|
Hi Ryan, The answer to your question cannot be given in a sentence or two,
as there are facets of both digital and film that can be advantageous or
deleterious, and if you are seriously into AP then you have to take advantage of the former, and work your way around the latter, whichever of the two forms of AP you are using.
The short answer is that in general, better images can obviously be obtained digitally, sometimes spectacularly so, but with some objects the difference is less obvious, M31 for example. In the early days of digital, film was actually superior to digital because early digital cameras couldn't match the resolution of film, and stacking wasn't as developed as it is today.
The two forms of AP are not just two ways of forming images; film was about reproducing as faithfully as possible what the camera saw,
whereas today AP is more like an art form, with practitioners emphasising
one colour or another, to the extent that you could line up images of one object taken by half a dozen APers, and have all quite different from each other, although this is less often apparent in the higher echelons of AP.
In short [again] I actually enjoyed film more [other than the manual guiding] than digital because we didn't have all the bells and whistles,
and didn't spend hours on a b----- laptop.
Sorry for the ramble.
cheers raymo
|