Experienced photographers know how to work with both digital and film
When a photo or video shoot of a graduation party, birthday, wedding, or christening is planned, people increasingly ask themselves: what is better to shoot with – digital or film? A little more than ten years ago, no one knew about the first option, and with the advent of digital cameras and media, analog methods were quickly forgotten.
But, as it turned out, both have many pros and cons. Newlyweds often consult with friends, discuss on internet forums, and get unambiguous answers: 'only film' or 'only digital'. It depends on acquaintances. Those who shoot with digital cameras praise their method, those who shoot with film accordingly advocate for analog cameras.
There are many arguments about the range of digital sensors and analog film, about noise and grain, color depth, and many other things. These characteristics can be analyzed on the Internet. Let us comment on a few statements in favor of the digital method and arguments concerning film. And then you decide for yourself.
On the plus side of digital, they cite good dynamic range and sensor sensitivity. Simply put, the photographer does not need a bag with film of different sensitivities (from 100 to 1600 ISO). If the photo shoot involves changing lighting conditions, you can just switch everything on the camera. But it must be remembered that the photographer is not going on a carefree trip. He knows about the planned walks, the lighting situation in the restaurant, and no self-respecting specialist would allow themselves to leave the flash at home. There is a plus here, but it is not so categorical.
With digital, we see each shot on the screen and can immediately notice closed eyes or other defects. Film does not offer this opportunity – that's a fact. But, firstly, on a small screen you cannot see everything, and secondly, when shooting reportage at thirty frames per minute, what details can there be? In such a case, it is worth remembering that the viewfinder of a film SLR is much brighter than a digital one, and it is much easier to see something.
The third argument in favor of digital is the ease and wide possibilities for editing, applying special effects, filters. And you don't have to worry about possible mistakes of the lab operator who would make adjustments to each frame at their discretion.
Computer processing is a good thing, but 'lifeless'. It is one thing to remove defects, another to 'smear' a face on a portrait beyond recognition. Photos can always be scanned and corrected. And scratches on film depend on the professionalism of the lab. There, by the way, you can meet the operator and directly monitor the process of developing and printing your photos. For most reputable laboratories, this is common practice.
And in order not to limit your work with the shortcomings of both systems, it is better to practice with both digital and film.
_