your SLR, it is many times larger than even your best point and shoot cameras.  This allows for a larger spacing between pixel sensors and makes for much better low light capabilities.
2. Better resolution.  I shoot a Canon 5D MkII which shoots 21 MP images - and at that size, I can blow my photos up to poster size without loosing clarity.  Do that with a 35mm negative, and you would have a very soft image. 
3. Interchangeable lenses.  Having this capability, like in the 35mm SLRs is wonderful.  It allows you to have a variety of lenses catered to your exact needs - whether it be low light, long range, or wide angle shots.
4. External flash.  This is one of the biggest components of a good photo.  Having an external flash allows for so much more lighting options - far improved over the point and shoot.

Share this Post

Comments

By bryn, Tue Aug 18 2009, 9:45

Yeah, digital SLRs have come a long way - a very long way...

By aaron4, Wed Oct 07 2009, 14:16

I think that it is quite arguable that you get soft images with 35mm blown up beyond 8x10. It is dependent on film stock, development techniques and printing. I have frequently worked in 16x20 with very good results. In addition I got superior color reproduction with chromes and cibachrome printing, Digital slrs have improved, but I would like to add to the list of quality points on the film side. A variety of film stocks. Each stock has different qualities. This can be reproduced with more work hours in photoshop. True black and white - digital has failed to come up with a high quality black and white solution, let alone the range of papers. Long term location photography - do not have to deal with battery issues, dust is less of a problem since there is no ccd, it is easier to store and protect film than 20+mb files. Hardrive corruption theft and cost all become an issue. Digital cameras work on a premise of planned obsalescence which means the market drives the need to continually upgrade though there is minimal advantage. Especially due to a misunderstanding of the value of megapixels. It is pixel size and ccd size that matters. A 22mp medium format back is far superior to the equivalent small format. Film cameras maintain their viability over significantly longer periods. You can pull film extending its ability to capture high contrast settings. The closest thing to this digital has is shooting multiple frames and adding them together (hdr) Cost-digital medium and large format backs are especially more costly than film. The archiveability - digital dormats change, corrupt and are difficult to organize securely. I have difficulty opening digital files I shot in 98 through '02 because photoshop now says the format is corrupt. Film was easily archived. I love elements of digital like versatility, speed and reproduceability. However, film will stay in my toolbox for some time to come. Of course I wouldn't give up my d300 now any more than my mamiya rb67 or my contax.

Leave a comment

Your Reports Help Protect The MiNeeds Community

The Community depends on each member to help keep MiNeeds Community a safe and positive place.
Please do your part by using the form below:

Article:

Which is better for photography, film or digital?

Author:

nate

Type of Abuse: Spam or Advertising Insulting Others Invasion of Privacy Profanity, Vulgarity, Obscenity Other

Comments:

Submit

Cancel