Isn't it more appropriate to recognize that there are things that digital does much better and more efficiently than film, but that film also has tremendous strengths that digital technology cannot match? I'm looking for a lively and thoughtful debate, you guys. And to the victor belongs the spoils (10 points!).
Dr.Know
Favorite Answer
I don't know how true your statement is. Most of the photographers I talk to still swear by film. Frankly, film is a continuous media (basically, the resolution is limited by the number of molecules in the film) while digital is limited by the number of pixels.
HOWEVER, most will argue that digital images are much easier to post process and you save a lot of money in film and developing.
Another interesting argument I once hear is that digital photography is weakening the skills of the photographer. His arguement was that in the film days, a photographer had to be very skilled in making all the right settings to get his photograph just right in just a few exposures. Digitally, they just take 100s of pictures and then pick the best ones.
EDIT: One more thought... A slide can be scanned into a high resolution digital image that will match the quality of even the best digital images from the best camaras. However, a slide created from a digital image will never compare to an original slide.
Anonymous
Digital did not exist when I first became interested in photography. I am very thankful I did learn by using film cameras as it gives me a better understanding of the process involved. That experience lets me get more out of my digital cameras. I have been shooting digital only for a good few years and am now seeing people who have known nothing but digital, and many seem to have a hard job getting to grips with the actual photographic process. The result is that they are often disappointed with the images they end up with. I enjoyed photography as much before digital as I do now. However I enjoy the processing much more now. I much prefer Photoshop to the dark room. Beulah
ddevilish_txnfml
While digital photography is more convienient and more effient than film, film has a lot less boundaries. While most digital cameras automatically fix the exposure, nothing beats doing it yourself. Say you want to overexpose the picture, you wouldn't be able to do that with most digi cams. Also with digital cameras, should something inside break down, you would have to go get it fixed and if you don't have a film camera, you are out of taking photos for a while. Whereas with a film camera, they are more durable and a lot easier to repair. Though digi cams allow you to take multiple exposures but I have come to the conclusion that film seems to have more color and clarity. Though both are great and I have used both, I will continue using film.
M Huegerich
The two best photogs I know personally are on opposite sides of this debate, but they also do different kinds of work.
The one who does mostly posed shots (lots of control over everything) prefers digital, because he can get a shot that's virtually indistinguishable from film, preview it quickly, and tweak it himself.
The one who does more artistic portraits prefers film, for all the reasons already mentioned: more latitude in exposure, the discipline of not taking the machine-gun approach, etc. But, even he owns both types of cameras: a digital point-&-shoot for family/candid pics, a digital SLR that has replaced his (primary) 35mm for convenience/economy reasons, and larger-format film camera for the 'serious' stuff.
One thing's for certain: Digital is becoming more film-like every year, but film isn't exactly becoming digital-like.
tomreese2003
It's hard for me to see it as anything other than arrogance. They think it's the greatest thing ever and can't see it any other way. I love slide film and it's all I shoot. I don't want to spend any more time in front of a computer than I absolutely have to. I want to spend all photography time outside trying to take great pictures.