Here are some questions to encourage discussion/arguments
Which do you prefer and why?
For professional pictures and large formats, will digital live up to film any time soon?
Definitely digital, because I can (and do) take a lot of “adult” photos of various lady friends that I then download and view on my computer. Sure can’t do that with film!
Digital all the way. You have more control over the image, they are smaller, cheaper to operate, and most importantly, you’ll actually take pictures.
I have had various good 35mm SLR cameras. I would go through periods where I’d take a reasonable number of pictures, and then the thing would wind up on the shelf for long periods of time. Now I have a digital camera, and we have literally thousands of pictures.
If you are just learning photography, digital is great because it allows you to experiment like mad. If you want to learn how to use special lighting, or take macro shots, or learn the effect of a flash at various distances, you can just go and take dozens of pictures and look at the results. With film, the cost and hassle of developing will always be at the back of your mind. And you don’t get the instant feedback of digital.
Get a good camera, at least 3 megapixels. If you’re just interested in snaps and not in photography as a hobby, there are a lot of extremely good point-and-shoot cameras out there. Check out the Canon S230 (or S400, if you can afford it). If you want a cheaper solution, a Canon A10 or A20 is an excellent choice. I have an A10 (just order a 4mp Olympus to replace it), and it takes great photos.
If you are really serious about photography, look for a camera that offers a few more manual controls, like a Canon G3, Olympus C-5050, etc).
Here’s an excellent site that reviews digital cameras, and has plenty of test photos so you can see what kind of quality they are achieving these days: Digital Photography Review.
To my eyes, film prints look more real and aesthetically powerful. It could be an intrinsic property of film or a conditioning I (and we) have cultivated over a long time.
Forgot this:
It already has. Journalism has been a heavy adopter of digital cameras. There are now digital SLRs like the Canon EOS 1DS with 11.7 megapixels, which will take tremendous, high quality photos at anything under poster-sized prints.
Digital photography just has too many advantages to ignore. The ability to upload images directly from the field to a publisher, small size, virtually unlimitless portable picture capacity with the new micro hard drives, etc.
Film photography will always have its adherents, but will increasingly become a niche area, like large-format photography.
I prefer a Digital SLR.
Now back in the real world where I don’t have $1500 to spend on a camera, I have both a film SLR and a digital camera. The digital is a small Canon which I can take anywhere in my pocket, and takes good enough photos. I feel like I’m a lot more adventurous with digital, since if it doesn’t work out, who cares? For instance, I take a lot of handheld shots that really shouldn’t be taken in the available light. But if I manage to have a steady hand, it comes out. Wouldn’t bother with film. Plus it takes movies with sound, which can capture a moment as well as the best photo. And the hold the camera at arm’s length to take the picture method works great for me. So all that’s good.
But the film SLR takes great, sharp pictures, and I have a bunch of lenses, including a 200 mm zoom that is great for sporting events. And I’m starting to get into the developing my own black-and-white thing , which looks very promising. But I hate that I have to pay for development, wait for the results, AND scan the pictures. Especially bad compared to the digital.
So at the moment, I’m at an uneasy balance. Maybe someday I’ll upgrade to a digital SLR.
Pictures takes with our 3.1 megapixel camera can be blown up to 12x18 without any noticeable pixellation, unless you get right up a few inches from it and REALLY examine it. Anything smaller than 8 x 10 is essentially perfect.
For normal home and family use, the digital camera is so vastly superior it’s simply a completely different device. There is absolutely NO comparison whatsoever. You will take far, far more pictures, you will enjoy them more, you will do more with them and give them to more people, and you’ll save money.
Depends what you want to do.
Film has more “depth”. A digital camera is limited in situations of high degree of light variance. Once you hit a white out situation with a digital camera the information is gone. There is nothing to retrieve.
If you overexpose film you can coax the information out in a burning process.
With that said, I did an unofficial comparison between my 3.1 meg digital camera and a standard 35 mm SLR. I blew both up to 8 X 10 and found the digital to be of a slightly higher resolution. There is probably more information on the film but I don’t think standard color paper does it justice. FYI, kodachrome 64 (slide) has 84 lines of resolution. you can easily get over 100 lines of resolution with good color film. (lines of resolution should not be confused with dpi)
For everyday use a digital camera does a better job than a 35 mm camera. a 3 meg digital is good for 8 X 10’s or smaller.
If you are a serious photographer doing field work (no control of light sources) then you will get the most informaion using film. From there I would get a good film scanner (not a flatbed) and then use a digital printer.
When I was taking my photography classes 8 years ago the answer would have been no but you could clearly see the writing on the wall. The technology is improving and getting cheaper by the year and they’re producing cameras that produce photos with every bit as much detail as conventional film.
Marc
I think the very best digital cameras compare well with 35mm print film now, but not proper “colour popping” 35 mm slide film like Fuji Velvia - give that maybe 3 years. I don’t think it will compete with medium/large format slide film for maybe a decade yet.
Just because there is no “noticeable pixellation” does not mean that a blown up digital picture is as good as a blow up from a ISO 50 transparent negative the size of a picture postcard, exposed for several second: the human eye is incredibly sensitive to things like noise and colour saturation. I have yet to see digital results which get anywhere near those of, say, Joe Cornish.
transparent negative?
Duh. Just transparency.
Many people confuse the gloss of photos from developed film with an intrinsic quality. You can also find ways of printing digital photos out in this fashion if you must. Is it really the higher resolution you are seeing on developed photos?
For the most part I would use a digital camera, for many reasons already stated above. However, there is one scenario where I find digital cameras totally useless - when there are no power points.
I acknowledge that some digital cameras can be powered by non-rechargable batteries. However, the better the technology becomes, the more likely cameras are to use rechargable batteries. Recharging them beforehand is not ideal since most batteries will totally drain between a week and a fortnight from charging. The camera slowly slips out of usefulness. Bringing a generator of some sort is out of the question for most ordinary travellers.
If you can’t identify with long trips away from power points, I’m sure most of us have experienced that fear of the battery going. Or it goes just before you reach the clearing with Bigfoot in. Sure, it eventually happens on many 35mm cameras as well, but far less often.
In my opinion, batteries are the worst thing about digital cameras. For now, this is why I still keep a good 35mm camera handy. You can even get them developed digitally at most places.
Moderator’s Note: Moving to IMHO.
As someone who’s just made the switch from film to digital, i thought i’d weigh in here.
For me, it was less a question of which medium is “best,” but rather which one best suited my particular needs.
I had a Minolta SLR system, consisting of:
Dynax 8000i body
Maxxum 9xi body
(they were purchased in different places: Dynax=UK/Australia; Maxxum=USA/Canada)
Minolta AF 35-80 zoom
Minolta AF 100-300 zoom
Minolta AF 24/2.8
Minolta AF 28/2.8
Minolta AF 50/1.7
Tamron AF 90/2.4 Macro
Minolta AF 135/2.8
Minolta AF 200/2.8 APO
Minolta 5200i flash
I was very happy with my camera system. I never had any trouble with the Minolta cameras or lenses, and i got some great results shooting prints and slides (E6 and Kodachrome). The problem was that because i had so much stuff, and all that equipment is so heavy to lug around, i ended up taking very few photos over the past few years. Add this to the fact that i’m in graduate school and don’t have much money, and don’t have a car, and the camera was spending most of the time in its bag.
Also, i’m attending university in the United States, but i’m from Australia and have many friends there as well as in Canada and the UK. So, every time i took pictures and wanted to send them to my friends and family overseas, i had to choose a few of the best shots and get multiple prints made so i could send them to various people.
It should be pretty obvious by now why i made the switch to digital.
However, even though i’m not as serious about photography as i used to be, i still wanted a camera that could give me a fair amount of control over exposure modes, shutter speed, aperture, etc., etc. So i went for the Minolta Dimage 7Hi, which is at the top end of the so-called “prosumer” level digital cameras, but a step below the cheapest digital SLRs. I traded in my SLR system for the 7Hi, and it was virtually a direct swap. I probably could have got a bit more for my SLR if i had sold it privately, but i couldn’t be bothered with the hassle.
I was a bit hesitant about getting rid of the SLR in exchange for a digital camera, but i haven’t regretted the decision once. I now have a camera that has a 28-200mm equivalent zoom, and i have brought an add-on lens that takes the telphoto end out to 300mm. So, in terms of focal length coverage, the only advantage i had with the SLR was the 24mm lens. I admit it would be nice at times to be able to go a bit wider than 28mm, but for the most part it’s fine.
The 7Hi also has a good range of settings, some of which can be found on many good non-digital cameras, and some of which are peculiar to digital photography. Features include:
a) mode (program; manual; aperture priority; shutter priority)
b) focus (auto or manual)
c) metering (matrix; centre-weighted; spot)
d) drive (single shot or continuous)
e) exposure bracketing
f) white balance (sunlight; cloudy; tungsten; fluorescent; custom)
g) ISO (100; 200; 400; 800)
h) sharpness
i) contrast
j) colour saturation
k) resolution (2560x1920; 1600x1200; 1280x960; 640x480)
l) quality (RAW; TIF; X-Fine JPEG; Fine JPEG; Standard JPEG)
m) flash mode
The main area in which the camera loses out to my earlier SLR is in the quality and speed of the autofocus system. It tends to have trouble in low light and low contrast situations, and is nowhere near as fast as the SLR system. It is, however, much better than the autofocus on the Nikon Coolpix 5700, which is the 7Hi’s main competitor. Also, the wide-angle end of the Nikon is only 35mm, which is not as good as the Minolta. The Nikon is still a great camera, however.
All of this focal length and all these features are contained in a single, relatively small (yet easy to hold) camera. This compactness and portability means that i am now taking pictures a lot more regularly than i used to. And the fact that i can view them, and send them all over the world, without paying for processing means that i have very few ongoing expenses. Also, because i can view a picture as soon as i’ve taken it, i can tell whether or not it is good enough to keep. If it’s not, i just delete it and make room for another picture. This is especially good if i’m taking snaps of people, because if they’ve closed their eyes in the picture i can take another one.
I should add a couple of caveats here. While digital might be saving me money in the long run, it actually takes up more time than conventional photography. Because many digital cameras, including mine, give their best results when used in conjunction with image software, i’ve spent plenty of time learning how to use Photoshop 7. Don’t get me wrong–this has been a fun thing to do. But even if you’re just making simple adjustments to your pictures, like levels and curves, it can still take quite a while to get through a few dozen pictures. I generally don’t batch-process, because i find that while some pictures require only a quick auto levels adjustments, others need more serious tinkering.
There’s another aspect of digital photography that can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Because you can take many pictures for no financial outlay once you have the camera, there can be a tendency to take many more pictures than you otherwise would. In general, i think this is a good thing because it allows you to experiment with new ideas and techniques, and to learn from your mistakes. However, you have to be careful of the tendency to simply start snapping away without any thought for what you are doing. If you’re serious about trying to take interesting pictures, quantity won’t be a good substitute for quality.
Of course, if i had the money i would prefer to have a good digital SLR system along with a film body or two. I would love to have a Canon EOS 1 and an EOS 1DS, with a bunch of Canon EF lenses. But that just ain’t gonna happen for a while. If Minolta had put out a digital SLR, i might have waited so i could keep my lenses and just change bodies, but Minolta has shown no indication of getting into the D-SLR market. When i’m done with my Ph.D. and have a proper job and some more money, i will probably make the jump to a digital SLR system (which will probably be cheaper by then, anyway), and i may even buy a film body as well, because i really love the quality of a good slide. But, for now, i’m really happy with the digital camera. It’s compact, relatively easy to use, and gives great results, both on screen and in prints up to at least 10x8 inches.
I’m not a professional, but I like to think I’m a ‘serious hobbyist’.
While the resolution of digital cameras is steadily marching upward, it still hasn’t quite caught 35mm film. I can’t find the cite right now, but I recall an article saying that 35mm film is roughly equal to a 14 megapixel image. Yes, some of the Canons are coming close, but they are ungodly expensive (roughly 7-8 thousand!).
For large printing, you need to start with large/medium format film (I find that 35 mm film starts getting very grainy even at only 11"x14"). It will be quite a while before digital technology matches medium to large format cameras.
All the image resolution in the world won’t do you any good if your printing mechanism can’t take advantage of the resolution. Inkjet printers have historically been weak link in the “consumer” digital photo process. Recently a few consumer models have come out that can approximate true photo quality prints. I’ve been pretty happy with my purchase of an Epson 2200. It delivers 8x10 prints that are nearly indistinguishable from the 8x10s that come out of my darkroom. In fact it has caused me to essentially abandon my darkroom in favor of scanning the negatives (still film) and then printing them out. I suppose when a 15 Megapixel camera comes along for under $2000 (with which I can still use all my other lenses), I’ll probably make the switch to pure digital.
As a side note, one of my largest beefs with the mid-level digital cameras that are available today is the ungodly delay between pressing the shutter and the camera actually capturing the image. Sure, the camera is trying to help out by figuring the best exposure, focus etc., but in the mean time the whale has submerged, the bikes whizzed by etc.
Strong agreement – this is just maddening, and all the non-pro multi-thousand dollar digicams have this problem.
Advantages of digital:
Cheap.
Instant availability of images.
No film and processing costs leads to not hesitating to grab the camera and start snapping pictures of whatever grabs your attention.
Fairly fool-proof.
Advantages of film:
SLRs can take a mind-boggling variety of lenses not available on digital (excluding pro-level digicams that are built in SLR bodies).
Photographer can select film for its various qualities of grain, color saturation, low-light performace, etc. to suit the desired mood.
Want to make a billboard? Large-format film (eg: 4x5) is cheap vs a digital equivalent. (How many tens of megapixels = 64 ISO 4x5 transparency film?)
SLRs generally get several months out of a battery. Less-automated ones can go for years.
No shutter lag.
Durable. In the case of something like a Nikon F2, make that durable as hell. I’ve seen Nikons that apparently got mistaken for hammers, but still worked flawlessly, despite being dented, beat up and ugly. To a photojournalist, a dented and brassed Nikon is practically a medal of honor - “See this dent? This is from when a Langostino rebel tried to shoot me!”
Want an 11x14" print? 16x20"? Just take the negs in and pick up prints a couple days later. No need to buy an expensive large-format printer.
Having said that, my Canon Eos SLR is getting lonely ever since I bought a digicam.
The shutter delay on the digital is maddening. But we do take a lot more pictures with the digital. Digital pictures are basically free once you pay for the camera. They download to your PC and then burn to CD (which are really cheap). The majority of my prints sit in boxes and we never look at them - and if I need a print from my digital, I can get them - they print off OK from pictures of the kids to give to grandma on my little color deskjet, and outfits like Shutterfly do a fine job of giving me real prints.
There is a problem in that we now lug a laptop on vacation with us so we have somewhere to download the pictures.
From your mouth to God’s Ear. What’s up with that shutter lag??? I lose SO many good shots. (I bitch when I change rolls of film that I should have used the Digital, I bitch when I lose the shot with the digital that I should have used film).
I have a 4.0 megapixel SONY Cybershot with a 128 meg stick…but those 3 second lags Kill me.
Is there another camera of similar quality that has faster processing? Is there a way to speed up the processing?
AFAIK, you have to move up to a pro SLR camera. $$$$
My understanding is that it’s mostly the autofocus but also the exposure. If you go to manual focus, the delay is quite a lot shorter (but not instant, at least w/ my DSC-S85). Full manual (exposure and focus) feels almost instant, but there’s still a very slight delay.
However, almost no non-SLRs digis have a focus ring (some higher-end ones like the Minolta Di7 do) or f-stop ring, so manual focus/exposure is not very quick or easy.