16
Is Digital Better Than Film? Part 2
3 Comments | Posted by Kristen Honey in Digital vs. Film
Last week we looked at the speed and versatility of the digital process vs. film photography. Today, we will look at the differences (if any) in the quality.
QUALITY
If you were to do a photo test challenge comparing a high quality film photo to a high quality digital photo, do you think that you could tell the difference? Back in the 90’s, the difference would have been ginormous! Today, however, there is no noticeable difference…zero…zip…nada!! The sensors on digital cameras today are extremely sensitive. The data that is collected from a digital sensor, is comparable to the amount of light organically collected onto film. Same amount of data – same quality!
The quality of a photo also has to survive retouching! When/if your digital headshot needs to be retouched, the original pixels (data) are getting moved around, which means that none of the data is lost. The quality stays the same and can even be “untouched” if need be. A film photo has to be developed from a negative, printed to a large hardcopy 8 x 10, scanned in for the retouching, and then printed again. That’s too many steps for the quality to remain true to the negative.
Lastly, it’s important to consider that ultimately what most casting directors are looking at these days are digital files. Most submissions come from Actor’s Access and LA Casting. With one click, agents can submit your headshot to multiple casting directors. Actually, hardly any hardcopy submissions are even accepted anymore. Having the highest quality digital copy of your headshot is extremely important. Your digital photo is the original file, it’s never been scanned, the quality has never changed — whereas a great scan of an 8 x 10 is hard to come by.
When comparing a digital photo to a film photo, there is no difference in the quality of the print. The difference is in the versatility of the process and the quality of the post-processed image. Digital photos are the perfect fit for the way that the entertainment industry is moving today:0)
3 Comments for Is Digital Better Than Film? Part 2
Adam | July 5, 2011 at 9:04 am
Author comment by Kristen Honey | July 16, 2011 at 11:35 pm
I love film and I agree with all of your points, but this is an advice blog for actors who need the headshot process to be quick and easy. Shooting digitally makes the entire process from start to finish speedy and versatile, where the film process is slow and methodical for the actor. Is digital better than film? Not necessarily. I’m simply saying that digital is better than film for the fast pace of the entertainment industry.
Is Digital better than Film? Part 1 - The Shot | Kristen Honey Photography | August 23, 2011 at 1:55 pm
[...] Is Digital Better Than Film? Part 2 [...]
If you’re looking at it the way you’re looking at it, sure, digital is better. I disagree that it’s as easy as you point out – any professional isn’t going to scan a print of film. That usually yield terrible results. They are going to scan the negative themselves to a high quality .tiff or .psd. From there, editing can be done and exported to a digital file a casting director can look at. After scanning the negative (assuming you do it correctly), there is no need to ever go back to the negative.
Yes, there is the downside to developing and scanning, but in my eyes you really only start to compete with film (quality-wise) once you get into the world of full-frame sensor cameras – which can get extremely expensive.
My little 35mm Pentax has a very fast prime lens (f/1.4) that, in total along with the camera, cost me 80 bucks. A prime for a 5D costs at least 200 dollars. 5 bucks for a roll of film every now and then beats several thousands on a dSLR I don’t need right now.
And no, Canon Rebels do not compete against film, at least to professional eyes. Quality is quality. Convenience is convenience.