Photography question: Digital or digitally scanned film?

I don't use digital cameras at all. In fact, I don't even scan. I'm an old fossil, but am going to get a Nikon D80 after the holidays for the convenience of it all, NOT because there's any quality above and beyond film images.

In fact, I would prefer to use a scanner but the scanners are still a bit too costly for me. Nikon puts out a model that costs a little less than their most affordable DSLR that gives greater image quality than any "affordable" consumer camera on the market today (if you start off with ISO film 100 or less, or course). The reason is that scanners can and often do offer greater pixel count than most cameras on the market today. That's the bottom line, really.

There are some professionals that still use film; so, don't let the hype and fad fool you. There's far greater dynamic range with film than there is with digital sensors, and greater details in shadowy areas, too. Yes, you'll hear of how many are making the transition but... you won't hear of the many that still prefer or still use film. Sheesh, sounds like a well orchestrated conspiracy, no? Well, you can rest assured that most of the hype to promote digital technology is influenced by the greater profits being made with the new technology. Imagine, a digital camera comparable to a film camera in options/features costs about 5 times as much... yet, it's probably far cheaper to manufacture! The CEOs of these digital manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank with wheelbarrows of the public's money... and every few months they trickle in a few supposed "new improvements" or "new innovations" to fish in a few more suckers. Well, I digress.

If you have a good camera and good lenses that you're satisfied with and are getting good results from, weigh the costs of getting a good film scanner (or a good flatbed scanner with capacity to do film) with the needed pixel count that would satisfy your needs (to enable you to do posters if you feel that you will be printing poster sized images). How often and how large do you normally have your images made? Do you wish to scan for the purpose of manipulating the images?

Get an affordable digital canera and start learning (better if you can still use your Canon lenses with the digital camera). I'm afraid that the new technology's hype will soon make it impossible for film users to buy and D & P film within a few years, and I'm also afraid that digital is indeed the way of the future... because of the convenience, but NOT because of image quality. People using digital are accepting less quality for what they pay (foolishly so). But, of course, that's my opinion, and there are many that disagree with me (and they'll start spewing out how many years they've worked as pros... while I've only been in photography for a little over 42 years, having done my fair share of weddings, graduations, portraits and even court evidence photos).

Your images will only come out as good as your printer, and they are not any cheaper than film if you send them out to a lab; so...? If YOU want to enjoy the convenience and can settle for the loss of quality in images, go ahead and get a digital. Digital technology is just another means of doing the same thing you're doing with your film camera and it does offer certain conveniences; the question, of course, is "Will you be satisfied with the quality of images?" Don't change over to digital because others are doing it... they have their own reasons (or maybe are just chasing after a fad).

(I would love the idea of viewing, or "chimping" as they say, the images seconds after pressing the shutter buttoms... but the quality of images from digital cameras are still inferior to film in MY opinion).

You have surely ignitied a debate. I prefer film, I still shoot with a Canon F1. I have the negative scanned at a high resolution at a lab and then bring it into photoshop. There are a lot of people that will say digital is better and site pixels, resolution, etc. For me it's simple — latitude.

Take a photo of a skyline. Expose for the ground. Do it with a digital camera and what is that sky turn out to be? NOTHING. It's just white. There is no information at all. GONE.

Get that white clip in people's shirts, a sun gleam on the column of a building, or god forbid someone's eyeball — try as you might, there is NO information there. And it SUCKS.

Do it with a film camera and you'll find that yes, it's still overexposed but there IS information there, information that can be REVEALED by burning in, great photos to be made, it's wonderful. Film for me.

But a digital camera (8 megapixels or better Canon/ my favorites) and never look back! The capture of images has moved on from chemical to electronic processes. Don't get tangled up in old technology on the advice of folks who are not informed about the potential and ease/quality of digital imaging.

Your film images are all scanned to a digital format before they are printed at commercial labs anyway!

P.S. __ Your AE-1 was state of the art in 1976, and we were having this same sort of discussion back then!

I see we still have a lot of people who are leery of change. I was too for years, until 2004 when I purchased my first digital SLR. It was a 6.3 mp Canon 10D. There is a difference in the two mediums, but they are both still just tools. Remember that the real joy from photography comes from the sense of accomplishment and the memories you get from those images you take (not to mention making a few bucks selling them). That doesn't change from film to digital. Mac computers have certain advantages over PC's, but they are both computers used to similar ends. It's the person behind them that is the driving creative force. Use whichever tool you feel comfortable with, but don't be afraid to try a new brand. You may find you like it better!

I loved film for the color saturation, the puristic feeling of the medium, the depth of images and my own nostalgic feelings of childhood memories taking photos. Mostly I shot slides so I could get them published more easily and show them to more people with a projector rather than flipping through a book. I still get them out, but I have noticed something. Slides don't get better with age. Dust and scratches, well.. happen. When I scan those slides in, they have depth and brilliant color, but also show a few defects. So you know what I do? I put them through photoshop. I adjust their levels, their color saturation, clone out any major scratches and dust spots and sharpen it a little using unsharp mask. They look great, but... I just did all this work to turn a slide image into a digital image that I would have already have had if I'd shot a digital image to begin with. If you send your slides off to be printed, they will be scanned in, turned into a digital image and printed. The same goes for when you will get it published. Like it or not, digital is the future of photography. I'm sure when the art of photography began and photographers were adding color to potato starches to get a "color" image, they were appalled when production film cameras made it available to the masses. Change happens.

I will say this, if you are worried about quality. Until a few years ago, I was not convinced that an image from a digital camera could hold a candle to that of a film camera. We had a graphic artist come to the camera club of which I am a member. He stated that a slide image holds about 70 mb of information, if you were to compare it to a digital image (about 1 mb per one million pixels in raw mode). He enlarged the eye of a model taken with both a film camera and a digital camera using the same lens and mounted to the same tripod. I believe it was an 8 mp sensor. The difference between the two was minimal. He also compared color, graininess, contrast and several other factors. In every one I noticed that the digital camera held its own and in several instances, actually beat the film camera. I have personally enlarged my images to 13 X 19 with no noticeable degradation of the image quality.

Advantages to digital vs film: being able to review your image for proper exposure, depth of field and focus as you take the photo (no more waiting for processing hoping you got the shot), the ability to change the ISO rating from one shot to the next without changing rolls of film and counting shots to get back to the right frame, the realization that you won't pay fifteen dollars for every thirty seven shots (good or not), no lost rolls, no incorrectly processed rolls and the ability (only if you wish too, mind you) improve your shots using the tools available in photoshop. The only thing you can't change in photoshop is your focus and your depth of field.

Disadvantage: More time behind the computer going over your images in photoshop (a lot more..)

My advice: Don't make up your mind until you have tried a good digital camera and printed some of your results. Find a friend with a digital camera who knows what he/she is doing and learn some more about what makes a good digital camera and what is involved in getting your images processed.

I leave you with this: I shot film for twenty odd years. I bought my digital camera in 2004. I have never shot a film image since. That was 35,000 images ago! Happy shooting!

There are reasons why one would want to shoot film then have that film scanned to digital images at processing time. I for one reallly enjoy this process; number one, the large (24x36mm) image area combined with the 50mm or more lens offers more control over depth of field. Digital cameras have smaller image area which results in a static, usually unchanging deep depth of field which is boring. I shoot my 35mm film camera, then develop at say Walgreens, and ask for the CD. I then use those CD images to manipulate, or even include in videos. It's very versatile.

When trying to transfer a picture onto a computer, use a digital camera when have one, because it will not be unproportional or have blank areas when scanned. The picture should be more crisp and clearer then scanned, because the scanner can leave scratches and nicks on the picture. But on terms of time and easyness, use the camera.

Professionals still used film, for ease of carring, or working in areas where digital information could be damaged.

Digital is the future. The professionals that still you film are mostly doing black and white because you cannot get true black and white images from a digital. If you were running your own business you would want to keep your cost down so you would buy the digital verses buying film and a scanner.

i use both digital and film, i think that digital has its place but no one believes the picture is how you have taken it because it can be touched up on the computer. but no one can argue with a film negative. see my 360 page for some digital shots.

From photography and DSLR camera basics right through to advanced techniques used by the professionals, this course will quickly and easily get your photography skills focused! Go here https://tr.im/Hzs79

By the end of this course you will have developed an instinctive skill-for-life that will enable you to capture truly stunning photos that not only amaze your friends and family... but could also open the doors to a brand new career.

Try Trick Photography Special Effects : http://tinyurl.com/E671cnv6HF