I'm Ready for Digital

(but it's not ready for me)
29-JUL-05

I'm still using film. I use 35mm and 120 formats. After processing, I scan the negatives (I rarely use slide film) and then prepare selected files for print. Using the big Nikon scannner, I get excellent results, with about 24 megapixels from 35mm film, and nearly 100 megapixels from 120. If you want to debate this approach, go ahead. But find someone else to argue with you. This process works for me, I'm happy with it, and the quality of my prints exceeds the majority of digitally captured images I'm seeing, and equals the rest. Critical judges seem to agree, as evidenced by the numerous awards my photographs have received. So I have no "end-result" motivation to switch from film to digital.

But I am ready to make the change. I'd like to use digital for the subjects I'm currently photographing with 35mm. The benefits of digital are attractive: immediate review, high accutance at all contrast levels, scanning eliminated, uh... well, that's all I can think of offhand. But it's appealing. The problem is that digital isn't ready for me.

What I also want is an affordable pixel count that will produce an 11x14 print at 300 ppi without interpolation. That works out to about 14 megapixels. Yeah, I've seen some nice prints at that size made with less than half that number of pixels; I've prepared a few such files myself for others. For many subjects, portraits for instance, the results can be excellent. But other subjects require more recorded detail to create my style of fine art prints. The Canon 1Ds Mk II has 16.7 megapixels, but it's eight-thousand bucks. Lawdy! -- I can use a lot of film for that price. I'll wait.

I want a standard, non-proprietary RAW format. I don't expect to save files in RAW for all subjects that I photograph, but when I do, I want reliable access to the files. Now and later. If I'm stuck with a brand's proprietary format, and they decide not to support it, how do I open the file? Keep the software that came with the camera and use that? Get a grip: what's the chance that current computer operating systems will be the same in ten, or even five years? Today's software might not even run on the computer I'll be using in a few years. So, I'll wait.

I want affordability. Costly cameras (I already have cameras that perform well), memory cards, long-term storage (CDs, hard drive space), field storage (a laptop, perhaps, or portable hard drive)... it all adds up. I'm getting the images and the image quality I want with my current equipment. I'll wait for some price relief.

I want the dynamic range of film. Negatives, not chromes. I print digitally, and I can prepare the file for the contrast and gamma that I want. Chromes are typically given credit for about five stops range, negative film one or two stops more than that. Digital falls somewhere in between. I typically use the wider latitude films so that I can capture more information from the start. Digital capture will get increased dynamic range with implementation of an extra, smaller set of pixels complementing the primary set. That's coming, but I'd probably be pretty satisfied with the range of current imaging chips. After all, I'm scanning my film with current technology. For now, though, I'll wait.

Finally, I'm still a bit of skeptic. When digital cameras hit one-megapixel, the reviewers and critics hailed the achievement. Digital had arrived. When three-megapixel and four-megapixels cameras arrived, the reviewers and critics announced that "film-quality" digital photography was here. Well, if it was here at four megapixels, why did they make the same announcement, with similar fanfare, when the counts reached six-megapixels? And again at eight-megapixels, again at eleven-megapixels and again at 16.7 megapixels?

In my opinion, digital photography did not have a no-contest, unqualified superior successor to 35mm film photography until the release of the Canon 1Ds MkII. Many people disagree. They may not be making the kind of photographs I make. They may have production constraints that I don't have (I generally photograph what I want, when I want, and print how I want, without deadlines). Although I've seen some beautiful results with as little as four megapixels, I'm going to wait for an affordable camera that can record data for an 11x14 print at 300ppi. I believe that prints of many of my subjects will benefit from that level of recorded detail.

So I'm waitin'. But I'm ready for digital when digital is ready for me.