Here are some specific areas where digital cameras show their shortcomings

Digital vs. film: What it means for you

Snapshot on Digital Photography
 
You have all probably seen this recent announcement: "Kodak is stopping production of 35 mm cameras and soon APS cameras." Since digital cameras have been outselling 35 mm film cameras in the amateur market for years, there was no point for Kodak to continue producing these cameras for the general consumer. It is important to note, however, that Kodak has never produced cameras for the professional market. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa, all also manufacture film, and all have recently launched brand new, greatly improved, 35 mm film emulsions for professionals. The reason is simple. They know that, despite improvements in digital cameras, they do not as yet come close to matching conventional film for the expert shot. So, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet, and think about the following considerations, before you go entirely digital for your next photo shoot.

Digital cameras
Despite "mega" file sizes, most digital cameras do not deliver the sharpness, tonal range and clarity that 35 mm film cameras do so effortlessly, with perhaps the exception of a few high-end professional models. The number of mega pixels a digital camera captures is about a quarter of the amount of color data that a 35 mm film camera does. The top manufacturers of digital cameras - both consumer and professional products - state that it would take a digital camera with a chip of over 14 mega pixels to replace conventional 35 mm film. They are right. This means that a 10 mega pixel camera, including $5,000 professional versions, is barely halfway to delivering the same results as conventional film.

Back to top
 
Limitations of consumer-grade digital cameras
The limitations of digital cameras are due to the state of the technology - which is in its infancy - and not to the skill of the photographer. These technological challenges are particularly evident in outdoor shots taken in bright sunlight.

Here are some specific areas where digital cameras
show their shortcomings:
- Pictures may show major light flaring in highlights or in areas with brisk density changes. Often, highlights are completely bleached out (white golf shirts, snow scenes, white beaches, sail boats, white clouds that show no definition).

- There is often a major loss of details in deep shadow, or bleached highlights. This is due to the digital nature of the sensor chip. Past a certain level, a sensor does not peter off smoothly like film, it sharply ceases to record information.

- Tonal ranges are usually choppy. For example, skin tone areas lack definition and smooth contours.

- Narrow color space is further reduced when images are converted for use on
a printing press.

- Image functionality is limited. Images from digital cameras are suitable for newspapers and the web, but fall well short of meeting your expectations for full-page, glossy magazine work. At best, they can be reproduced in small sizes, let's say postcard size. When you tell a magazine editor that all your photos were shot digitally, you usually hear: "Oh!" followed by that horrible silence that will probably not get you a cover.

Back to top

Digital vs. film: What it means for you
The problem for you is: How do I get images that are suitable for use in brochures, on the web, for broadcasting, magazines, newspapers and special high-end printing jobs? The already narrow color space (small gamut = not enough tonal definition) of digital images is further reduced when the pictures have to be converted to printing press standards. What is "narrow color space"? The colors that digital cameras record are not the same as the ones that colored printing inks can reproduce. The sad truth is that a digital picture often looks good on the screen but not when it is printed. Colors that do not match the available range of inks are simply discarded, or are so drastically changed that the result, when printed in a magazine, is often unpredictable or just plain dull.

Photo shoots are a big investment for many of you. Our big challenge is that, when an organization spends hundreds of dollars getting what amounts to a collection of digital snapshots, how can we convince them that they may have some severe usability issues? Why compromise with what amounts to your lifeblood your promotional image library? We suggest that you go for a mix of conventional film and digital shots. A handful of good, original (no duplicates, please) 35 mm and medium-format transparencies (professionally drum-scanned, of course) will cost only a fraction of the custom photo shoot, but will give you a chance at getting the magazine cover, the full page or other prime placement. Magazine editors are not blind. No blurry photograph will make you a cover, whether the shot is great or not (unless it is a recent, first shot of Mars, perhaps). If you select to go with digital camera shoots only, ensure the professional photographer is providing you with the highest true-resolution output (the largest file they can get). The JPG format is OK, if the rate of compression is set to maintain maximum image information. Raw files are not acceptable, since no color management has been performed. In this case, you want your professional photographer to deliver you a finished product, not one where no decision on color space has been made.

The choice is yours
Recently, a frustrated colleague asked: "Did all professional photographers suddenly go blind as soon as they purchased their digital cameras? They would never have accepted such poor standards on film." Such is the power of "cool" new technology. But, take a closer look and see for yourself.

Digital cameras are improving greatly from one year to the next. They are attractive because they are easy to use and offer the seduction of quick, do-it-yourself solutions. But for now, relying solely on digital cameras may not serve your destination or attraction well, will not get you the media coverage you deserve. You want pictures that literally transport your viewers to your destination or resort. A blurry shot - whether from a consumer-grade digital camera or a duplicate slide - is not useful, no matter how much you paid for it.

Yes, I do also use a digital camera. I love it, and it's great for the web, and souvenir snapshots. There is no doubt that the recently launched Hasselblad and similar medium-format digital cameras are awesome. These professional systems actually outperform film in image quality, and so they should for $15-20K. Digital photography is barely 7 years old. It still needs to grow up pixel "wise".

Nelson Vigneault, CEO, CleanPix Corp.

Back to top