Opinion: Digital vs film, were vintage photos somehow better?

Opinion: Digital vs film, were vintage photos somehow better?

It's easy to get sentimental about your old film SLR, but was there actually something about the golden era of pre-digital film cameras that resulted in better photography?

The other week, I got angry at a piece of writing. It was a single sentence on a classic camera site I will not name. There, the author stated that “these people (experienced street photographers using old film cameras) take photos”. As if everyone else just took snaps.

At first, I thought, ‘Hang on, what have I been shooting (once I went digital) for the last few years?’

Firstly, this was an insult to all the people who switched from film to digital and still kept on taking amazing photos. Secondly, it almost suggested the past was always better. And it just wasn’t. Certainly not in photography and not, I believe, in most other things.  

Now, I am not suggesting everything about photography today is better.

Film, either black and white or colour, remains the best medium we have produced for capturing the world. Blacks and whites look sharper, the tones crisper.

And I have yet to meet a magazine creative director who says digital colours look better than film. Because they don’t.

The simplicity of old-school picture composition, too, is brilliant, and it saddens me immensely that we have also, due to a ‘security’ and litigation-focussed society, almost killed street and candid photography.

But to suggest we cannot match, or maybe even surpass in many aspects, Cartier Bresson or Ansel Adams today is a bit rose tinted. 

Take a look at the sites below for more evidence. You can compare the works of these two masters (and Google plenty more) with the best of today.

Present-day amateur digital photography:
-  The 1x.com online photo community with present-day photography submitted from around the world
- Digital landscapes and portraits by this Flickr user.

Masters from the pre-digital days:
- Henri Cartier-Bresson 
- Famous landscapes by Ansel Adams

Honestly, I believe the overall standard of images today is better, and the shots more powerful, than at any time in photography’s short history.

This is because we have better courses, more knowledge, and much more specialised, higher standard equipment. 

And so it makes sense that we compose better, know how to shoot better, and process better.

There are obviously exceptions, too. Just look at some people’s Facebook sites.

And I admit, there is a lot still to learn. I still look at elements of the classics and wonder how they achieved such greatness.

But we live and learn. And we stand on the shoulders of giants. 

What's your opinion? Add your comment below.

[Main article image by Toni Frissell, via Wikimedia Commons]

Source: Copyright © PC & Tech Authority. All rights reserved.

See more about:  cameras  |  digital  |  film  |  dslr  |  camerasblog11
 
 

Readers of this article also read...

Rumour: Sony to offer tiny 13MP CMOS sensor for iPhone 5 

Rumour: Sony to offer tiny 13MP CMOS sensor for iPhone 5

 
Top 10 MWC 2012 phone rumours 

Top 10 MWC 2012 phone rumours

 
Sony Tablet S and Xperia phones get Ice Cream Sandwich update 

Sony Tablet S and Xperia phones get Ice Cream Sandwich update

 
Best iPhone apps this week (24/01/12) 

Best iPhone apps this week (24/01/12)

 
Apple iBooks 2 textbooks more interesting than school, say sales 

Apple iBooks 2 textbooks more interesting than school, say sales

 
Comments: 6
mrcents
8 February 2011
Film "DSLR"???


Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Opinion: Digital vs film, were vintage photos somehow better??
It's easy to get sentimental about your old film DSLR, but was there actually something about the golden era of pre-digital film cameras that resulted in better photography?

What do you think? Join the discussion.
magnus
8 February 2011
I know it's probably a little pedantic, but if it's a film camera it would be a SLR, not a DSLR.

I've found my interest in photography as a hobby waned when everybody got digital cameras and every moment got photographed.
There was something a bit special about photographs when you had to be a little more selective about your subject matter and took the time to make every frame worthwhile.
William Maher
8 February 2011
magnus, mrcents, not pedantic at all - thanks for spotting this! Fixed now.
geller
8 February 2011
The thing I love about those old photos was the grain. it's like some digitally shot movies, too clean, too clinical.
amboman52
8 February 2011
One of the big disadvantages of digital film (and video for that matter)is that exposures cost nothing. There is a big tendency - even with professional photographers - to take photos using "the codfish method" (if you lay enough eggs, one is bound to hatch). When it was going to cost you significant dollars to purchase film, develop it and then spend hours in the darkroom to get that one special print, there was a natural tendency to think carefully about lighting, colour balance, composition and exposure before pressing the button.

Pre-digital photographers also knew their equipment and processes like the backs of their hands. Simple cameras, great lenses, films and processes for consistent results. This meant that the camera became a part of their body, they could concentrate on the subject rather than the technology - that camera was part of yourself. All the technology was in the film, - you could have the same camera body for 20 years and not be left behind. How many of us today can pick up a modern DSLR with its 10 shooting modes, five focus zones and multimetering modes and spend more time thinking about the camera than the subject
photohounds
8 February 2011
amboman... I concur wholeheartedly! I stalled momentarily when I read your statement that 'cost nothing' was a disadvantage - You sure hit the nail on the head!

I would add that interet 'communication' have also been a bittersweet advance. Yes we can endlessly compare specs, prices etc., but pics published on the web and viewed on the average monitor are incapable of conveying the subtlety a fine print can. Or it is a vehicle for consumers to knock others' choice of gear.

Example: The various 'photography' forums which are often used for ignorant measurebators to knock whatever camera has 'produced' a photo. These people know ALL the specs, noise figures, the "all-important" sensor size (we "need" the legacy "Full" frame - not) and that other 'information' that matters little. These armchair critics are often ignorant of picture taking as a craft.

Bravo to you!
Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest Comments

Latest Poll

Which side are you choosing in the new console wars?



or View results
The Xbox One
  17%
 
The PlayStation 4
  29%
 
A console? Good Lord no - PC for me thanks!
  54%
TOTAL VOTES: 1331

Vote now
Ads by Google

From our Partners

PC & Tech Authority Downloads