What is the biggest difference between digital photos and typical 35mm film photos?

Question

I'm talking about quality, definition, clarity, field of view, colors, detail, ect

Answer 1

The biggest difference is picture quality. Digital cannot match film when the two are compared "under a microscope" (not literally, of course.) There is almost no resolution limit for film. As scanning technologies improve, you can scan and re-scan film to the latest limits. A digital photo, however, is forever limited to the technology that created it.

However, for amateur photographers like you and I, the differences are very hard to see.

Film is also much more "forgiving" of mistakes. You can underexpose or overexpose film and still get pictures from it in the darkroom. Digital is harsh in this trait - particularly overexposure. It can be impossible to recover overexposure in digital.

Digital offers immediate results - no waiting for film to be developed to see your work, learn from it and make improvements. Digital is digital - it's a natural to get into your computer to play with, publish on the Web or e-mail to friends. Digital offers much lower costs - no film to continually buy. Digital offers more freedom - you can shoot and shoot and experiment without worrying about how much film you have left. This last feature, particularly, makes learning photography much faster in digital. The more you shoot, the better you get.

--
http://www.lenslenders.com

Answer 2

The correct exposure will be the same as long as ISO and the light value of the scene is the same. The auto-metering on thte two cameras may not give you the same results though (just as two different digital cameras won't necessarily choose the same exposure in auto mode, but it should be close). The differences are exposure latitude (i.e how much you can over- or under-expose and still get a more or less correct looking image) and dynamic range (the steps/gradation between the darkest and lightest thing you can photograph). My definitions of exposure latitude and dynamic range are simplified, so you might want to actually read up on them.

Answer 3

In the right hands, using cameras with decent lenses of comparable quality, I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between 8x10's printed from film and digital.

In point & shoot world, using entry level cameras in the $150 range, in the average snapshooter's hands, you probably could easily tell which one is film: The film image would more than likely be quite a bit better.

I am a photo lab manager, and from what I see, many people would end up with better images from a Kodak disposable camera than from their Kodak Easyshare whatever. This is caused by several factors, lack of photographic knowledge in general, less than stellar quality of entry level digicams, slower response times in same, and the customer's neglect in reading the manual! They don't understand white balance. They don't know what ISO is or why their photos taken with 6x digital zoom from the back of the auditorium using auto ISO look crappy. It looked great on their 2" camera screen. It should make a great 8x10, right? There must be something wrong with my lab equipment!

The biggest difference between comparable film and digital lies in the skill of the photographer.

Answer 4

35 mm film right now gives better resolution and color, but its much easier to edit, copy and send digital photos. If you want to edit your photos or send your photos go directly to digital.

Answer 5

Method used to store the image.

Answer 6

Depends on the film and the dig camera...the big dif is colour and detail, with dig you can edit and enhance your pictures, etc.

Answer 7

35 mm pictures are gay

Answer 8

cost and convenience