Film or digital?

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Film or digital?

No peeking.

[Deja Q]

1. So why are people choosing 'film', I'm just curious...

?

(and a kick :kick: )

[GregW]

3. I'm pretty much hard-core digital right now ...

But still like film from time to time to justify the cost of all the hella-expensive lenses I have take advantage of all the lenses I have for my Nikon.

I'm seriously thinking D70 right now ...

[Deja Q]

4. D70? Be careful of the moire problem...

It's also 6MP.

Also check the color gamut and shadow depth capabilities.

Digital processes light differently so it's easier to overexpose.

I should show you the digital version of the pic above, you may not be so inclined afterwards to go digital...

[Onlooker]

6. I'm torn, but prefer film

Digital photos to me always look alike. They have very little depth of field, meaning the images look flat. In addition, except for very high-end digital cameras (that cost $1000+), their resolution is not as good as with film. (In fact, if you use a slow film--ASA 50 or slower, the resolution is still higher than most high-end digital cameras.) Also, with film, you really compose the picture with the mind's eye, rather than see exactly what you get from the start. I think film photography offers a level of abstraction that digital photography does not.

That said, I'm thinking of buying the Canon XT, the cheapest of the high-end digital cameras, simply because it's the way things are going.

[Deja Q]

7. Bingo! But high-end is closer to $5000. The $1000 D-SLRs are 6mp still.

I wouldn't use anything less than 12MP.

I will ultimately have to switch to digital too; but not until they improve the sensor technology AND make it easier to clean the sensor without risking rendering the camera into an overpriced doorstop.

[GregW]

8. Speaking of depth of field etc ...

Last year I was going to shoot some pix of my son playing soccer and on a whim, decided to dust off my N70 and take it with me. I scrounged around for some film and all I could come up with was some old 400 speed.

Shot the pix, had Wal-Mart scan a CD as well, and forgot about them. I recently found the CD and loaded it up on my photo drive and couldn't believe the difference I was seeing vs my Sony W-1 digital camera. There was vibrant color! There was sharpness! There was a razor-thin depth of field (intentional)! There was also low-rez graininess ... but at least it reaffirmed my love for my SLR and that stuff called 'film'.

[Rainbowreflect]

2. Where was that taken?

[Deja Q]

5. St Croix River

Using a 35MM camera; that's a direct negative scan. (if you saw the image I had the other day, you'd be amazed at how much better 35mm is. And that digital camera was $800!)

[tsakshaug]

9. for what I do

Web work and the like, digital is the way to go.
I have two, both Kodaks, which I just switched to the Kodak Z7590, it has a 10x optical zoom and some manual controls. I also have the CX7530, which I use for camping and keeping in my pocket. I have a couple of 35mm cameras, but the mulit step process is not worth it for me right now.
some of the recent photos on the below web site are with the kodaks, one in particular is very nice and we have printed as an 8X10, I don't see grain or pixels in it. that photo is in the lake eaton collection, the shot of owl's head.
anyway, I use both media and they both have their place