I would agree that digital is much easier and faster to use, but I don't want to see film disappear or anything. Both types can be useful, it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I like the fact that I have the option to choose either digital or film and I wouldn't want that taken away.

it's real funny to see yet another film vs digital debate. Actually, the choice is already clear, even in 2 years ago, that digital already win when compare to flexibility, usability, quality and dynamic range (yes, quality and dynamic range!). No, I'm not talking about those digital cam, those little DC sucks. I hate to use them and I don't have one. Instead, what I'm talking about is DSLR. The current DSLR, 1D mark II and 1Ds mark II, already have a much higher resolution and dynamic range than 35mm film. They win at a large margin. I know that because actually I'm using 1D mark II. Now 1Ds mark II is even comparing with 4x5 large format digital scans. Although on resolution wise, 1Ds mk II falls short of it, the difference is not large. And remember, 1Ds mk II frame size is much, much smaller than 4x5 film!

Just give you a site for more info on these issues:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/santaysablefarm.htm

It's nice to read story's about other peoples photography experiences.

i have both a digital camera and a professional vintage fujica camera.
old film cameras can be hard to figure out and its easy to ruin film in them, it ook me a while to get it down straight.
and as for digital camera's.. i bought a cheapy one from target for 100 dollars, and the flash is horrible and it doesen't pick up certain colors well
so i stick with the fancy vintage one.

i think this debate will run forever - and rightly so!!

i have a slr and a 6meg digicam [not dslr].

the digicam is best for parties, quick shots, pictures that you want on the computer FAST - so easy with a memory card slot.

the slr is a lovely camera [eos5] and a pleasure to use. but im a student and i shoot mostly sport, it's too expensive to just point and go. this is frustrating becasue with a dslr i know i would take ALOT more photos.

i mostly shoot film in b/w and digital really has nothing on the power, beauty, intensity of these shots. as a purely artist medium b/w film is definatly the winner.

as to what do do with the atual film, i think the ideal is home processing and then scaned negatives to use on the computer.

one thing is for certain - you need all your photographs on the computer!!!

Film is good, but digital is good too. However, digital turns everything into pixels, whereas film is continous. We learned a bit of this in my computer grahpics class. Film has continuous tone, where digital mimics that by prinint with halftones. I think that film is obviously better quality, and will be a smoother image, but it's not as versatile as digital. Another good way to improve digital is to up the resolution. The more pixels per inch you have, the better print quality you have. I think digital is a bit better, but not by much, and only for it's versatility. Film still has it's uses.

I am on the way to order my Canon Digital Rebel XT with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lense and really see the digital camera world! I personally think that film cameras are good to learn with and become more experienced in and then move on over to digital dslr. But then again with the dslr you can see and understand your mistakes for free as to film where you have to pay to develope or spend some quality time in the dark room!

Hmm, I took some time off to really think about why I like film so much and why I really don't like digital so much, talked to a few photography friends, discussed at length with my good photography buddy, and here's a (still rather confused and disjointed I'm afraid) opinion about film and digital in general. Please don't get offended in any way.

This rant/opinion is mostly triggered by ykf's post. One factor was the rather damning link that he had posted up talking about how digital quality is now better than 35mm film, and is now comparable to medium-format slide film. The other factor was the rather smarting comment (at least to me) of:



I cannot deny that the facts are that digital quality is now indeed better than film in some ways, the resolution bit at least (I don't quite agree with dynamic range), but as I thought through the facts and tried to straighten out my own reasoning of why I still stick to my trusty Nikon FM2 and film, it became more and more convoluted. To spare you the confusion I went through, my final conclusion after talking to other people, is that I choose film and chose film, NOT because it had offered me better quality and resolution at that point of time, but because of the feel of the entire film idea versus the digital idea. I mean, digital quality catching up and surpassing film quality is inevitable. Technology and research for digital continues on whereas nobody is trying to make better quality films. When one side's research ends and the other continues, it's obvious to anyone that one day digital will surpass film in terms of technical quality. That has already been done, apparently, and that I shall not argue anymore.

What I wanted to bring up is the idea of film and the idea of digital photography. I'm a great believer of "capturing the moment", of minimal manipulation of the photograph after actually taking the picture. A great legend of the photography world passed away not too long ago, he took only black and white photographs and he never cropped his pictures, because he believed that his photographs are perfect when he took them, that his composition is exactly what he wanted his photo to turn out. I never cropped my own pictures, not because I'm expert like him, but because I believe the same thing. If you have to crop your picture after you take it, there would be a certain lack of photography spirit in how you take your photographs.

But I'm digressing. What I really want to say is, the good point about digital is the amount of instant feedback you get. You take a picture, you can see it immediately, and see whether it was okay or not. If it isn't okay, you can go ahead and take another one, and correct yourself immediately. This is great for beginners, but I somehow feel that this instant feedback has created a loss of professionalism, no, the true photography spirit as I see it. Being a film photographer, I know that I would only get to see my photos in maybe a day's time at best. There is no instant feedback. I have to make sure each and every photo counts, because I'm working on film, and I don't carry too many rolls with me. I have to make sure that in one photo, I manage to really capture what I saw and felt inspired by when I wanted to photograph the scene. I have to make sure my focus is correct, my composition is perfect, my exposure is what I want it to be, all these small but important details must be in place, because unless I bracket, I might never get the same scene to photograph again. In a way, this makes me more in tune with the spirit of photography as I see it, as in "capture the moment".

There are lots of professional and really good photographers that use digital, and still have this spirit of photography in them, and I respect them. But it's the growing amount of photographers who became good at their art because they know how to finetune their pictures to make it look good, either by digital manipulation after, or by actually on the spot fine-tuning their composition or exposure after the instant feedback that they have, that truly disturbs me, that truly makes me dislike digital photography in a sense. Photographers who truly understand the pros and cons of both film and digital, and then choose to go one way or the other, these are the people I respect. But it's the photographers who were weaned on digital, never touched a film camera before, and believe in the power that higher and higher resolution and instant feedback brings to their art, those are the ones that disturb me.

A good friend who runs a photography studio once told me this story. He and his friends were at a shoot, all using film medium and large format cameras. On the other side were these really noisy and cocky photographers, all using super high-end DSLRs (not any of those Hasselbad digital backs though) and basically making fun of the amount of time and effort my friend and his friends were using to take one shot. Feeling slightly irked, my friend approached them, and basically challenged them to use their equipment to take just one shot. Verdict? They were all too scared to even touch the cameras.

Now my rant is not towards those people who use digital, only a small subset, the set that basically doesn't know and doesn't understand film, and diss it anyway, just because digital is "better". I'm a person that believes you should never diss anything that you don't already understand, and people who do so disgusts me...

>_< Sorry for the long rant/opinion thingy. But these are my true feelings towards this subject...

Good point!
And actually your concern is mainly on the person behind who takes photographs, not the tools. Giving an excellent tool to a dumb person, misusing its capabilities wasn't really turns that excellent tool into a crap. Gladly I'm not that kind of person, but really I admit there're lots of them.
The bottom line is the photographer's mind that matters, not the tools.

Sorry, film is also a digital media, using grains as its pixels. So its really not a continous device also.

I really agree with your rant chiiyo. I try to emulate the old masters when i take film photographs and not resize, recrop or after edit my photographs.

I beleive that once you start to edit and crop photographs they sort of become less of a photograph and more an element in a graphic design piece. What im tring to get at is the way images and used in magzines and such, they are almost not photographs, even though they were taken with a camera, they are mearly images. There is nothing wrond with this and i often like the results. But i feel that this i not really what photography is about, you are right - it is about 'capturing a moment'.

But ill propably take it all back when i want to get a job :D