Digital: Amateur Photographer Review Monday May 15, 2006
A few years ago, there was much uncertainty and debate about digital photography. Pixel count was paramount but as they increased in number, this became less important. Around the six million mark, there was no longer a sole question about digital quality; lens and sensor quality were rightly given equal consideration and in some respects, digital was better than film: it has less grain, especially at high ISO. In last week’s Amateur Photographer magazine, they ran a test between film and digital and concluding that digital is inferior. It’s slightly annoying because AP staff are old-school, if not semi-old men enamoured with mechanical craftsmanship and cameras like the Leica. They’re not well disposed towards digital and electronic equipment; they were the kind of columnists I read when I was a teenager (I read AP every week, when it was weekly), and their views haven’t changed.
A better test would have been a comparison with colour slides, which have a more narrow and critical latitude. It’s true that probably the greatest disadvantage of digital is its narrow dynamic range, its tendency to ‘cut off’ visual information at either the top or bottom end of the spectrum, and reproduce it as blocky areas lacking in detail. And digital sensors are particularly prone to ‘blowing’ the highlights: it’s the opposite to film, in the sense that you have to expose for the brightness rather than the shadows. The AP also said you can shoot a 35 mm frame, scan it, and enjoy the easy benefits of not six, twelve, sixteen or even twenty million pixels, but fifty million. So why bother with a digital camera?
There are numerous advantages and their question is rhetorical rather than realistic since pixel count is now, in 2006, only one of several concerns. It’s both psychologically and creatively empowering to have control over the complete workflow process, which you lack unless you have your own darkroom. Even for an experienced photographer, you can and do get exposure wrong – unless you are using a digital camera with an LCD monitor, where errors are easily avoided. Digital cameras remain comparatively expensive, and yet it’s psychologically beneficial to have no concerns about using up expensive film. It may not be true that digital is cheaper when you consider the expense of a computer, software, DVDs, storage devices etc etc. However, what you gain is an empowering control over the means of production – you are no longer a slave to industry services. Workflow can be almost immediate, or at the very least enjoyed in the evening after a day’s work. Digital practice is an extension of your computer, and all the enabling power it has – including the further extension of the internet.
And finally, what the AP chose to ignore is the current standard of six million pixel plus cameras. In the twelve million range, sensors are so precise and sensitive they exceed the capabilities of film in resolving fine detail. As a result they make great demands on the 35 mm lenses, to an extent that film users never had to experience. In my opinion they are moving into the area of medium format quality, and ideally you would use the size of lens designed for a medium format body. But that’s not convenient so instead what you have is a compromise with a relatively small 35 mm size body, and a lens that has to be high quality, which you need to use with care: stop down, and avoid the large aperture. Sometimes that might require a tripod, but the same is true for medium format usage.
Digital is undoubtedly different to film, and one further factor is whether you shoot colour or black and white. Part of the old-school beauty of film black and white is the grain that used to be disliked and avoided, and the sheen that only darkroom silver provides. Digital is notably smooth, particularly apparent with high ISO levels compared to fast film. These factors are an advantage for colour work, where unlike with black and white there is no comparable aesthetic, no postmodern, retro appreciation of grain.
I’m amazed at the quality of my Canon 5D. I know there are circumstances where it will flounder, with a bright dynamic range. But even film struggles with that; it’s not perfect at dealing with it either. Further, this is just one variable amongst many; I don’t often encounter such extreme photographic situations and if it means superior results the rest of the time – and superior workflow – then this is a trade-off many will find, as I do, to be perfectly acceptable. And then there’s the option of using a tripod and shooting two exposures to cover the whole dynamic range, and layering them in Photoshop. Admittedly this is extra work and inconvenience but with medium or large format a tripod is quite normal, and given all these parameters and variables it’s perhaps better construed as part of an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. The Canon 5D, like it’s not-so-distant brother the 1DS Mark II, exceeds the technical ability of even the L Series lenses. It’s a problem, widely discussed on the internet and in the photography press, and yet it’s a good problem: these sensors are so advanced even the best lenses struggle to keep up, and this was never such a concern with film cameras. Why didn’t the AP mention this? They’re old school photographers with an inherent dislike of digital methods. Their article was useful, but because it didn’t comment on all the relevant factors in a film/digital comparison it was an unbalanced review revealing their bias, rather than a comprehensive evaluation.