film and digital? what is your pick?
I prefer film SLRs over digital because off the good old fashion feel, but digital have a versitility.
Digital hands down.
My Digi slr feels just like a regular camera but since all my work is going through my computer and I don't have a $90,000 drum scanner and unwilling to pay $110 for each scan, the digital files are way superiour to what I can get with a flatbed scanner.
I gotta go with Colin on this one, digital certainly makes things easier for me. I can take a shot review it immediately and then adjust my exposure right then and there without having to do a ton of bracketing to make sure I get a decent picture. Allows for a tremendous amount of experimenation without wasting film.
I'm a fan of film but digital is my way now.
Same as colin, just can't afford to scan it.
Thats hard to say considering that Im a film person, but it is convinient to just plug-in you memory card and upload all the files rather than standing there and scanning the stuff one-by-one...so I guess I have adapted to the digital photography world..but im still a film person
Film does do a better job, BUT not enough better to outweigh all the convience of digital.
I've been a film person forever... but I never thought about the fact that scanning the negs and/or prints IS such a pain and I can never seem to get it just as I took it. That is a really good point of reason to start using digital.
So I assume the SLR's are the best for high res. pics, huh? I'd love to know which types any of you use.
Over and out , SG
I think it all depends of how much you are able to pay for your gear. I'm shooting digital (drebel) and love it. Also, maybe one day, I get myself a nice Hasselblad. Those cams do better for me then DSLRs but a decent DSLR matches a "normal" film cam.........for me
In the end, it all depends what you want to do with your pics. If you are shooting for PC/internet then digital wins hands down. If you want high quality large prints, then its film, film, film all the way.
At 4mpix my dig is is mightily inferior to the 80-90mpix obtained from scanning transparencies at high res - but good for shooting stock shots.
On the flip-side, there is a certain amount of difficulty trying to get a scanned film shot to match the original - also differences in how it looks on PC compared to printed. Differences between monitors exist because of different gamma adjustments but this is with scanned film and digital alike.
Film -- > I can do more in the camera with film choices and exposures than you can with Digital.
Digital is wonderful but print quality for large format prints isn't there unless you're spending six to seven grand for the camera, two to four grand for the computer and software and then adding in your print costs.
As long as there's film, I'll be shooting both.
Using film and artificial lights is second nature to me, adding artificial light to digital takes more work to achieve the same effect (i.e. white balance and contrast)