BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

digital vs film

To love this question, log in above
November 27, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
November 27, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
November 28, 2005

Both film and digital have their place - and while some people are zealots for one or the other, some folks use both. The image quality that you will get from a properly exposed and steadily held film SLR using that 75-200 will no doubt be better than an identical image taken with the P&S, for a few reasons. First, the lens on the SLR will probably be sharper. Second, the very small CCD on a P&S lends itself to noise and resolution limitations, with noise being of more concern with 8 MP crammed into a very small space.

On the other hand, the P&S is no doubt more portable, so you might carry it with you more often.

So you need to decide - if you're looking for technically better shots the film/75-200 is the way to go. If you're looking for convenience (or just a new toy) then get the digicam.

To love this comment, log in above
November 28, 2005

I know what you're thinking. And I shared those feelings, fervently, until recently. I have been and always will be, to a certain extent, a film photographer. In my mind there can be no match for good old silver halide and color blenders. Your 14 megapixel file, which costs hundreds of dollars up front just to click the shutter on the camera needed to produce this image, has 14 million pixels of data to be seen. A 35mm negative has at least 40 billion silver halide crystals, boosting image clarity by a factor of about, well, the math can boggle the mind. But unless you want to make prints of over 12" x 18", then this may not be a factor for your consideration as the high end digital will produce quality images at least up to 8" x 10".

But I rued the day that I would not be able to have my slides & negatives reprinted at the local lab. I want the control that film affords. Well, the more money you spend on your digital photography, the more control you can have.

You can get a nice 3MP to 5MP camera for under $300. This and your desktop PC can produce some basic images and archival options. Spend $800 and you can obtain an 8MP camera for better large print detail. Spend $600 and you can get some pretty amazing software to edit, organize and print your digital images. Spend $300 and you can get a printer that can produce professional quality prints in your own home. Spend another $1200.00 and you can have a laptop that you can take with you on a shoot, trip or job and do all of this where you are and not have to wait until you get back to your workstation. You can upgrade the memory capacity in your camera. You can get a portable USB hookup CD burner. You can get a multimedia projector for slide shows. My dream set up would set me back about 9 large or so.

There's no end to what you can do. And with the UNDO button on your PC you have a much more forgiving sustem than a personal darkroom, especially if you're just getting started. Film may eventually be equalled by the digital industry, but cannot be surpassed by it. So don't fret. There will always be folks to develop your film, though for some formats, particularly medium and large format prints, a developer may take a bit more research to find, even today. I will always do fine work with my medium format and one day perhaps even move up to a large format view camera. But I say this all to say that film will stick around. Don't think that photography is passing you by, like I did. Instead realize that there is a whole new world out there that can be used by those with the daring, and the moolah, to make it happen.

Chris Walrath

To love this comment, log in above
November 28, 2005