SLR vs. DSLR

[djacobox372]

Film Pros: Dynamic Range, aesthetic quality, cheaper start up cost
Film Cons: Cost, Time between shutter actuation to developing stage, decreasing accessibility

Digital Pros: Accessibility of images, availability of equipment, cheaper to maintain in the long run, ability to change your ISO
Digital Cons: Steeper start up cost, lack of dynamic range, somewhat steeper learning curve (because of the tech, not learning exposure)

Starter DSLR's:

Canon T2i, T3i

Nikon: D3100, D5100.

Good description, although the dynamic range difference isn't nearly what it used to be--in fact it may be about equal now with digital recovering shadows better and film having an edge in highlights.

 

[vweeks5]

I'm interested in film now because my friend's neighbor turns out to be a professional photographer and we were having this talk about her cameras and she mentioned how digital seems too easy and it doesn't really show your mastery of the art, not saying ANYONE can take a great photo with a DSLR, but film seems more difficult to master and it feels like I would have a lot more fun in the learning process.

 

[Tony S]

it feels like I would have a lot more fun in the learning process.

Your learning process is going to be slow and expensive going with film (well, sort of as digital can get expensive too when you want more stuff).

Depending on what you do the things you learn with digital will transfer across to film if you decide to go that way in the future.

 

[zamanakhan]

I'm interested in film now because my friend's neighbor turns out to be a professional photographer and we were having this talk about her cameras and she mentioned how digital seems too easy and it doesn't really show your mastery of the art, not saying ANYONE can take a great photo with a DSLR, but film seems more difficult to master and it feels like I would have a lot more fun in the learning process.

Film is harder to shoot in the sense all the post process work you do is in a dark room, with real chemicals. This costs money, time, knowledge and physical effort. On digital it takes knowledge but no extra moneys, and the most physical effort you will put in is moving the mouse around. To get great results you need to know what you are doing or else you are just s Facebook photographer. I shoot b&w on a f90x, n8008s and a few lomo cameras. There is no question that digital is easier and better, since I don't have a dark room i process on the computer anyways. I would take a digital slr anyday over film. Other than build quality everything is better.

 

[Josh66]

Film is harder to shoot in the sense all the post process work you do is in a dark room, with real chemicals. This costs money, time, knowledge and physical effort. On digital it takes knowledge but no extra moneys, and the most physical effort you will put in is moving the mouse around.

Depends on your workflow... I scan and do PP on the computer - so once it's scanned, it's a very digital workflow. (Not being able to change WB on the fly is the only real difference for me - as far as PP goes.)

Digital cameras cost more, but film isn't free either... You would also need either a scanner or an enlarger (or both) - both of which can be pretty expensive. Software (for the most part) isn't free either. I mainly use free, open source software - but I am probably in the minority. Digital doesn't take any knowledge that you wouldn't also need for film. Exposure is still exposure, film or digital.

 

[vweeks5]

Okay, well that does seem like a lot of knowledge and physcal effort, but don't you still need to learn a lot of things about digital cameras as well? And digital accessories can get pricey as well. But do you think the overall of film is better? In sense that all that hard (or harder) work turns out perfect or if not, you know what to do better?

 

[Josh66]

You need to learn things about cameras. Digital or film doesn't really matter. The same rules apply.

I think film is better, but that doesn't mean it is... Anything you can do with film, you can do with digital. "Slowing down" is more about how you shoot than what you shoot with. It's just as easy to take crappy snapshots on film.

One thing I can say about film, it will never accidentally get reformatted or deleted.

 

[Overread]

One thing I can say about film, it will never accidentally get reformatted or deleted.

Unless you don't wind it on fully and open the back
or you fail to properly attach the film tab and it fails to wind on in the first place
or you get your chemicals mixed up


That said I agree, slow shooting is a matter of mental mind set not necessarily the format one works in. Heck if you want to simulate it you can easily get a cheap, small capacity, slow write speed memory card and put that in the camera and you'll fast be shooting just like you are with film - watching every shot because you'll very soon run out.

 

[Josh66]

Unless you don't wind it on fully and open the back
or you fail to properly attach the film tab and it fails to wind on in the first place
or you get your chemicals mixed up

That does happen occasionally, but when it does - you lose (worst case) 36 pictures, not a hard drive or memory card full. I have never 'accidentally' reformatted a HDD/Memory Card, but I have reformatted them more than a few times when I didn't really want to.

Losing negatives always hurts worse than losing files, for me anyway. Negatives last hundreds of years... Nobody really knows how long digital files will last yet...

 

[Fred Berg]

There is a school of thought which argues by using digital you learn faster. This is a fallacy. You will learn far more from taking 36 well thought out photos than you will ever do by shooting 4 to 5 hundred shots because the light wasn't quite right, or something moved, or simply because you can take 10 shots of the same thing and it doesn't cost anything anyway.

Film encourages you to think about what you are about to do; you need to plan and prepare. Digital almost forces you to be dissatisfied with what you have just done; you find yourself looking at the instant review and wanting to try again.

It is also not really true that digital is faster. There is a lot of time consumption in PP of digital; just sit down and review 5 hundred shots taken on a day out at a lake - even deciding which ones are good enough to work on further and which ones should e deleted takes ages.

As far as costs go, digital cameras that produce the same sort of quality of even a run of the mill analogue camera are extremely expensive. Monitors that display the images to a standard where serious PP work can be carried out properly are extremely expensive. Unless you send or take your prepared files to a photo lab for printing, doing it at home will require a printer that is also extremely expensive - as well as the specialised inks and paper and the calibrating of monitor to printer, and, and , and...

Whichever way you do it, photography as a serious hobby isn't cheap and it can't be learnt in a hurry.

Buy a halfway decent SLR and give film a try for a while. You will soon know if it's for you or not.

 

[belial]

There is a school of thought which argues by using digital you learn faster. This is a fallacy. You will learn far more from taking 36 well thought out photos than you will ever do by shooting 4 to 5 hundred shots because the light wasn't quite right, or something moved, or simply because you can take 10 shots of the same thing and it doesn't cost anything anyway.

Film encourages you to think about what you are about to do; you need to plan and prepare. Digital almost forces you to be dissatisfied with what you have just done; you find yourself looking at the instant review and wanting to try again.

It is also not really true that digital is faster. There is a lot of time consumption in PP of digital; just sit down and review 5 hundred shots taken on a day out at a lake - even deciding which ones are good enough to work on further and which ones should e deleted takes ages.

As far as costs go, digital cameras that produce the same sort of quality of even a run of the mill analogue camera are extremely expensive. Monitors that display the images to a standard where serious PP work can be carried out properly are extremely expensive. Unless you send or take your prepared files to a photo lab for printing, doing it at home will require a printer that is also extremely expensive - as well as the specialised inks and paper and the calibrating of monitor to printer, and, and , and...

Whichever way you do it, photography as a serious hobby isn't cheap and it can't be learnt in a hurry.

Buy a halfway decent SLR and give film a try for a while. You will soon know if it's for you or not.

There is a lot of fallacy in your post. You can take well thought out photos with digital or if you wanted carry a whole backpack full of film and let loose. You can process great photos pretty fast with workflow friendly software such as lightroom and you can also spend a whole day making your work perfect in a film darkroom. Both can be as well thought out or as rushed as you want through all the processes. As was pointed out theres really no difference

 

[Fred Berg]

^
No fallacy in my post, it just depends on how you see it. As I point out, there is no quick way to learn, but many people claim that digital helps you to learn more quickly. This is not true, and I would argue that transferring what is learnt on film to digital is probably easier and more reliable than doing things the other way round. Analogue can be thought of as the grammar of photography if you will.

I am not anti digital, but the claims which are so often put forward that film is more expensive and that digital is faster don't quite ring true if you take a closer look. Yes, you can get through a lot of film in one day, and, yes, you could take photos with a digital camera without using live view, instant review or thinking one per meter, one over and one under exposed shot maximum per image, but this is not the norm. Certainly, the processing of analogue photos takes time, but my point is simply that this can also be true for digital. Possibly you can process quickly with certain programs, but great photos always take time.

 

[The_Traveler]

Without getting into the cat fight about film vs digital qualities, there is no doubt that the ubiquity of digital slrs has caused an explosion in the number of good photographers and good images. I have been in and around photography for a very long time and the number of good photos seen even casually now just dwarfs what you would see even ten or fifteen years ago.
Digital has removed some of the barriers that are inherent to film technology.

Yes, film is a wonderful thing - if you can get past its requirements. If I was shooting in controlled circumstances or had time to wait or to plan and could redo shots that didn't work, no doubt film is an answer. But if one has to make decisions about ISO, color, etc, on the spot with no redoing possible in time-important situations, then one would have to be nuts not to choose digital.

 

[ph0enix]

Okay, well that does seem like a lot of knowledge and physcal effort, but don't you still need to learn a lot of things about digital cameras as well?

Learning how to use your equipment efficiently (be it film or digital) is just one aspect. The other aspect is learning photography. That's a much more complex and time consuming task. It will take you years regardless of whether you go with a film or a digital camera (or both even).

 

[vweeks5]

Okay. Well there have been a lot of valid and favorable remarks regarding film vs digital. But when it comes down to it, I should really think about the time and long term investment required (for both types), but going off to school, I won't have a darkroom or rooms to work with chemicals. So I guess digital seems like the best option right about now. What do you guys think about the a57 as a starter Sony SLR. And if you're wondering why Sony, I chose this because of the high continuous shooting rate, full HD video recording, and due to the fact that I am able to get it for less than it costs, oh and all I really know is Sony. (Are there any downsides to having high shooting rates?) Are there any other alternative cameras I could look to invest in between $500 and $700? Thanks.

P.S. I think I may want to invest in a film SLR a little later...