Different tools for different jobs.

<p>

<p>Another film vs digital thread is winding down and it seems that often augments come up in large part because different people are doing different kinds of photography and the uses of the photos can vary greatly.</p>

<p>A sort list of some of the variables in a given photo are<br>

Is the photo going to be printed or displayed on a monitor?<br>

How large of a print is needed?<br>

How much light is there at the time the photograph is being taken?<br>

What field of view is needed for the photo?<br>

What DOF is needed?<br>

How fast is the subject of the photograph moving?<br>

What is the color temperature of the lighting?<br>

How many photos are needed/desired?<br>

How soon after shooting do I need the photo?</p>

<p>This is a partial list, many more could be added.</p>

<p>I tend to think of these and other variables are forming a vector space, where for any given photo I take I have values for each of the above. I then try to choose my gear to maximize my ability to capture photos in the range of conditions and needs listed above. Due to a limit budget I there will be areas that are a compromise. <br>

 

<p>Take a couple of cases</p>

<p>Case 1: A wide-angle landscape photo that is taken with plenty light, nothing moving in the scene, the ability to use a tripod, a large DOF is desired, only a few photos for the day are needed and it would be nice to be able to print up to 20x30 inches.</p>

<p>Case 2: A sporting event under dim light needing a long lens with hundreds of photos needed for the day/night and the largest print needed 8x10.</p>

<p>For case 1 you a LF view camera might be a good choice, or even MF. For case 2 a DSLR would be clearly the better choice.</p>

<p>I tend to shoot in a fairly wide range of conditions and have a fairly wide range of needs. I will find someone wanting to convince me that I would be better results if I just used … But since they are likely not shooting under the same conditions and needs that I am what works well for them might not work at all for me.</p>

<p>I have heard many times a photographer say that he/she uses film for things that matter and digital for things that don’t. I have to shake my head at such a simplistic view of photography, there are a huge range of conditions where digital does far better then film. At the other end I have heard people claim that no one really needs more then a 3MP digital camera, clearly these people are not making large prints.</p>

<p>In the end my view is this, there is still a place for film, digital has greatly extended what can be done with photography, the range of photography that needs film will continue to shrink with time. </p>

<br>

 

<p>I have a few holes in the range of photos that I might want to take where film would work better, but these are less then a few percent so for me it is not worth the extra equipment that I would need to fill these needs.</p>

</p>

</p>

"Another film vs digital thread is winding down..." better to let sleeping dogs lie.

<p>I tend to be "results oriented", and pick my tools accordingly. For me, better image quality is generally accompanied by higher cost (fixed and incremental), slower operation and greater weight or bulk. It that were not true, you 'd see a lot more 8x10 cameras on vacation. Ultimately, quality sells, but content is often more important than image quality in that regard, and turnaround time may be the "quality" most in demand.</p>