About Bob Todrick Expertise I can answer questions on most areas of photography. Though fine-art nudes is my main focus, I can, as well answer most questions dealing with darkroom processes (including many alternative processes).
My expertise does not include digital.
Experience I have photographed since 1975. Among my clients have been a number of major retail department stores (the Bay, Eatons). I photographed for Canada's premier motorsports magazine for a number of years, and have done much portraiture and wedding photography.
In 1990 I gave up shooting professionally to concentrate on my fine-art work and have had numerous group and one person shows since.
Organizations Co-founder of the Group of Several.
Publications Numerous newspaper and print ads.
GRAPHIS photo annual.
Expert: Bob Todrick Date: 8/8/2005 Subject: digital vs. film
Question Beyond just a darkroom vs. a computer, how do digital cameras and film cameras really contrast?
Answer It all boils down to convienence v.s. quality...and how much work you are willing to do.
Film still has more quality than digital...by a long shot. It has been determined that a 35mm frame of Velvia 50 (a very fine grained, high resolution film) has the equivalent of 25mp (megapixels) of information, about twice the resolution of the best of the 35mm digital single lens reflex (DSLR's, Canon 1Ds or Nikon D2x).
Where digital suffers is in contrast (about 3 stops compared to 5 for film). This usually results in either blown out highlights (no detail) or blocked shadows (no detail) depending on how you meter. As well the gray scale is not as long as a good B&W film...this is the one area (black & white) where digital is not even close to conventional film. Finally there is low light resoution. Most of the digital cameras rate a 'poor' or at best 'adequate' rating at 400ISO. Even the high end DSLR's usually only go upto 1600ISO. So if you like to do low light shooting, again film is better.
So...after all this what's the point of digital?
Convenience!!
You can edit as you go, checking to see if you've got 'the shot'.
You can delete as you go, dumping the obvious bad images.
It is easy to just print what you need afterwords.
No messy chemical if you are doing your own enlarging. As well you get to sit in a nice airy room with sunlight pouring in instead of a smelly, darkroom. (though some, myself included really like darkroom work)
So it all boils down to this. If your never going to print beyond 8x10, and primarily are going to work in color, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference. The caveat is if you want a big print. If you blow a 35mm (for instance) frame upto, say 16x20 inches, it may look a little grainy, perhaps a bit 'soft', but it will still look pleasing.
Blow a digital file up beyond it's limit and you start to see the individual square pixels...not at all pleasing.
Harsh lighting conditions will look terrible with digtital, unless you wish to become a whiz at Photoshop.
B&W sucks with digital.
Finally, many people get into digital because it is so 'cheap'...you never have to pay for prints. Rememeber to factor in memory cards, a good computer, printer (if you wish to print you own) and camera and software upgrades every couple of years. I sell these things for a living. Time and time again I hear from customers how, after having lived with digital for a couple of years it is more expensive than film.
Also consider this. My client base is mosty professional...I sell mainly to photojournalists and studio photographers. After a couple of years of digital at least 1/2 have stated that though digital is great for their business...they've gone back to shooting film for their personal images.
To me that says it all.
