BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Traditional Film Photography

Film vs. Digital in todays markets

To love this question, log in above
January 09, 2006

Despite the hoopla, there remain a lot of folks who don't own digital cameras and probably won't buy them. Sales of digital cameras reportedly peaked in 2004; sales in 2005 lagged behind the public's new love affair with the iPOD.

With scanners attached to his/her computer, the film photographer can enter the world of digital photography and enjoy image editing with Photoshop and other editing software.

Digital cameras range from point and shoot to simple reflex cameras to digital SLRs. You can still buy cameras with sensors as small as 2 MP; generally you'll want 5-8 MP [especially if you're going to make 8X10 prints.]

Below 8MP, the chips do not receive the equivalent of the 24X36 mm negative of a 35 mm film camera. The price of cameras with larger sensors goes out of sight - ~$8,000 for a Canon SLR with [I think] 12 MP. [The new Canon 5D goes for about $4,000.

Medium format is still a small part of the market. Bronica has discontinued one of its lines, but you can still buy new Mamiyas and Pentaxes. Then, of course, there's Hassleblad. All continue to make film-based units. And, some allow use of a digital "back." Of course, the Hasselblad charmer is ~$22,000.

If you have all the equipment and like the pictures you make with your existing equipment, there's no good reason to go to digital. If you want to experience the digital fun [and you don't have a scanner] you can have a KodakCD made where you have your film processed - and then load your pictures into your computer.

If you want to buy a digital camera, think hard about the kind of pictures you plan to shoot. If you want to send them via e-mail [pictures of kids, grandkids, etc.] you really don't need more than 3 MP and a point and shoot camera. If you plan to enlarge your pictures to 8X10 or greater, you need to think about a larger sensor. Today, 8 MP makes sense.

One thing - and contrary to what many say - digital isn't cheap. Oh, you won't have to pay for film and developing. But, there is the camera [and they're much more expensive,] there are batteries and a charger, there is the computer, the printer, the editing software, photo paper and ink [the place where printer manufacturers make their profits.]

One thing most folks don't think about is TIME. Since time is MONEY, it's very important. A number of folks have described "the 5,000 or so images they've shot a wedding." Since it take a lot of time to choose which are "keepers," and still more to edit [crop, sharpen, adjust color, etc.,] it's not easy to turn a "real" profit with a digital used in said manner.

One final thought - and I've made this comment in a number of threads. A DIGITAL CAMERA WILL NOT ASSURE THAT YOU'LL TAKE A BETTER PICTURE. It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

To love this comment, log in above
January 09, 2006