Digital Vs. Film

[Greg Crawford]

Having done commercial still photography,
people and products, I understand that a lot of commercial photographers would embraces the digital realm.

First off speed is always a factor, secondly the fact you can deliver a file to an art director without any waiting. And they can approve the results on the spot. Thirdly most photographs for print require a very low contrast shooting solution. 2 stops or maybe three stop range. digital can certainly do that .... The high end large format camera working with a digital back and computer can work wonders.

But it does not stop the fact that there are shots you can not get with digital equipment. Long exposures come to mind. I'm not sure if the top end digital equipment will allow you to shoot multiple exposures on the same file. Or would you need a computer work around, like layers in Photoshop. But there are places where digital can not rival film, in films ability to be manipulated chemically.

Yesterday I was looking on line, at a products that would give you the feel of the sloppy Polaroid boards from a transfer print. In my op pinion it was a nice try but not even close. I have yet to see grain done on a computer to my satisfaction. Or the subtile color and gray scale offered by a fine dark room made print or large format transparency.

In one of the Digital Still magazines there is a large add running for Minolta, I think, or maybe Pentex ... pushing their Top end 35 digital SLR. The photo has that Hi Contrast color look that's in all the rage these days.... Very Nice! But it's not the only look, and this style screams todays digital imaging. If that's all you won't fine.

In the final annalist it will be the corporate world pushing us all in to digital filmmaking and still photography. Primarily for it's time and money savings. And the PR people and advertising departments keeping up the hype...for DIGITAL IMAGING. Trying to convene us it's as good or even better. But if your not visually "Tone Def" you know it's not even close. all they need to do is convene two generations and they're home free......then don't worry about R & D to further refine digital imaging into true quality obtainable by film.

[Alex]

I recently witnessed a photo shoot for a DVD/Video Box Cover and the photographer was using a digital camera that had a pretty fast reset time of under two seconds.

It made him happy.

There have been strides made in the field of Digital long-time exposures in the field of Astronomy. Astronomers now use digital time-lapse to get amazing photos of our galaxy and beyond. Apparently film can't handle hours of time-exposure the way these specially made digital cameras can.

But back on earth, NOTHING beats Super-8 Cameras for time-exposure. The biggest mistake being made by Kodak is that they are losing the public perception war.

When the HD people say that 50% or 60% of all shows are now Broadcast in HD, the majority, and I mean the vast majority of people assume that means the show was shot in HD when it probably was shot on film and transferred to HD for Broadcast.

Kodak would be wise to have all Television shows that use their product properly credit them at the front of the show, in the same manner the HD folk do.

[Alex]

The Final Film of the last night's Attack of the Fifty Foot Reels featured a take-off on Digital vs Film and incorporated Russian Cinema & Editing techniques from the 20's to do it.

An amazing film made even more amazing when one considers it was done as an in camera edit film.