Digital vs. film: One photographer's experience
by Chris Nicholson

(March 2006) I originally wrote this article in April 2003. While I still agree with all the points I made, I feel I need to note that in the past three years some advances have been made in digital photography. First, Nikon does now produce a digital camera (the D2x) suitable for sports photography. Second, computers are faster. Third, memory is cheaper.

So while I still agree with all my grievances in this article, the industry has come a long way toward addressing them.

However, cost differential is still a problem. Pro digital equipment costs at least twice as much as film gear, and the digital workflow is more time-consuming than the film workflow, yet the perceived market value is the same. In other words, more investment plus more time equals the same gross profits. Thus, a smaller net. The only advantage I see is the potential for immediate delivery of the images, which is very rarely a concern for my type of work.

But digital photography is like cell phones: The kinks haven't been worked out of the system, but that's where the world is going anyway. When I switch to full-time digital, I'll write another article to accompany this.

Part I: Why I shot digital

I finally did it. I shot digital.

With all the advances in digital photography technology the past couple years, by 2003 about half the professional photographers I know had switched from film to pixels, and a couple of them consistently ask me why I haven't switched too.

At a Snail's Pace. Nikon D1x, Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8. More Wildlife Pictures.

The answer is not that I'm a stodgy or sentimental lover of film. It's because of two things: 1) I make over half my photography income from photographing sports, and Nikon has yet to make a digital camera that's ideal for high-resolution sports photography (the main issue is slow frame rates). 2) I cannot justify the cost; one Nikon D1x costs as much as two of my Nikon F5's. (As for the cost being balanced by the theoretical savings in film and processing expenses, I'll get to that later.)

But finally, in April 2003, I needed to shoot digital photos. I was scheduled to work at the Fed Cup tennis event in Lowell, Massachusetts, which was being held indoors. I've never liked the look of tennis photos shot indoors on slide or print film, but digital looks fine.

So I borrowed a friend's D1x (Nikon Professional Services was out of them) and began my week of digital experimentation. As I also had a film shoot that week, I knew I'd be able to get a good comparison of working with the two formats. Here was my schedule:

The following pages are my feelings about the experience of working in digital photography versus film. I'll write about everything, the wonderful and the tedious.

Part II: The Wonderful Part of Digital Photography