Film and Digital

I was thinking of the differences between digital and film. Originally, I was thinking of the terms analog and digital, but aren't we just counting photons in either case? Film uses a chemical reaction to light and digital detects through a collection of charge on a capacitor. Both are effectively quantized. Film typically has a bit more dynamic range than digital, but that's just a case of materials. So what is bothering me about the differences (or similarities)?

Digital allows instant gratification, right? That is, I can possibly re-shoot a poor photo by reviewing my capture. On the film-side of instant, there was Polaroid. Large format photographers frequently used Polaroid backs to preview their work. You don't have that option with regular film though: It sits and waits with much potential until it's developed, a mystery until the images are revealed. So, exposure bracketing and re-composing had to suffice, subject to the limits of cost, time, and lighting. (On the other hand, some shots were left to chance. And for some pictures, even the out of focus prints still had great impact and worth.)

Up to the focal plane itself, the light sensitive sensor: film or semiconductor, they are analogous. When the picture is taken, the information is stored on the detection media itself and then, in a digital device moved to storage. Light activates the silver embedded in the emulsion of the film, electrons and logic move the information from the digital sensor to memory.

In both flows we now have now have an image. A film user might wait for a couple of rolls to accumulate and then bring them to the drugstore for processing. So too can the digital photographer bring their memory card to the very same druggist for printing. As an additional convenience, the digital camera manufacturers have even provided a plug for connection to your own printer should you not want to make the journey to the corner store.

Now, for those of us that call ourselves amateurs, i.e. those that don't derive our livelihood from photography, and perhaps those who do; we will do our own post-processing. For film this involves developing the film and printing the pictures onto paper. I'm leaving out the details on purpose. With digital, we do a similar dance, we, as Adobe Lightroom suggests, 'Develop' the images and 'Print' the pictures onto paper. This, however, is the digital age. I no longer need to print my pictures. I can leave them to the ephemeral media and view them on a computer screen. I could compare, then, digital to slides. Indeed, I can share my slides with my friends using a projector.

We're narrowing the difference between digital and film, what is the difference? You process both. You print, or not both. Yet, unless the print/film is made digital or placed in a public space, its audience is limited. This is the appeal of digital: With a click of my mouse I can upload my pictures to a service like Flickr and expose my work to an even larger audience. If I wish, I can get a near instant critique and if I am lucky, someone interested in purchasing an image.

I admit that I really do like working in a darkroom and seeing the image emerge from a blank sheet of photo paper. I think it appeals to the scientist in me. Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom are beginning to grow on me though. I still have the urge to take out my Father's Yashica-Mat, load a roll of 120 film, and then dust off my developing tanks, chemicals, trays, and enlarger...