It’s 4:00 am, and I’m still on Hawaii time.  I was staring at the TV, unsuccessfully trying to get drowsy, so  I decided to try and organize some random thoughts spinning around in my head since I  visited a new gallery in Lahaina, Maui, concerning the great “Digital vs. Film” debate. 

I usually spend quite a bit of time in photographic galleries when I get near one, admiring the work and  presentation, as well as learning what I can.  There was a new gallery in Lahaina on Front Street, and naturally I went in to browse.  The work was nice, a few things really terrific, and overall was enjoying the experience.  One of the salesman knew me from buying some watches there (the location used to sell nice watches), and I assume because he knew of my photographic background, launched into a discussion as to why these were better than most because they weren’t digital.

What intrigued me as I visited this new gallery was emphasis by all of the sales staff on “natural” and “film” and “no photoshop”, it seemed more important than the images themselves.  The sales people obviously had an inferiority complex, as most everything was qualified with why what I was looking at was “better” than the gallery down the street - but all of the qualifications as to why focused on using only film, no Photoshop (`or only 10% Photoshop they later claimed), and printing on real photographic paper.  They really didn’t talk about how the photographer had this type of approach, or this style of work, or look at how magnificent that 24x70 inch panorama is.

Both photographers use a similar style, emphasize large panoramas, and even have a similar final presentation.  The one down the street happened to be Peter Lik, and while I’m not a huge fan, I admit that I always spend at least a little time whenever I am by a Peter Lik Gallery and I do enjoy looking at some of his work.  In this case his images had much more variety and there were many more that I liked, including several that I liked very much. To listen to those in the new gallery, I shouldn’t like them because they are ”heavily” photoshopped (makes me wonder what heavily means and how they knew this), and weren’t captured with film (and I also don’t think that’s completely true either). 

According to those selling, I should prefer photographs taken with film, as though it was pure and superior, even though for the most part they were less interesting to look at.  They weren’t bad mind you, and indeed an image of the “twelve apostles” in Australia was terrific. And lets be perfectly clear as to why they were less interesting ... it was simply subject matter, composition, presentation ... it wasn’t the films fault they were not as interesting ... they just didn’t appeal to me as much.  Obviously my opinion might not be shared by others and they may prefer this style over Peter Lik, but why isn’t the conversation about that, instead of a pretty indefensible approach of the superiority of film capture vs. digital capture.

Of course you could say these were just sales guys.  Exactly.  They are taught to say what they say, which means most of what they say comes from someone else ... most likely the artist.

It seems those that are stuck in the film world many times try to appear “superior” to those using digital capture, but have no solid evidence of this, so they fall back on the “ it’s more natural ... more pure” defense.  Really?  What’s really funny is after all this bragging about film and natural, it turns out his technique is using a Fuji 617 panorama camera, then scanning the images.  He still used Photoshop!

I have no problem with the use of film as a capture medium.  In fact, I’d love to own a Fuji 617 myself, and someday may buy one.  But the reason you use film is because that’s what your camera of choice requires, or because it’s a personal preference.  Arguing that you use it because it’s better is putting up a defense that doesn’t hold water, and in fact is totally unnecessary.

What I found really amusing was the use of film because it is so pure, yet the photographer had no problem putting some beach chairs and tables in middle of the water at the beach and shooting it ... a totally contrived and artificial creation.  I really don’t have a problem with that ... it’s all about creating an image, but don’t claim purist when you conjure up something like this.

Another amusing claim made by those in the gallery was that their were superior because they were printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper ... “the most expensive color paper you can buy”.  Wow ... what a statement that is.  So lets brag about using a paper that has less gamut and is less archival than many other possible papers now available with good inkjet printers, and lets top it off by claiming it’s really expensive. My company only buys about 4 million square feet of Kodak paper a year, and I can promise you, Fuji paper isn’t more expensive - and it is magnitudes cheaper than inkjet.

SO WHAT’S MY POINT?

I guess my point is it really should be about the images.  Certainly you can have some personal philosophies, such as not using Photoshop to alter the contents of the scene, but to be honest those are just personal preferences, and that doesn’t make them better.  If you don’t want to use Photoshop to take out a coke can, fine.  We’ll agree to disagree, and my opinion of you will be neither higher nor lower because of that personal philosophy (unless of course you believe it makes you superior to me).  In my case, I’m not a photo journalist, and I don’t think someone wants a picture of a beautiful stream on their family room wall with trash in the middle of it.  Sure, I could choose to not take it or not use it, but I choose to clean it up.  It’s not like I’ve never done that with film, I just couldn’t do it as easily.

To me, there is not a film vs. digital debate.  To me, just like film, digital capture is a great tool and can provide outstanding images. To a well trained eye you may be able to tell the difference on very close inspection, but what does it matter?  That doesn’t change the subject matter, composition, color saturation ... it changes nothing in regards to the experience of viewing the image.  To have any debate would require one of two things... either one medium is obviously inferior (and really thus no debate anyway), or every image would have to be exposed, processed and printed side by side to see the superiority of one of the two mediums.  As it stands, all we have is an image, we either like it or we don’t, regardless of how it was captured.

Film or digital capture?  Who cares ... enjoy looking at the picture.