Serious Photography - Dig or Film? - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**TheJake** · 02-20-2007, 08:11 PM

Just wondering what tpunks think about taking photos. I think I know what the answer will be but I was just wondering.

**space virgin** · 02-20-2007, 08:13 PM

both.

**TheJake** · 02-20-2007, 08:15 PM

c'mon jeanie. Don't play me like that! (and get on aim please. I miss you)

**simply_angelic** · 02-20-2007, 08:21 PM

both...seriously I like both. They're both good for different things. Digital can be easier to play with on the computer but in some ways more difficult and definitely more predictable whereas film...there's more guesswork to it, but that can be fun. You can play with it and get unexpected marvelous/horrid resutls sometimes...

**BigE** · 02-20-2007, 08:42 PM

I'm lazy. Digital all the way!

**freespiritz** · 02-20-2007, 09:39 PM

With the progression in technology it just makes sense to switch over to digital.

I should be doing darkroom work next semester and I think I'll love it just for the more personal connection to my art and the whole process of making it, but in terms of saving costs and time I think it's inevitable that digital takes over.

nzboy · 02-20-2007, 10:01 PM

FILM, FILM, FILM. If you are talking about serious photography, as an art form, (which it is) film is far superior. Film SLR camera's, even if it's decades old is in another league compared to the newest Digital. Digital is designed for conveniance and while it has its benefits, it cannot be compared quality wise to film.

**TheJake** · 02-20-2007, 10:17 PM

yeah! That right there is the passion im looking for to answer this question.

**lost in texas** · 02-20-2007, 11:32 PM

I haven't used a film camera in many years. I probably wouldn't even know how to load it and all that.

Actually I have a couple of friends that do photography professionally, and they primarily use digital too. I've been told there's virtually no difference in quality from film-based SLRs, and digital is more versatile.

I'm just an amateur point-and-shooter though, so I'm sure others have more conviction one way or another...

**ScarlotteDorian** · 02-20-2007, 11:56 PM

hey, i love film and more specifically, darkroom production...BUT i gotta go with digital. if i had to choose just one, i would definetly be digital all the way. it just makes more sense and it's better for the environment.

**Diorama** · 02-21-2007, 01:37 AM

I've never owned a digital camera (although i'm in the market for one now) so i'm still a film girl at heart. Nothing like a simple point and click. Can you believe that I travelled around oz for a year with a film camera.

I'm so scared of technology so I guess I like the simplicity of it.

**florencia9699** · 02-21-2007, 04:16 AM

I used to say that film was the real deal... and I just loooved the dark room, but I have to be realistic and I havent got the money to go that way anymore. I love my digi cam, even if it is quite simple. I'm over 5100 photos with it.. and I just love it. I can take a photo of absolutely anything, give it to a 4 year old to take a picture and not worry about the developing costs (which right now in Argentina are quite high).

And even though I was terribly pissed when I heard that eventualy companies are gonna stop producing film, I understand that it is time I moved on

**SuDz** · 02-21-2007, 07:07 AM

Digital for me. I just couldn't go back now.

I think I would just wind up with like 50 undeveloped rolls otherwise.

SuDZ

**Esterina** · 02-21-2007, 07:12 AM

I'm all 100% fully totally a film fan !

You can't match the quality of the picture unless you pay $3000 for a digital camera. When I travel, because I do black and white pictures and that the fims are difficult to find outside the "western world", I bring a whole lot of films with me. Ok, it's not handy, but I don't mind the trouble. I love the result !

p.s. I edited the poll, I had voted in the wrong category.

So the number of votes is right, but my name shouldn't be in the «Film is 1999» category.

**Dig** · 02-21-2007, 07:26 AM

At first glance I thought you meant me versus film because of the title message

I wish there were a both option.

**d_fresh** · 02-21-2007, 08:11 AM

film is dead.
I used a film slr for years. now that I have a dslr I'd never go back. there's no need to.

Ostara · 02-21-2007, 10:18 AM

well..............
I'm a film girl all the way. nothing will ever compare with the serenity of being in my darkroom, the water's running, it's quiet and dark. not a thing can bother me while I'm working. the quality is so much higher than most digitals, and there is something much more personal about using your hands to create an image rather than using a computer.
However, to make in money in the field you HAVE to go digital, there's just no other way any more. Too many people are doing it, it is too easy. I know a lot of pros who use both, especially at something like weddings, a film and a digital; 'cause nothing will ever match a film black-and-white image. For money-making I use my 10 megapixel always, b/c people want their images ASAP. And with digital, I can shoot, upload, filter, and they'll have them in their inbox before they even get home from the shoot. Film just cannot compare to that.
Plus, the companies are closing down, colour darkrooms are now almost obsolete. When I was in school, we had the hardest time finding parts for our enlarger and getting the paper and the chemicals for the colour lab. (Although, I'm not too sad about this, I hated the colour darkrooms.)
But a lot of companies (like Kodak and Nikon) have begun shutting down all of their film departments. Kodak started a few years ago and Nikon just announced it. No more film cameras, no more developing supplies, etc.

As for digitals not being of the same quality as film, they make some that are, but you have to have at least a min. of 27 megapixels to match the quality of a 35mm film. However, they are ridiculously expensive:

H3D-39, 39.0 Megapixel, SLR Digital Camera

Mfr # 70360530• B&H HAH3D39

Our Price:$ 31,994.95Availability:

In Stock

**TheJake** · 02-21-2007, 10:36 AM

now see i've read ALOT about this and discussed with the sports photographers I work with at the ballpark. Most of them agree that anything over a 6 megapixel is un needed unless you are planning on making full-size print outs or some or such nonsense...

Ostara · 02-21-2007, 03:31 PM

I don't mean digital is useless. Just that, if you want to make an 8x10 print from 35mm film, it will be perfectly clear, but if you want to make an 8x10 print from 6 megapixels, it's going to look bad.
Most people want digital for online work, which if fine, you could even go so low as to have a four megapixel camera for that; or just to print out handy little 4x6s or 5x7s to pass around, put in an album or whatever, and if that is the case, then a 5+ megapixel will be perfectly acceptable.
Especially for newpaper work, where the print quality is somewhat low anyway, a high res isn't going to be needed. For mag. work a higher res would be good, but isn't completely necessary.
But still, in terms of quality for space, film is better (unless you've got $30,000.00).

**space virgin** · 02-21-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ostara

if you want to make an 8x10 print from 6 megapixels, it's going to look bad.

Actually, the 8x10's I have hanging on my wall from my old 5mp camera would loudly contest that. Clear, sharp, perfectly saturated, lovely. And from my current 8mp camera I have a couple of 16x20 prints that I seriously cannot find any flaws with. At all. And I actually have a couple of 8x10's from my ancient 2mp camera... and the flaws in those are so tiny as to be pretty much negligible unless you're really looking for them. The 5x7's from that are perfect.