Digital photography vs. film photography: which do you prefer?

My personal opinion is that film is way better than digital. With film,
the quality of the photo is virtually endless. You have no pixels to
worry about.

 

Definitely no pixels.

However, the chemicals that make up the light sensitive film are not
infinitesimally small. You have grains problem instead of pixels problem.

 

LOL, silly troll, trix are for kids.

 

My personal opinion is that film is way better than digital. With film,

Digital camers shooting Jpegs are usually a dull result. So the trick is to
shoot Raw and post-process the image. The question is, is this processing or
is it craft and how much time and skill does it take to get a superior image
? And are there secrets to success that won't be known to the general
public for years ?

If the answer to these questions is not known then the safest thing to do is
to shoot film. In other words don't show up with digital and say "I hope
this works out" but show up with film and say "This will be okay".

But no-one is making wet prints. The negatives or slides are scanned to a
digital format and then printed with printers...if not just left as a
computer image. Now assume that a scanner scanning film knows more easily
what to do than a digital camera knows to do out in the physical world ?

So should the CCD be in the camera or in a desktop scanner ?

 

In truth I prefer people who go out and shoot photos regardless of what
camera they are using. I believe a photo should be jugded on the photo
and not the camera that took the photo.

Scott

 

A-men

 

Film gets better capture but digital has convenience, especially preview
to know if you go the shot or not and flexibility to adjust raw images
if it's not perfect you can almost always recover without dropping a
beat. But whatever you're happy with, I have no problem with people who
like film, it is respectable and performs outstandingly.

 

Film better than digital? Well even with my compromised by P&S
design, new Sony W5 im having more fun and getting as good 8x10s, happy
factor, and more fun than my fully operable , loaded, extensive,
excellent lenses, AE1- A1- F1 kit with K 64, [ till they dumped K 25] or
film. In one month 1000 shots and fun, with film, 1 roll a week. Wait
till I get a Cannon Dslr!!! And the cost, an unused computer and a few
cards, so its really nothing.

Film, what an obsolete, expensive, waste of time and money, pain in the
ass.

Now I just want a 3" screen , 10 mp Rebel, I like to crop.

 

It just struck me that there is a parallel between the digital/film
comparisson and the flat rate and pay per MB internet connection
comparisson.

With my digital cameras a tend to take them everywhere I go, and take
several different shots of the same scene from a variety of angles sometimes
varying the camera setting too.. I have great fun shooting waterfalls and
messing about with shutter speeds to get movement effect. Because it is
a fixed cost system I just shoot and enjoy. The parallel is with an
uncapped flat rate internet connection, you use it all you want because you
already paid.. It may not be cheaper in the long run as the cameras cost
more, but the point is that you do not have to think cost as the vital time
when you should be thinking composition or exposure.

When I used my film cameras I was always thinking how much film have I used
today, how much has it cost, how many shots do I have left? I used to
joke that the autowinder I had should have had a voice that said "twenty
five pence... twenty five pence... twenty five pence... twenty five pence...
" when I had my finger on the button. As a parallel I remember early on
when using the internet debating whether to search further or visit a site
because of the cost in terms of time on line and MB downloaded.

I used to miss a lot of shots with film looking to take only the perfect
ones.. how often I panned with a car at a race meet, decided not to take a
shot as the framing or exposure was not spot on only for the car to spin
right in front of me: best shot of the day missed.

Factor in that you can review your shots just after you take them and have
another go and there is I no way I would go back to film. Digital is just
way more fun!

Sold my film cameras.. no of course not.!!!

I just prefer to use the digital.

 

At todays prices I don`t believe digital is more expensive for the
consumer market mainly P&S models, considering inflation this is
especially true. If you look at the extra features unavailable on film
it is to me at todays prices an easy decision for digital now. A few
years ago I could not say this. Considering the fun with digital my film
cameras will be only for backup or when needed.

 

I confess that I was thinking DSLR price differentials rather than P&S where
because of volumes there is little if any price differential between the
35mm compact and digital compact.
Aside from a roll apiece to test my Pentax 35mm bodies I haven't touched
them in over two years.. and then I was just using up film that was about to
go out of date.

I sometimes think it is only sentiment that makes me keep all the film kit.


BTW.. well done to the OP for saying "which do you prefer?" rather than
"which is better?"

 

Having worked with film for almost 40 years, I much prefer digital and
doubt that I will ever load another roll of film again - or spend
another minute doing darkroom work.

 

::sigh::

Here we go again.

 

Depends on what your after. Of course one day when affordable camera go over
20 megapixel (the equivilent of film) then digi cameras will be ultimately
better. Digital cameras have taken the skill out of photography as there is
less emphasis on getting it right first time. As a whole digital photography
made made it easier for anyone to get involved in.

 

Let me guess, you took 36mm x 24mm and figured scanning at 4000 ppi,
you get 21.4 MP. The problem is that a 4000 ppi is way soft. If you
really were getting 21.4 mp from 35mm film it would look very much like
this.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/beach.jpg

I don't know about you but I Have not seen anything like that from a
35mm camera.

Scott

 

Per :

Even I (who is no photographer) can see that the pix that I have scanned from
35mm negatives are far-and-above technically superior to anything I've taken
with my old Nikon 990 or my new Nikon 70.

That being said, I prefer digital.

 

Yeah, same here as far as ever using film again. Digital is a blessing for
us hacks who take 20 bad photos for every good one. My EOS Elan is quietly
taking up space in my closet and the only way it will be used is if someone
else uses it.

 

Irregardless of all of the discussions about resolution, grain size, etc. I
miss the "organic" experience of the darkroom. The manipulation of the
film, the paper, the solutions, the enlarger; one cannot experience that
with the dry and lifeless ineractions with the computer. The quiet times in
the darkroom, the speculation as to how the next development will result,
the intimate interaction between temperature and time, the feel of the paper
in the trays; none of these things can be experienced in the digital
world...

 

So why do you miss it, if you like doing darkroom work why not do it.
Last I check you could still get all the needed goodies to do darkroom
work, pretty cheap in fact.

I did my darkroom work and don't miss it, but if I did I would have
one.

Scott

 

I like digital. My photos taken with my Canon G2 are consistently
better than with film, but without a DSLR and a high-end printer, I'll
probably never again equal the output that I used to get with film,
home-brew developers, fibre-based paper and selenium toner. Still, I
got this with digital: http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/statueweb.jpg

There's also the shoot-once-and-be-sure concept as opposed to the
shoot-a-hundred-exposures-and-hope concept. I used to enjoy searching
for good images, finding the ideal viewpoint, choosing the right film
and filter, waiting for the right light, and taking one picture,
probably at an exposure of at least one second at f32 or f64. OK, two
exposures, assuming that any damage to the roll of film would be on the
one unique and wonderful negative.

Digital is not better than analogue. It's just different. The proof is
in the image. I recently bought a B&W print from the British Maritime
Museum. When it arrived, I thought, Wow! They're still doing darkroom
work! Only when I put a loupe on the print to try to identify a ship
int he background did I realize that I was looking at pixels, not
grain. What incredible quality, without a drop of developer or fixer
involved.


Bob