|
Rambling With Resnick
Pro's and Cons
Digital or Film? Here's the ultimate debate.By Mason Resnick
Good evening everybody and welcome to the Great Debate: Digital or Film? Debating in favor of digital photography is the devil incarnate himself. He wishes to be referred to as Stan. On behalf of film we have Uncle Dave, the guy who got me into photography in the first place (loaded the deck a bit, didn't we?)
Opening statements, gentlemen?
Stan: Of course there is no real debate here, folks. Film is dead. Just look at the quality a digital camera can give you--three whopping megapixels, and better resolution to come! You're able to see the image the moment you take it using a back-of-camera LCD screen. There's practically no need for filters any more--any filter's effect can be recreated using Photoshop! And the cost of processing? All you pay for is the memory and printouts of only the prints you want, rather than the entire roll. A pretty good deal.
Dave: <sarcasm on>Wow. Three megapixels. I'm really impressed. <sarcasm off> Stan, did you know that the average 35mm slide holds the equivalent of 25 megapixels of information? Film is very much alive, friends.
Moderator: What about Photoshop doing the work of filters?
Dave: In some cases, it can, but not all. But let's look at the cost here. Photoshop costs over $600. Filters are a fraction of that. Even if you buy a bag full, you still will have change left for film.
Stan: Yeah, Davie boy, what about film? That stuff is expensive, and developing it puts chemicals in the sewers.
Dave: Right. Along with the alligators. Most minilabs now are required to use "closed-loop" systems, so no chemical waste leaves the store. And the amount used by home darkrooms is miniscule. Now let's talk about cost. How much did you say it costs for a reasonable amount of memory? Do I hear $150 for 40mb of images that are still inferior to film?
Stan: Uh, Dave...you can load those images onto your computer, erase what's on the memory card and reuse it. It amortizes over time, dude.
Dave: News flash, S'tan: they can break, and do. I've heard stories of people using their disks less than a dozen times before they needed to replace them. Some amortization.
Moderator: Let's talk about prints.
Dave: Darkroom prints, using an enlarger and lens. Sharp as a tack. Lasts over a hundred years if processed archivally.
Stan: Have you seen the new Epson printers? The new 870 makes prints that will last 25 years or longer. That's about equal to what you'd get from a 1-hour lab.
Dave: Hello? Stan? Anybody in there? I just said 100 years or more. Can that 870 make a 16x20? I don't think so. Last time I checked, it took 8 1/2 x 11 paper.
Stan: Oh, but Epson just introduced a new pro printer that claims 200 year lifespan for prints and does large format!
Dave: Yeah, if you're willing to pay four figures. I can get mural-sized prints using a $200 enlarger. Next?
Moderator: What about the LCD in the back of Digital Cameras. Isn't that an advantage?
Stan: You bet it is! You can see what you just shot and if you don't like it, you can erase and redo. Nice deal!
About the author: Mason Resnick is the editor and publisher of Black & White World and the community webmaster of PhotoHighway.Com, wishes all sides of the Gonzalez family peace, love and understanding. You can reach him at bwworld@mindspring.com.