Film or digital? - Who cares?
The debate has long raged in the photography press over which is best,
film or digital. Both camps have staged vociferous defences, and numerous
reasons have been put forward to justify each argument. Digital can't
match the quality of film. Film can't match the flexibility of digital.
Digital is cheaper on running costs. Film doesn't require investment
in expensive gear and a computer. And so on, and so on, and so on...
Both camps are right of course but the thing is, when all said and done,
it really doesn't matter.
When photography first became a reality, way back in 18something or
other, much wailing and gnashing of teeth no doubt occurred over the
impending death of painting as an art form. No one would want to spend
days, or even weeks, slaving over an easel when they could bang off
a picture in seconds with their new fangled camera thingy. Or so the
argument went. Of course painting is alive and well and as respected
and sort after as it ever was. Then someone had the audacity to invent
colour photography! Lord preserve us, this will be the end of black
and white photography! No one will want to waste time with boring old
monochrome when they can have glorious technicolour. Nothing could have
been further from the truth of course, with black and white maintaining
an appeal alongside colour. In some circles monochrome is even the preferred
medium with many equating it with 'fine art' images. If you put your
mind to it you can repeat this debate numerous times. Large format against
medium format. Medium format against 35mm. Auto-focus against manual
focus. I'm sure you can think of others. Fast-forward to today, digital
arrives on the scene and suddenly it's the end of film etc, etc, etc.
Of course there has been shift in the market. Of course sales of film
and film cameras have fallen, as they now have to share a finite market
that previously they had a monopoly of. But all that is a long way from
ringing down the curtain on the future of film.
In my photographic career thus far I have used medium format film in
a Bronica, 35mm film in a Minolta and a Nikon and currently digital,
again in a Nikon. So I think I have experience enough to compare and
comment. Yes I sold all my film gear to fund a switch to digital but
that does not mean I don't want to use film ever again. In my specific
circumstances, as they are right now, digital wins the day. But that
decision was based on purely commercial reasoning. When I have sufficient
spare funds I intend to find myself another Bronica that I can keep
for purely selfish personal photography. I loved that camera. It was
almost completely manual (apart from the metered prism I had attached)
but it was just so enjoyable to use. I really didn't want to let mine
go but harsh economics forced my hand. For many others who don't have
to make such a choice, for whom photography is nothing more than a pleasurable
hobby, along side some well respected landscape professionals who still
use large format cameras complete with black cloth over the head, film
will continue to be their medium of choice. And I whole-heartedly support
their decision.
There has been a worrying undercurrent in some of the pieces I have
read recently, perhaps a symptom of a wider issue within society, that
seems to follow the line of "I'm right, your wrong." or "You're either
with us or against us." This is a rather sad state of affairs and ultimately
futile as at the end of the day the future of film is unlikely to be
decided by the posturing of a handful of individuals, regardless of
in which camp they reside.
I would suggest that the future will be decided by nothing more than
market forces. It is a fact of life that where there is a demand, and
money to be made, someone will supply the product. As long as people
want to use film, then film and film cameras will be produced. The fact
that a small but significant number of people are still more than willing
to part with sizeable chunks of money for a film-using, manual focus,
fixed lens, rangefinder like certain models of Leica for example, when
all singing all dancing digital SLRs are available for half the price
speaks volumes to me, not only of the quality of Leica cameras, but
of the power of supply and demand. If you want another example then
what about Fuji Velvia, the landscape photographers standard slide film?
When it was withdrawn from sale it was heralded as yet another nail
in the coffin of film. But following a significant and collective howl
of protest from consumers it is back on sale. I know that the reason
for it's original withdrawal was actually due to a lack of a certain
raw material, but the fact that Fuji saw fit to invest time and money
in finding an alternative says to me that they are confident in getting
a return on their investment and that means a future for film users.
At the end of the day the digital over film argument is at best pointless
and at worst divisive. It really, and I can't stress this strongly enough,
doesn't matter. If you like film and you want to use it then use it.
If you have a preference for digital, for whatever reason, then feel
free to use digital. If enough people want it then suppliers will make
it. Film may find itself a niche market, as digital asserts its dominance,
but a niche market is a market none the less.
What has always been, and still is, behind all this is the activity
of taking photographs. The end result is really all that matters. When
I look at an image I can honestly say that the question of whether it
was captured on film or digital is a very long way down my list. Because
at the end of the day, who cares?
About the author: David Stanley is a freelance photographer concentrating
on landscape
and travel images. He has growing portfolios of royalty free images
with Alamy
and istockphoto.
For more articles and reviews, along with a selection of his work available
as open and limited edition prints, please visit his website at www.davidstanleyphotography.com.
(If you are reproducing this article please ensure you include the 'About
the author' footer in full on each occasion. Thanks.)
