If you had a choice between film or digital, which camera would you prefer? and why?

Definitely digital. I have thousands of photos on the shelf, and thousands on my harddrive. Which do I actually look at with any frequency? Only the digital. Beyond simplicity, editing, etc, photos are memories, and what how much good are they if you never look at them?

Devil's Advocate: For print archival/enlargement purposes, digital still can't beat a quality film photo.

Digital is what I use.

i see that everyone like digital and i like it too but when you try to print the digital picture, does'nt the film picture print better?

-jk

I think it depends on the quality of the hardware. If you bought a good quality film SLR and a cheap digital, you might find that the quality of the film prints would be better. But if you bought a quality digital the story might be differet. Also depends on whether you print it yourself, or get it done professionally, what type of paper you use etc. I think if you wanted your photos printed, you could porbably get it done just as well from a digital as a film camera. Personally I have printed very few of the photos I have taken since I got my digital, I only do it if I want to frame them.

oops

im a fairly new to photography and as the shutter on my rebel is damaged im having to use a kodak F620 :( so can only really work on composition just now. im going to be buying a new camera soon and will prob go for a manual pentax (film) then maybe later in the year get a digital slr.

I don't have a good printer myself, but I take anything I want to print from my digital down to Ritz Camera, and they make good prints for a pretty decent price. I prefer digital because I don't have to worry about film--changing it, buying it, developing it, and so on. The cost of the memory cards and so on start paying for themselves after taking a certain amount of pictures, I think.

John: 1 year ago, I would have answered : Film!
Because I had a Nikon F70 + Nikkor lenses and a HP 715 - 3 Mp and I saw the difference on the paper.
Now, I don't buy an SLR because they are expansive and the ratio 1,5 change the idea I have of my lenses. I bought a good Minolta Dimage A1 - 5 MP with 28/200 mm zoom lens and I can say: no difference on the paper between the Nikon and the Minolta.
BUT: I can rework my pictures with the digital and take as many photos that I want!!!
Like Darryl said: " I can see my results instantly, more environmentally friendly" :-)

I like my digital because I make too many mistakes while simply using a 35mm heh I need to be able to delete. And I have tons of stock photos and things that might be able to use later. Oh and I enjoy manipulating =)

Again, i see that everyone like the digital camera! I have a good one my self but another question, is't true that film cameras are less expensive than the digital? if i'm not mistaken, the good Digital cameras like SLR's are much more expensive than good film ones... (i think)

That's true. But it is worth it I think...

Yes, John. But the difference decreases month by month...

I would think most of the people on this site would prefer digital, this would be a pretty bias media to ask this question wouldnt it? If you asked this question to a college photography class you may get opposite results. Gotta look at the statistical slants.

i see everyone's point but is'nt true that the Digital camera can be more trouble some than film cameras? like you droped it and screen goes bad or something like that... and on digital the there is so many setting too that you don't need flim ones... (my opinon)

Certainly you can damage any camera (film or digital) by dropping it or misusing it. I have only ever used a digital camera (apart from cheap and/or disposable film cameras when I was a child). I can't fairly say which I think is better, but I can say that I don't see film as a less expensive alternative to digital. Even though high end film cameras may be cheaper than high end digital (and as Pierre said, the gap is closing), with digital you don't have to pay for film and developing. If cameras were cars, wouldn't you buy one that never needed gas, even at twice the price. In fact, the cost of film and developing have a lot to do with why I never got into photography before my digital camera. Those costs were prohibitive for me. I would much rather the up front cost than feel like I every picture I take is nickel and diming me to death. I like to shoot first and ask questions later :)

I did a quick calculation and found that I'd need to take around 80 rolls of film before the cost of a digital and film camera evened out.

Sounds about right Caedes, and I have 80 rolls worth of just stuff I've kept in the last few months (in digital photos). I have probably thrown away twice that immediately after shooting it (because with digital I can). So this camera of mine has already paid for itself vs. a film camera three times since I bought it in March. Of course realistically I just wouldn't have taken nearly as many photos if I had been paying for each one with film :)

"Of course realistically I just wouldn't have taken nearly as many photos if I had been paying for each one with film"

Thats sort of the point isn't it... you feel free with a digital to take as many photos as you want. It's quite liberating. With a film camera, you are constantly thinking, "Does this justify a place on my film? Should I take another, or did that one work OK? Am I going to have room for the photos I want to take there if I take a few more here?..." etc

Torque, 80 rolls is almost 2000 images, you have quite the monthy hobby dont you?

Yep :). What can I say, I'm addicted. But it's probably not quite as much as it sounds. When I go to take pictures of the sunset for instance, (which I have done many, many times), I generally keep 50-100 pictures. But I don't want to take this discussion off topic. The point, as Sam pointed out, is that digital allows you to take all the pictures you want without worrying if a picture is worth taking. It is a great freedom.

Digital for me. Because I can as many pictures as I want without worrying about the processing costs.

i guess film is useless nowadays....

I don't think anyone here is saying that. I think digital is just more convenient for the hobbiest. I'm sure many peole swear by film, and lots probably enjoy doing their own developing. Like Anthony said, this is a biased group because we all need our pictures on the computer at some point in order to post them here. Don't jump to conclusions :). You just have a few people's personal opinions.

Don't forget the films need to be scanned to be usefull on a computer. A good scanner is expansive and the result is not perfect...

hmm, i still say this forum would be highly bias to digital (digital art website). Many people still like to go into their darkrooms and develope and manipulate, mess with the film exposure, use manual advance, etc. but who knows, maybe this site represents the general public more than I give credit

As I noted above ("Devil's Advocate: For print archival/enlargement purposes, digital still can't beat a quality film photo."), I found the web site (http://www.users.qwest.n et/~rnclark/scandetail.htm) I'd heard referenced. A quote, incase you aren't quite as bored as I was and don't want to read the whole thing:

"From these tests, it is my opinion that digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvi 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels. Somewhere in the 12-16 megapixels will produce color image quality comparable to 35 mm film...

Large format: more than 200 digital camera megapixels are need to match 4x5 Fujichrome Velvia film. How much more needs futher testing."

Granted, this testing was done a few years ago and I don't know as if I agree 100% with the scientific method behind these assertions, but the quality of large-format print is certainly noticable in the enlargements.

Not that it really matters to any of us working around 2MP (1600x1200), but I suppose if you, for some reason, need a 6000dpi scan, there's better stuff out there for quality than anything digital so far. Unless, of course, you put together the 1Gigapixel mosaic Caedes referenced a few months ago... =D

Check out the largest digital camera in the world:
http://popularme chanics.com/science/extreme_machines/2003/11/digital_camera/

I wonder why it keeps putting that space in the links all the time?? > (

My guess is that the space is Caedes' solution to the problem of people typing in long random strings and having it mess up the page formatting.

it also encourages you to actually make it into a link instead of forcing everyone to copy&paste. =)

Ah, I see...

ok so i guess everybody is saying flim is no good for photo nowadays], right?

no not at all, i've just started using a digital camera and to be honest i would much rather have a film camera despite the extra cost and the delay in getting your photos but if i go out on a shoot i'll also take a digital camera but purely as a back up

u should go into more detail, why do you prefer to use your film camera? does it feel better against the skin in your hand?

good question, yeah it does feel more comfortable, but it's manly that with the digital camera i don't feel as if im doing much to control what it does, also the pic you see on the viewfinder is not the same as that through the lens, or on the lcd for that matter.

Digital is the future until we find some other better techniques..../ Tommy

digital, digital,digital does everybody like digitals?

there were several good arguments for film, just depends on your purpose (prints or files, darkrooms or photoshop :p). I'd have to say that if making high quality prints is your goal then (or getting into many college photography courses) you need to go for film, if creating a website, or simply taking tons of photos and not using many of them (Torque :-p :D ) is your goal then I would go digital. Question answered?

Digital imaging is moving ahead with breakneck speed. In three maybe four years we've seen a tremendous improvement in the 1.) Quality and 2.) Affordable pricing. What I see as a major obstacle, at least for me, is the question of storage or how many pictures can I put on my memory card. The greater the mega pixels and the higher the resolution the fewer images can be put on the card. A good card of large storage capacity is still quite expensive. I think the answer to this is small portable hard drives. According to the articles I'm reading this is in the near future. (How near?).
I'm still a die-hard film shooter. I don't waste film, my compositions a meticulous and I have very little waste. My cameras are still old Canon manuals and I love the freedom they give me to be creative. I don't just shoot, edit and delete as so many of people I know with digitals do.
All that said: When the storage solution is really addressed and the cameras reach 12 to 15 Mega pixels, I will probably start purchasing digital equipment for professional field usage.
Right now I have four film cameras, if something goes wrong in the field, I simply remove the lens and switch camera bodies. Gets mighty expensive to have multiple digital setups.
I have a small digital camera for taking family photos and like it. The other thing I've found is that the higher the automation, the more can and will go wrong. Ever tried to get a digital camera repaired? Spendy.
However Digital is the wave of the future and that future is coming very quickly. I'm sure all of the negative things I've mentioned will soon be addressed.
Most of the film manufacturers aren't doing much in R & D with film anymore, so it is just a matter of time before film will be either to expensive or just plain unavailable to all but the high-end professionals.
The real question is: are digital images as good as film images? I have to say yes. Is it cheaper: in the long run (at least for now), my thoughts are they aren't.
I shoot film, it gives me the freedom of choosing scanning and printing, or printing from film. That way I have the best of both worlds.

wise words from a very good photographer :)
btw I bought my 64mb SD card for under $10
pricewatch.com

I have three digitals and a 35mm. I finally stopped using the 35mm a few months back when I got my newest digital camera, which has paid for itself 3x times over in just the film purchases and development costs I have saved. The batteries get used faster in a digital, but as long as I don't use the flash often, the batteries last a while.
Over a year ago I had no real interest with doing photography outside of family snapshots, vacation pics and the occasional item to be used in my digital art. I think with a digital camera you are more apt to experiment and take shots at more angles then you would with a film camera. I am of the type that learns best by doing something, I can learn a lot from reading and get the concepts down, but actually putting it into practice really makes it sink in. With a digital, you are freed from the costs that you have with buying & processing film. It gives a photographer the freedom to more fully explore the medium at no added cost. :c)

Personally, I use both digital and film cameras on an almost daily basis. Neither is superior, they complement each other with their respective strengths and weaknesses. Digital is a great learning tool and is more than acceptable for photojournalism, portraits, wildlife, etc. Film still is my weapon of choice when it comes to situations where large prints are going to be made and where detail, texture and color reproduction is of paramount importance (The best digital cameras don’t even come close to a properly exposed/processed piece of Velvia in terms of color/detail). One also has to take into consideration how the images will be used or displayed. Unless you the funds to have all your film based images drum scanned, digital usually produces higher quality images for internet/computer use. (IMHO)

Holy cow, my head is spinning.

You said it Tracy! I'm following this discussion avidly. I've got my Cannon rebel (non digital) and my Minolta XD5, an ancient piece of body work but trusty. I've got a huge investment in lenses for both. Up untill now I've shot weddings and a few events, and my walls and most of my friends and relatives walls are covered with 8x10s and 16x20's. I swore I wouldn't go digital untill I could use my lenses and have some control over outcome, and now you have that choice. I'm playing with Photoshop and photoimpact more now and not getting what I want scanning. So I'm thinking about adding a digital body for that direct input. There are qualities to both, I'm just weighing my investment this far before I take the next step. For me, it would be an addition to the arsenal but not a replacement.

Since I went digital I rarely use my 35mm. I like to experiment a lot and it's too expensive when you've got to pay for the film and developing. I simply couldn't afford to do with a film camera what I do with a digital!

so most of people who like digital is because of cost?

Digital, I like the whine of the little motor in there, click, click. See a good sunset coming on, grab my tpod and hit the road. lol, Serious reasons all of the above.

Over the years I've been involved with both medias and it dosen't really matter witch media that you use. Your own creativity can produce outstanding images in any format if you learn how to use that media and learn it's limitations. I would recommend atleast a 3 or 4 megapixel digital camera and avoid shooting pictures of overly bright subjects without some type of fliter. Digital cameras do a wonderful job of zone metering your scene and gives good highlight and shadow details. Film cameras may have the edge over exposure and shutter control but the newer digital cameras have some impressive features. I feel that it's only a mater of time before the film camera passes into history.
Russ

haha, good thing that in the scope of photographing for desktop imagery, 3 and 4 megapixels is uneccessary. 1600x1200=1.9MP 1280x1024=1.3MP

Digital of course !
...but a good one !

If you want high quality printing, then use commercial print services. VistaPrint for example that's the most common one.

noobguy, i find it is much nicer to take a higher resolution picture and shrink it to get your final image rather than using a full size image, simply because it makes a much smoother, less noisey, and finer detailed image. often i shoot panorama's where my wider angle lens would surfice, then just shrink the size of the panorama, because i like the product more that way.

personally i would say that digital is a great learning device primarily because it is cheaper, and you see instant results, however i love using real SLR lenses and such because you have so much more control, and you can use filters. i dont have my own, but i enjoy playing around with my aunt's (who does her own developing) the only thing is that you really pay for digital SLR's. i would be very interested in getting one, the only problem is that the bodies start at around $900 and if you want to buy auto-focusing lenses they are much more expensive also. i would be interested in trying film again, i just think it would be a bad investment, because as photoimagery said, most of the R&D is going into digital, so high quality digital camera's will continue to improve and get cheaper, wo i'll just wait till i can actually afford one;)

I will add $.02 to this discussion. Most of the arguments have been made, much more eloquently than I could so I'll just say this...

As a newbie photographer of the point and shoot variety, I wanted to step up. I bought a 35 mm Canon Rebel and had a blast. Fairly cheap, lot's of lenses, film wasn't expensive. What DID get expensive was developing the 7-10 rolls of film 1 to 2 times a month when I went out to play with it. As a fella with a normal job, I'm no gazillionaire, that was costing more than I could afford. And since I'm not well versed enough to KNOW how to set up a shot, I experimented a lot and therefore ended up with a lot of crap. Shorten the story... The 35mm Rebel has been sitting in my closet for quite a while now.

I recently purchased a Digital Rebel (I can use most of the accessories I already had) and can take 30 pictures of a bottlecap if I want to. Sure, the initial cost was 3 times what I paid for the film camera, but I am free to shoot at my shoestrings if I so desire, and sometimes, I do.

Here is how I see it.

Those who say digital allows them to take an inordinate amount of photos and then delete the bad ones have a point, but I have a slight problem with that. Whatever happened to stepping back, figuring out a good composition, taking the picture, and waiting eagerly (or anxiously in some cases) for the print. Granted there is a great deal more risk involved, but that is part of the fun of photography. I am in no way saying that digital advocates are sloppy artists (the content of this site shows that they can be talented); I just think that a good film SLR is a better way to learn photography. A novice that is forced to obtain good results based soley on metering and a good eye will find it quite easy to transition to digital with a leg-up on those who started out with digital.

As for instant gratification, it is nice to see a picture seconds after it is taken, but one the most exciting moments in my life was seeing my first hand-processed black and white print develop in front of my eyes. Did it take a while? Yes. Did it cost more than digital? Yes. Did the developer burn my arm? Horribly. But most importantly, did seeing my image appear from a blank sheet of paper exhilirate me and increase my zeal for photography? Most definitely!!

I love Photoshop and digital imagery, but there is just something about film that will keep me and, dare I say, a good deal others buying, using and enjoying film for a long time to come.
But that's just me.

35mm, 120, Polaroid 600, Timezero, and peelaparts FOREVER!!!

This discussion definately raises my eyebrow. For me, digital is the new age format. I will either sell the old Canon Rebel or store it in the box with my 8-Tracks and Lp's. The zoom lens may come in handy on the new DSLR though;-)

For now, I can only afford film (which I actually got for Christmas). When I get a steady job, start making school loan payments, and after I buy a more reliable car, I'll work on saving for a digital camera (after I buy more lenses for the film one...I'll make sure I get a compatible digital). Plus the film camera will come in handy when I take the photography class at school.

I didn't read all the topics, but I think that still for Black & White Pictures film is better.
The results you get from changing a color digital photo to B&W is not the same then when you took the Picture with a B&W film.
I use 2 Camera's A Canon EOS 3000N (Film) and a CANON EOS 300D (Digital) and I can use the same lenses on both my Camera's.

My conclusion:
Color: Digital
B&W: Film

Digital, especially for astrophotography. nothing is worse than using film and after an all nighter finding out a day later (after developing) that the scope was out of focus and the whole night's worth of pictures is worthless.... so definately digital so i can immediately check the images, Also with my canon Digitel rebel, 6.3 Mpx camera (digital slr) and my 2 GB compact flash card, i can take up to 500, 3072 X 2048 high res images

sounds expensive

... 200 $ for a 2GB CF card... :-/

the card and the camera together sounds like a way too expensive combo for me

I dont think I would spend on a camera what he spent on his card!

i take alot of pics, and use them for temp storage

my card costs under $10 and it stores about 200 images on my camera ;-)

I never like using CF cards for temporary storage. The images are much safer on a computer than a card. After loosing several images to a bad card, I now dump the shots onto my computer immediately after shooting.

I don't like cameras. Period.

thanks for that deep insight, David, it's enlightened us all

ive lost over 1000 pics on one of my 250 GB hard drives because it became corrupted :-(

Funny thing is, I've never lost a negative due to a corrupted acetate sleeve or a rogue magnetic field. Even funnier is that I paid $10 for 50 pages (That's 1750 negs)!

I have always uploaded my photos to my hard drive ASAP; I'm the kind of paranoid person who has to back up everything three times to feel "safe". I'm more worried that I will accidentally erase them than my card becoming corrupted though.

Now that I have a laptop I just take that with me nad download all the images I have taken so I can delete the ones that are no good; also means I don't have to spend any more money on cards, I can just empty the one I have when it gets full. Not that buying a laptop is more economical.

Sage buying a cf card would be like buying an expansion that allows you to take 500 pics on your film camera in each session instead of 24, then developing those 500 pics for free, and going out and taking 500 more :-p

I keep two copies of all my shots... one set on my laptop, and back-up copies on my home's server.

While I still like film for its stability, I agree with noobguy's point, the post shooting workflow is significantly reduced with digital. Prior to 2001, when I still shot sports with film, the amount of prep and post work was tremendous. At 8 frames per second, it's a roll every 4 or 5 minutes, if you shoot conservatively. With digital, I can take roughly 350 shots on a 1 gig card and then dump the images whenever I have a chance to. No messing with film, buying it, or processing it.

As for storing my images, I keep images on my hard drive and archive them on CD as well.

Yes, I back up all my photos and other images to CD or DVD also. Only disadvantage is that displaying photos on a computer screen isn't really the same as showing someone a photo album. I am hoping to get a digital projector soon though so I will be able to use that instead (a bit like a slide projector I guess).

I too looked into a digital projector for showing work to clients, but was unsatisfied with the color rendition. The colors were dull on the few that I looked at, and the projector was unable to display the subtle differences in colors. Instead, I just bought a second printer, and proof using it, rather than a projector. I mean the images looked good on the projector, just not the best for color-critical applications.

I want one to replace my old TV anyway, so I thought I might as well get one that I can connect via USB as well. But maybe I will wait a bit longer for the technology to improve.

ok, i realise that i havent got any images uploaded yet. but im working on it. my camra is a digital. i find it easyer to use than a film one. plus i dnt have to scan the photos into my computer, i just put the memory card in the slot and copy them.easy!!

I like the feel of an SLR camera. Me and my Girlfriend have an older Nikon SLR and to me, it is just a lot of fun to use.

As for digital, I use it on a daily basis over the SLR because of the hassle of having to go and get the film developed before I can see if my shot turned out proper.

The problem with digital, as I'm rapidly experiencing is storage. Where do you store 5gb of photographs, so that you don't loose them in the event of a hard disk failure or whatnot. This is where a re-occuring cost can come in with digital.

For me, it's DVD's that I make incremental backups on, and DAT tape drives that I use as a secondary backup. And where they are stored, is on a file server that I created specificaly for storing my images. That machine uses a RAID-5 array ( 4 hard drives, which allow me to have one drive completly fail, and still have all my data intact)

You can buy cheap DVD-R's for a few dollars each. Once you have enough photos just store them on one of those. You can even back it up multiple times if you want, they are so cheap it doesn't matter. If I don't have enough to fill a DVD-R I use a rewritable.

I still woulden't trust all of my digital photographs to a single backup medium. But this in itself is just personal preference, and having the means to provide myself with such a service.

What I do for archiving, as I mentioned earlier, is keep a copy on a second hard drive in my computer, and another on CD, the discs are then promptly locked away in a fire-safe. I figure that the chances of my computer suffering a catastrophic failure, and my house burning down at the same time are pretty slim. The only time I will make several copies of the CDs are when the images are REALLY important/valuable, such as my images from Athens. This method has worked perfectly for me since I switched to digital in 2001.

My only backup is Caedes and the friends who use my images as wallpaper;-) Please will you send them back to me in case of a major crash?

Of course I will........especially since I think I have ALL of them on my HD! :~)

Hehe, I'm sorry;-)

Digital or film! You know I’m pricing out high-end cameras right know. And really want to go with a more of a pro Dig. But there are a few things I miss in dig that you can only get in a Film Camera. One: a true B&W film type. You just can’t beat Ilford or Kodak B&W film. A camera that has a B&W setting! It seems that they would take the hint and design a good DIG that can do this with out converting it in a photo program.
Another thing a depth of field control preview switch, there not there yet either. I really enjoy the convenience of digital. But it still is lacking so much. It still doesn’t have the feel and true negative quality camera. With out dropping $22,000 on a good medium digital format camera back or a beterlite long exposure cameras that work on a line scan process. I like the new cameras but film it has so much more to offer. I’ve even considered taking a scanner and converting it to a long exposure camera using a bellows and a large flat plain lens.

The 20D has a B&W mode, and all of Canon's pro bodies (I think Nikon's too) have depth of field previews. (Both of my Mark II's and my 10D have DOF preview buttons.) Personally, since most of my work is sports, I don’t need film quality, just good high-ISO performance and lightning-like speed. The new Canon 1DS Mark II (not the 1D Mark II) has a full frame, 16MP sensor, it's pretty darn close to film quality.

One of my friends still uses his complete 30-year-old Nikon system and, with the right raw film stock (he prefers the slower B&W types), creates the damndest images. These Ansel Adamsesque potraits and still lifes are fed into a flat scanner and converted into digital images of close to 20 MBs, resulting in diamond sharp prints of up to 11"X14" on fine paper.

I have the first d 100 nikon and it did not yet have the depth of field capability. At this point I'm concidering the kodak Dxs models they seem to have allot f the feature I'm looking for. And are rated fairly high for the price.

I hear these Kodak backs are the best out there right now. You thinking of spending some serious coin, Clayton?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091901kodakproback.asp
http://www.lonestardigital.com/dcs645m.htm

I have heard mixed reviews about the Kodak DCS digital cameras. I have never actually used one, but know another photographer who uses one for commercial work. There is quite a bit of noise in the shots taken at high ISOs, and the build construction on a camera that expensive should be at least that of Nikon's F5/D2H/D2X and Canon 1-Series cameras, so I was a little disappointed to hear that it is not. On the flip side, I am definitely impressed with its low ISO images and ease of use. I don’t know very much about the DX ones though.

Yeah, I think the Kodak backs are the best, although Leaf and Phase One make some pretty darn good ones.

I've conciderd Canon. There Digitals have a pritty good and well proven track record. But I've always been a long time nikon user. I waiting on the user reviews on the new nikon DCS/n after they let the pro's have at it.

Digital, the biggest and only reason for me is that it is cheaper and with not job or any real source of income that is the only way i can take photos and send em here

Personally, i hate digital. yeah, you get the fast results, but how do you really know if someone's a good photographer, or if thst just cropped something out of the pic on the computer. i think photography needs to be done in a darkroom. that's where a lot of the creativity happens. i take photography at school, and i love it in the dark room. i'm in there every day. i'm always working on a new picture. with digital, you dont have that exciting trial and error process. if you screw up 24 shots on film, and then develop them yourself, you had all that time to see what you did wrong. it motiveates you to do better, and put more time and effort into it, not just take this and delete it in a matter of nimutes if its not good. the fun is messing things up, the fun is fixing things, the fun is film...

I would have to disagree that digital is void of any educational value. For instance, if you are trying to capture a specific type of shot, seeing you mistakes and what improvements can be made, on the spot is invaluable. With digital, you are able to spot your mistakes while still in the environment that the photo was taken, allowing you to specifically pinpoint the problem. There is still tons of motivation as well, when I am shooting and I did not get the particular shot I wanted, I try even harder once I realize what went wrong. Being able to check things like exposure (with the histogram) on the spot is something I would never give up, and before switching over to digital, I felt the same way…but in hindsight, it’s been the best move of my career!

Film still has its place and advantages, but the digital revolution is here to stay, and it's only getting better. In just about any publication that you pick up, whether it's the newspaper, Sports Illustrated, Newsweek, etc., the images are all digital, in the news/sports world, just a handful still shoot film.

VIVA LA FILM!!!:)) Digital is cool!! BUT!There is MAGIC! in manual shooting!! Take more time ! takes more patience takes more exitment!!
It's so nice when you wait a bit for you photos!! Everything now is fastFood!!! even Photography!!
This Supermarket life is getting so heavy!!
I have Both! but i like more FILM!! We bla bla know all the advantages of DIGITAL! but i love all my bad photos and negatives with i have round 400!!
Somebody sad!! Is good to learn on your own mistakes!! to have them not to DELETE them and forget them about!
So.... thats all for this TOPIC!

Enjoy Photography and da beauty!! who cares!!! a good photo it's a good photo:))
And there is a bad ones too:) IMAGINE!!

Blacky!

AMEN! If anything, learning from your mistakes with film will save battery life for your digital camera when you don't need to delete your bad pictures. Or it may just entice you to take more awesome negatives!

Call me old fashioned, but....
Nevermind, just call me old fashioned.

DIGITAL DIGITAL DIGITAL

film is really crapy because whenever i use to get mine developed there was usually something wrong with the pictures and with digital you can see your results right away and you can even delete them

Please elaborate on "crapy." Do you mean "crappy?" If that is what you were trying to say, then you were probably referring to: bad exposure, poor focus, incorrect color, and dull composition. All of these problems are not inherently caused by ANY media...only the users thereof. I have witnessed artists who use bleeding edge digicams to take horrible pictures, and others who use beat up, old film cameras to make unique, beautiful photographs. In the same manner, I have seen digital artists with first generation digicams achieve great results where film users with high-end SLR's could not. The camera is the tool. It is limited by the user. A pencil can be used to scribble nonsensical pictures, or it can be used to create amazing art. It only needs an artist.


Bottom line:
The artist makes the art, not the pencil, not the brush, not the camera.

"Bottom line:
The artist makes the art, not the pencil, not the brush, not the camera."
preech it
though digital is still > film
"There is MAGIC! in manual shooting!!" - buy a digital SLR
"film will save battery life for your digital camera when you don't need to delete your bad pictures" - I've kept all my "bad" photos. Some of them turned into amazing photos a yr later when I went back on them after learning more about the digital darkroom.
Which I learn more about every week, whoever says the digital darkroom takes no skill hasnt tried :p