WOULD ANSEL ADAMS HAVE GONE DIGITAL? Interesting question, which sets off an interesting discussion on Slashdot.

I’m skeptical, myself. I’m very enthusiastic about digital cameras, and they’re especially great for the web, but film is still a lot better in terms of quality. In fact, I was recently looking at these pictures by photographer Naomi Harris, and I noticed that pictures taken with film look better, even on the web. Harris is a purist — she uses medium-format film, and no photoshop — but even on the web the colors and detail in these pictures are striking. (She told me that a number of magazine people she works with think that scans from film look better than native digital images in the same resolution, though they’re not sure why, exactly).

Back when I was a photographer (and, briefly, a professional one) we told ourselves that 35mm film was as good as medium- and large-format in most applications. I believed it until I did some large-format work. When you see the kind of detail in an 8×10 contact print — or even an 8×10 print from a 4×5 negative — you realize how untrue that is. Now we’re telling ourselves that the newer breed of high quality digital SLR cameras produces pictures that are as good as 35mm. I don’t think that’s true, either, and I’m sure that the quality can’t touch medium-format film. (Nonetheless, I have my eye on this one).

That’s not a knock against digital, which has its place — and an expanding one. But I think that film is a long way from being obsolete in applications where quality matters, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it gain the kind of appreciation that vintage analog gear has gotten in the sound-engineering world. I suspect that Ansel Adams, who enjoyed experimenting with Polaroid, would have enjoyed experimenting with digital cameras. But I don’t think he would have given up on film.

On the other hand, gigapixel digital images just might do the trick. . . .

UPDATE: By the way, if you didn’t check it out when I linked it earlier, the Smoky Mountain Journal is a pretty cool digital photoblog that, er, focuses on the Smoky Mountains.

ANOTHER UPDATE: PhotoDude Reid Stott weighs in in defense of digital imaging. As for Ansel, we get mixed reports. Reader Doug Plager emails:

There are few things in life I claim to be an expert, but…I believe I can confidently answer the question of Ansel Adams’opinion of the digital photography revolution. I quote from his introduction of volume two “The Negative” from his “The New Ansel Adams Photography Series” 1981, wherein he states “I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.”

Proof that Adams would have devoted much time and attention to creating images via digital media. Back when it mattered, I claimed that when pixel density approached grain density in conventional film the debate would end. In retropspect I was being very pessimistic. With present day edge detection alogrithms pixel density need not be anywhere close to grain density to produce equal image quality.

To quote the great, if self-effacing, photojournalist Gerry Winogrand “light on a surface, that’s all it is, light on a surface.” With elegant simplicity, Winogrand puts these technical debates in their proper perspective.

On the other hand, reader G. Hogan emails:

Not a chance. I attended one if his lectures/presentations, during the Q&A he was asked what kind of camera he preferred, the answer: “Any thing that will create a negative.” His work was done more in the darkroom than in the camera. His picture of Mt. McKinley was the result of three days of waiting for the clouds to clear and then he exposed one negative in an 8X10 camera and went home to create the photograph in the darkroom. The reproductions of his prints look good until you see the actual prints. The man was a true artist.

His description of the “Moonrise, Hernandez” picture taking was most memorable: “We were driving along when I saw the scene, stopped the car and mounted the camera on top of the car. I had forgotten my light meter but I knew that the moon was F8 and 125th. The print required a lot of dodging in order to bring out the town in the foreground.”

This is from nearly thirty years ago, but I still remember his words.

I’ve seen quite a few genuine Adams prints, and I agree that they’re a whole different experience from even the best reproductions. The one thing I feel pretty confident about is that Adams, if he did digital, would use Photoshop. . . .

Finally, reader Louis Rossetto points to photographer Stephen Johnson and suggests that if Ansel Adams were around today, this is the kind of work he’d be doing. Could be. Here’s one other thing that’s for sure: Though I’m a huge admirer of Adams, my personal photographer-hero is Walker Evans, and he would definitely be shooting digital.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis reports that Newsweek is 80% digital.