|
Four pros, all deeply into digital, held their glasses high at my dinner table. A toast was proposed. “Here's to film,” suggested one. “I'll drink to that,” said another. All grinned and clinked glasses.
Digital heresy? Sounds like it. Pro photography today often requires digital capability from capture to closure, from memory card to computer to output, in any of a dozen formats. Electronic images shoot to art directors for layout, are passed to webmasters to be posted on the Internet, or are sent to prepress and on to printers for reproduction in newspapers or magazines. Along the way, a proof may be printed to see if an image is out of whack in color, sharpness, or cropping. It's a smooth, seamless, and swift continuity, and anything that holds up the works, such as scanning prints or negatives, creates aggravation—and costs time and maybe money.
A National Geographic photographer in the Gobi desert needs to do no more after a day's shooting than pick up a satellite phone and transmit all images to the magazine, where digital experts make corrections. You can't do that with film.
But you're not in the Gobi desert, are you? No fire-breathing editor is demanding immediate gratification. And there are many pro photographers who still feel that, lightning speed be damned, there are times when film will do what digital can't, and that results are more important than convenience. Although many digital enthusiasts will insist it just ain't so, digital doesn't always equal what's available in print film.
Wedding photographers still often use film for formal shots (e.g., portraits of bride and groom together), where film latitude is needed to show the highlight detail in white wedding dresses and deliver detail in black suits. Many portrait photographers feel that film provides a more pleasant and accurate tonal range. Artists like John Sexton use film and chemical darkrooms exclusively for their magnificent black-and-white scenics.
I don't think digital cameras and digital darkrooms can equal these prints. Comments one devotee of film, “When I'm using all my darkroom controls with a negative to create the final image I had in my head, I think I'm an artist. With Photoshop, I feel I'm a mechanic.”
Which is better from a technical standpoint, film or digital? Maybe they're equal. Henry Posner, director of corporate communications for B&H Photo-Video, is an astute observer of the controversy: “Too many photographers don't understand that shooting digital is like using slide film—no latitude. But Photoshop is magic in the right hands.” He adds, “I don't want folks concluding that I think Photoshop fixes all manner of in-camera sloppiness. It does not. In-camera operation must be more precise than ever. Photoshop is a boon, except to tyros.”
Many photographers have concluded that digital capture has about the same exposure latitude as slide film. Print film's additional latitude also provides a greater brightness range in capture. While few take the time to do it, I highly recommend that DSLR owners, new ones in particular, run some practical comparison-shooting tests between 35mm or medium-format print film and their DSLR. Play fair. If you use enhanced color film, set your DSLR to a high saturation setting. Select scenes with great brightness ranges and portraits of people with delicate skin tones. Use several different subjects. One comparison doth not an absolute certainty make. Have prints processed by a second lab as a control.
(A) SLOPPY BUT NICE: Bad reflections, messy floor and background, dull colors, insufficient cropping from 35mm neg. (B) PHOTOSHOP TO THE RESCUE: Tighter cropping, brighter colors, lamp reflection and messy background eliminated, thanks to Adobe Photoshop.
|
