35mm vs digital images...?

Question

Which camera is better for daytime vs nighttime, for detailed objects/close-ups, landscaping vs. people
Which is better if you want to blow up the image to say 8x10 or larger and still have a sharp image without retouching - why??

Answer 1

I shot 35mm film for almost 20 years and swore I would never change over to digital. I did ... slowly and reluctantly at first ... but now I rarely pick up my 35mm.

With the right digital camera, you will learn far more than you could ever learn with a 35mm. The simple reason is ... you can take many more images cheaply, and see the result immediately (if only on a small LED screen). So for taking any type of shot ... digital allows you to take more images (instead of being film limited, you are only limited by your card size) ... by taking more you can experiment with more settings and be more creative.

I have a Nikon DSLR (D70, 6 MP) and blew up a high resolution JPEG to a 20 x 30 poster. It is awesome !!! Just like a 35mm however, you really can only get good quality images with good quality lenses.

So whatever you do, buy a camera with manual settings so you can learn the ART of photography. I would recommend a DSLR camera for the reasons above, but in the end, you'll have to decide.

Good Luck !!

Answer 2

No, you're not "goofy in the head." Digital maybe closely approaching the quality of film, but it ain't quite there yet. Along time ago I was told that it would take a 64mpx image to equal that of a 35mm slide. Not being the "technocrat" I am sure that may be off by modern standards, but let me assure you, if I take an excellent, well exposed, 35mm transparency and have it printed to 24"x36" it will blow a high end DSLR image out of the water for quality. That being said, since most images are never enlarged that much, I have to admit images photographed in "raw" and converted to "tiff" will be indistinguishable at up to 11x14 from a 35mm film version.

Answer 3

Print film still has higher resolution. Making prints from negatives look great PROVIDING the user used the right ISO for what he was shooting. If you used the wrong film speed for what you were shooting, your prints will be lousy. Too many people who used to use film, made me shake my head.

They would pick up a point & shoot camera that had a respectable lens & good reviews. They would then go out, buy the cheapest priced film they could get their hands on, then add insult to injury by selecting the cheapest processing possible. Then I heard them say...."this camera sucks!" Total joke.

Film & digital both have strengths and weaknesses. It all boils down to you and what you like. I have used print film, fuji superia, in my point & shoots. I would run 400iso for general picture shooting as the aperatures on print film point and shoots is smaller than there digital counterparts. I used the best processing I could. My pictures looked like post cards. They were beautiful.

At night, I switched to 800iso. 1000 iso, and even 1600iso. I used the 800 iso for general night time snap shots in amusement parks, Disney World, christmas decorations outdoors. I used the 1600 iso for fireworks at Walt Disney World. It worked fantastic!!! My pictures were clear & sharp. Little to no grain.

I have the Canon Powershot A710is. It does a really nice job, except the night shots can be noisey if I use the "auto hi" mode. 800 can be noisey too.. That rarely happened when I used print film.

Digital point & shoots are fun, quick and can produce stunning shots but.....they need a lot of editing to make them look their best. A digital SLR is the way to go BUT......it can get expensive when it comes to lenses & batteries.

Had people educated themselves about film speeds, then selected the best photo processing, they would see for themselves what I told you here. Digital is not the salvation of photography people make it out to be. It's just quick feedback, and looks good enough to the casulal/occasional snap shot taker who isn't fussy, or doesn't know any better.

I don't mean to be crital or judgemental. I just don't see the hoopla with digital as so many others do. Neither is perfect. I use my digital a lot too but, I see for myself where film just looks & works better.

Answer 4

Well I'm biased because i still use film. I like the way my prints look. 100 years from now my descendants will probably still be able to scan the negatives into a computer and make prints.

I think digital cameras have, in some ways, "dumbed down" photography. From the questions asked in here and in the photography section people seem to think there is something "magical" about a digital camera. They seem to believe that all you have to do is turn it on, point it at something, press the button and you get perfect results. It doesn't exactly work that way.

Both have their place and their fans. Arguing about which is better is as pointless as trying to push a rope.

Answer 5

amen to what has been said so far remember if you want a digital image it's a simple matter to have a cd made at the time of development. Now you have the best of both worlds.My scanner from 1995 gives me a 14.1 megapixel image from a 35mm negative or slide of course that puppy was $5000 at the time and part of the Kodak Copyprint station when they first came out I'm sure a good scanner now far surpasses it.

Answer 6

35mm film is far superior no question, as for print film its ok but pros shoot transparencies

as an example my new film scanner can produce 4gb files off a 35mm piece of film.......no 35mm DSLR will produce such files.

digital has lead to people thinking photography is about shooting heaps of crap then spending days "fixing" their shots in the computer

personally im a photographer, if i can shoot film or raws and hand them over to the client without wasting time on a computer then im happy

digital has lead to the proliferation of crap images.

so best advise if you REALLY want to make great images, do what Mr Ace said, get a film cam and goto a course on photography: B+W is still the best teacher

a