English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-07 10:09:56 · 17 answers · asked by This_Is_Me 2 in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Photography

17 answers

it depends on what you are doing and the quality of your camera.

film is more forgiving initially-a stop or two off won't totally mess up your pictures in many cases with most films...it can with digital cameras. with digital, however, you can see immediately whether or not something is "working" and the images are easier to "fix" after they are shot...skin tones are better out of camera on film...

most cameras 5mp and higher have quality comparable to 200asa film...which means you can blow up a picture pretty damned big and still have reasonable quality.

your HIGHEST quality images will come off a medium or large format film camera with a low-speed (64asa) film...hasselblad makes a digital camera with a medium format sized sensor-32mp that takes AMAZING images. better than film. the catch? it comes with a $35,000 price tag!

2006-07-08 03:59:00 · answer #1 · answered by mjr2204 2 · 2 0

It all depends on what you like to use. I have been using film for 20+ years and am reluctant to go digital I've been told that is it more convienent in that if you don't like the shot you can delete it. But I also like the darkroom work. Which gives me the opportunity to take a bad shot and do some magic in the darkroom and turn it into a better shot. Can't do that with digital cuz you've deleted the shot and there is no film to play with. Yes, digital is easier but, to me, 35mm film is better for the quality of the print.

2006-07-07 21:09:55 · answer #2 · answered by Lolly1963 2 · 0 0

You might as well throw a match in a gasoline tank with this one.

It depends. Some say it's how a photographer frames or captures a shot others say it's how one can develop and manipulate the film.

I think Digital is better personally. You can get a digital SLR and still use the same lens artistry that has been used for years. How purist is your photographer is another factor. Me personally, I'm not huge in photography but if it weren't for a small digital camera I probably wouldn't have started getting into the area. I think film photography is a great art form, but I don't think digital is bad. It's just newer and different. Like all technologies we love in the past, they all started with something simpler. Where do you draw the line on how pure you want to be?

2006-07-07 17:16:51 · answer #3 · answered by YeezusKhrist 1 · 0 0

The traditional film cameras are becoming a niche market. As the digital camera become more accessible (and cheaper), the film cameras are becoming more "professional only".

Digital is great for convenience, easy to see if you got the shot, and makes less wasted piles of photos. If you don't like the way a shot turned out, you can choose not to print it or delete it. Digital is best if you are going to change the photo in digital ways (with a program like Photoshop.) With a traditional film camera you have an extra step of making the images digital, and you loose some quality in any conversion you have to make like that. They make lots of different types of digital cameras, some that can print photos at 8"x10" beautifully. It always pays to spend some time in researching before you buy (as technology is always changing).

The downside to digital is the use of a computer, the software and organization of the image files, and the space that is used on the computer to keep all the photos. If you don't have access to a computer to keep the files on, digital will be tough. If you don't have lots of space on your computer, or if you do not have a good (or easy) program to help organize the photos, that can be tough too.

I talk about the pros and cons of digital, because the pros and cons of film everyone knows about...

2006-07-07 21:12:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Digital

2006-07-07 17:12:47 · answer #5 · answered by Katie Girl 6 · 0 0

Quality? Film.

Convenience? Digital.

2006-07-07 17:12:59 · answer #6 · answered by Sir J 7 · 0 0

Its all about film. It takes real talent to go into a darkroom and make a print perfect without using photoshop or whatever. Anyone can pick up a digital camera and a book on photoshop and call themselves artists but it takes a true artist to do everything in a dark room.

2006-07-09 01:50:48 · answer #7 · answered by imtroubleyall187 1 · 0 0

35mm is better for black and white
however for color photography digital is better because the color used in making 35mm pics fads but color digitally printed pictured will last as long as b & w 35mm photos

2006-07-07 19:36:05 · answer #8 · answered by bnlfanz 1 · 0 0

i enjoy amateur photography and i take mostly landscape photos and pictures of the environment, etc. this is better with 35mm since the quality is a helluva lot better, however if i'm out with my friends for a night i take my digital.

2006-07-07 17:16:06 · answer #9 · answered by Tom 2 · 0 0

Digital SLR. You can do your darkroom work with Photoshop. You don’t have to develop film. You can click away to your heart’s content without worrying about how much film you have left.

2006-07-08 05:20:47 · answer #10 · answered by Laura B 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers