- You can take a lot of pictures and not worry about the cost. While on a trip recently I took over 500 pictures, not including those I deleted right away. I never worry about how many pictures I take.
- Instant feedback. You can see the image immediately and retake if necessary.
- Instant feedback 2. You can delete pictures in the field. Only save the good pictures.
- I have several undeveloped rolls of film laying around. They're bad by now....
- Do you know where your negatives are? I lost the negative to my favorite picture. I would not be able to find any specific one in an hour or less. I have digital photos on labeled CDs.
- PhotoShop. I just took a picture that was almost perfect. The foreground, however, was underexposed. No problem in PhotoShop, big problem in film (unless you do your own developing). Camera tilted? Also no problem.
- If you do mostly landscape, greater depth of field for same field of view. Pictures are in focus from front to back.
- Easier to post on the web.
- Easier to e-mail. Two days ago I need some advise. I sent a photo and got my reply back in just hours after the photo was taken. Try that with film.
- If you take photos that are potentially embarrassing, you don't have to worry about the person at WalMart giving you funny looks.
- I think 8 X 10 prints look good. That's all I do with digital. How much would that cost with film?
- I only print what I want, maybe 10% of the pictures I save make it to print.
- Instant duplicates, or triplicates.
- Airport x-ray vs. film.
- Cropping - yes, the pros do it with film, but everyone does it with digital.
- Control over output. I can take some negatives to 3 different one hour labs and get totally different results. With digital I have full control. Of course if you do your own developing, you get control with film.
|
- Resolution. Film has higher resolution. However, at 8 X 10 I don't see a whole lot of difference between 35mm and 5 MP. In the near future lower level pro digital cameras, like the Olympus E-X0 line, will beat film for resolution.
- Noise. Digital can be noisy. To my eye, however, most pictures look just as clean when printed. Digital noise often looks like film grain to me. Out of the many thousands of pictures that I've taken on digital, only a handful, less than 1%, have been unusable for my needs (a hobbyist) because of noise. Compare to the number ruined by hand shake…
- Initial cost. You need a camera, a computer, a photo printer, memory cards, a good editing program, etc. In the long run I think the costs weigh in favor of digital.
- Film has a larger dynamic range. Barely. For now.
- Greater depth of field. It takes a little more to blur the background in digital. On the other hand, see above.
- Film is faster.
- You can keep pressing the button on a film camera until it runs out of film. Sure, with my K-1000 I have to wind it, but that's still faster than waiting for the buffer of my e-10 to clear.
- Batteries.
- You want to take a photography class? You want film. At least for now......
- Flexibility of film types. Most people just use Kodachrome 200, but the option is there to do more.
- No matter how much I play with pictures in PhotoShop, I can't quite get that quality that balck and white film has. I've come close, very close, but film is better for black and white.
|
