Photography and Why Digital Cameras Don't Suck
Wednesday December 10, 2003
"bankrupt artist" recently posted a rant about Photography and Why Digital Cameras Suck. Here's an excerpt:
I see people go on and on about how the digital allows you to experiment with the process and learn through experimentation. How much experimentation is involved in capturing a thousand crappy images and slapping blur and lens flare effects in Photoshop? None. Ohhh... you found the "Crossprocessing" filter? Well, good for you, but you will never know how it WORKS or what it does.I have to disagree! Repeated experimentation will lead to learning, if the desire to learn is there. Whether it's with camera settings or in Photoshop, the more you experiment, the more you will learn, and the long-term costs of digital photography make it a lot more affordable to experiment compared to the costs of film developing. I know for a fact that many people who visit this site are learning and getting excited about it. Besides, most of us aren't out to become the next Ansel Adams, we're just developing a hobby that can be a lot of fun!
Whether learning or serious about your quality, digital cameras STILL Stink!
Yes it is true folks, compare a photograph made from a digital SLR to one made with a film SLR with 100 or 200 ISO film and you will see mega pixels are only half the battle with digital pictures and their crummy look. Firstly, ASA/ISO 100 has the equivalent of 22+megapixels worthy of data. Secondly, and more importantly the color quality (gamut as we call it) is much wider with film and more accurate than that of a digital sensor. And while you admire the 4×6 print made from film for its better color, sharper detail and more pleasing contrast remember that the digital photo-processor that printed it only uses 2 mega pixels worth of data to do so (most laser heads print at 300 d.p.i.; do the math). You may scream why, oh why can I not get this quality from my $1400 digital camera 10mp camera? Well that has to do with the physics of light and the engineering of the sensor; Things like chromatic aberration and the non-continuous nature of the image sensor in your DSLR camera. I have seen thousands of both digital and film photographs processed and I can say without equivocation digital still “stinks”. So don’t be contented to pass on a legacy of lower standards to your progeny; find a good lab to make your prints.
P.S. Many who are used to paying $4.99 to develop a roll of film have never seen a good print. There are still some labs that take processing seriously: http://www.digitalphotoonline.com
As Luddite-ish as this sounds, digital pics are an abomination. They look so flat, the colors are too homogenized to look real and no matter how high-res it is, I can still sense the pixellation in it and in a still picture (as opposed to TV, where the image is moving) pixellation sticks out like a sore thumb.
I use Fuji Velvia slide film. Slides give you that big, epic sense of visual bombast you can never get in digital or prints. But most importantly, a slide is the actual image burned onto the film; a digital picture is a computer chip’s reproduction of that image and therefore feels less real than a slide.