Verified answer

digital is yucky to me. so many people are all about having so many lenses and the newest camera and everything else, I think film has been left behind for the artists to use because they like using their hands and having something tangible.

Digital is easy but it still seems like cheating to me. If you can take a photo 50 times and pick the best one, are you really a good photographer?

Interesting Debate. I've used Film and Digital. I have to prefer Digital. With the lagging economy, going to develop film everyday is getting a little overated, and a major inconvenience. I'd much rather shoot One hundred frames, and put them right on my computer, a few feet away. In terms of image quality, they are about equal, i prefer digital Though! Film comes at a price DSLR's can give you shots that are still Professional looking, and very close, if not better, than the results you can get from Film. I'm all-Digital.

To me digital has allowed me to learn so much more and so much quicker because of the instant feedback and the fact that you can always easily see what you did in a shot, all the settings are right there in the file.

Most of the people I know that still shoot film also shoot digital now, if only for those jobs were the client really needs a speedy result. I do think that getting a pic in your editing software and getting it to turn out just so can provide more or less the same satisfaction as darkroom work does.

Having said that, if you prefer film there's nothing wrong with that. It's still being made and darkroom equipment is practically given away now. Same goes for old manual focus cameras.

They are two different processes and are not really comparable. Understanding the limitations of each and learning the process of each is essential. When you say "like" or "don't like" you are really saying "I know this process, and I fear learning the other process".

Film and film cameras were constantly evolving all through their time. Digital is still in it's infancy and has a long way to go. Film grain is a limitation of the process, just as digital noise is a limitation, any glorification of the faults of film or digital is hypocrisy. Photoshopping a well shot file can be as rewarding as developing and printing a well exposed film. The "untruth" of digital is exactly the same as the tricks of the darkroom, only more sophisticated. Ansel Adams would have loved to have created his day for night shots on a computer, I am sure.

Very few photographers understand the technical science of film- these same technical fundamentals are at the base of digital photography and file manipulation. If you know your craft well enough, it is not really such a leap of faith. Then too, if you just get your fingers wet with developer without knowing your film gamma, you could just as easily muck about in photoshop without having to know about calibration or RGB/CMYK.

My hope is that digital will advance enough in my lifetime to overcome it's major shortcomings. I would love to strap an affordable medium format digital back on my old graphic view that would record awesome shadow detail in low light. I would love to see b&w tones rendered beautifully and archivally from inkjet. If these things came to pass, I could let go of film altogether.

The world is a changed place. We have let go of permanency (upon which all history before us was founded), in favor of instantaneous and universal common access. Things will flicker for only an instant, but will be seen by the entire world. History is being abandoned for a system of being aware of the now. The entire way young people's brain functions work is changing. Massive information loads are accepted without being processed.

This is going on now. It has happened, but the concept is alien to us as individuals. Once we, as individuals, make the mind shift to what has happened, we will be in a much better spot of understanding and coping and letting go. So much of what we knew as the world we have already let go of, or will soon let go of. Film to me is just one more thing to let go of, when digital grows into its potential, but they will always be two separate things that cannot really be compared.

Good luck.

Why would anyone be "against" digital - you sound like a luddite. Both film and digital have their place. Your childish comments are pretty silly: "I know how the world is leaning towards DSLR's and I'm still working film haha" and the film versus digital debate is just boring.

You can still get a wonderful feeling of fulfilment processing digital images using digital darkroom techniques, knowing that you alone are responsible for how it looks the way it does.

Digital is easy to use, convenient and cheap (I could never afford to get into film photography!), but, in terms of quality film beats digital hands down. As with most, if not all, things digital, the 'analogue' versions seem to have more depth. Film grain is a feature, digital 'grain' is noise!

I prefer film, despite rarely working with it. You have the most control with a film camera/film, because many digital cameras pre-set EVERYTHING and you really don't have any control.

Depends.

For color work I use digital. For B&W I use 120 and 8x10" film.

They both have their plus and minus points and I use both depending on the assignment or circumstances.

I don't prefer one over the other.

digital - easier, cheaper.