We are now at the point where film has become approximately completely obsolete. However, film had some advantages over digital photography that are maybe not completely understood. In this article, I will discuss the differences in the middle of film and digital photography.

Resolution

With digital photography, we are used to thinking of digital images in terms of the number of pixels that they are in dimensions. For instance, a particular image might be 900x440 pixels. This is because digital photography works by having exact color values for each of the pixels in a large shape. Note, however, that, at the end of the day, a digital photograph is made of a collection of atomic pixels, each of which is quadrate and made of exactly one color.

On the other hand, film does not have pixellation. Rather, the image includes shapes that approximate the way in which the light hit the negative. In other words, film is capable of including curves. At the end of the day, a pixellated image will be a series of steps approximating a curve, while a photographic image allows for true curves. This is not to say that a filmed image has higher resolution than a digital image; it is plainly that the thought of pixellation doesn't apply.

Image Production

One of the intelligent things about film is that the final photograph is absolutely the result of two detach photochemical processes. First, the light affects the negative, imprinting an image. Then, the light is shone on the film paper, causing the final image. This has the odd result that there are absolutely two places where film output can go wrong. On the one hand, there can be a qoute with the primary output on the negative. On the other hand, however, the paper itself may age or decay.

This has important results for film restoration. Often, restorers do not have entrance to the negative of the film or picture. Therefore, the image that they produce is absolutely the copy of a copy of a copy. However, when restorers have entrance to the primary negatives, they will be able to produce much higher potential restorations, as the negatives have the image of which the photograph is only a picture.

Digital photography, too, can go wrong in two places. First, it can go wrong in the actual creation of the digital file. The image will only every have as high resolution as that primary file, though it can finally be reduced. Second, it can go wrong in the printing of the file. Many citizen take high potential digital photographs and then print them off using a lower potential printer. As a result, the overall image potential is compromised.

Film and digital photography have some rather important similarities and differences.

On 2:03 PM | 0 comments

When I was a child my dad got a supper eight camera and shot our house movies. The house would sit at night, in the living room, while my dad put up the projector that screened our home movies. The quality of the films was poor and the audio sounded as if it came from far far away. Nostalgic as it may appear to some of us, there is not much to miss by the loss of the film format.

As a photographer I love the film format. A top-notch camera captures the light and color better than any high definition camera. The distinction can be very dramatic and the process of film improvement is very romantic. With that said, one must consideration that esthetics only goes so far. There are other factors that should be taken into consideration.

Although film is classic in my view to digital it is also more involved and not so user friendly.

Film

When shooting challenging pictures Film is a very difficult task:

o Film celluloid does not article audio and one needs a isolate recording device. Focus is very involved and there is an further person that operates that side of the camera.

o Film needs to be advanced and can't be seen immediately unless it is also recorded on a digital device.

o Lighting can be a lot more difficult than digital because film is very sensitive.

o Reels need to be changed often in a very difficult process challenging unloading and reloading in the dark, with out the use of visual sight!

o Film material and the process of filmmaking is offensively expensive. It does not allow filmmakers to take a lot of takes and that creates more room for mistakes.

o High Cost of raw material makes it harder to secure the desired practice, hone it and jab the film industry.

o Large crews are needed for a shoot.

o Big studios have absolute control of what is filmed and what is not. That means they control the whole of films made, talents and the content.

Digital

Digital camera revolution made shooting pictures easier:

o Audio is recorded on the same strip as the film, using multiple channels.

o Digital Cameras are user friendly and viewing the materials is inherent Immediately, after a shot is taken.

o Materials are economy and allow abundance of takes. Dv cassettes cost few dollars and allow at least 45 minutes of right recording.

o Reloading a tape is uncomplicated and no "blind" custom is needed.

o Digital format is not as sensitive to light as film. Although it reduces some of the distinction and color range, it also reduces the whole of light needed.

These digital format advantages allowed a huge turn in media. Documentaries are popping out in great numbers. All one needs is a ,000, 3 chip camera and a desire to tell a story. The home computer may be a good adequate solution to edit the film and produce the sound track.

The Internet is full of Websites introducing amateur work. These amateurs have the opportunity to make films in commerce format and get discovered as talent.

Independent filmmakers are manufacture highlight films and do not need to retort to the big studios. freedom of speech wins!

Even well known directors are shooting in high definition digital format. George Lucas made the first three 'Star Wars' digitally.

The digital renaissance age is already here. Innovations are swift and rapid and if you blink once, you may miss worthwhile. For this imagine I keep a digital camera in my car, so I can article those happy moments, those extra commonplace moments, like my daughter's first steps.... At night I hook the camera to the television and sit with my house to watch the movie of our lives.

On 12:16 PM | 0 comments

The film versus digital turn over has been at the forefront of pro photography over the last decade or so. As digital technology has seen numerous advances, many photographers have gradually moved to exclusively shooting digital. These same photographers once shot film, now to most of them film is all but dead. Traditionally wedding photographers worked exclusively with film, with most of them shooting a mix of 35 mm and medium format, using both color and black and white emulsions. Whilst this is a composition that has served wedding photographers well for decades, it is perhaps not the most viable choice in today's world, for both financial reasons and in terms of workflow, time and quality.

With the introduction of digital camera technology the manufactures has seen huge changes. These days the cost of film and processing can be prohibitively expensive. Availability is commonly tiny to a small estimate of remaining pro labs and prices for film are steadily expanding as the request lessens and output drops accordingly. Up-to-date years have seen the closure of many film manufacturers and those that do still exist have ceased producing all the emulsions they once did. It is however, not only for financial reasons that one may reconsider film to be the lesser choice for photographing a wedding.

As digital technology has industrialized the image capability continues to progressively improve. Initially digital camera technology could not match the capability of film, and to some extent this judgment on digital cameras has stuck in people's minds, and they continue to assume film will be good quality. There is however more to this story. If we were to reconsider large format film it is true that this can still outshine the capability of digital - the reality is however that such a format is not suitable for many applications, wedding photography included. Thus we must compare apples with apples to make a fair comparison.

The majority of wedding photographers shooting film will be shooting 35 mm with a mix of medium format. The current top end digital cameras yield images of higher capability than 35 mm film capability, and can be said to rival medium format. Now, if we look at a common situation encountered at a wedding, low light, we can take this turn over further. In order to take photographs in low light settings one needs to use a high Iso. Essentially this is a quantum of the film/digital sensors sensitivity to light. High Iso film is traditionally very grainy - think of the old photojournalistic photos shot on high speed black and white film. This is of procedure a look that many habitancy like, however some clients may find it undesirable. Unfortunately it is positive if we wish to use film and shoot in low light conditions without a flash.

On the other side of the coin, the current pro digital cameras have come ahead leaps and bounds in their low light capabilities. Early models produced extreme image noise at high Iso's. This noise is thought about an ugly, unwanted trait, unlike film grain which can be pleasing. The current breed of digital cameras addressed this and as such are able to capture relatively noise free images even at high Iso's. What does this mean? It means even given low light situations a photographer shooting with a pro Dslr will be able to yield pleasing results without resorting to unflattering flash.

One last key factor when considering film vs digital for your wedding photography is the possible for images to be lost due to error or mechanical failure. It is honestly possible that a digital camera's flash card will fail, however I personally find having to hand film to a lab to process holds a higher possible risk. It means putting your costly images into the hands of man who may potentially make a mistake with processing. Essentially it is just one more step in the process where your wedding photographs may be ruined. Add to this the fact that your wedding photographer will be shooting blind, uncertain of if the images they are taking are working or if their camera is experiencing a technical failure then I think it has to be said that digital is the safer option.

Film is a magical material, it has a great "look" and can yield outstanding results. however given the negatives (excuse the pun), when it comes to wedding photography I know I would rather have my wedding shot on digital.

On 12:14 PM | 2 comments