Digital or film photography which do you prefer? And why?

Question

Even though I own several digital and film cameras, I prefer film over digital: 35mm, 4x5, 8x10 formats, etc. Because I have to work harder for the final results: developing, processing, and printing, it gives me more opportunity to be creative…Meanwhile with digital technology usually does too much for you.

Answer 1

I despise uneducated answers... (as the ones above).

In this day and age the difference between a film print and a pro DSLR print is nothing. The quality is the same, the moods are the same, the tones are the same, everything is the same. Pro DSLR cameras have a complete manual setting that requires a photographer to know about aperatures, iso, shutter speeds, etc, therfor forcing a person to learn about photography itself.

With a professional printer, the print quality is the same as what you get from a developed image with an enlarger.

Digital Technology really only starts to take effect when you bring an image into Photoshop, Corel, etc. At that point, you can duplicate any effect created by cross-processing, artistic prints, B&W film, IR film, etc.

The fact that film can capture more detail is really a stupid statement. A high res digital capture will capture just as much as a large-format film camera. So obviously it will still contain as much information as a 35mm film.

As far as film being more artsy is just assenine also. The mood and image captured has nothing to do with the camera but everything to do with the photographer. If it's any other way, then you just suck... deal with it.

If film is truly better (as the uneducated response will tell you) I challenge you to prove it. On my 360 profile I have an image gallery. 2 of them are with film... guess which ones are.

Now, the development of film is quite fun. There is no doubt about that. And I'm not arguing that preferring film isn't a valid choice. I'm arguing that film is not better than digital. If you were with the current times and tried a pro DSLR you would realize that.

To the person who stated that with film you can create a beautiful piece of art... I'm glad to know that you concider my work average and ordinary. Something everyone can reproduce with no knowledge. And that all my years put into learning composition, lighting and technique were wasted.

Answer 2

There is enough film vs digital discussions on various photography forums to read non stop for a year. It is now such an old hat subject that most people just don't have the energy or desire to rehash the same old arguments over and over and over again ad nauseam. I will make it short and sweet. They both have their pros and cons. I use both film and digital, depending on my needs / desires and the conditions. Often times it is the camera that is really dictating whether I shoot film or digital. If I am after a certain look in a photo, then I am making a particular camera choice more than simply film or digital. Whatever the capture medium is of that particular camera happens to be is what I use. For instance, my pinhole camera gives me a very definite style and look to my photos and it uses film. However, if I am after a very high quality, as perfect as can be portrait of my 6 year old niece, then my digital Canon 5D MkII is used. (By the way, though I have the DSLR you mentioned, there are certainly plenty others that do a great job). So try not to make a sweeping generalization as to which is "better". Both film and digital have their place. The main problem with digital is not so much the technology itself, but rather how the general, unskilled public buy these cameras and take tons of horrid photos and post all over the web. The camera is not the problem, it is the photographer. It has always been that way, even before a digital camera existed, (there were plenty of awful film photos taken also), but with the advent of the internet, those terrible digital photos are much more prevalent and easy to put out into public view. steve

Answer 3

As a photography teacher, I do not like digital; it's too easy, and the effects available sometimes can be used to disguise real problems with the basics. Film is a far superior medium for instruction, because you need to learn the steps, work on composition more, and confront your problems head on.

I like working a little harder to achieve the final result I want; I think, in the end, the effort is equalled by the reults. That said, one can make a perfectly good image with a digital camera.

Answer 4

My husband did photopraphy for a bit, and I have done it on the side for fun.

I'd have to agree with you that film is better! Digital is great for family snapshots and such, BUT when it come to a great photograph, and the artistic side of it, film is number one!

With digital cameras, anyone can take a picture. However, with film, you can create a beautiful piece of art!

Answer 5

I would love to say digital but I say film. Film captures more information and you get a better picture. With the use of a film scanner. You can have the best of both worlds.

Answer 6

I prefer digital cameras because you have the ability to take large numbers of photos and can rework them infinite number of times to get special effects or focus on small details in the photos. I have professional grade cameras, Nikon F100, Nikon N90s, but the cost of developing gets expensive when you are dealing with thousands of pictures.

Answer 7

film better quality than digital

Answer 8

1