Film Vs. Digital

A look at some of the differences between shooting in Ansel Adams’ era versus today

By Jon Sienkiewicz

Labels: How To, Solutions

This Article Features Photo Zoom

When we examine legendary photographers like Ansel Adams, we realize that, by today’s standards, the equipment they used was more of a handicap than a secret ingredient. Half a century ago, serious photography was performed in black-and-white, with a great deal of patience and deliberateness using a 4x5 (or larger) view camera on a sturdy tripod. Images couldn’t be reviewed until after the film was developed—and then, initially, as negatives. Today, we shoot digital images in millions of colors at 10 frames per second and edit the “keepers” while still at the scene.

The two approaches resist comparison. It’s difficult to derive objective, scientific understanding when we compare film-based, silver-halide photography to digital imaging. The technology someone like Adams used 50-plus years ago when he was exploring Yosemite has little in common with the technology used by a modern professional shooting with a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, a Nikon D3S, an Olympus E-3, a Pentax K-7 or a Sony Alpha 900. In many ways, it’s like comparing painting with a brush and monochrome palette to spray painting with every color in the rainbow. In other words, almost every element is different.

More Variables
During the reign of silver-halide photography, the type of film and how it was processed made all the difference in the world. Even if a scene was predetermined to be shot in black-and-white, there still were many choices to be made—film speed, brand, spectral response, grain structure, format and, in some cases, emulsion batch. Matching the appropriate developer to the film was another huge challenge, and results varied widely depending on the choices made.

But in truth, it didn’t end there; that was just the beginning. Photographers had to decide more variables—the right combination of developing time and developer temperature, for instance. How much agitation? Swishing the film around too much during development could block shadows, cause streaks or blow out highlights. What type of stop bath to arrest the development process? Could the fixer (sodium thiosulfate) dissolve grain size and, if so, how soon should the film be rinsed clean? And keep in mind that nearly the entire process had to be conducted while the film was in absolute darkness. Last but hardly least, film was fragile and could be irreparably damaged by careless handling.

Page 1 of 2

« StartPrev12Next End »

14 Comments

Vlad makes this comment

Monday, 15 February 2010

That article is just plain ridiculus. The author rightfully lists all various techiques available since the dawn of time to all film photographers. What he fail to mention that not single modern most advanced camera has dynamic range of the b/w film from 30-ies of the last century. No modern camera is capable of fully replicating any of Ansel Adams shots. Even with multiexposure and all Photoshop tricks. Which camera can produce clean, not jagged, edge between mountain and sky? Which may mimic the specifics of depth of field of even 2.5x2.5 camera? Digital is still poor's man tool who wants to do photography but basically cannot afford shooting film - or is in too much hurry to shoot film - or too dumb to shoot the film. Too bad Outddor Photography publishes that pointless piece.
Michael makes this comment

Wednesday, 03 March 2010

"It’s a miracle that so many wonderful, masterful prints were created under those circumstances." No, it is not a miracle. It is called craftsmanship. Too bad OP has forgotten why this is so. It is precisely for ignorant attitudes like this that I ditched my subscription to OP. It is a shame to see that things haven't changed. You'll be surprised to know, Jon, that there is still quite an active community that shoots film, and surprising number of people who actually use view cameras. And some of us use that old "miracle" technique that you refer to to make prints. It may no longer be the dominant force in the market, but it has not gone the way of the dodo (in spite of George Lepp's attempts at making that happen.)
amanda makes this comment

Wednesday, 03 March 2010

The interesting implication of this article is that modern photographers have no need to develop skills, because their cameras will do all that for them. I was unaware that people took up photography to avoid learning a craft. Digital photographers come off as lazy, ignorant, and all about shoot-and-spray. Conversely, film shooters must develop a wide range of skills and balance many variables in order to produce a picture. They visualize, think, and craft their images. As a member of that latter group (4x5 thank you) I accept your backhanded compliment to my determination and skill.
John makes this comment

Thursday, 04 March 2010

This is indeed a ridiculous article, I don't even know where to begin. Do you really think that digital photographers that produce fine art are trigger happy, ignorant, and don't require the same level of perception as the film guys ? You seem to imply that somehow those digital photographers with "little or no formal training" shooting almost randomly produce results that can compare to the work of masterpieces made from film. No, those compare to the same lousy photos people can create on film. People don't create art out of convenience, and digital photographers that create fine art didn't pick digital because they could stop thinking or putting effort into their craft.
Giorgio makes this comment

Thursday, 04 March 2010

Yes, I agree tha film is still, and I say STILL, superior to digital, but i have to disagree with the ones who say digital is for lazy or ignorant or poor photographers. Today there's a lot of pressure around pro photographers, I mean... you got an assignement and a deadline, and digital simplify by far photographers' life, so why not to use it? It also depends on what you are going to photograph. for example, shooting landscape, film is better; shooting sport, fashion, events, travels, there's no way, digital rules.
Mark makes this comment

Thursday, 18 March 2010

I was hoping to see a more technical approach to the subject like density of silver halide crystals verses density of pixels, sensitivity of the two mediums, and the like.
Marc of Ottawa makes this comment

Sunday, 11 April 2010

The film vs. digital debate stirs passion, as always. As a "serious photo hobbyist", I started doing photography in the early 80s when film was still the only way to go. I took night courses at my local community college, where I learned about such things as composition, visualization, contrast, shadows, tone,... you know the rest. Fast forward to the year 2010, and I'm back in class, studying photography in the evenings at my local community college, and learnings about such concepts as composition, visualization, contrast, shadows, tone... The digital revolution has not cheapened the craft of photography, though there are certainly more people producing poor quality photos. Those among us who are passionate about the craft still take time to learn and apply the important concepts. For me, the use of digital camera and photo editing software has simply reduced the amount of time I need to spend in the dark!
Nick makes this comment

Monday, 19 April 2010

I don't normally comment on articles like this, but I thought that I just had to mention that I think some of the comments above have entirely mistaken the point of this article. The author is in no way degrading film photography in any way shape or form. Quite the opposite, he is giving it respect for the skill and craft it requires. Digital and Film are two different formats entirely, both have their advantages and drawbacks. Neither is better nor worse, merely different. I think film photographers can come across as snobbish and arrogant at times and I would like to say this: just because you shoot film, does not mean you are a good photographer. Shooting a roll of film and having it developed does not mean you understand the rules of composition and can shoot original and brilliantly crafted work...
Nick makes this comment

Monday, 19 April 2010

...I'm sure Ansel Adams would have tried his hand at digital, had he lived to see it blossom. He would have been open-minded enough to keep in touch with his art and experiment with new media. He was a genius because he constantly experimented with new things and pushed the envelope. I got into photography through digital, I am grateful that the medium allowed me to learn and improve at a reasonable price. I now also shoot film and enjoy it for its own unique reasons. What's wrong with enjoying both? Mastering Photoshop requires just as much skill and hard work as mastering darkroom skills...
Nick makes this comment

Monday, 19 April 2010

...I feel like people are often defensive of the old, and thus aggressive towards the new through fear that the new will surpass the old. Film will never be forgotten or die - it is still a huge part of photography, as is the digital format. I have great respect for all photographers who do their best to create beautiful images in either format. I apologise if my comments seem harsh, that was not my intention. I merely want to highlight that the author of the above article in no way debased film photography, rather, that he illustrated its inherent difficulties and intricacies showing a great amount of respect to the greats who used film and flourished with it.
Philippe makes this comment

Thursday, 22 April 2010

I am not here to defend film nor am I here to defend digital, certainly not. The only thing that, after almost 5 years of practice in (professional-) digital photography, still strikes me is, in order to achieve the same quality standards in digital as I am used to with film (30 years of pro practice), It takes me the double of effort, time, gear and costs. Yes, at the end, film is cheaper and, in CERTAIN situations (not all), is better but slower, far to slow for the major part of my clients… The advantage of digital is entirely to my clients, all of them are publishing the pictures I deliver.
John makes this comment

Friday, 07 May 2010

Vlad, posted comment on Monday, 15 February 2010 is so true. I am getting back to what I call the `Basic`s`. That`s Photography, not point & shoot. Don`t get me wrong the pictures taken today are fantastic. Photography to me is an Art, more than `point & shoot`.
Ed Hardy makes this comment

Thursday, 13 May 2010

In America many people have a romantic idea of life in the countryside.
air max nike makes this comment

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Thankyou for the infomation on high ISOs. I have always been afraid to go to high because of grain or flat color, but now I have more trust and will try to use them when needed