Digital or Film? What should my next cam be?

[HoustonianYankee]

As I contemplate digging out my old developing tanks and buying some D-76, I realize that one of the things I like about traditional photography is that there's almost an element of alchemy involved, and that if one does things just right one could channel the spirits of Man Ray or Berenice Abbott to influence one's own work. (Of course, that never works for me.)

I love a lot of the work done between the world wars, and I presume that a part of that "look" is the fact that there were no high-speed films available. I want to try some Efke 25 ASA and see how it works for me.

Which leads me to a question: With traditional film, each film stock, whether it be Plus-X, Tri-X or whatever (and the developer used, too), has a certain look to it. Can that same sort of thing be accomplished digitally? I'm curious.

I've affected grain in some of my photos taken with digital in color and then converted in photoshop. Whether it accurately reflects these media is another story; probably not entirely. You can get an atmospheric effect that is quite nice and which has its own creative personality.

By the way, John Szarkowski died Saturday at 81. He was curator of the MOMA and was a prominent advocate of photography and also of defining it as a true art form. I wonder whether he had any views on digital photography as a legitimate photographic medium.

 

[Haiku]

As I contemplate digging out my old developing tanks and buying some D-76, I realize that one of the things I like about traditional photography is that there's almost an element of alchemy involved, and that if one does things just right one could channel the spirits of Man Ray or Berenice Abbott to influence one's own work. (Of course, that never works for me.)

I love a lot of the work done between the world wars, and I presume that a part of that "look" is the fact that there were no high-speed films available. I want to try some Efke 25 ASA and see how it works for me.

Which leads me to a question: With traditional film, each film stock, whether it be Plus-X, Tri-X or whatever (and the developer used, too), has a certain look to it. Can that same sort of thing be accomplished digitally? I'm curious.

Part of the look of the old photographs that you like so much had to do with the fact that they were inevitably taken with medium format film. As a result there was almost never any grain even with the largest of enlargements. They also tended to be a touch contrastier than one would otherwise think. But you are right on the money: slow films were the rule. I've not tried Efke 25, but I understand that it is absolutely wonderful, and will deliver a full range of tonality with no grain. It will not necessarily have a vintage look: it is better than the old films. People often make the mistake of thinking that the look of old pictures can be replicated by having grainy pictures. I'm not saying that you think this by the way! But that isn't it. The look is no-grain, often a touch contrasty and more often than not, soft focus. The softness was the result of not great lenses which often had flare. Today's multicoated lenses are vastly sharper than even the sharpese non-coated lenses of the 1940's.

The look is also often the result of the way that the pictures were printed. Old pictures were all printed on fibre-based paper. That too creates a very special look that simply is not available today with digital. Most of the old style papers are simply not made anymore. And the look cannot be replicated digitally. In fact the look of those photos cannot be replicated today wtih film either: the paper simply doesn't exist. An example of what was lost can be seen in Karsh's famous portrait of Churchill. Karsh printed the picture on a paper that had a rather sandpaper type of tooth to it. That's one of the things that gives that portrait the look it has. The texture of the paper creates depth. When they stopped making that paper, the ability of anyone, including Karsh, to create that look was lost forever.

Take a look at Roger Hicks website: rogerandfrances.com in the "photoschool" section they have two essays: intro to film and negative density that you may find interesting.

 

[farace]

Take a look at Roger Hicks website: rogerandfrances.com in the "photoschool" section they have two essays: intro to film and negative density that you may find interesting.

It looks like I could spend quite a bit of time on that site. Thanks.

 

[capt_cope]

I'll toss in my two cents here. If you are new to photography go digital. You WILL be happier with digital to start, if I'm wrong you can mail me your soul-less electronic box, and I'll put it to use. If, however, you are at least NOT a first time photographer, film is something you can consider, though it must be considered carefully.
I work at a photography studio, and I can tell you this: in all the jobs we've done in the past 4 or 5 years, NONE of them used "film" (Film is really the wrong word for it, since it implies cinematography, but regardless, no 35mm, 120, 4x5 or 8x10 was used in any of those jobs) And here's why: Cost, and productivity. Professionally at least (we're commercial photographers, so any arty types may sling mud at will) none of the clients or art directors want to spend the money to shoot film. YES it costs much more per final shot. When you add up all the Polaroids, the cost of the film, the cost of developing said film, and the cost of the extra time involved in shooting film, the benifits of film are thrown to the fire with cost leading the charge. After playing around with both 35mm and an OLD digital camera (one of our Kodak pro 14/n SLR) I can say that with the majority of the 35mm media available, digital is equal or better. If you shoot at a film speed higher than 160 ISO, chances are a digital camera will produce an image that is of higher quality when enlarged. (I tested this with a couple brands and speeds, used the same lens, on the same day, of the same subject, and even scanned the negatives myself on our film scanner at a hair over 5,000 DPI) All of that said, 4X5 and 120 are easily superior media to digital at this time, in terms of image quality.

So, we know that any medium format media is better than digital (I've seen the proof, and tried it myself, it is a FACT, even an old hassy can trump an EOS 1DS Mark II in terms of quality. (And I define quality by dynamic range, sharpness, and grain.) And with the right diet of high quality 35mm, an old F4 can match said Mark II in terms of quality (and the diet I fed the F4 was a couple rolls of Velvia 50, some 160VC, and a bunch of e100G) Let me be the first to say: Film is NOT dead, it's just a dinosaur who's picked up the habit of smoking three packs a day. And here's why: time and money. Even if you go for the 35mm SLR, feeding it the media to produce images up to par with current digital technology will cost you some serious money. A roll of e100G is about 8 dollars here in WI. That's 36 exposures. I picked up a 2gb CF card for 25 dollars at best buy, it'll hold 119 Raw exposures. Now that $9 roll of film needs processing, so toss another $6 down the hole. Even if you treated your compact flash cards as disposable, you'd SAVE money compared to film. You must also ask yourself, are you patient? I'm not. I like having my images ready for printing or manipulating as soon as I get home. 35mm can't offer you this (you can get 1hour for color negatives at target, but I prefer color positive in 35mm, and that takes much more time around here, and costs much more) Also, if you intend to make your own prints or edits to the photos, you'd better figure in either the cost of buying a HIGH quality scanner, or the cost to rent one at a lab. And that takes lots of time at high settings.

To wrap this bourbon inspired rambling mess up, I'll say this:
35mm is almost pointless at this point. 120 is close to pointless, but still offers you a semi-light weight solution if you MUST have image quality over everything else. 4x5 is the king in the world of landscape and art, and 8x10 is unbeatable at this point, at the cost of money, and size.
Digital is (MY OPINION) the new 35mm. It's offers you light weight, speed, and acceptable image quality. Unless you want to make HUGE prints, and are an experienced photographer, anything other than digital is going to be a beast of burden. You will learn slower, since it takes longer to see the images you've taken. You will learn slower (unless you've devoted large sums of money to the cause) since it cost much more money every time you click that shutter. You will learn slower, because a light leak or semi-moronic kid running the processing machine WILL ruin that once in a lifetime shot. (quick aside: we actually lost an entire job because of a raccoon. It jumped, or fell, on a transformer near the lab, and cut power to the building when our film was in the machine. Poof. Gone. Thousands of dollars gone because of a furry garbage eater.) Get a digital SLR, you will thank yourself later. And when you think it's time you played with the "organic" side of photography, keep in mind 35mm and 4x5 cameras are getting cheaper by the day. That wonderful F4 I've been using has a street value of around $350-$400. And it's only getting cheaper. You can learn (and I feel you learn best by getting out and TRYING things, rather than listening to people who may, or may not know better than you) faster with a digital camera.

If you've wisely ignored everything above this, my point is: get a digital camera.

 

[HoustonianYankee]

I'll toss in my two cents here. If you are new to photography go digital. You WILL be happier with digital to start, if I'm wrong you can mail me your soul-less electronic box, and I'll put it to use. If, however, you are at least NOT a first time photographer, film is something you can consider, though it must be considered carefully.
I work at a photography studio, and I can tell you this: in all the jobs we've done in the past 4 or 5 years, NONE of them used "film" (Film is really the wrong word for it, since it implies cinematography, but regardless, no 35mm, 120, 4x5 or 8x10 was used in any of those jobs) And here's why: Cost, and productivity. Professionally at least (we're commercial photographers, so any arty types may sling mud at will) none of the clients or art directors want to spend the money to shoot film. YES it costs much more per final shot. When you add up all the Polaroids, the cost of the film, the cost of developing said film, and the cost of the extra time involved in shooting film, the benifits of film are thrown to the fire with cost leading the charge. After playing around with both 35mm and an OLD digital camera (one of our Kodak pro 14/n SLR) I can say that with the majority of the 35mm media available, digital is equal or better. If you shoot at a film speed higher than 160 ISO, chances are a digital camera will produce an image that is of higher quality when enlarged. (I tested this with a couple brands and speeds, used the same lens, on the same day, of the same subject, and even scanned the negatives myself on our film scanner at a hair over 5,000 DPI) All of that said, 4X5 and 120 are easily superior media to digital at this time, in terms of image quality.

So, we know that any medium format media is better than digital (I've seen the proof, and tried it myself, it is a FACT, even an old hassy can trump an EOS 1DS Mark II in terms of quality. (And I define quality by dynamic range, sharpness, and grain.) And with the right diet of high quality 35mm, an old F4 can match said Mark II in terms of quality (and the diet I fed the F4 was a couple rolls of Velvia 50, some 160VC, and a bunch of e100G) Let me be the first to say: Film is NOT dead, it's just a dinosaur who's picked up the habit of smoking three packs a day. And here's why: time and money. Even if you go for the 35mm SLR, feeding it the media to produce images up to par with current digital technology will cost you some serious money. A roll of e100G is about 8 dollars here in WI. That's 36 exposures. I picked up a 2gb CF card for 25 dollars at best buy, it'll hold 119 Raw exposures. Now that $9 roll of film needs processing, so toss another $6 down the hole. Even if you treated your compact flash cards as disposable, you'd SAVE money compared to film. You must also ask yourself, are you patient? I'm not. I like having my images ready for printing or manipulating as soon as I get home. 35mm can't offer you this (you can get 1hour for color negatives at target, but I prefer color positive in 35mm, and that takes much more time around here, and costs much more) Also, if you intend to make your own prints or edits to the photos, you'd better figure in either the cost of buying a HIGH quality scanner, or the cost to rent one at a lab. And that takes lots of time at high settings.

To wrap this bourbon inspired rambling mess up, I'll say this:
35mm is almost pointless at this point. 120 is close to pointless, but still offers you a semi-light weight solution if you MUST have image quality over everything else. 4x5 is the king in the world of landscape and art, and 8x10 is unbeatable at this point, at the cost of money, and size.
Digital is (MY OPINION) the new 35mm. It's offers you light weight, speed, and acceptable image quality. Unless you want to make HUGE prints, and are an experienced photographer, anything other than digital is going to be a beast of burden. You will learn slower, since it takes longer to see the images you've taken. You will learn slower (unless you've devoted large sums of money to the cause) since it cost much more money every time you click that shutter. You will learn slower, because a light leak or semi-moronic kid running the processing machine WILL ruin that once in a lifetime shot. (quick aside: we actually lost an entire job because of a raccoon. It jumped, or fell, on a transformer near the lab, and cut power to the building when our film was in the machine. Poof. Gone. Thousands of dollars gone because of a furry garbage eater.) Get a digital SLR, you will thank yourself later. And when you think it's time you played with the "organic" side of photography, keep in mind 35mm and 4x5 cameras are getting cheaper by the day. That wonderful F4 I've been using has a street value of around $350-$400. And it's only getting cheaper. You can learn (and I feel you learn best by getting out and TRYING things, rather than listening to people who may, or may not know better than you) faster with a digital camera.

If you've wisely ignored everything above this, my point is: get a digital camera.

Well said and welcome aboard capt.

 

[jazzman]

Well said and welcome aboard capt.

+1. Very informative (I'm trying to decide when to pull the trigger on a DSLR).

 

[Haiku]

Hello Capt: No debate on any of your points however:

On the issue of cost, take a look at the numbers that I posted earlier and tell me where I've gone wrong. One can learn photography with a semi-professional rig including one of the best lenses ever made for $100.

Even adding in the cost of buying and processing film and one can shoot a ton of film before one gets even close to the cost of a digital set up. If one actually prints a bunch of digital images then the cost of the printing becomes the same.

Of course customers of the pros want instant turn around and they want digital. They instantly get the files on a disc and then they can manipulate them at will.

But they're not paying for the equipment. They are paying for the product and the product is better for customers of professional studios. If the customer had to buy the equipment it would be a different story.

If one has to ask the question: which to buy digital or film, and one knows little or nothing about photography, the cheapest way to get into it and learn is to get a used film rig like the one I mentioned earlier.

 

[capt_cope]

What is this lens you speak of that is one of the best ever? Not trying to be rude, but the "best ever" lenses that I've used all had a minimum price tag of well over $1000 apiece. (that was new, I don't know the current street value for any of them any more, but unless something drastic happened, I don't think any can be had for $100) For reference, my top 3 "best ever" are the Nikkor 20-35mm F2.8, the SHARPEST wide angle I've used, and a great lens all around, For products, you can't beat the PC Micro Nikkor 85mm "tilt and shift" one of the sharpest I've ever used. And for the telephoto, I prefer the 70-200mm Nikkor f2.8 over the 300mm we have at the studio (I like shooting smaller animals and/or head shots, this allows me much more focal room to do so, as I can focus closer without using an extension tube. The 300mm on a 25mm extension tube is amazingly fun for shooting still life and small insects, but your depth of field is as thin as a piece of paper, and you severely limit the distance you can focus to (give or take 10-15 feet away by my eye) though it is sharp... It's also a beast to carry around, and when you don't own it, it's a bit unnerving to take out a piece of glass worth that much.

Can you get all you need for a decent beginer's setup for $100 going film? Yes. But if you are learning, the best way to learn is to make lots of exposures. TRY things, don't just read or listen about them, you'll never learn it if you don't try it. It's much costlier to do so with 35mm. Figure on spending a minimum of $6 per 36 exposures (assuming you buy the cheapola .99 cent rolls of film) or $12 or so for film that can compete with modern digital quality.
Lets put this in perspective. 360 exposures (sounds like a lot doesn't it) will cost you $120 if you're competing with digital quality... And while that might sound like a lot of exposures, take this into consideration. With a digital, I use 2gb CF or SD cards, depending on what I remembered to pack into my bag. I can fit 120 raw files on each 2gb card. I often fill a 2gb card in an outing, and almost assuredly get at least that many pictures over the course of the weekend. I'm not saying you'd be forced to spend money like mad with film, just that if you want to shoot a lot, expect it to cost money, and don't think that a few hundred shots are all that many, they go fast when you bracket, they go faster when you're in a zone, and if you find you like shooting sports or other fast moving action... forget about it. (unless you're a pro and NEED the fastest possible frame rate, then film dominates upon digital.)

Shooting 35mm is like taking out a loan on a digital camera, you pay a little up front, and continue to pay, little by little every time you click that shutter. Once you own a digital... every time you click that shutter, you pay nothing. Each digital image costs only the electricity needed to charge the camera's batteries.

Also, I don't think you can put a monetary value on being able to access your images quickly and at full resolution on your computer. Most people aren't going to spend the money to get their negatives scanned professionally, and most don't own a scanner capable of scanning negatives (or slide) at 5,000 DPI. That kodak picture cd is nice for a quick reference, but there is better scanning to be had (much like comparing a boar brush to a silvertip badger, except that the boar brush doesn't quite limit you like not having a serious scanner does.)
I think that if money is a serious concern, the lowest end dSLR with a decent lens and a big card is the thing to shoot for. When new, shooting to 35mm would only add needless frustration. The instant feedback of a digital makes learning new techniques much easier, and allows for more satisfaction, since you'll be able to see... shoot I'm way under/over exposed, and adjust accordingly. You don't have that luxery in film. In my hasty attempt at capturing a bird that landed near where I was set up for some nature shots, I in-advertanly knocked my appeture ring from 5.6 to 2.8...DOH... I had metered for 5.6, and all my shots were worthless. Had I been shooting digital, I'd have seen my error, and I'd have a shot of that bird.

Film has its place, but not (in my opinion) as a stepping stone into photography. If a complete newcomer to photography wants to shoot 35mm, and won't take no for an answer, best of luck. You CAN score some amazing deals on used pro equipment, my all time favorite 35mm camera is selling for only 350-400 on ebay (the Nikon F4) and beginners really don't need the best lens known to man, a sigma will work, and they are quite affordable. That setup has worked for years, and will for years to come. It's not as efficient, or gentle to learn on. The road will be steep and rough, but it's still an option.


And as to the product... yes and no. The best looking product still comes from an 8X10 camera. But it costs money and time. And when push comes to shove, very very few professional art directors are willing to budget that kind of money, Digital is just cheaper and faster, it's not better. It only replaced 35mm in quality, 4X5 and 8X10 are still light years better, and we've shown the difference to clients before, shooting their product in digital, then taking a shot with a 4x5 monorail... they were amazed at the quality of the scanned 4x5. None of them went back to 4x5 though, it just costs more money. Plain and simple.

 

[DoubleE]

What is this lens you speak of that is one of the best ever? Not trying to be rude, but the "best ever" lenses that I've used all had a minimum price tag of well over $1000 apiece. (that was new, I don't know the current street value for any of them any more, but unless something drastic happened, I don't think any can be had for $100) For reference, my top 3 "best ever" are the Nikkor 20-35mm F2.8, the SHARPEST wide angle I've used, and a great lens all around, For products, you can't beat the PC Micro Nikkor 85mm "tilt and shift" one of the sharpest I've ever used. And for the telephoto, I prefer the 70-200mm Nikkor f2.8 over the 300mm we have at the studio (I like shooting smaller animals and/or head shots, this allows me much more focal room to do so, as I can focus closer without using an extension tube. The 300mm on a 25mm extension tube is amazingly fun for shooting still life and small insects, but your depth of field is as thin as a piece of paper, and you severely limit the distance you can focus to (give or take 10-15 feet away by my eye) though it is sharp... It's also a beast to carry around, and when you don't own it, it's a bit unnerving to take out a piece of glass worth that much.

Can you get all you need for a decent beginer's setup for $100 going film? Yes. But if you are learning, the best way to learn is to make lots of exposures. TRY things, don't just read or listen about them, you'll never learn it if you don't try it. It's much costlier to do so with 35mm. Figure on spending a minimum of $6 per 36 exposures (assuming you buy the cheapola .99 cent rolls of film) or $12 or so for film that can compete with modern digital quality.
Lets put this in perspective. 360 exposures (sounds like a lot doesn't it) will cost you $120 if you're competing with digital quality... And while that might sound like a lot of exposures, take this into consideration. With a digital, I use 2gb CF or SD cards, depending on what I remembered to pack into my bag. I can fit 120 raw files on each 2gb card. I often fill a 2gb card in an outing, and almost assuredly get at least that many pictures over the course of the weekend. I'm not saying you'd be forced to spend money like mad with film, just that if you want to shoot a lot, expect it to cost money, and don't think that a few hundred shots are all that many, they go fast when you bracket, they go faster when you're in a zone, and if you find you like shooting sports or other fast moving action... forget about it. (unless you're a pro and NEED the fastest possible frame rate, then film dominates upon digital.)

Shooting 35mm is like taking out a loan on a digital camera, you pay a little up front, and continue to pay, little by little every time you click that shutter. Once you own a digital... every time you click that shutter, you pay nothing. Each digital image costs only the electricity needed to charge the camera's batteries.

Also, I don't think you can put a monetary value on being able to access your images quickly and at full resolution on your computer. Most people aren't going to spend the money to get their negatives scanned professionally, and most don't own a scanner capable of scanning negatives (or slide) at 5,000 DPI. That kodak picture cd is nice for a quick reference, but there is better scanning to be had (much like comparing a boar brush to a silvertip badger, except that the boar brush doesn't quite limit you like not having a serious scanner does.)
I think that if money is a serious concern, the lowest end dSLR with a decent lens and a big card is the thing to shoot for. When new, shooting to 35mm would only add needless frustration. The instant feedback of a digital makes learning new techniques much easier, and allows for more satisfaction, since you'll be able to see... shoot I'm way under/over exposed, and adjust accordingly. You don't have that luxery in film. In my hasty attempt at capturing a bird that landed near where I was set up for some nature shots, I in-advertanly knocked my appeture ring from 5.6 to 2.8...DOH... I had metered for 5.6, and all my shots were worthless. Had I been shooting digital, I'd have seen my error, and I'd have a shot of that bird.

Film has its place, but not (in my opinion) as a stepping stone into photography. If a complete newcomer to photography wants to shoot 35mm, and won't take no for an answer, best of luck. You CAN score some amazing deals on used pro equipment, my all time favorite 35mm camera is selling for only 350-400 on ebay (the Nikon F4) and beginners really don't need the best lens known to man, a sigma will work, and they are quite affordable. That setup has worked for years, and will for years to come. It's not as efficient, or gentle to learn on. The road will be steep and rough, but it's still an option.


And as to the product... yes and no. The best looking product still comes from an 8X10 camera. But it costs money and time. And when push comes to shove, very very few professional art directors are willing to budget that kind of money, Digital is just cheaper and faster, it's not better. It only replaced 35mm in quality, 4X5 and 8X10 are still light years better, and we've shown the difference to clients before, shooting their product in digital, then taking a shot with a 4x5 monorail... they were amazed at the quality of the scanned 4x5. None of them went back to 4x5 though, it just costs more money. Plain and simple.

If you were shooting slide film, that assessment would be correct. However, any decent color film will easily handle a two stop over-exposure.

 

[capt_cope]

If you were shooting slide film, that assessment would be correct. However, any decent color film will easily handle a two stop over-exposure.

It was Velvia 50 (some of the old stock we had frozen at the studio) The shots of the bird did not look good at all (to put it mildly), regardless of what I tried in photoshop.

 

[Mike in Cincy]

Was anyone here a Leica user? I've had the pleasure of shooting with an older M-series rangefinder. Loved the size of it, and hated the film loading technique. I just never got why a few professional and advanced amateur photogs would spend $2000 for the body and 2-4,000 for a lens. For those who've owned any Leica, was it worth the price?

 

[Mike in Cincy]

BTW, I still have the Nikon FM3a and F3HP along with the lenses. I still haven't put them on ebay yet. I will post them in the buy/sell/trade area sometime this week.

 

[DoubleE]

Was anyone here a Leica user? I've had the pleasure of shooting with an older M-series rangefinder. Loved the size of it, and hated the film loading technique. I just never got why a few professional and advanced amateur photogs would spend $2000 for the body and 2-4,000 for a lens. For those who've owned any Leica, was it worth the price?

I owned a Leica M6 with 35,50, and 90mm summicron lenses until around 3 years ago. Was it worth it? Hard to say. I really didn't use them that often. Something about the mystique of the Leica that I just had to check out. They really shine in street photography but are less than ideal for close-up photography. If you're a professional photographer, they're just another tool to be used at the right time. They are beautifully made, wonderfully simple and elegant, but they're still just 35mm cameras. They don't hold a candle in image quality to my medium format cameras.

I still have a 1953 Leica M3 with a 50mm cron and it still works great and takes great pictures. Unfortunately, I haven't run a roll of film through it in a year or so....probably more like two.

I'm addicted to that instant gratification of digital.

Just bought my wife a Canon SD800IS today. Pretty cool little camera!

 

[ouch]

Was anyone here a Leica user? I've had the pleasure of shooting with an older M-series rangefinder. Loved the size of it, and hated the film loading technique. I just never got why a few professional and advanced amateur photogs would spend $2000 for the body and 2-4,000 for a lens. For those who've owned any Leica, was it worth the price?

That's like saying "is a Rolls-Royce worth it?"
Leicas are for folks who want and can afford the very best. Their quality transcends price if you view it that way and desire a jewel-like work of mechanical art. If you're just talking about taking pictures, a low priced medium format rig will blow it away.

 

[Haiku]

What is this lens you speak of that is one of the best ever? Not trying to be rude, but the "best ever" lenses that I've used all had a minimum price tag of well over $1000 apiece. (that was new, I don't know the current street value for any of them any more, but unless something drastic happened, I don't think any can be had for $100) For reference, my top 3 "best ever" are the Nikkor 20-35mm F2.8, the SHARPEST wide angle I've used, and a great lens all around, For products, you can't beat the PC Micro Nikkor 85mm "tilt and shift" one of the sharpest I've ever used. And for the telephoto, I prefer the 70-200mm Nikkor f2.8 over the 300mm we have at the studio (I like shooting smaller animals and/or head shots, this allows me much more focal room to do so, as I can focus closer without using an extension tube. The 300mm on a 25mm extension tube is amazingly fun for shooting still life and small insects, but your depth of field is as thin as a piece of paper, and you severely limit the distance you can focus to (give or take 10-15 feet away by my eye) though it is sharp... It's also a beast to carry around, and when you don't own it, it's a bit unnerving to take out a piece of glass worth that much.

Can you get all you need for a decent beginer's setup for $100 going film? Yes. But if you are learning, the best way to learn is to make lots of exposures. TRY things, don't just read or listen about them, you'll never learn it if you don't try it. It's much costlier to do so with 35mm. Figure on spending a minimum of $6 per 36 exposures (assuming you buy the cheapola .99 cent rolls of film) or $12 or so for film that can compete with modern digital quality.
Lets put this in perspective. 360 exposures (sounds like a lot doesn't it) will cost you $120 if you're competing with digital quality... And while that might sound like a lot of exposures, take this into consideration. With a digital, I use 2gb CF or SD cards, depending on what I remembered to pack into my bag. I can fit 120 raw files on each 2gb card. I often fill a 2gb card in an outing, and almost assuredly get at least that many pictures over the course of the weekend. I'm not saying you'd be forced to spend money like mad with film, just that if you want to shoot a lot, expect it to cost money, and don't think that a few hundred shots are all that many, they go fast when you bracket, they go faster when you're in a zone, and if you find you like shooting sports or other fast moving action... forget about it. (unless you're a pro and NEED the fastest possible frame rate, then film dominates upon digital.)

Shooting 35mm is like taking out a loan on a digital camera, you pay a little up front, and continue to pay, little by little every time you click that shutter. Once you own a digital... every time you click that shutter, you pay nothing. Each digital image costs only the electricity needed to charge the camera's batteries.

Also, I don't think you can put a monetary value on being able to access your images quickly and at full resolution on your computer. Most people aren't going to spend the money to get their negatives scanned professionally, and most don't own a scanner capable of scanning negatives (or slide) at 5,000 DPI. That kodak picture cd is nice for a quick reference, but there is better scanning to be had (much like comparing a boar brush to a silvertip badger, except that the boar brush doesn't quite limit you like not having a serious scanner does.)
I think that if money is a serious concern, the lowest end dSLR with a decent lens and a big card is the thing to shoot for. When new, shooting to 35mm would only add needless frustration. The instant feedback of a digital makes learning new techniques much easier, and allows for more satisfaction, since you'll be able to see... shoot I'm way under/over exposed, and adjust accordingly. You don't have that luxery in film. In my hasty attempt at capturing a bird that landed near where I was set up for some nature shots, I in-advertanly knocked my appeture ring from 5.6 to 2.8...DOH... I had metered for 5.6, and all my shots were worthless. Had I been shooting digital, I'd have seen my error, and I'd have a shot of that bird.

Film has its place, but not (in my opinion) as a stepping stone into photography. If a complete newcomer to photography wants to shoot 35mm, and won't take no for an answer, best of luck. You CAN score some amazing deals on used pro equipment, my all time favorite 35mm camera is selling for only 350-400 on ebay (the Nikon F4) and beginners really don't need the best lens known to man, a sigma will work, and they are quite affordable. That setup has worked for years, and will for years to come. It's not as efficient, or gentle to learn on. The road will be steep and rough, but it's still an option.


And as to the product... yes and no. The best looking product still comes from an 8X10 camera. But it costs money and time. And when push comes to shove, very very few professional art directors are willing to budget that kind of money, Digital is just cheaper and faster, it's not better. It only replaced 35mm in quality, 4X5 and 8X10 are still light years better, and we've shown the difference to clients before, shooting their product in digital, then taking a shot with a 4x5 monorail... they were amazed at the quality of the scanned 4x5. None of them went back to 4x5 though, it just costs more money. Plain and simple.

I don't think you're being rude, and your question is completely valid as are the rest of your points.

I've posted the descriptions and the links to the sales of the camera and the lens either earlier on this thread or on the other one. The camera was a Canon A-1 which came fully serviced with a 30 day gurantee and it sold for about $60. The lens was an FD mount Zeiss that sold for $31 or $32. It was mint condition. I believe it was something like an 80-200 zoom.

As an aside, I just bought a mint condition Canon FD mount 100 mm macro with an extension tube for $69. Such a lens new to fit a new digital camera will cost approximately $760.

It seems to me the only disagreement that we have is about what gear a newcomer to photography should buy. I vote for the $100 film gear, while you vote differently.

As a further aside, I buy film on the net at no more than about $2.00 to $2.50 per roll. The higher number is for Kodak Portra VC. It costs about $10 to print 36 prints.

Anyway, the cost question isn't an argument that we're involved in, it's a matter of arithmatic. What does it cost to buy a digital camera, a computer, the necessary software, the updates to the software, the printer and the rest of the stuff needed, as compared to the cost of film gear. My numbers work out such that I can shoot a rols of film every two weeks for the next two years to five years before I get close to what I would have to pay for a digital set up. The variation depends on whether one counts the cost of the computer, software and printer or not. Your numbers may vary.

I only partly agree that the way to learn is to shoot lots of pictures. The way to learn is to learn the basics, and then shoot pictures and then analyze what went right and what went wrong. If one keeps careful notes about what one does and then thinks about things, one will make progress very quickly. One will make no progress whatsoever setting a camera on automatic and shooting 500 pictures (which is what digital shooters are very apt to do). One will make huge progress doing everything manually and shooting 36 pictures and then thinking things through.

Can one do the latter with digital? Absolutely, no question one can. Does anyone do this with digital. No, not a chance. People will do the former and they will delete what didn't work out. They will never print it, look at it, analyze it, or take it to a more experience photographer and talk it through. Digital shooters in my experience seem to all have the attitude that shooting pictures has no cost and so they keep shooting without thinking. And without thinking being part of the process, my experience is that they never really learn photography.

For you digital works well because you know what you're doing and you learned with a film camera.

I have taken a number of photography courses from people who teach at two different universities. There were beginners in these classes and some shot with film, others with digital. The people who used film felt compelled to learn and learn they did. At the end of each of the courses most of the film shooters had made huge progress and were doing beautiful work.

With almost no exception, the digital shooters were shooting exactly the same way at the end of the course as at the beginning.

I remember one fellow who was a complete beginner. He shot two rolls of film in a three hour session for a total of 72 pictures. About 40 to 50 of his pictures were good, some were quite good, some were garbage and one or two were superb. He took his time, he was careful and he did some very good stuff. And everything he did was something that he knew how to replicate. I know that because I saw the pictures and I heard his explanation of exactly how he accomplished what he did. It turned out that while he was a beginner, he knew how to read and he had read some basic photogrpahy books.

There were people using digital cameras who in the same session shot 300 - 500 pictures. They printed the best that they came up with and without exception, out of the 500 pictures, there was one or two pictures that were worth anything and that was the estimate of the people who did the shooting. It wasn't my estimate, it was the estimate of the people who did the pictures. And even the one or two pictues were not replicable because the digital shooters simply had no idea what they were doing. They just kept fiddling with the controls until they got something that looked OK on the camera screen.

So guess what I started to do? I started to read some books and I started to copy the way that other fellow did things, and I ignored the folks who shot 300 - 500 pictures in a row.

 

[capt_cope]

Can one do the latter with digital? Absolutely, no question one can. Does anyone do this with digital. No, not a chance. People will do the former and they will delete what didn't work out. They will never print it, look at it, analyze it, or take it to a more experience photographer and talk it through. Digital shooters in my experience seem to all have the attitude that shooting pictures has no cost and so they keep shooting without thinking. And without thinking being part of the process, my experience is that they never really learn photography.

I, for one, live on manual settings with a digital camera. I think it's usefull to be able to see what your image looks like while you can still analyze the settings. Getting back 36 prints a few days after the fact, you can no longer study the light and come to any conclusion as to what went right or wrong. On top of that, if you don't have a computer, or a scanner, or any software, you'll never know what your actual image looks like. I found this out by bracketing a shot I had spent a good deal of time setting up. I was shooting 160VC, and the light was amazing (cloudy, late afternoon, very directional yet supremely soft light. As if there was one huge soft box lighting my subject (a few rose buds on a bush) I metered it using my minolta hand held, but since I REALLY wanted to be darn sure I got that shot I bracketed it, from +2 to -2. I got the film back the other day... low and behold, every single print was nearly identical. If you didn't know what under-exposed film looked like, you'd never see the difference. (The fastest way for me is to look at the blacks, if it has a SLIGHT (as in only observable next to a properly exposed print) red hue, it's not exposed enough. You'd never know, (and I to this day don't) what settings worked. With digital, I still meter my subject, I have a grey card that I carry. But most importantly, just like a camera, a light meter is only a tool, and it's only as good as the person using it. Digital affords newcomers a chance to see right away that they are making a mistake. It also offers the chance to correct said mistake and LEARN from it. And for the record, I take nearly everything I shoot to my bosses, two of the best photographers I know (and combined equal out to about 60+ years of experience) and get their input, what they like, what they don't like, what I could do better, what I did right.

For you digital works well because you know what you're doing and you learned with a film camera.

I picked up a film camera for the first time a few weeks ago. What little I do know I learned through doing, and all that doing was with a digital camera (granted it was a nice one, a 1DS Mark II) so far about 90% of what I've shot has been in the studio, mainly to practice my lighting. I shot everything in the studio tethered to our macs so I could view a full sized picture right away, and see what I did wrong, and what I did right. Then I moved a light, and snapped again. I noted what changed, asked myself if it was a good change, an ok change, or a change for the worse. It took me a while to learn, but I assure you, now that I've tried film, I can say I would not have learned even a quarter of what I have had I been shooting film. Digital allowed me to see real time the effect of subtle changes in light, camera position, focus, and camera settings.

To me, film is a hobby, while digital is what puts money into my pocket. And I'll be the first to admit it's jaded me. But based on my own expirence, I'll say this: I believe someone can learn to take amazing pictures with film. But someone can also learn to take amazing pictures with digital. And the opposite holds true to both. You could give my boss a point and shoot digital camera from wally world that has a plastic lens, and I'd bet my savings account he could hand you a better picture than I could using the best camera (film or digital) money can buy. At the end of the day, all a camera is capable of doing is capturing exactly what the man behind the viewfinder or ground glass tells it. The photographer is the important piece of equipment, if you want to learn how to be a photographer, you can do so with anything capable of taking pictures, you just have to WANT to do it. Better tools just make it easier to accomplish that. And I feel digital makes it easier for a beginner who wants to learn, to do just that.

So guess what I started to do? I started to read some books and I started to copy the way that other fellow did things, and I ignored the folks who shot 300 - 500 pictures in a row.

Which is exactly what I've been doing. I've been lucky enough to get my hands on the complete set of Fred Picker's "Zone VI" newsletters, and have been studying them. If you can find them, they are extremely valuable IMO, he's an interesting read, and he gives out knowledge that can be applied to any type of shooting. I'm also a big fan of "The Hasselblad Manual" as I'm slowly trying to get good at medium format and using a hassy correctly before taking the plunge into going all out 4x5 for nature photography.


And as entertaining as discussing equipment is, I think it's important to note one thing: the worst photographers I've met spend all their time looking at, buying, reviewing, and talking about gear. If you're new, find something you can afford, and afford to use a lot. AND GET OUT THERE! (Or stay in, and work on indoor shots, whatever floats your boat) You can't learn anything without doing it. Or as Fred says, don't ask me how something will look, go out and try it, know how it will look.

 

[absentspace]

My vote is for film if you have the facilities to make the prints yourself. If you are shooting color film, you should have a professional grade lab do the processing. I NEVER trust anyone else to make my prints. I you cant arrange for this, then a NIKON D200 is the best nikon for the money right now. Its got a huge lcd screen with an unbelievable viewing angle, and the viewfinder is large and bright. KILLS the amateur gread d70 and d100. Of course, the Canon cameras are what ALL the professional journalists use now. Visit VII photo agency to see THE best photo journalism out there...exclusively shot on the High end canons. I say canon over nikon if you can afford it since they are full frame sensors with no lens multiplication factor. Of course, I take my pentax 67 and a sekonic handheld meter over a digital camera ANY DAY when I have time to compose my shots.

 

[badgerman]

For my next camera, I will certainly go digital. I own a Nikon F50 (a present actually) which is resting in peace in a cabinet. The cost per shot and all the problems I get (taking the film to the shop, having the wrong film loaded when the sky suddenly covers up, having an expired film and not knowing if it will work or not) make it just not worth it. My next machine will be a digital reflex, maybe another Nikon, so I'll be able to use the AF objective with full compatibility.

With digital, you can go on a trip and take 200 shots to choose from without breaking the bank and this is more than enough to make a choice.

 

[Duggo]

When I was taking a photography course, I started the course with my dad's Pentax ME Super. I remember we had to take 36 exposures in 14 days. I was very cognizant of the cost involved re: developing the roll of film. And, every shot had to be a winner (which I knew they weren't going to be), for that kind of money. And I was very selective in the shots I was taking. It had to be the perfect shot.

So the two weeks would go by and the instructor would ask where my photos were. I'd explain...

Then I bought a Olympus C-2100UZ. The UZI as they call it. I took photos like it was going out of style. On the "Texture & Pattern" assignment, the instructor said, and I quote, "I expect great things from you."

The move to digital was the correct move for me. Although on the important photographs, I do set it to "P" mode. aka AUTO mode.

The great thing about the UZI is, it has the full array of manual controls. So, if I'm out there fooling around, I have put it on "M" to learn about photography, which I really want to do more of.

 

[BarryR]

Digital all the way. I have a digital SLR and absolutely love it! For all the reasons mentioned above I think the only reason to go with film would be that you're a purist and know that you greatly prefer working with film. Otherwise it's no contest.

PS: Adobe Elements 5.0 is great with good organizing software and at least 80% of the functionality of Photoshop, at a fraction of the cost.