World Press Photo 2003
 

link with photos *images of children, do not post*


mainly i guess i was really suprised that 81% of the entries were digital, as much as i love digital cameras, is there no place for film in the world anymore?

My guess is the convenience factor as all one needs is fresh batteries/laptop or card reader/USB cable out in the field rather than waiting to develop in a darkroom full of chemicals later.
And those new(er) Digital cameras with the SLR bodies and shutters and 6-13 Megapixels resolutions do take some very sharp pictures.

What I've heard with digital instead of film is you lose those pictures you delete on your digital camera that could possibly be significant at a later time.

I believe some of the pictures of President Clinton at meet and greets outside the White House where you see Monica Lewinsky in the background were taken on film.

If only you could develope film at home, simply and easily.

(Losing digi pics isn't really a problem if you have enough memory cards :))

I think there is definitely still a place for film. Digital is very convenient and I think it can be great for just about everything from journalism to tourism. I'm using a digi for cheap practice right now. However, a few of my friends who are either photography graduates or artists who produce work with photography reckon that film is still the way to go for quality. It's an opinion I encounter frequently.

Even a 5 megapixel digi shot will only give you a (roughly) 16cm high landscape print at 300 DPI, whereas scanning transparencies can yield very large image sizes. I've seen exhibitions with digital images that looked awful, and also some really good medium format portraits printed from negative scans. If a photograph is meant to be produced as an aesthetically pleasing object, it seems that film usually wins outright.

I suppose digital will eventually surpass the advantages of film, but not right now.

i have a digital camera... its only 2 mega pix so the quality is horrable, but it wins over my other camera because it is so much easier and i only have to print the photos i really want.

Yes, but I am sure they are archived on to their computer (and possibly disc as well) for backup.

I have a 4 megapixel Canon Power Shot G2 and I haven't bought or developed film in 2 years...

there is no doubt in my mind that digital is a easier, faster and more convenient method. I couldn't imagine trying to take pictures in a war zone, and having to reload your camera every 36 shots. I have heard that medical examiners, and forensics labs still only use film because it holds up in court easier. which makes me wonder about truth. At what point do we stop believing what we see?

horrible? I have a rose covered in snow blown up to 20x30 taken from a 2.1 mp Olympus camera.

don't fall for the 5mp trap. Sure you can zoom into the finished digital picture to crop out someone, but if you block your photos right you'll be just fine, and not have 1.2 Mb file sizes for each picture... mine are just above 400k.

as for losing them? if the person doesn't delete them (like me, I keep all pictures) then you'll not worry about that.

Film certainly is more believable, though what I fist did when I was given a manual SLR was take postcard type shots of sunsets and civic buildings.

Those subjects lost interest for me when I realised I was using the camera to distort reality rather than represent it, e.g waiting for good weather, cropping ugly signage and buildings out, maximising greenery. You're editing and distorting the world as soon as you raise the viewfinder to your eye.

People seem to accept images as "true", yet the way we see them is very different to the way we see the world.

I agree. "Shoot wide and crop later" seemed like a good idea with digital action shots, until I had to spend hours on end cropping in photoshop ;)