I'd start backward with your critique. Before comparing two things in terms of technical details, first name your criteria for judging the final results.
First of all, what will that final product be? Are you comparing both media for the purposes of making inkjet prints? Lightjet fiber prints? Online photos? What size prints do you want? Etc. Pick one, and don't compare until both have actually been made into that final product. For example, let's say you decide that you want to make 8x12 Lightjet fiber prints at a local lab. Well, make the prints, don't compare on a computer screen. Go through the entire process with each medium, then compare final results.
It must be assumed that you have potentially similar uses of each medium in order to make the comparison worth anything in the real world. For instance, if you want to use digital to shoot hand held wedding photos in mixed ambient and artificial lighting at low to medium ISOs, the comparison loses meaning if you compare those shots to black and white landscapes shot on a tripod with a 100 speed tabular-grained film. Similarly, if you want to use digital for low-light street photography at 6400 ISO, there simply is no film comparison, as the fastest film is ISO speed 1000. To make the comparison hold weight, you've got to shoot each medium in the same manner. Same ISO, both hand held or both on a tripod, same subject matter.
And you've got to make sure you are just as skilled in the exposure, adjustment, and printing of each medium. A lot of people coming from digital try film and think it stinks, when in reality, they just aren't very skilled technicians with film processes. Same with people going from film to digital. Someone can have 50 years experience in professional-quality film photography and printing, then get on a computer and think digital stinks just because they aren't very good at using it. (Though the learning curve for someone going from film to digital is much less steep than for someone going the other way IMHO.)
What I think you will realize if you approach it in this way is that each medium excels in different areas of use, and the playing field is rarely so level and controlled in real life shooting. Additionally, the two media have intangible differences in terms of things like "look," "feel," and "character" that cannot be boiled down to raw measurements. And there are also differences in the process itself, which is incredibly important in making any sort of product...at least to me. I often choose to shoot film simply because I don't want to monkey with pictures on a computer, but would prefer working in my darkroom.
In other words, I'd use both. Use each for what it is best at, or for how it suits your mood at the time.
P.S. I also feel obligated to repost that outstanding booby pic:
First of all, what will that final product be? Are you comparing both media for the purposes of making inkjet prints? Lightjet fiber prints? Online photos? What size prints do you want? Etc. Pick one, and don't compare until both have actually been made into that final product. For example, let's say you decide that you want to make 8x12 Lightjet fiber prints at a local lab. Well, make the prints, don't compare on a computer screen. Go through the entire process with each medium, then compare final results.
It must be assumed that you have potentially similar uses of each medium in order to make the comparison worth anything in the real world. For instance, if you want to use digital to shoot hand held wedding photos in mixed ambient and artificial lighting at low to medium ISOs, the comparison loses meaning if you compare those shots to black and white landscapes shot on a tripod with a 100 speed tabular-grained film. Similarly, if you want to use digital for low-light street photography at 6400 ISO, there simply is no film comparison, as the fastest film is ISO speed 1000. To make the comparison hold weight, you've got to shoot each medium in the same manner. Same ISO, both hand held or both on a tripod, same subject matter.
And you've got to make sure you are just as skilled in the exposure, adjustment, and printing of each medium. A lot of people coming from digital try film and think it stinks, when in reality, they just aren't very skilled technicians with film processes. Same with people going from film to digital. Someone can have 50 years experience in professional-quality film photography and printing, then get on a computer and think digital stinks just because they aren't very good at using it. (Though the learning curve for someone going from film to digital is much less steep than for someone going the other way IMHO.)
What I think you will realize if you approach it in this way is that each medium excels in different areas of use, and the playing field is rarely so level and controlled in real life shooting. Additionally, the two media have intangible differences in terms of things like "look," "feel," and "character" that cannot be boiled down to raw measurements. And there are also differences in the process itself, which is incredibly important in making any sort of product...at least to me. I often choose to shoot film simply because I don't want to monkey with pictures on a computer, but would prefer working in my darkroom.
In other words, I'd use both. Use each for what it is best at, or for how it suits your mood at the time.
P.S. I also feel obligated to repost that outstanding booby pic:
Last edited by a moderator:
