Digital cameras are great -- the technology they are built upon is remarkable, underpinned by remarkably sophisticated designs. Not only that, but the pictures they acquire are of such astonishing quality that they make anything that went before pale in comparison. So why then do digital cameras have such (relatively) short lifespans compared to film cameras?
The Leica M10 Monochrom is a $9,000 digital camera dedicated to black-and-white photography, but how does it compare to a $10 roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 black-and-white film? That's what the folks at Camera West TV decided to find out.
Over 8 years ago, we over at On Landscape performed a mammoth “Big Camera Comparison.” We compared medium format and large format film against various digital cameras including the then cutting edge Phase One IQ280, an 80MP CCD sensor which we used on a Linhof Techno, an Alpa, and a Cambo technical camera (we also tested a D800 and a 5D Mark II).
On my last shift at the film lab in Bondi, I picked up one of the last rolls of Fujifilm ACROS film. It seemed poignant -- as my job at the shop was finishing, so too was the production of this film stock.
Photographer Usman Dawood of Sonder Creative recently teamed up with film photographer Adam French to put together an intriguing portrait comparison: high-resolution full-frame digital vs 4x5 large format film. They shot both cameras at about the same FF equivalent focal length, and then compared the resulting images side by side for your viewing pleasure.
Photographer Bill Lawson wanted to compare the dynamic range of film and digital photography, so he recently went out and shot 10 stops overexposed and 10 stops underexposed for a 21-stop comparison to see how far you can go before the photo is unusable. He shares the results in the 7-minute video above.
Photographer Irene Rudnyk often receives questions about film photography, including from people who wonder why it's even worth doing when you can slap a VSCO filter onto digital images these days. To answer these questions, Rudnyk made this 6.5-minute video comparing film vs digital through a portrait shoot.
It's an age-old question: why do people shoot on film? Can you tell the difference between film and digital? Is it enough of a difference to warrant the high cost of shooting film? Or is it just a fad? We are here today to hopefully answer some of these and more!
Have you ever heard the argument that digital just doesn’t have the same look as film? Well, let’s put that argument to rest. I have painstakingly made my own Lightroom preset that I believe is 96% the same as my favorite film, Kodak Tri-X 400.
For a recent project, I was tasked with shooting a hot rod. It was exciting from the beginning, because this particular kind of car is pretty rare here where I live. The owner also requested that their dog sit on the car's fender, and for the photos to be huge -- 100 megapixels were too few.
I’ve shot digital for as long as I can remember, but for a number of years I have been considering delving into film for my street photography work. Every time I became adamant about pursuing it, I talked myself out of it.
"What are you going to do with your negatives? How will you print? It’s so expensive! Your hit rate on digital isn’t that great...you have more control with RAW anyway...It will be waste of money"
You will be hard pressed to find a reasonable working photographer today, who won't admit that film still has a place in photography and really offers some unique characteristics, even if they choose to not use it. But often photographers who love shooting digital and don't want to deal with film attempt to write off and make excuses for why they can't shoot film. I'd like to offer a rebuttal to such excuses, inspired by a recent thoughtful PetaPixel post.
I love film. I purely, madly, and deeply love film. I learned on film, I shot my first wedding with film, traveled around Europe with a film camera, and have taken Polaroids on road trips, adventures and portrait sessions. I have boxes of beautiful little Polaroids that I treasure more than anything I’ve ever taken with a digital camera. Film is a wonderful, brilliant medium for taking photographs with real soul.
I wish I hadn’t, but the other day I stumbled across an essay on PetaPixel entitled 12 Reasons Photographers Still Choose to Shoot Film over Digital. Bravely, the writer had polled his associates who shoot film and culled their responses down to a dandy dozen. I shook my head sadly, because I’d heard them all many times before.
But the worst part came next. I scrolled down to the comments section. I tried mightily to avert my eyes, but I couldn’t, and the lurid spectacle of grown men and women (but mostly men) verbally beating the living daylights out of each other while thousands cheered them on from the cheap seats proved too much for me.
You probably know that, like computers, digital cameras depreciate pretty rapidly — especially when a replacement model is announced …