Prior to the recent digital photography revolution, particularly over the last few years, film ruled the roost. And while film photography still has its devotees it’s largely fine art photographers that resist digital. It’s fair to say that digital photography has officially usurped the throne.

Of course, there are downsides with digital photography. Some say there is a qualitative deficit when comparing film to digital. Mind you, software has become so refined that apparent limitations can be mitigated, and some might say, totally dealt with. With CDs, for example, while they can’t match the dynamic depth of vinyl, they also are not saddled with scratching and static noises.

Many photographers stayed loyal to film waiting until digital matched the excellence of film. Now, all but the immovable old-schoolers will grant that for most kinds of photography, including modern wedding photography and commercial photography, digital has not only made its mark, but has gone one better than film.

For a decade digital has had it over film with respect to convenience. With film, you have to process the film and then if you want to tweak the pictures in Photoshop you must 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 a startling advantage. Some of the best wedding photographers, for instance, upload the ceremony and park pix onto their laptop for guests to see during the reception.

One noteworthy drawback to digital concerns the ability to take an almost unlimited quantity of images. Needless to say, this is a good thing, especially for candid wedding photography. Sadly, it also means that some digital photographers get trigger-happy.  This unconscious photography requires them to keep shooting so they don’t miss anything – this not only makes them more intrusive, but often results in taking a boatload of images, while bizarrely managing to neglect the profound moments. As is often the case, less if often more. Those photographers who come from film learned to look for those ‘moments’ and not shoot willy-nilly as if they are being paid by the number of pix they rattle off. Of course, they also had to keep in mind that more images meant more film, which meant more processing and more cost. In other words, there was a self-limiting system at work, which arguably spawned a more attentive photographer. So, while digital offers the opportunity to take lots of shots, the progressive photographers always understand when to press the button.

Regardless, recent advances in digital camera technology that are rendering film photography purely niche (other than for rather narrow uses). Firstly, the image quality is now equal to (though not the same as) film. Secondly, the low-light facility of the latest higher-end cameras is stunning. The fastest film is 3200 ISO and it is extremely noisy. Only photographers specifically wanting this look go this route.  Of course, at times they have no option because they are going to be shooting in a low-light environment without flash or lighting. It’s almost unfathomable how capable the newest digital cameras are in this regard. Top Nikon and Canon cameras can go as high as 102,000 ISO. Absurd. Now, it’s really grainy at that top level, but what it means is that you can have decidedly serviceable photos at up to about 12,000 ISO.  This is a god-send, particularly for photographers who shoot with existing light and often shoot in low-light. The days of having to forgo depth of field or sharpness to achieve effective exposure – or just not be able to get the shot at all – are done with.

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

Technorati Tags: Digital Photography, film photography