Digital or 35mm

[Digital Matt]

35mm can be great, but if you're looking to be seriously careful/slow/meticulous, neither 35mm nor digital will force you to do that.

I think that really needs to emphasized. Digital tends to get blamed for making people lazy quite a bit, but it's not the fault of the medium or process.

 

[sincere]

OK, but technically, what kinda difference does it make? Are the pics really so muhc different with digital SLR?

 

[panzershreck]

OK, but technically, what kinda difference does it make? Are the pics really so muhc different with digital SLR?

mostly aesthetics but i'm assuming that you're also talking about photoshop instead of JUST digital SLR, film prints are still kings of their realm, and compared to the total cost of digital, film can be a cheaper choice (it's the newer film that matters, not the newer camera), but that's very relative to how you use it, technologically they're extremely different, technically they aren't THAT different

 

[darin3200]

One is not superior to another, they each have their own weaknesses and strengths. Film is can have a good feel, can be developed in different ways for effects and have darkroom. Digital is fast, cheap and you have different effects achievable through PS

 

[Don Simon]

If I were extremely rich I'd use both, plus medium and large format, because they're all extremely good at different things. In reality I stick with 35mm because I've never been able to justify the initial cost of a good DSLR, while with film the cost is spread out so I can delude myself into thinking it's not so expensive :mrgreen:. But expensive it is, painfully expensive for 5 rolls of film even at the chain-stores where everything's automated and run by people with 5 minutes training. Since I no longer have access to a darkroom I don't have anywhere near the level of control over the final results that I like having. I've just bought a digital P&S because sometimes I need a photo now rather than in 3 days, and because I like to take a lot of shots but don't like having to pay the processing costs for those shots. I'll still be using 35mm a lot, because I enjoy taking photos with that format, especially with classic cameras. But I have to admit that as soon as I can afford it I will get a DSLR. Even then however I won't completely stop using 35mm. In fact once I have the money I'll probably also get into medium format. Digital or 35mm? Both please, and more :mrgreen:.

 

[orangetree]

I have used film in the past and just in the last 4 years have started using digital... At first i was very leary but now i dont know how id ever go back.. I have to say the time saved has got to be the best benefit and then the ability to edit the images

 

[RBMKAlpha]

I have a love-hate relationship with my digital cameras. Since I'm a poor college student I've worked with the moderately low-end stuff, but I've found that even with the lower quality it has taught me some good techniques and helped me develop my style a bit. Still, the limitations are frustrating. :x

I've also used my dad's Olympus SLR. It's an old camera, but it's pretty awesome. The thing with the film cameras is that you don't have as much room for error than with a digital, so you really want to get things right the first time.

Plus for someone who is relatively short on dough, a digital definately lets you save a lot of money. I've taken about 1500 shots in the last two weeks that I've owned my Kodak C340, and that's at least $300 worth of pictures (film and development costs) if they were done with a standard 35mm.

 

[Ajax]

I'm a film person, I can see the attraction in digital due to the cost of getting B-W film developed though ale:

 

[Lumix]

I once read that a certain Lord (Photographer to our Queen) took 36 models to 18 locations and shot off 72 rolls of 35 mm transparencies. From this he produced a calender with just 12 photographs. So we are not the only ones to shot some crap. I always felt that if I could afford that much film etc to get 12 pictures I could be just as successful. Digital now lets me shot without any thoughts regards cost. I can experiment to my hearts content and not have to pickup the bill. After 52 years using film I was unsure if digital would produce the quality I was used to. Yes Digital is great, cheap, and versatile. Long live Digital!:thumbup:

 

[markc]

That's not at all unusual. Picking one from many is not new to digital. It just makes it easier and cheaper, so that the average person can do it too. Personally, I was happy when I got 2 or 3 good images on a 36 exposure roll. A lot of pros are happy if they can get one good usable image from a roll.

 

[Wally]

IMHO when digital hit true 4mp it was as good as color 35mm film, I still shoot 35mm from time to time mainly in plastic cheapy cameras like my suprema.

I also shoot a lot of 120 medium format.

 

[Alpha]

I still havent seen any digital prints that match the native resolution of film (i.e. about 3000dpi). Sure, you get good quality shots, but huge print sizes, not always really high resolutions. I'm sure that the Hassleblad 20-something megapixel camera can compete though.

 

[Revel]

Thanks for all the votes and comments. This is helping me alot in my research.

 

[Fate]

Although the 35mm cameras still, IMO, out-do digital cameras for pure quality, i prefer the digital cameras. The world is now a fast paced race for the best, and digital simply offers speed and, due to lack of processing images you dont actually want, cost effectivness!

 

[panzershreck]

digital has already started to win me over though because of this college newspaper deal i'm in... min. of 60 photos a week, i'm on a permanent borrowing lease with the newspaper's photo equipment dpt., contrast doesn't really matter, neither does size, or artistic composition, or thoughtfulness with the photo (besides the basics), just get something, and lots of it

i love B&W film, but right now that film camera is gathering dust in the car, just after shooting 3 rolls over xmas break, almost all good photos... oh well, my "fun-ness" with film is being downgraded to experimenting with a holga