Film vs. Digital

This has been a heated debate ever since Nikon released its D1 camera, the first viable pro digital camera. Digital has grown by leaps and bounds since then, yet the debate remains. Here are my arguments on the issue:

Film will always look better than digital (assuming the photographer knows what they're doing). It's simple fact. Film has incredible resolution and the color gamut is much wider than digital. There's really nothing debating that fact.

However...

What is the point of photography? I like to have a camera with me most of the time and be able to capture what I see. I like to be able to share that with the world. If I'm working, I need to have a quick turn around with spectacular results. I don't have access to my own dark room, so if I shoot film, I have to trust in a separate lab to do the processing and have to wait to get my images back. In all these instances, film falls short.

I have two cameras that I consider my "two best." One is a Hasselblad 500C that shoots a 6x6cm image on film (which, if properly scanned, would yield a 100-megapixel file, just to give some perspective) and a Nikon D700 with a 36x24mm 12.1-megapixel sensor. If you're looking at quality, there's no debate. The "Hassy" will win every time. Then again, it only gets 12 images to a roll, is a pain in the butt to load, is fully manual, and doesn't even have a light meter. On the other hand, the Nikon is super-fast and accurate at autofocus so I can get those impromptu shots. It can shoot 5 frames per second (8 with auxiliary power) to perfectly capture a moment. It has more than enough resolution for my purposes, and the software I use to edit the photos is far more robust and intuitive than the best wet lab. Add to this the ability to shoot a thousand images without having to change out my card or battery, and you can tell which I shoot with the most.

Sure, if I knew I needed to make poster prints or was trying to make a large book about things that don't move, a medium or large format film camera would definitely give me pause for consideration. However, as it stands, the convenience of digital has me shooting more than I ever have in my life, and really, that's the point. If you don't have the camera with you, and you don't hit that shutter release, it doesn't matter if you're a film guru and can make photos you can enlarge to the size of your wall. You missed the opportunity and the shot.

There's another argument. I'm a journalistic photographer. Just by the nature of my current job, that what my style has lent itself to. I find myself shooting in low light and in constantly changing environments. In low light, the high ISO ratings of digital cameras have leapfrogged film. ISO 1600 film looks horrible, but the ISO 1600 setting on my D700 looks great. Add to that a touch of softness due to the slow shutter speeds and wide apertures I constantly shoot with, and the extra resolving power of film means diddly-squat.

So there you have it. I shoot digital, and don't see myself switching any time soon. Film has its perks and there's something rewarding about shooting all day and then seeing your images materialize right before your eyes in the darkroom later. It's just not enough when it comes to the fact that I shoot more and better photos when I'm shooting digital.