Digital or film... Need help all you experts

Matty-Bass · Dec 9, 2005

I've been thinking about switching to digital. Film for me is tough because I don't usually have the time to go out and buy film, have it developed, and the like. On the other hand, film is of clearer quality than digital. I wanna set up a darkroom in my house and learn that, but on the other hand I'm much more skilled at photoshop, etc. Do you think the digital quality is worth the sacrifice to switch to a Canon EOS? I'm serious about photography as long as I can keep going with it, if you know what I mean. What's holding me back is getting, shooting, and developing film. And as for being a beginner, it's disappointing shooting an entire roll to find out it was exposed incorrectly and have wasted $5.00. The bright side of that is learning from your mistakes.

If I bought a dslr, I would still have the film and have the choice to take it up later, I suppose. What is your input? The price of a dslr isn't a concern for me now, as I have a job and over 1000$ saved up.

What I'm really wondering is: Is the quality of digital much worse than film? My relatives and teacher told me it will never in the history of time, match up with film because film doesn't deal in megapixels. The thing that's so tantilizing of the Digital Rebel is you can have an auto setting (good for my parents) or total manual and if you don't like it, delete it... What's your opinion on quality?

My digital camera at home sucks, might be a good investment.

digital flower · Dec 9, 2005

There are a 100 different arguments for both medias. I know I have become a much better photographer since I went digital. I think always having access to the shooting data and the instant feedback is a big positive for me. I can try 10 different settings on one picture if I want. I love my DSLR (its the 'other' brand). Make sure you have a pretty good computer to handle the files. Its really up to you. I haven't looked back.

I am not an expert, just thought I would tell you about my experience.

santino · Dec 9, 2005

the following is something more like a moral question: photography is all about capturing moments in a box, but what if you could capture the same moment 10 times to get it perfect? when it comes to digital, something is missing...

photoboy15 · Dec 9, 2005

My relatives and teacher told me it will never in the history of time, match up with film because film doesn't deal in megapixels.

Have you relatives and teacher go through a magazine and tell you which is film and digital and then ask them about the grain in films. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but a absurd statement like that drives me crazy. In a couple years point and shoot might produce better quality that pro film camera. We don't know what will happen. Who knew 10 years ago I would be able to watch TV on my cell phone.

OK, enough ranting and on to you questions. I think that switching really depend on what you want to shoot. There are reason to shoot both. The most important thing it to know how to use the equipment. Terry Richardson shot an SI Swimsuit Edition with a P&S. So what ever you choice is make sure to use it well.

thebeginning · Dec 9, 2005

I've shot a fair amount of both film and digital. I started out with film, but with cheap lenses, so the quality of the images was actually better after I bought nicer equipment for digital. The quality of digital is really not that much worse, especially in higher end dSLRs. Digital noise is far less noticeable than film grain for instance, as I have found.* In my opinion, the only real reason someone should stick with film is if they enjoy developing and printing the film, the image quality (the difference isnt really noticeable unless you have large prints made), and the 'look' of certain slide films right after development. If you're just buying negative print film and not printing it above 8x10, then there is really no point in shooting film IMO. That's mostly what i did, and I enjoyed using my family's little digicam so much that i decided to 'go' predominately digital.

*It's odd, because I had some velvia 50 and 100f developed and scanned at a professional place, and the scans werent really that great. The grain was noticeable at 100% (but still quite acceptable), and the image quality wasnt as amazing as i had expected. Similar images taken with my 20d with the same lens at the same aperture, etc. were only slightly worse in image quality. Sometimes i couldn't even pick one that looked better. Some might say that this informal test (although it wasnt meant to be one, really) was innacurate, but i used a timer, tripod, and accounted for the 1.6 crop of the sensor and sharpened both the film scans and the digital files equally.

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, i'm not saying digital is better (although in some cases I believe it is if only in terms of image quality), but i think that for your purposes Matty, digital would be a good decision.

danalec99 · Dec 9, 2005

Matty-Bass said:
...If I bought a dslr, I would still have the film and have the choice to take it up later, I suppose. What is your input? The price of a dslr isn't a concern for me now, ....

There, you have the answer! Play with both the mediums.

Matty-Bass · Dec 9, 2005

It's funny you should say that beginning, about not shooting bigger than 8x10. I really will not be good at developing. Plus in the end, it'll cost more than digital... I can print photo-quality prints on my printer at home. Heck, the prints on glossy paper from my 3 mp Kodak Point and Shoot are almost perfectly clear! :lmao: More than twice the mega pixels shouldn't be a problem.

I think I'm gonna do it. Probably wait till around May when I have a good sufficient budget and possibly some resources for my birthday. And if I still want it then, then we're good!

Thanks for the opinions. I was more concerned about how they turn out. If i can see instant results I think it would help to find out how some settings work and such, then apply those to film.

A question: Can the Rebel XT have the shutter and aperture adjusted? Like on my Canon, its 100% manual, including the film advance, etc. I can adjust the aperture on the lens, and adjust the the shutter speed. And can it be used with a cable release for long exposures? Thanks!

nealjpage · Dec 10, 2005

Sounds like it was answered before it was asked. As for me, I still care for film above digital. Call me a purest. I'll survive.

santino · Dec 10, 2005

I'll survive too.

santino · Dec 10, 2005

btw. you can't get really good prints with your printer, really good printers (RIPS) cost about 2000$ and can't produce as good results as real prints are.
and I agree, sounds like the question was answered before it was asked. go digital, youi'll surely enjoy it

photoboy15 · Dec 10, 2005

Yes the digital rebels have full controls from what ive seen.

Matty-Bass · Dec 10, 2005

Yep, gonna do it. After I learn more techniques with digital (and the folks can use the auto features) I can switch back to film as a hobby. I still need it for school anyway.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 10, 2005

You relatives and teachers are right to a point. If you compare a low ISO film, like 50 or 25 then it still has the edge in shaprness over digital.

However, for many practical situations you're using ISO 100, 400 and 1600. 35mm film just can't compare above ISO 200 with the clearness and clarity of digital right now.

I've had S1 IS and then 300D as my first cameras. With them I learned exposure and flashwork. With that knowledge, I started shooting film and it's "always" exposed how I wanted it to be exposed.

Now, I'm learning porgraiture and the instant feedback of digital is needed again...

You'll probably wind up shooting both too.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 10, 2005

Oh, and BTW: A LOT of of lenses can't outresolve either film or digital... so it only matters if you're using good quality primes.

SepiaTL · Dec 10, 2005

santino said:
the following is something more like a moral question: photography is all about capturing moments in a box, but what if you could capture the same moment 10 times to get it perfect? when it comes to digital, something is missing...

I think maybe the ethics comes more with post-processing vs. untouched than it does with simple digital vs. film. It's physically impossible to capture the same moment more than once, but it is possible to go back and change that moment in Photoshop. Should we alter reality or not?