More digital than film?

Despite the rampant progress of digital photography, I have continued to stick with film and sit astride the fence. That is something that I wish to continue but my most recent trips into the outdoors have seen me use my Pentax K10D exclusively. That, however, could be something to do with the subject matter. My most recent trot took me into what might be described as featureless moorland, a tricky subject to capture in the best way. So, possibly because of the lesser likelihood of success, I stuck with digital since any lack of success costs less. Previous trips took me out and about locally where I live and I seem to be more likely to use digital, possibly because I have been around the area a lot with my film camera anyway. Also, the vistas, as pleasant as they are, do not possess the drama of the likes of Highland Scotland, the English Lake District, or the mountainous parts North Wales.

That does lead to the impression that I am keeping film for the new and dramatic stuff and it may be true. it is, however, not entirely deliberate and I will continue to take both digital and film cameras with me on my excursions. My reason for taking a DSLR is that I want to put some photos into my posts on my outdoors blog and the world of digital easily speeds that process; my laggardness with getting films processed would add to the time taken too. And film? There is still a certain something about getting a print done for a photo album and the process does force me to print my photos, something that is not a compulsion in the digital world. There is also a greater feeling of permanance with film, a format that has been with us in its various guises for over a hundred years. With the pace of change in the world of computing, would the likes of DNG hold its own for that long?

Leave a Reply