| |
 |
| Photo by George Ponder |
| Working for newspapers, I shot primarily black-and-white film. This made me look more at the framing, composition and depth of the images. I have always liked this picture, which was taken at the Talladega 500. A friend and fellow photographer was making his way to another vantage point when a group of cars screamed past. |
It was at times a challenge to apply the skills I had developed with film to the digital format. After using an optical viewfinder for so long, the EVF viewfinders took some time to get used to. It was also a challenge trying to adapt my darkroom skills to the processing software. In many ways, I was back where I was when I went from the 110 to the K1000.
Over the years my film camera gear began to shrink as my digital cameras improved. I went from the 2.1MP Olympus to the 5MP Minolta DiMAGE 7 with a few point-and-shoots in between. Eventually, I missed the versatility of an SLR camera and left the “all-in-one” digital cameras for a DSLR. Any reservations on digital photography not being able to compete with film have diminished.
I won't say that one format is better than the other, but rather an issue of personal preference. Film and digital formats are both very capable of producing quality images. There are aspects of film that I do miss at times. I liked printing pictures in a darkroom better than waiting on the printer. But then, I like the speed of getting a digital image printed.
Digital has allowed me to shoot more color pictures. Asides from color slides, I never learned to process color prints, and relied on the Kodak booth to print any color film I shot. Digital made it easier to apply the composition skills I learned shooting B&W to color photography.
It's a toss up comparing digital and film processing. I miss the solitude of the darkroom, but I like the “what you see is what you get” ease of digital software. I don't miss the fixer stains on my jeans, nor do I like the headaches that develop from looking at a monitor for hours at a time. I like the ease of sharing pictures over the internet better than hoping my pictures sent in the mail arrived undamaged.
I think I like the storage of digital images better than film negatives. However, I never accidentally deleted a film negative. The Clone tool takes care of dust and other imperfections a lot better than nose grease or fountain ink. The mouse can be more accurate than the circular piece of cardboard taped to a coat hanger in dodging/burning pictures.
I've never won any awards for my pictures, and I've never been world-renowned, but photography has provided me with some priceless memories over the years.I avidly shoot whenever an opportunity arises, and I seek to improve my skills with the camera and image processing. And I think that's the bottom line, regardless of which format you choose.
I like Ken Rockwell's quote, “ No matter how advanced your camera, you still need to be responsible for getting it to the right place at the right time and pointing it in the right direction to get the photo you want. ” I'd addthat it doesn't matter if you use film or digital formats. Digital photography has made it easier for people to take and share photographs, but it remains the photographer's responsibility to capture quality images. Just as with film cameras, digital cameras won't help you choose the right composition, angle of view, depth of field and other aspects of framing the right shot. These remain the responsibilities of the photographer.
Film or digital, SLR/DSLR or point & shoot, self-processed or One-hour processed; regardless of your choices in photography, if you own a camera, take pictures. Work to take better pictures. Even if you never get a single print published, that shoe box or photo album of your work is a history of who you are, where you've been, and the world around you that can be shared with your children and passed on from one generation to another. If you take pictures and have children, when they are old enough get them a camera. Who knows where it may take them.
|
