Digital Capture

Digital cameras have some problems photographers (and clients) should know about.

Short dynamic range or latitude. This is a big concern because many subjects have moderate to high contrast, and cannot be captured with digital.
Low resolution. "Megapixels" means millions of pixels. Developed film has billions of grains of metallic silver. Digital relies on a large color pallete to satisfy our perception.
Noisy signals at high ISO settings. Image quality deteriorates, an effect sometimes compared to film grain. Ditial "noise" is really icky in visual terms, but film grain can be a pleasing effect.
A PC is required. Photographers are "liberated" from film, but tethered to a computer. There is a steep learning curve for applications like Photoshop (12 months ++).
High cost. Digital is a young, rapidly evolving technology. For the cost of high end digital SLR (7K), photographers could buy and process 700 rolls of film, earning income in process.
Post-processing is typically required. Labs in Boston bill Photoshop time at $125 per hour. Photographers also bill time in a digital lab, and the costs are typically higher than film.

In spite of these limitations, digital has plenty of turf. Digital images are quite suitable for printed media or the web. Digital also has unique virtues. It's very easy to correct problems, retouch photos, or extensively revise an image. Digital images can copied and distributed on CD/DVD media, or transmitted over telecommunications networks. The advantages are worth the cost of my Canon 10D, which is a pretty good camera, in the medium price range. As 6.3MP is overkill for the web and most publications, recent advances are of marginal importance.

Due to the high cost of digital backs and SLRs, I often recommend film scanners to people who are curious about digital imaging. Images scanned from film give us the best of both worlds, offering higher resolution than digital capture, and the outstanding dynamic range of scanners (film).

Digital Capture

Digital capture is high technology, but it is also young technology, and quite expensive. There are three basic approaches to digital capture. Digital point-and-shoot cameras are very popular, and incorporate a zoom lens. Digital SLRs are just camera bodies, used with existing 35mm lenses and equipment. Digital SLRs have higher engineering standards, and higher cost. Digital backs are available for medium format cameras, like Hasselblad, and at very high prices.

At Left: My Canon EOS 10D digital body. It looks pretty lonely by itself, but this camera accepts. Canon lenses and lighting shown in the small format section. Images are 6.3 MP.

This is a Kodak point-and-shoot, model DX7630. It has a Schneider Variogon zoom lens of very high optical quality, and Kodak's "Color Science Chip" has advanced algorithms for processing the CCD signal. I am sometimes asked to recommend a "digicam". This one is a nice piece of work, and Kodak is also a good value. The large viewing screen is an especially useful feature.

Photographers joke about "PHD Cameras" (push here, dummy), but the highest technology could not compose a photograph, understand content, or measure feeling. We should never underestimate our bio-supercomputers, or defile perfectly good cameras. The Kodak is middle ground, offering excellent image quality, intelligent controls and layout, at modest cost.

Go film!

As it happens, film is very high technology. Those five-dollar cans of film possess over a hundred years of engineering refinement. Microscopic crystals of silver nitrate are precisely calibrated to deliver a controlled response, both to light and film developer. There are hundreds of film types, and we can get very high ISO, rich color, astounding resolution, and superb dynamic range. Film is densitometry, crystallography, chemisty, materials and polymer science.

With a playful spirit, I urge digital photographers to "go film"! Throw away that clinking, clanking, clattering, collection of caliginous junk, and get yourself a real camera! :-)