The following from the Online Photographer review of the new Nikon D700 got me thinking:
You digital people are so lucky. And what do I mean by “digital people”? Michael Reichmann mentioned, in the course of his new Panasonic G1 review, that he encounters photographers these days who never shot film. So do I. It’s an amazing if inevitable development in the hobby. Anyway, I often don’t think you digital people have any idea how lucky you are.
I am one of the people Mike is talking about. The only film camera I ever owned was a Kodak 110 Instamatic, and the last time I exposed some silver halide was in my father’s Minolta SLR. When I was eight. And I definitely feel lucky to have come to photography during the golden age of digital. But I wonder, what might I have missed?
Mike’s obviously right about the “lucky” advantages of shooting digital. The histogram and “blinkie highlights” give instant feedback on exposure, and the LCD does the same for composition and focus. Plus the marginal cost of a digital image is essentially zero: no film, no processing. Also no film to carry into the field, no film to change (I can’t imagine having to stop shooting every thirty-six frames to load a new roll!), perfect duplicates, the digital darkroom, bigger prints from 35mm DSLRs than with 35mm film, and wider dynamic range, at least compared to slide film. And of course there are the ISO’s that simply destroy anything available from the film world. The list goes on and on.
But still, I wonder if I didn’t miss a little something with film. For one thing, digital encourages (at least in me) a somewhat hasty approach to photography. Rather than waiting for the decisive moment, I find myself using the machine gun approach: hold down the shutter long enough and I’m bound to capture something good. (I doubt I’d be quite as enamored of 6.5 frames per second if it cost 25 or 50 cents a frame!) Ditto for exposure. Shoot and chimp the histogram, rather than getting exposure right the first time. And indeed, with the modern RAW processing software and low-noise SLR’s close is good enough — at least if the highlights aren’t clipped. I’ve studied Artie Morris’ exposure guidelines, and I try to follow them, at least for fun. But let’s be frank. Most of his proposed adjustments are +/- a third of a stop. I doubt fairly strongly whether one can tell any difference between images that are exposed dead on in the field and images that are adjusted by a third of a stop (or even two-thirds of a stop) in post, at least if the highlights aren’t clipped.
I suspect that my photography (at least of stationary subjects) would improve if I was compelled to take more time with each shot. And I bet that I would feel more of a connection with my subjects if I contemplated an image a bit more before making it, rather than wielding my camera like an automatic weapon. One of these days I’m going to have to purchase a totally manual film camera. Maybe I’ll get very serious and buy a 4×5 large format camera. Or maybe a panoramic camera shooting 120 rollfilm, hmm . . .
But I wonder. Would I be a photographer at all if film were still the rule, rather than the exception? Possibly not. I certainly wouldn’t have progressed as rapidly in my understanding of the hobby if I started on film. Maybe I am lucky.
