BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Tyler Alan Hall
 

SLR: Film Vs. Digital


Is there a difference between digital SLR and just SLR? And, if so, which is right for me? I'm a beginning photographer who prefers to take pics of scenery.


To love this question, log in above
11/26/2005 12:28:32 PM

 
Bob Cournoyer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/9/2003
Contact Bob
Bob's Gallery
bobslens.com
  One is digital and one is film. It depends if you want immediate gratification or wait to have your film developed.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2005 12:35:31 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
cammphoto.com
  There's also the question of money ... a huge initial outlay for a decent digital SLR system vs. a modestly priced film SLR capable of producing the same results ... but having to pay for film and processing over time. With a film camera, there will also be the added expense of scanning equipment and learning how to use it effectively if you want to post anything here or e-mail any of your photos to your friends and family. Both styles of camera are a means to capture light and to re-create a vision. They just accomplish it in different ways. Which is "right" for you? That is something only you can decide.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2005 3:48:15 PM

 
Stan Lubach
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/1/2005
  Just to add to what the Bobs have already said, and in case you didn't already know this, SLR just stands for Single Lens Reflex. It just means that there's a single lens for the light path, with a mirror that directs the light to the viewfinder when composing the shot and moves out of the way to take the shot ( hence the term "reflex" ). The 'D' just means that on the other side of the mirror is an electronic optical sensor instead of a film frame.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2005 4:21:47 PM

 
SCR PHOTOGRAPHY 
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/9/2005
  it maybe more expensive to develop film but you can get your pictures on a cd which is just as easy as digital.
where as digital is instant and of very high quality the quality you can get from a film camera is still far far better than any digital camera. if your a beginner and your on a budget I recommend a film camera, it has less functions for you to not understand and it is very simple. but as with anything it is totally your choice. but remember to buy the best that you can afford.


To love this comment, log in above
11/29/2005 5:38:31 AM

 
Kevin Ekstrom
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/20/2005
  It isnt that costly to develop film. It cost maybe 8 dollars a roll of 24. This really isnt bad. When using digital your buying cards for the camera,ink for the printer, paper for the printer and C.D's to store files on. This all adds up.Not to mention the latest version of photoshop and or the upgrades you add every year.Digital work is not free and really not much cheaper when you consider everything you need to make sharp decent digital prints.
IM TIRED OF HEARING PEOPLE SAY DIGITAL PROCESSING IS FREE. WHY IS IT COSTING ME?????


To love this comment, log in above
11/30/2005 2:00:42 PM

 
Stan Lubach
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/1/2005
  I agree that getting to the final print can be comparable in cost. The big difference is that with digital, you get to do a preview and touch-ups before you actiually go to the expense of making a print. Plus, memory cards are reusable and have quite a good lifespan. And I use GIMP for a lot of my photo processing, and though it may not have al lthe features of of PS, it is free. So yes, going from snap to print certainly isn't free, but it does come out being somewhat more cost effective than working with film.


To love this comment, log in above
11/30/2005 2:19:52 PM

 
SCR PHOTOGRAPHY 
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/9/2005
  not to question any of you fine photographers but isn't the idea of a photo just that a photo? isn't taking a picture and then changing it on a pc just creative art and not photography. you can't beat a real film slr for quality


To love this comment, log in above
11/30/2005 11:16:50 PM

 
Ken Henry   COSTS?! 35mm SLR Film or Digital all the costs are there, long run or short run.

You pay for what you get in quality photos.

If you are interested in 'good enough'
photos then a 35mm camera system will be all you need.

Or if you require "Rock Your Socks Off" photos which will give you "Eye Popping, 3-Dimensional" scenics with twice the fine details and smooth pictures(no grain or pixels) then Medium Format may be your prefered camera system. The larger 6x7 size would be more prefered than the small 6x4.5.

The Pentax 6x7 camera system won't cost anymore than a 35mm film or digital pro quality systems.

35mm systems costs me more in frustration and wasted money because it produces good enough photos compared to medium format.

So it's either the convenience of 35mm systems or it's the gratifying satisfaction of producing the finest photos.

And, instead of waisting film, I use my Canon A75 digital point & shoot camera($300) for my test shots for composition, lighting, etc.

Your thorough research will help you decide in the direction for you to pursue.

Goodluck


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 12:00:10 AM

 
Kevin Ekstrom
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/20/2005
  All medium formats have the option of a polaroid film back. This works wonders if your worried about lighting.
Of course 35mm is a smaller format than the medium format cameras but 35mm quality will beat digital everytime. I've been over this many times in the past. Anyone who has studied photography knows the difference between the 40 billions silver-halide and the few million mega-pixel that is currently offered at a reasonable price. I shoot with 35mm and medium format (Bronica etrs). I also picked up a Nikon coolpix 8700.I like the coolpix but it sure isnt a Bronica.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 1:35:11 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  I'd like to know where you can get a Pentax 67 for the price of a 35mm. Those things are crazy expensive. I recently got a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S and it's awesome. I couldn't decide at first whether to go towards digital or MF when I sold my 35mm equipment but damn am I glad I went MF. Did I want quality or turnaround time. I went with quality and dang did I get my moneys worth.

And all this talk about film developing and stuff and it's like $15 and all that, who says you have to print every picture? Digital's don't print every picture. Spend $20 on a lightbox and $7 on an 8x loupe and verify every neg/slide before you print. Develop only is usually $1.75-$3.00. Granted I shoot 6x7cm now and it's a little easier but I did this with 35mm as well. It's not that hard. Try it instead of spending 10-$15 every roll.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 7:32:57 AM

 
Kerry L. Walker   Also, if you want to view a positive instead of a negative, you can just get a contact sheet made.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 7:41:54 AM

 
Debby A. Tabb
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/4/2004
  I just love to watch the conversation and some small sparks fly every time someone opens this box-as long as it is not me who opened it,lol,lol
well Kerry and Justin you have something to start your motors this morning.lol
wishing you all a great day.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 7:47:56 AM

 
Will Turner   I shoot larger formats (MF) as well. I try not to point out advantages or good experiences with my particular cameras of choice b/c I love to see those lenses and bodies keep dropping in price.

But it's very true that digital is a magical word these days. I show someone a softly-glowing 20x60 print, people see it and just rave about the resolution and detail. I usually joke that it's 'digital' and they go nuts, pester me for which Canon or Nikon DSLR did it. Then I fess up that it's a MF film print and describe the metering and shot setup they lose all interest. Tell me straight out it's too much work, they just want to press the button and photoshop the rest.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 8:53:13 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  This type of scenario (well the people you talked to, in no way you) is where the term "lazy photographer" is derived.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 8:57:12 AM

 
Debby A. Tabb
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/4/2004
  That's that immediate gratification attitude.
Personally I belive spilling over into the profession of Photography in most part from the demand of the public clientel.
I was strickly film-never thought I would change.
But, I heard it all the time in every studio I was at- Why does it have to take so long? why can't places like Olan Mills and Sears Catch up!
we"ll go where we can get it today-and they did.
and those same companies who tried to hang on to their Film divisions- have now in fact totally converted to Digital.
That I don't care what I get as long as I get it TODAY! has even put Olan Mills as a company in the "we don't care attitude"-
Now ,I here through friends they don't even teach these Photographers any poseing etc. just tell them to let the clients "do their thing " and press the button. and they raised their prices conciderably for alot LESS service.
VERY SAD.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 9:22:33 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  that is very sad. ever since i've become a photographer and know how it works and how important posing is and things i'll probably never go to wal-mart or sears or k-mart because their photos are so boring. it's pretty much all the same blue background with a kid sitting there smiling. wow, yippee! I would much rather go to someone's studio who has a passion for what they do and will strive to give you "original" photos (well as best they can!).

debby you really do get frustrated with olan mills don't you? lol


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 9:26:35 AM

 
Debby A. Tabb
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/4/2004
  YES SIR I DO!
many years of watching "progress" distroy a wonderful family company.
where the ephisis (did I get that word right?? lol,my spelling) WAS on Quality.
I gave 100 % to them and MORE I might add.
and today I still give 110%to what ever client I have.
everything goes in cycles and while the last few years have been a rush "TO GET IT NOW!"
sooner or later people will wake up to what they are missing in Quality-
so for now I am digital- while I gather the last of the equiptment I want to own and build this new area of Clientel I am in( I moved and my old clients are a hour and a half away-though I tried to keep them for the last two years-driving the distance was sometimes impossible for me)
then I hope to treat my self to that one camera I always wanted for artistic fun the Canon 1V.
and lets hope the clientel revisit patiance.lol.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 9:57:33 AM

 
Debby A. Tabb
BetterPhoto Member Since: 9/4/2004
  Oh and by the way-Film vs, Digital

personally- two different animals-each successfully completeing it's task.
when it comes to getting the most out of who you want to be artisticly- I'd say stay with film for now.
if your trying to compete in todays market and please clientel- I'd say think digital.

And if your that luck son of a gun who is able .....
OWN BOTH.
just my thoughts.


To love this comment, log in above
12/1/2005 10:08:39 AM

 
Kevin Ekstrom
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/20/2005
  It took me a very long time to break down and pick up a digital. I chose the one I could afford with the most meg. (Coolpix 8700). I only bought this camera to learn the basics of digital photography. I want to be ready for the real thing when it finally arrives at street market bargain prices. (I'll probally be long dead by then.)
I think we all know that the day will come when film isnt necessary. But until that time comes my main camera's will be my Nikon slr's and my Bronica.The Coolpix I'll putz around with.


To love this comment, log in above
12/2/2005 12:12:56 AM

 
GARY FESPERMAN   HI TYLER
one of the things I saw in your question is that you are a begginer.
Taking this into consideration. If I were you. I would invest in a good Digital camera.Yes they do cost more to get you started.They do save you money in the long run, especially if you shot a lot.Digital images can be transfered to the computer in a few minutes, directely from the camera, or via a card reader. The card reader is usually a little faster and safer.
If you use a good film scanner you can scan them into your computer - but this is a very slow process for good scans.
Wallmart, wallgreens, Kmart and many others will make a CD for you when you have your film processed. But it is a low resolution CD - They do not at this time offer high res. scans. Going to a Pro Lab is more costly but you can get Hi Res. scans.A big advantage for digital is you get to see your photo right away.{ Very good for beginners }.
In more advanced cameras you can change shooting modes. But also you can change
lighting modes using the same camera card - daylight to flash - tungsten and so on - all on the fly. You can't do that with film, you have to use filters or change film types, or carry multiple cameras, all expensive.
But another big reason for you to go DIGITAL is film is on the way out. Kodak is closing most of its film plants, Agfa is having film troubles and is on the way out of that business.
Ilford had problems and was recently bought out by people in the company who are trying to do film ( B & W ) and Digital.By Kodaks on estimates film may be here another 8 years Aprox. the year 2012. Give or take a little.Japan is 95% digital, the USA and main strean Europe about 60% digital.Nikon and Cannon are producing more and more Digital cameras and fewer film cameras.
Some people are kicking and screaming.
But film is going. So do yourself a big favor and get started with Digital.
Just a note I'M a professional photographer for over 30 years, and also teach photography. For the last 3 years its been all Digital. I started using Digital cameras in 1993.
Good luck to you Tyler.
Gary


To love this comment, log in above
12/5/2005 8:49:25 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  they're making less and less film because they realize these cameras can actually hold up compared to their counterparts ;-) and how often does a film camera become obsolete. haven't heard of it yet, but dang the 10D I would guess is what 5 years old or so, and it's bye bye!


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 3:42:15 AM

 
Will Turner   "If you use a good film scanner you can scan them into your computer - but this is a very slow process for good scans."

Wrong. For a digital enthusiast you certainly are misinformed on today's scan speeds and user interface. And don't forget that scanning is OPTIONAL for us film users. We already have a medium that can be printed or projected optically without digital intervention. Scanning is just a bonus.

"In more advanced cameras you can change shooting modes. But also you can change lighting modes using the same camera card - daylight to flash - tungsten and so on - all on the fly. You can't do that with film, you have to use filters or change film types, or carry multiple cameras, all expensive."

Digital is ALWAYS more expensive. You can fit yourself out with 3 or 4 used film cameras, 2 secondhand MF cameras for the cost of one higher quality digital camera. Nor do you need anything more than a loupe and $20 light table to view the results (computer and massive storage not required). Digital users are buying storage media, batteries, Photoshop to perform those filter and film camera effects (not always with very believable results, BTW), software to repair corrupted storage media, and every pro I know is buying not one, but multiple backup digital cameras to backstop the primary model which goes on the fritz every so often. I personally do not know ANY digital camera owner of 5 years' standing who hasn't experienced multiple camera breakdowns, unless they've sold or traded their camera regularly for a new model. THAT gets expensive.

"But another big reason for you to go DIGITAL is film is on the way out...
Some people are kicking and screaming.
But film is going. So do yourself a big favor and get started with Digital."

I find it hard to belive that anyone with 30 years as a 'pro' photographer would use an argument as silly as this. Guys like this are regularly hooted down on photo.net.

There are millions of film cameras and millions of owners to keep them in service. Even such 'old-fashioned' things as field cameras that use sheet film - do you see the photographers at Arizona Highways dumping their film cameras? No. Oh, that's right, AZH doesn't even ACCEPT digital photography because of the lack of resolution compared to film. Looks like film has a future after all.

You can still get film for cameras made 80 years ago. Film will be available from many manufacturers, some older ones (Fuji), many new ones who by the way are already popping up (Efke, etc.). They may be smaller makers, they may have better business strategies and less labor overhead, but they will be there. So you will be able to buy film, easily, in 10-20 years. You also have a ready-to-scan stable storage format in the form of negative and reversals.

Always, remember, a lot of better film camera users will still HAVE a working camera in 10 years. Even if it's humid out. Even if it gets dropped on the grass, or gripped a little too hard (sufficient to crack the LCD on some digitals). If any digicam user has a current model that works 10 years from now it will be a rare beast.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 7:22:40 AM

 
Kerry L. Walker   I think Gary may be right about the death of film in 8 years, at least film from Kodak anyway. With their record of dumb business decisions (like staying out of the digital realm long after it became popular) I can see them dropping film long before its viability is gone. However, I do not believe film will be dead for a long, long time.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 7:51:47 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  Go to Hobby Lobby, you can buy paint, paint brushes, and canvas right?


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 8:06:35 AM

 
George Anderson   Yeah, extrapolating the the death of film from the actions of Kodak is like predicting the death of the automobile because the Edsel didn't sell.

Every time a major company who makes film goes into receivership, there's a loud cheer from digital fanatics. It's been going on for quite awhile. And yet, there are more film types out there than ever.

The other day on NBC I saw a Navajo photographer of recent fame, because of his landscape shots with - his 8x10 film camera. He also teaches kids photography on the reservation - with simple manual SLR film cameras. I see another news photographer often using a 120 Holga film camera, of all things, with which he won an international photo competiton.

I have no problem with people enthusiastically recommending digital cameras, but I really dislike the 'proselytizers'. These are people that attach facts to fit their theory, conveniently discarding those that don't fit. Folks in this category unfortunately appear with every new technology or trend. They are the ones who thought we should all buy a new Pinto because 'you'd never be able to get parts or gas for that old '65 Mustang convertible', or to get rid of the kitchen stove because the microwave would 'replace all cooking needs'.

I notice Gary conveniently forgot to include Fuji in his list of film makers in trouble - because they are doing just fine. In fact they are changing their film emulsions to better suit today's scanning technologies. I don't think they'd bother with the expense of doing that if film had no future.

If you can get affordable body parts for a mid-1960s muscle car currently owned by a few thousand people, doesn't it stand to reason that a buyer demand thousands of times higher would mean the availability of film at reasonable prices in the forseeable future 40 years hence? Film will be here after all of us are dead and gone.

As an old guy I've learned rather late in life that going with the 'herd' is rarely the right thing to do, especially when it comes to forecasting trends and consumer demand. As we speak, people are selling very collectible film cameras and equipment at garage and estate sales for pennies on the dollar, then blowing thousands on the latest DSLR iteration. Is the guy who buys a Mamiya RZ67 for $200 the fool, or the guy that is selling it?

Like digital? Fine, use it. But don't let anyone use cheap scare tactics to get you to go with the herd.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 11:37:59 AM

 
Ken Henry  

My '47 Chevi Coop still speeds along at 65 miles per hour(up to 120mph cruising at 22mpg).

My MAXXUM 7000 has a burst speed of 36 frames at 2.5 fps.

I've broken sales records on "wants", not "needs" during my twenty years of sales.

Consumers want, want, want...which is sales, sales, sales.
Pros need...no sale, no sale, no sale.

A camera is only a black box which has a shutter that opens and shuts to your command. For the consumer it better be "auto".

Tenfold more paper and ink are big time sales today, Thanks to digital.

I have both, D & F, I need, not want.



To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 11:28:22 PM

 
Ken Henry   Question. Before, with film only, we picked up our 24 or 36 pictures and that was about it.

Now look in your trash can next to your printer. Look at all those 'test' prints, empty printer cartriges. Isn't it fun? I love photoshop.
my, my and how we are saving the environment from film. hmmmmmmmmm.

My stock portfolio is getting better every day.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 11:41:34 PM

 
Pete H
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/9/2005
  Folks;
Eventually..I said eventually, digital will rule the photographic market place..already has in many venues.
As far as quality..Take a look at some studio shots done with the "Sinar M"
Unreal quailty..I challenge anyone to be able to detect a difference between that and ANY 6x7.
Don't get me wrong..I still love MF film, although I have to confess, I rarely shoot with my Bronica anymore.
The cost of technology continues to drop, and soon; Digital camera's that rival the MF quaility will be affordable to all.
As to being a great photographer or getting that great shot?..Well; the camera will never accomplish that. LOL

All the Best,

Pete


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 4:49:05 PM

 
Will Turner   And those of us who like film don't necessarily hate the concept of digital. We just don't think that the technology surpasses film cameras in quality, durability, or overall expense. And we certainly aren't buying the 'film won't be available so digital's your only choice' baloney.

Sinar M? You mean the $9500 electronic studio camera system that can't take a drop of moisture and is produced in Switzerland by a company that nearly went belly up a couple of years ago? Compared to a used GS-1, it doesn't look too good to me.


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 8:13:36 AM

 
Pete H
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/9/2005
  I'll take one..and Sinar is a VERY viable and thriving company now :)
Peace

Pete


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 11:17:51 AM

 
GARY FESPERMAN   Hi All
I loved my Kodachrome 25, all gone.
Will Turner - I think you are the one that is certianly misinformed. I use a Nikon coolscan 4000, and although you can scan faster at lower Resolutions it's not something I would want to do, and if you turn on the Digital Ice it takes about 4 minutes per scan. So if I shoot 500 photos, and want to scan them that's a lot of time. Minolta has one they claim I believe that will scan in 90 sec. I can download them to the computer in a lot less time.
And Digital is NOT ALWAYS more expensive. Their are many places that will make a Digital print for less than what it cost to process and print film.
As for storage and media, what about all those shoe boxes, or even file cabinetts, storage pages for slides and film, contact sheets,4x6 prints that are laying around.
Yes I buy batteries,for Digital, but I did for film cameras and flashes also.
Yes I use Photoshop it's a GREAT and Wonderful program.
As for camers that break down - I have seen many film cameras go down, used by PRO's, and also by students.
I still have my first Digital camera, a 2 meg. New cameras are better, and faster, and cheaper.
Storage media going bad.I know some people who have lost data from other cards. But what about scrathed film, bad processing,dirty film. I certially have experienced all the above in my career, both from Pro labs, retailers, and even doing it myself.
At least many of the photos can be recovered from bad cards - can't say the same for bad film processing. I processed my on film, B & W, and color for many years, made my own B & W, and color prints.
But for the last 3 years it's all been Digital.As for photographers with 30 or more years photo experience, I no many
who love Digital and film. But have the
good sense to know - nothing last forever.I know of many a few years ago said they would never do digital. Who are now doing it, and really enjoy it.
Including making prints with better tonal ranges than from film.
George Lepp is certianly doing and teaching Digital, Stephen Johnston is doing Digital for many years now, Galen Rowell whot shot for Outdoor Photographer magazine went to Digital, after putting it down for several years.
I also no of no PRO who doesn't take a backup camera on a shoot.About the only problem I have had with Digital is the CCD getting dirty, this goes for other Photographers I work with, 5 of us.
As for film being around, and millions of people owning film cameras - all true. The only plants Kodak has plans to keep open for the time being are in China, and one in Latin America. Which means in a few years film will become more expensive, and cost more to process. You can look in any camera store, and other retailers. Their shelvs has less ans less film - think back just a few years ago 5 or 6. Film will be around in third world countries for awhile longer. And maybe Fuji will decide to do it longer than Kodak?
But FUJI is in the business to make money. As more and more Digital cameras are sold they to will have to make a choice. Japan is already 95% Digital - this figure is from Photokina in 2004. I certianly don't think it will be around for 50 years like a Chevy or Ford.In the USA, Japan, and mainstream Europe, maybe 8 - 12. Third world countries maybe a few more years. But it won't be just a finicial decission - Enviormental issues will also be a big part.
But I hope we are all still around in the year 2012, and beyond - to find out.
And maybe you should check with Arizona Highways Magazine again. I recently saw were they are taking Digital camera images from 6 meg cameras and higher. Outdoor Photographer, Petersons, Popular Photography, and many others have been for a few years now.
As for camera problems many film cameras have problems you mentioned, especially when people don't take care of their equipment. I personally no of no photographer who has griped their camera so hard it cracked the CCD or CMOS. Dropped cameras even I have dropped a few Digital and film - some survived - some needed repair in both Digital and Film.
I already have a Digital camera that is 10 years old and still shooting.
Seams like your one who will go kicking and screaming Will Turner. Todays digital cameras are Great, and many prints are better than you can get from traditional processing.
Even Ansel, said he finally got a good print from a negative he had been trying for years, It was Digital. He was far ahead of many of us Photogs.
But Digital is just a tool, as is Film and it's the Photographer who makes the decission and pushes the shutter to capture a moment in time.
I'M all for new tools that make me better, and Digital cameras and Photoshop help to do just that.
Boy Scouts - Be Prepared!
Marines - Adapt and overcome!
Army- Be all you can be!
Not just some OLD GUY! Best of luck to you.
Gary


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 8:49:57 PM

 
Kevin Ekstrom
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/20/2005
  Gary,
The pro's have gone digital for many reasons. This is understandable to stay competitve. Also the pros tend to have the money to spend on the high end gear that is needed for the best results.
As far as tonal ranges and such I'm hard pressed to believe any consumer digital would match the 40 billion silver-halide offered in a single frame of 35mm film, and I have yet seen a digital print even compare to my Bronica. SEEING IS BELIEVING.
I'm a serious amatuer. I dont shoot for a living but I take the craft seriously.I recently purchased a Coolpix 8700. I like the camera and it's functions but I would like to see much more pixel offered at a reasonable consumer price. I think this is the biggest draw-back to digital as of now. I think we all know that the day will come when digital is offering 20 to 35 meg at consumer prices, but until then I stand by my film cameras.


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 10:00:40 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Wrong one. Meant
Q


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 2:36:08 AM

 
Will Turner   "So if I shoot 500 photos, etc, etc."

I thought so. The old "if this, and if that, and if this, then it's a lot of trouble" argument. But most of us with film cameras aren't chimping 500 shots at a stretch with film cameras, shooting weddings, or LEO graduations. Digital conversion isn't a constant requirement for us film shooters. And you can spend just as much time recovering corrupt data, dealing with software interface gremlins, photoshopping your hastily-taken digital photos, the list goes on and on.

AZH staff confirmed to me just the other day they are NOT accepting 6MP digital scans, the image quality does not meet their standards. The most often accepted medium is MF or LF film, occasionally a 35mm slide. The recent digital 2-page spreads I've seen taken with small-sensor DSLRs in photography magazines and even praised for their detail are HORRIBLE.

The fact that any mass-produced camera made can eventually malfunction is irrelevant. What is relevant is that digicams and DSLRs have between 3 and 10 times as many breakdowns compared to film SLRs in the first year of service. Drop out the cheap consumer-level 35mm SLR cameras and the ratio increases even more against digital. Ask a camera repair shop tech if you don't believe me.

It is not unusual for pros using film in the past to carry a backup camera, or extra bodies loaded with different film types. It is a new development to see them carrying MULTIPLE backup digital cameras solely for the purpose of replacement when they malfunction.

And anybody who uses the ridiculous and insupportable argument that film isn't going to be around in a few years in order to frighten people into digital cameras puts all their other comments under a huge question mark.

"Seams like your one who will go kicking and screaming Will Turner"

I've never done it before and don't plan to start. But you can't put lipstick on a pig, call it a bathing beauty, and sell it to me at 3 times the cost. And that's Captain Turner, USAR, ret. to you.


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 9:10:00 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  "And that's Captain Turner, USAR, ret. to you."

as he reaches for the keys to his tank.




To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 2:20:51 PM

 
Shawn H. Rullens   computer break down, hard drives crash, virus outbreaks. I don't use digital.

I use film only. Film don't crash, Film is raw. I scan if I need a digial image. So, Film is RAW.
The Dynamic Range of Digial is poor. Film does not have this problem.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 12:15:38 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  The trend I've seen is that people who shoot fast go digital, and the people who care about the quality shoot film. This is no absolute, but definetly a strong trend.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 4:45:42 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  "the people who care about the quality shoot film"

As he reaches for his grey pou`pon.
So much worrying about somebody else's backyard. Want to shoot digital, form a line to the left. Want to shoot film, form a line to the right. Plenty of room for everybody. Snobs, please exit out the back.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 5:59:03 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  As I reach for my gray pou'pon, yeah right. I'm your typical middle class american who watches football (go Colts!) goes to work, and has a nice family to come home too. no snob here. but I guess since I care about the quality of resolution in my work i'm a snob. oh well.

and I don't entirely worry about everyone else's backyard. I tell people all the time to go digital. it all depends on workflow you want. if you're not rushed, like to shoot slow, then go film. if you shoot fast, have 20 minute turnaround expectations, shoot digital that's all there is too it.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 6:21:49 AM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
cammphoto.com
  The only opinions worth serious consideration in this on-going film v. digital debate are from those photographers who own and use both.
Every one else who is shooting only one or the other is passionate about what he or she is using. Their opinions are more often than not biased by personal preference. (...Been guilty of that myself.)
Everyone believes that what they are using HAS to be the best.

The fact that there are so many strong arguments on both sides of the fence proves that both styles of capture media have merit.
As I said a long time ago in this thread,..."Both styles of camera are a means to capture light and to re-create a vision. They just accomplish it in different ways. Which is "right" for you? That is something only you can decide."

As for film users being "people who care about the quality",...I've met a few digital shooters who would argue this point to their grave.
Quality is quality,...regardless of how it's achieved.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 3:02:56 PM

 
Kevin Ekstrom
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/20/2005
  Bob,
I think the argument is more of a money issue. I use both medias now but I sure cant afford the upper grade digitals. So the argument is qaulity for the money spent. More bang for the buck.Digital is way overpriced for the actual quality of the gear were as film delivers qaulity and the cameras can be had for a song and a dance. (used gear) My argument is a consumer argument. I'm not a rich man and dont see that forcasted for the near future.
I already stated that I belive the time will come when digital rules the market. But that time just hasnt arrived.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 3:19:23 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
cammphoto.com
  Kevin,
I know what you mean. I'm in the same boat...so to speak.
I own all my equipment,...it's paid for.
To get equal quality I'd have to invest thousands up front.

...To go back again to my original post on this thread:..."There's also the question of money ... a huge initial outlay for a decent digital SLR system vs. a modestly priced film SLR capable of producing the same results but having to pay for film and processing over time. With a film camera, there will also be the added expense of scanning equipment and learning how to use it effectively if you want to post anything here or e-mail any of your photos to your friends and family."

Now or later,...we all end up paying for what we love. :(

Perhaps this debate should take a turn from which is better to what's more practical,...for each individual.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 4:12:28 PM

 
Bob Cournoyer
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/9/2003
Contact Bob
Bob's Gallery
bobslens.com
  ",...for each individual. "

Well, there's another 1000+ posts...

I call a "beer break"....:-)

Bob


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 4:48:31 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
cammphoto.com
  Make mine a frosty Bud!


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2005 4:58:48 PM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.