Is Digital REALLY better than Film? Part 1

There was a time - quite a long time actually - during which traditional photographers refused to give up a life time of acquired skill and shift to digital capture. For some years it was possible to argue that the ultimate quality of film was superior to digital. There are STILL many who argue that way.

To be sure, at a purely technical level, it cannot be denied that (all other things being equal) the ultimate resolution of film for large prints is better than digital. Given the inherent resolution prowess of medium to large format film as compared to (say) APS-C or even "full frame" 35mm sensors, the advantage is even greater. Even when the limits of resolution are reached, analogue prints with blurry edges and details still look FAR better than pixelated digital versions of the same image. Wouldn't you agree?

Likewise under low light, film grain always looks better than digital noise. This may only be due to the fact that 180 years of tradition makes it easier for us to ACCEPT the look of film grain but it still looks better to me. I don't care what anyone says. We are so accepting of film grain that there are even filters in image processing software which SIMULATE film grain with which we can add "character" and apparent "authenticity" to documentary style monochrome digital images.

It ALSO cannot be denied that in the case of slow to medium sensitivity, film offers better inherent dynamic range. The scourge of digital capture must surely be the ease with which highlights and shadows are reduced to featureless white or total black with all detail lost forever. Admittedly, there are strategies for remediating this problem, RAW capture included, but given that most people shoot jpeg images and utilise NO dynamic range enhancement strategies, film was and remains a better choice in this regard.

It certainly seems clear that the marketplace attributes a higher intrinsic value to film and its analogue prints. Even superb digital prints pale in significance compared to less technically perfect ones produced by traditional means.

In some cases the higher prices are for rational reasons. Traditional prints are inherently rarer than digital ones because (generally) one has to have the original negative before a print can be produced. Consequently a traditional print has more the feel of an "original" than a digital version which (it seems) is so much more readily copied. For a long while the longevity of prints produced by digital means was questionable. Not so long ago digital prints could be expected to start fading within weeks of their having been created. Even NOW it has to be conceded that digital prints have not been around long enough to have TRULY stood the test of time. On the other hand we have analogue prints which are almost as old as photography itself - still on display, still looking good.

Some of the reasons are perhaps less strictly rational but are just as valid. If I buy a new analogue print (perhaps one of a limited release) produced from film by entirely traditional means, I seem to have something special - something which connects me to the great photographic artists of the past whose skilled hands produced similar items using almost identical materials, chemicals and techniques. Indeed when one purchases a print of an image shot last week on a "famous name" German camera made in 1964, with a film emulsion first produced in 1930 using a chemical first employed in 1905 with an actual enlarger manufactured in 1941, my purchase offers me an antiquity and provenance which cannot be compared with the same picture shot on the latest digital camera and run off on a brand new digital printer tethered to my computer.

Conclusions that "film is dead" may be very much premature. For serious professional and enthusiast fine arts photography, film is NOW very much the medium of choice. Traditional film producers who contemplated the total abandonment of that technology have begun life anew. Film will never be produced in the stupendous quantities that it once was but companies like Agfa, Ilford and even Kodak have found a worthwhile niche market producing a select range of emulsions in a number of sizes along with a comprehensive range of chemicals, papers and darkroom kit.

Careless assertions that digital is inherently better than film need further consideration ... next time.