As you probably guessed from these pages, I am not an advocate for digital right now. I find the costs simply too high, and current digital cameras do not offer film quality versus 35mm, much less medium format (which is my preferred format). I look forward to the future, but right now I am staying on the sidelines doing only occasional digital work off my flatbed scanner (although the introduction of the EOS-1Ds has seriously caught my attention).
My reasons for staying away from digital center largely around quality. As a predominantly medium format shooter, I have very high demands on my images. Currently, the film vs. digital debate centers around comparing 35mm film to digital, and as explained previously, digital cameras do not match 35mm film yet - much less medium or large format. To do digital right with a film scanner is simply too cost prohibitive, particularly since I am a low volume shooter and I would want a medium format scanner (currently about $3000). I also prefer black and white shooting, which is an area digital does not yet have a solid foothold (particularly since I prefer to make archival fiber-based prints, and I have yet to see any inkjet paper with the texture or look of fiber glossy). As a result, I am sitting on the sidelines watching digital evolve. Once digital gets to the point where it matches 35mm, I will likely buy a digital SLR body to complement my Eos system, but only when the MP resolution reaches sufficient levels and the physical chip size is exactly the same as a 35mm frame (so there is no coversion factor from the film to digital SLR body as with current cameras). Long term, it will likely be quite some time before digital matches medium format, so chances are I will remain a film shooter for many years.
I also don't like the time and hassle involved with digital imaging. I once reconstructed a photograph that had been torn to pieces, but it took over 10 hours of painstaking effort. Likewise, for a standard color image, it usually takes 1-3 hours to tweak the color balance and do the necessary dodging/burning for a final print. That's a significant amount of effort for one print, and people should be aware that it takes at least that much time to work on an image. Why? Because the color balancing that would usually be done by a machine or a skilled printer must be done by you. And since I do sell prints and thus require archival life of photo paper, even my digital files have to be printed by a lab onto photo paper... so I don't save anything by doing the work myself. The lab still charges me about $10 for an 8x10 print - digital or film. Until digital printers truly offer archival quality, there will be no point to me investing in digital as I still must have my prints made at a lab.
I do, however, support digital photography and recognize it's prospects. I use a flatbed scanner for occasional digital work and creating images for web pages, and I keep up on digital equipment. As previously mentioned, once Canon comes out with a professional level camera with 10 MP resolution (at an affordable price, not the current asking price of $8000 for the Eos-1Ds), I will likely put my 35mm bodies aside and buy the digital SLR body. I am also intrigued by digital manipulation, and at some point would like to explore the possibilities. But for now, digital is not for me; my format of choice is 2 1/4 film.
My other frustration with digital is how both consumers and the industry are rushing into digital, and in many cases do not know what they are doing. Many people buying digital cameras believe it is a competant and cheap replacement for film, which it is not at this time. There is also a tremendous amount of hype surrounding digital, and much of it is misleading or does not fully adress some of the issues discussed here. For example, many salespeople are saying that 5 MP digital cameras match film. Well... for prints under 8x10, sure. And at 8x10 they come close, but the math is simple - if you need 300 ppi to get photo quality, you need 7.2 MP for an 8x10 print. Also, they compare 8x10's from a digital and a point and shoot. With the massive superzoom cameras with questionable lenses that force the use of 400+ speed film due to small apertures, sure - you can compare digital to film favorably. But compare digital to a quality SLR, a pro SLR, or even a decent point and shoot... and no. The quality certainly isn't close. And this doesn't even account for the hassles to work with digital files, calibrate your systems, and other minor necessities (like $600 for Photoshop) the salespeople usually don't mention.
While I see digital as the future of photography, film certainly isn't dead (and won't be for many years). I find it aggravating that so many people are jumping on the bandwagon without knowing what they are getting into. Working in camera sales, I have dealt with many people who expect far too much from digital, or think it's as simple as "point, click, download". I encourage people to explore digital, but also understand the limitations and problems. You may find yourself in a situation like mine, where digital does not offer the quality you require at reasonable cost (and won't for at least 5-10 years). On the other hand, you may find that you don't need to make 11x14 prints as I do, and a digital camera may work perfectly well as a film replacement (particularly if you do much web work). Or you may find that investing in a slide scanner system like the professionals provides an all in one solution; digital control, film quality, and reasonable cost for volume work. Whatever your desires, I do hope you will explore digital and understand both its advantages and limitations. And in the end, the only important factor is if your photo gear does what you want and produces the images you desire.
Happy trails, and may the Photo Gods be with you.
All content Copyright 1995-2003 by Peter Williams. Please read the Disclaimer for complete copyright and legal information.