film vs. digital

[grooski]

Which do you think is better film or digital?

 

[ksmattfish]

What builds the best house? Wood or stone?

Which is more beautiful? Sunrise or sunset?

Which is best for painting? Watercolors or oils?

What tastes better? Apples or oranges?

It's like the Republicans and the Democrats. People make a big stink about which is better, but in the long run they end up looking pretty much the same.

 

[photogoddess]

They are both great for different reasons. Digital is wonderful but sometimes, film is still King!

 

[Bosscat]

Film blows digital away at this point in time.If we revisit this question after digital gets 100 years of development..........film will have had 200 years of development by that time.

 

[Walt]

That depends, you're not talking about the film on the inside of my windshield, are you? :shock:

 

[Mr.ReDEyE]

Film blows digital away at this point in time.If we revisit this question after digital gets 100 years of development..........film will have had 200 years of development by that time.

The war between film and digital has been over for a while now....digital won....in the future, film will be used primarily for the fine art side of photography but commercially digital reigns supreme.....the only thing that digi photography has to overcome is the printing stage....once they figure out how to make prints that last as long as film its done....but as far as image quality goes digital is king.....

 

[Digital Matt]

Film blows digital away at this point in time.If we revisit this question after digital gets 100 years of development..........film will have had 200 years of development by that time.

For doing what? Photography has many uses, and film is no longer the best for every aspect of photography.

 

[Bosscat]

Read the info on the site www.kenrockwell.com as it pertains to digital vs film and then tell me if digital is honestly ahead at this point in time

 

[ksmattfish]

That Ken Rockwell site has lot's of great info on it. Another great place is Luminous Landscape (the actual address escapes me, but if you search for "Luminous Landscape Photography" you'll find it).

If you were to list all the advantages that one has over the other, both lists would be very long. Don't waste time worrying which is better. Master both, and take advantage of the strengths of each. That's my plan.

 

[AIRIC]

If you were to list all the advantages that one has over the other, both lists would be very long. Don't waste time worrying which is better. Master both, and take advantage of the strengths of each. That's my plan.

Exactly

Eric

 

[voodoocat]

Film blows digital away at this point in time.If we revisit this question after digital gets 100 years of development..........film will have had 200 years of development by that time.

The war between film and digital has been over for a while now....digital won....in the future, film will be used primarily for the fine art side of photography but commercially digital reigns supreme.....the only thing that digi photography has to overcome is the printing stage....once they figure out how to make prints that last as long as film its done....but as far as image quality goes digital is king.....

Digital has much more than that to overcome. Try highlight detail and dynamic range for starters. As far as commercial use, most is done on film in medium and large format. Digital has a ways to go before it can compete with larger formats.

 

[ang]

I'm a newbie to photography, but isn't film's resolution in the billions of pixels vs. the millions for digital?

 

[grooski]

The war between film and digital has been over for a while now....digital won....in the future, film will be used primarily for the fine art side of photography but commercially digital reigns supreme.....the only thing that digi photography has to overcome is the printing stage....once they figure out how to make prints that last as long as film its done....but as far as image quality goes digital is king....

I agree with him, film is good the the fine art side but digital is better for commercial and scientific things[/quote]

 

[grooski]

The war between film and digital has been over for a while now....digital won....in the future, film will be used primarily for the fine art side of photography but commercially digital reigns supreme.....the only thing that digi photography has to overcome is the printing stage....once they figure out how to make prints that last as long as film its done....but as far as image quality goes digital is king....

I agree with him, film is good the the fine art side but digital is better for commercial and scientific things[/quote]

 

[ksmattfish]

I agree with him, film is good the the fine art side but digital is better for commercial and scientific things

Once again, it just depends. I have a buddy who's a "frog scientist" ( I can't remember the proper term, herpatologist? ). He spends a lot of time in the jungles in Central America hunting frogs to study, and of course he needs to photograph them too. He would prefer to use digital, but here's why he has to use film...

1) Batteries: many digital camera batteries are not available in the more remote areas of the world, rechargers and power systems too big to tote. He prefers to stick with older, fully mechanical SLRs that don't need batteries at all, and use a lightmeter and flash that takes AAs (available almost anywhere).

2) Durability: electronic cameras, digital and film, die quickly in the jungle. Mechanical cameras can be dried out.

3) Value: electronic cameras are percieved as high dollar items and are targets of thieves. He had his Elan II set up ripped off the first time he went down there. No one even glances twice at his Pentax Spotmatic set up.