The Irresistable Emergence Of Digital Photography

Prior to the recent digital photography revolution, especially during the last few years, film ruled the roost. And while film photography still has its advocates it’s mostly fine art photographers that resist digital. In short, digital photography has taken over.

That is not to suggest that there are no issues with digital photography. Some argue you surrender a certain something when going from film to digital. Mind you, software has become so refined that the shortcomings can be addressed, and some might say, eradicated. With CDs, for instance, while they don’t have the dynamic depth of vinyl, they also are not saddled with hissing noises.

Many photographers held fast to film waiting until digital matched the quality of film. Well, all but the immovable old-schoolers will admit that for most kinds of photography, including modern wedding photography and commercial photography, digital has not only made it, but has trumped film.

For a decade digital has had it over film with respect to convenience. With film, first it involves developing the film and afterwards if one has to enhance the images in Photoshop you have to scan the negatives – a time consuming process. With digital you take your shots, upload them lickety-split and get on with it. That alone is an amazing advantage. Some of the best wedding photographers, for example, upload the ceremony and park pix onto their laptop for all to view during the reception.

One not insignificant negative to digital concerns the ability to take an almost unlimited number images. Needless to say, this is a good thing, especially for candid wedding photography. However, it also means that too many digital photographers get trigger-happy.  This unconscious photography requires them to keep shooting so they get “all the shots” – which not only makes them more obtrusive, but often ends in capturing a zillion shots, while inexplicably managing to not get the profound moments. As we all know, more is not always better. Those photographers who cut their teeth on film learned to look for those ‘moments’ and not shoot willy-nilly like there is a revolver to their head. Of course, they were also aware that more images meant more film, which led to more processing and greater cost. So, there was a self-limiting system in place, which perhaps developed a more attentive photographer. So, while digital means you can take lots of shots, the progressive photographers always know when to take the shot.

In any Case, recent advances in digital camera technology that are putting the nail in the coffin of film (except for rather limited uses). Firstly, the image quality is now on par with film. Secondly, the low-light capability of the latest top-end cameras is staggering. The fastest film is 3200 ISO and it is exceedingly grainy. Only those deliberately after this look decide on this film.  Of course, at times they have no alternative because they are going to be shooting in a low-light situation without the use of flash or lighting. It’s almost incomprehensible how powerful the newest digital cameras are in this regard. Top Nikon and Canon cameras have an upper range of 102,000 ISO. Ludicrous. Now, it’s really grainy at that top setting, but what it means is that you will get worthwhile shots at up to about 12,000 ISO.  This is a god-send, particularly for photographers who shoot with existing light and often find themselves in low-light. The days of having to sacrifice depth of field or sharpness to achieve effective exposure – or just not be able to get the shot at all – are over.

When used properly and to its full potential, digital photography represents the new standard. Hail the new king.