Today, I received an interesting email from a reader that is considering getting back into photojournalism after several years. Photojournalism has indeed changed during the past decade. Thanks to Ronald for some terrific questions and welcome back to a field that is still redefining itself.
Is film photography dead?
Yes and No. In photojournalism, however, it is more dead than alive. Here's way, briefly:
Digital photography increases productivity and efficiency. In my 20004 study on shifting routines in photojournalism, I found a strong relationship between digital technology and productivity in image-making processes.
The biggest finding was that photojournalists no longer can make excuses if they come back with nothing when using digital. Photographers can review results immediately on a digital camera and stay longer on assignments to meet late deadlines. Within the next 10 years, almost all DSLRs will be equipped with wireless transmitting options. This will mean that not only how photographers make images will change but also what computer and telephonic skills they need.
Is film it still superior for archiving purposes?
Maybe, perhaps, ummmm... yes, I still think so. I am hedging because I think this issue has still to be determined as technology advances.
Nevertheless, the biggest difference in recent years is that people are learning to manage his or her digital assets better.
The trick is to remember we are now dealing with data and not silver nitrates and other chemically-based substances.
If I purchase a Nikon SLR or Leica Rangefinder film camera, would that be a mistake?
It depends on what you want to do with your photography.
Here's my mantra:
Cameras are tools.
Cameras are tools.
Cameras are tools.
Repeat after me... Cameras are tools.
Does NOT using a digital camera prevent you from competing with other photojournalists working on deadline.
You bet.
Does making pictures with a digital camera significantly decrease the quality of the image.
No.....Not likely, especially with the right digital camera.
One way of thinking about the difference between film and digital is that there are the equivalent of about 6 million pixels in a 35mm frame. Although you can't completely depend on translating the number of megapixels in a digital camera to that of a 35mm SLR, you can get pretty close. Many pro-consumer and professional models of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras have at least 6mgs, but if shot in digital raw format the file size can as high as 18 megapixels.
Here's the key point:
Shooting film, in my opinion, is no longer an advantage over digital. There is absolutely no reason not to invest in digital at this point. The quality of digital photography has improved a lot in the past few years. After the initial cost of the camera, lenses, and accessories there may be a slightly better economic return on digital.
If I purchase a Nikon, Leica or Canon digital camera, is the technology still changing so fast that the camera would be technically obsolete in a short period of time?
In my opinion, emphasis on "opinion", I think the technology is still improving every year. However, we have had enough time now to have a battery of great digital cameras to pick from on the market. Basically, I think the digital camera field is very strong and compete with anything on film. As far as preferences and technological obsolescence, Nikon may have been falling a bit behind Canon. I switch over to Canon in 1993 and haven't regretted the decision. Until then, I was a pretty hardcore Nikon user. I switched because I saw Canon putting more research into its lenses, which are, in my opinion, key to the picture-making process. I know this comment may upset Nikon users, but if you research the number of patents Canon has licensed in the field of digital photographic technology over the past 15 years, I think you will see the difference.
If you want to really know what photojournalists are using these days, hang out with them for a few days. You'll get more opinions than you'll need to make an informed decision.
Remember:
The camera is a tool. It's the photographer that makes images not just the camera.