OLD vs NEW w/ no winner

[Klipschfoot]

shallow article, but good skimmed comparison

[colterphoto1]

He's wrong about digital photography. There are problems with the image capture side of the equation. Film has TWICE the exposure latitude that digital does. In other words, with film cameras you can over or underexpose by two stops and still have a printable negative. If you overexpose with a digital camera only one stop, the highlights are blown out to the point that no computer can save the image.

The computer interpolation he talks about means the computer is drawing part of the image, ie, it is no longer a pure representation of the light that went through the lens. Sharpening software looks artificial and dust reduction software takes away detail. The resultant photos are often lifeless and flat.

From an economic standpoint, all this digital hardward and software has cost professionals thousands of dollars in experimentation while the manufacturers got it 'right'. Cameras are now virtually irrepairable. My Hassleblads have lasted 10 years and have decades of heavy-duty use left in them. My friend, who went digital a few years back, now spends 10,000 a year keeping up with technology. Although he doens't have to purchase film or processing anymore, this is bankrupting him. He spends all night 'fixing' images in Photoshop, which his clients expect and require, and is not able to recoup his costs in additional sales.

Clients expect everything yesterday and don't understand the quality difference between archival prints and inkjet prints some guy made with a $100 Epson in his basement. Yes, the human eye is becoming less discerning, more forgiving of the new medium, like our ears have adapted to the gritty sound of CD's and yech MP3's.

Digital photography is killing an artform and an industry. Goodbye Nikon, we hardly knew ye.

Michael Colter, soon to be former professional photographer.