Digital or film photography?

I think its a sensible question and one often hotly debated at camera clubs!! Lol!

I have shot both film and digital and have developed and printed my own B&W shots. I think in terms of convenience digital wins out - I'm an underwater photographer and seeing as you can't change film underwater, you're limited to how many exposures you get on a roll. Just typical to have used up 36 or so exposures and then that stunning whale shark comes into view!! Digital has I think really revolutionised the underwater photography scene. High end AP-C sensors, medium format digital cameras have all 'upped the ante' in the debate between film and digital.

Where I would say film wins out is in larger scale printing - there's no doubt that in medium format (I used to shoot Pentax 6x7) the quality is awesome. Also, I think if you develop & print your own film, then actually getting in the darkroom puts you more 'in touch' with the process of photography. I think that the relationship between exposure and the finished result is more easy to see & understand.

The advent of cheap, relatively good cameras has tended to allow everybody to become a 'photographer', similar in a way to when the Box Brownie was released by Kodak - it put what had once been the activity of a more 'elite' group into the hands of everybody. Of course, the old 'die hards' don't always like it because although the vast majority of amateur photographers are just 'snappers', there's some real talent out there!

Good luck!

Film. It gives a better quality results, able to be enlarged more. It also uses a camera that does exactly what I tell it to, without some ****-eyed algorithm thinking it knows better. OK, so I can over-ride most of the automation in my DSLR but it all takes time and is a distraction from the job in hand. I don't want auto-focus or auto exposure or colour compensation or automatic flash. I will tell it what I want and then derive satisfaction from the resulting print. My darkroom skills are limited to black & white photography but, given a good colour negative, it is perfectly possible to get a good colour print from a laboratory.

I do love digital and have 3 digital cameras (2 DSLRs and one compact) simply because I can point and shoot knowing the result is likely to be sort of OK. The pocket sized compact is most fun for opportunistic snaps .... and that's what I use digital for: snapshots. No matter how many I take, there is no extra cost and that's brilliant. For carefully composed, purposefully executed photographs, I choose film.

Having said that, my economic situation is forcing me use a DSLR more these days but I'd still take 'critical' pictures using film ...just less often than I used to.

Try Trick Photography Special Effects : http://tinyurl.com/FjDJxvq3NT

Depends entirely on the circumstances.

Sometimes film sometimes digital.

I know a lot of skilled photographers who use film but don't do their own darkroom work so your assumption is incorrect.

I prefer digital, the main reason is I don't like getting film developed I'd rather just have it on my laptop and go!

Depends on the application.

I use film for Landscape and Digital for just about everything else.

i prefer to use a high tech expensive digital camera cause if you dont have a dark room at home and you dont have the solution and stuff you can just use your printer i mean seriously its that easy

It is more fun to develop b/w film. Other than that, digital is better. (At least I think so)

when you asked this question did you notice its been asked hundreds of times before? did you think to check the hundreds of other questions exactly the same?

digi is for the masses, film is for the special ones

This question gets asked several times daily...

Here is a link to the same question asked yesterday with 15 answers so far, it will just be easier for you to click on this link and read those answers.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqq1z...

.