Sweet Chariot Photography
Is digital better than film?
Well, everybody seems to want digital these days. In the last year or so I don't think I've had a client even ask for film. Here's my quick two cents on the film versus digital debate. First, let's go through the reasons to like digital, in no particular order.
1. Immediate Gratification. You have to love this part. Take a picture and know immediately whether you like it or not. Even better, walk out after a session with a CD and all your pictures. No trips back to the photographer to pick up proofs, no loops to deal with, no 4x6 prints to see how they look. All good, and even better, no master print, just a digital file that you can email to a printer if necessary.
2. No Limit on Number of Photos. Most photographers who offer digital give you almost unlimited photos within a given period of time. In particular, for those who are nervous or uncomfortable in front of the camera, you can just keep shooting and erase the ones you don't like. I've had clients that weren't comfortable until after the first hour of shooting, and for these clients, digital is a great advantage. With film, you have to make every shot count.
There is, of course, a caveat. Unlimited photos sounds great, but keep in mind that a photographer that shoots a lot of pictures is not necessarily a strong photographer. I once saw an ad for up to 400 or 500 photos in a two hour session. If you work out the math, that's about four photos a minute. To me, that's basically trial and error photography. I personally prefer a photographer that takes the time to set up a shot properly or works with you to get a specific mood or look.
3. Easy Follow-Up. With digital, you an go home and print it on your computer if you wanted. On top of that, you don't have to go back to the photographer and re-order prints. To be honest, I always thought that this was a bit of a photographer's scam (my policy is to give people negatives, with the only condition that i reserve the right ot make a print and use it for advertising purposes).
Again, there is a caveat. To print a photo properly, you will have to worry about monitor calibration. That is, what you see on your computer screen is not necessarily what you get on a printer, and there's a lot of equipment and specific computer settings that you will need to insure the proper calibration. If you need a master print, it's probably easier just to spend the money and leave it to a professional.
Now we get to the issues of digital. Some of these are a big deal, some are not.
1. Digital Picks Up More Detail. Unfortunately, digital picks up a lot of detail. That means pores, crows feet, wrinkles, zits and scars will all show up, especially on a close up. If you compare a film photo vs. a digital one, you will find that film "interprets" a picture and often softens the look.
2. Digital Often Requires Photoshop. Because digital pick up so much detail, digital photos often require retouching in photoshop. Film labs also do some work, and with digital, photoshop is needed to do the work that a lab would do. Thus, most digital pictures require some retouching. Most people don't calculate the cost of retouching when they make their decisions.
Now, you can do some amazing things in photoshop, but in my opinion, it can go either way. You can greatly enhance a picture, but sometimes, the picture starts to look unreal. For me, this often gives me less faith in the photo because I know it's been retouched.
3. Digital Is Often More Expensive. Most people think shooting digital is like shooting with their home camera, and they're surprised to find that digital rates are often higher. The reason is, when you add the retouching in photoshop and printing, there's a lot more equipment, knowledge and expertise involved. With film, a photographer can buy a $300 SLR, add a lens, and be ready to go. With digital, the bottom of the line camera and lens runs $1,500, plus a computer, photoshop, photoshop classes, printer, and monitor calibration equipment. When you go digital, it's good to find a photographer that knows what he or she is doing.
Which do I prefer, and which do I recommend? Well, it depends. For purely artistic purposes, I like film better. It's just able to do a lot of things that digital can't, and it forces you to be a great photographer, because you don't want to fix it later in photoshop (although you still can, because you can scan the photo and retouch it). It's like film-making, you know you're in trouble when someone says, "We'll fix it in post."
For most headshot situations, digital is very workable, but retouching is often necessary and recommended. With my film shoots, I've never done any retouching. With digital, you almost always do.
So, that's the skinny. Both can work, depending on what the situation is. Up to you, the client.
travel | weddings | proof sheets