Is digital capture easier than film?

I think there is something blurring the discussion here. When I read things like 'digital is just pushing the button', film requires reflection, it looks to me as if digital is done only with P&S cameras and film only with rangenfider, MF, meterless cameras. I mean, digital vs film change some things but the type of camera used (P&S, rangefinder, SRL), irrespective they are film or digital, also matters.

All things equal (=same camera approach, automatisms, etc) I'd say that digital gives: (1) immediate feedback. You can repeat the shoot until you get the right one, hence 'less' missed pictures; (2) faster first result (e.g. an out-of-the-camera jpg) for distribution or printing; (3) far more flexibility in dark room (editing RAWs). So I would say it is faster and more flexible if you want to spend hours editing a RAW. I can not say if it is 'easier', I find the question a bit wrongly posed.

Another falacy is that 'digital is cheaper' because you do not spend in more film rolls. Digital demands an upfront investment in equipment (also computer, screen, storage space, printer) and the equipment looses value from day 1.

Having said that, I use both and I enjoy both, but they are different.

Arturo
 
No trolling, just starting a discussion.

Recording an image on sheet film definitely takes more commitment than on rollfilm. I'm more contemplative when using rollfilm than with 135 film, just a different style of shooting. Isn't deciding when to press the button even easier with digital, since all that's used up is memory space on a card that can be erased and reused? This is what I was trying to get at.
 
FrankS said:
No trolling, just starting a discussion.

Recording an image on sheet film definitely takes more commitment than on rollfilm. I'm more contemplative when using rollfilm than with 135 film, just a different style of shooting. Isn't deciding when to press the button even easier with digital, since all that's used up is memory space on a card that can be erased and reused? This is what I was trying to get at.
Click to expand...

Dear Frank,

No, I don't think so, even with the extreme example of sheet film -- possibly because I used to shoot a lot of 5x4 colour professionally, often after lots of Polaroids. Yes, if cost is a factor, of course there's a difference -- but no more than many other differences such as (for example) being able to chimp or not, or having the option of movements or not.

The actual capture is no more difficult with any camera: pressing the release. The preparation may or may not be more difficult; the after-treatment may or may not be more difficult (again, I'm thinking of the days when we put the exposed 'chromes on the bike to the lab, and they came back on the bike).

Cheers,

Roger
 
The vaugeness of "easier"

The vaugeness of "easier"

The root of the discussion seems to be "easier" and interpreting where that applies and what it means.

Is manipulating a digital image easier than developing black and white film at home. I have no space and two small children. Thus even if I wanted too, it would be impossible for the space reason, and I prefer to have less rather than more poisons in the house. So for me, the ONLY choice is digital is if I want to manipulate an image.

I can get a frame rate of about 6fps SUSTAINED on my Nikon D300, that makes it easier to capture some sporting events. Even with the right tools, that still does not give me SI photos. I get some keepers however.

With my MF Range finder, I have run one roll + several frames of black film, gosh darn lens cap! Never done that with digital, but thats RF vs SLR, not really a digital issue. Does that make digital easier?

No matter what system I use, SLR, MF range finder, 35mm Range finder, the image still comes down to my skills: for me, its choosing the tool for the job, visualizing the image, getting the craft part right ( exposure, speed, film choice sensor setting), and then somehow transforming that into the output medium. No part of that process is inherently easier for me. All have taken study to get me to the point where I can sometimes get images that make me smile.

Dave
 
for me, DIGITAL FASCILITATES EASIER LEARNING.

I'm basically a film shooter (I like the look and mechanical cameras), but I have an Epson R-D1s for (a) taking pictures of my kids so friends and relatives can see recent photos of them, and (b) to experiment and learn with.


For example, I'm very in-experienced in flash photography. So during the dark days and nights of last years Scandanavian winter, I spent some time fooling around with the R-D1 and two flashes (one attached to a 3 meter PC cord, the other slaved). Each flash was on manual with variable output from full power to 1/128th power. In a matter of a few days I learned a lot by using digital and getting quick feedback on my various "experiments". Sure, I could have done it with a film Leica, a flash meter, careful note-taking,etc. but it would have been infinitely more difficult, more expensive, and less fun.

I also agree with previous posters in that for some reason I find it "easier" to get Black & White results I'm happy with with a film camera, and colour with the R-D1s. When I scan colour film I almost always have to struggle to get the colours right, but with the R-D1s on auto white balancing the colours usually come out fine with no or little adjustment.
 
"Another falacy is that 'digital is cheaper' because you do not spend in more film rolls. Digital demands an upfront investment in equipment (also computer, screen, storage space, printer) and the equipment looses value from day 1
Click to expand...

Who says you need a computer?

I can take a single picture, stick the memory card into a printing kiosk at the mall, put a few cents in a slot and have a single print made. Try doing that with film..

Digital is cheaper..
 
In terms of cost I think it comes down to what your expectations are. First most of us have a computer already so using it for post processing isnt an extra cost. As long as you take a fair amount of photos and you dont have a desire to upgrade to latestest and newest digital camera out there then digital is cheaper.
 
One is easier than the other? I don't know. If you do everything yourself, they are just different skill sets. But compared to the real difficulty of seeing, developing an eye, whatever you want to call that part of the process, the technical differences are inconsequential.

That's a bit like asking, "If you are writing a novel, is it easier to use a typewriter, a computer or a pencil?"

Thanks to mhv for the Evans quote. Best post here.

Cheers,
Gary
 
I think digital is easier to get into, to learn with, and to get proficient with to a certain high degree. But because it's so easy to change things, it's hard to nail down the moment when you're truly happy with the result. Keep tweaking, keep changing. Less satisfying in the long run, IMHO.

But the real deal is the hybrid approach, in which chemical and digital process are combined to create something new, now that's real fun.

For example creating a perfectly clean/scratch free digital "negative" and printing it using the enlarger on a good paper, now that's satisfying because you don't have to mess with dust/scratch removal process, and you still experience that magic moment when the picture materialize in front of your eyes :)

.... and no, waiting for the print to come out of an inkjet is *not* as satisfying, I've done it both ways.
 
What do you mean by "easier"?

What is "easy" to one person may be extremely "difficult" to another - horses, courses yadda yadda yadda...

What I personally believe is that digital "wants to" capture as much information as possible where as film tends to the opposite. The best analogy I could use is; using digital, if you're looking for subtlety, is like using shotgun to draw attention to the fact that dinner is served. Using film would be akin to ringing a dinner bell.

By this I mean that when using film, you can, if you understand exposure etc. , get the "feel" that you want correct right from the moment you trip the shutter. The print, will look awfully close to what you envisage. With digital there is likely a lot of post processing to be done before it comes out looking "just so" - and if you're not familiar with Photoshop well.. then you're in big trouble if you're looking for "easy" :D

Dave
 
"Digital is cheaper.."

no digital is not always cheaper, especially when you compare like quality. The example of shooting on shot and making a print is fine... once you spend at least twice the money for a (crappy) digital camera... and once you start comparing FF DSLRs to used film SLRs it gets even more complicated (IE. unless you fire off thousands of photos every month, you never get your money out of them).

Personally, I'm not shooting one or the other out of cheapness... film really, even though the DSLR is sitting on the shelf and for me, at this point, digital would be far cheaper.
 
.... and no, waiting for the print to come out of an inkjet is *not* as satisfying, I've done it both ways.
Click to expand...
With colour printing though, the gap in satisfaction while waiting for the print narrows significantly. Waiting for the inkjet print vs. watching TV at the darkroom rental place while the C-print machine does its stuff, or waiting for the inkjet print vs. rolling the cibachrome tube for 11 minutes or whatever it took.
 
Morris said:
Only your #1, chimping, is a possibility not available to film photographers.
Your other points are equally possible with film or digital.

Myself, I only shoot RAW with the screen turned off.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant that you don't do those things, I wouldn't have assumed you do, but it is very relevant that the tendency to change the way one composes is much more the way I suggest for most digital users than it is for any film user; I think it is related to the convenience and inexpensive aspect of just shooting away. Film tends to make one slow down a bit and deliberate more as a rule....though, I admit, not necessarily; it is just the general tendencies in composing that I have observed with the different mediums.
 
thomasw,
You seem to be speaking for "most digital users".
I can only speak for myself. I compose and frame my photographs in the same manner whether I am using a film camera or a digital camera.

It's funny that you find my method irrelevant, but I won't argue with you.
 
I love film and always will, but driving 8 miles in congestion to Costco for 3200 dpi scans really sucks. A pro lab about 20 miles away, said I could mail in my film for scans. Now I am happy again.
 
people who say digital is "easier" have not spent serious time learning how to properly post process. I don't know a pro that uses digital solely because he can check his exposure on the LCD.

I have respect for both film and digital and while they are both forms of photography the require a completely different set of skills post capture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top