Digital vs Non Digital?

[Cottonmoon]

Hi, I'm just tuning 16 in a couple of days and I'll be going to college september this year. I was going to study Digital Photography first and then when I've moved out I was going to do Normal Photography so that I could set up my own dark room, but lately I've been thinking that it would be better if I did Photography in the first place because I do have ways I can set up my own darkroom at home. Basically I'm asking what do you all think is best in the long run and I do want to do some sort of photography for a career, I'm not sure what sort of photography I want to do exactly but I'd like to do different things over time.

I got a FUJI Finepix S5500 for christmas, just to see if I liked photography and if thats what I wanted to do and I do and I'm happy with my camera, but I know I'll need a good SRL in the future. I don't know a whole lot about cameras and thats why I'm going to college.. yeah thats about it I think. Just a question about darkrooms.

Do you need to have a small room? Or can the room be a largeish room like a bedroom? I have room in my bedroom to set up a corner for photography, but I was thinking whether you needed a smaller room because of the red light?

I know theres lot of infomation on the internet about digital vs non digital but I really don't know a whole lot about it, I know next to nothing with non digital cameras and just a bit with digital and thats why I'm asking here :)

[Radtech1]

16 yo, so I am thinking high school. Check to see if your school has a graphic arts department - good chance there is a darkroom there. As far as one in the house is concerned, I have used the garage as well as the laundry room. The safelight does not need to illumante the whole room, only those areas you want to see.

Best, but not quite absolutely needed, is a water source. When I did B&W, the water/chemicals are supposed to be at 68°F. If it is warmer or cooler, all you will need to do is adjust your developement time, less if warmer, more if cooler. That will not be a problem with prints, as you can watch them. Since film is developed in a light tight canister you can't actually see it develope, so your you need to have confidence in your temp adjustments.

$$$ outlay could be high for decent equipment, as well as the cost of chemicals, paper, etc.

But it IS a lot of fun, and a somewhat more satisfying experience than photoshop - more hands on, more tactile.

Good luck,

Rad

[Cottonmoon]

16 yo, so I am thinking high school. Check to see if your school has a graphic arts department - good chance there is a darkroom there. As far as one in the house is concerned, I have used the garage as well as the laundry room. The safelight does not need to illumante the whole room, only those areas you want to see.

Best, but not quite absolutely needed, is a water source. When I did B&W, the water/chemicals are supposed to be at 68°F. If it is warmer or cooler, all you will need to do is adjust your developement time, less if warmer, more if cooler. That will not be a problem with prints, as you can watch them. Since film is developed in a light tight canister you can't actually see it develope, so your you need to have confidence in your temp adjustments.

$$$ outlay could be high for decent equipment, as well as the cost of chemicals, paper, etc.

But it IS a lot of fun, and a somewhat more satisfying experience than photoshop - more hands on, more tactile.

Good luck,

Rad


Thankyou, I'm homeschooled so I on't have access to school stuff, but my old school didn't have anything like that because it didn't do any with photographs (crappy boring UK!)

I still have to look into cost of equipment too :3 I'll hopefully be getting a job soon, so hopefully that'll help

[w10d]

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you've only had a camera for a few months & still have the whole world of photography to discover - maybe you don't need to go rushing into film & darkroom stuff?

I used to love working on photos in the darkroom, but didn't really like the dark/confined/chemical smell side of it. When I got my hands on Photoshop (about twelve years back) I couldn't wait to find out all the stuff I could do with it. Seems funny to see someone looking at it from the other direction.

Have a careful think about costs too, I'm sure you'll find tons of cheap darkroom gear around, but you'll need a film camera, & after shooting digital film seems to keep running out real fast! One thing about photography - there's always money you can spend on it.

[Avalonthas]

Firstly i want to point out a mistake lol, i hate to be picky but its "Digital vs. Film" not non-digital lol. Well the type of photography u want to get into also depends on how much cash u got. The actual camera itself is cheaper to buy a film SLR then digital, but in the long run digital is cheaper as u dont have to buy film. As stated chemicals and equipment and all the other requirements get pretty costly especially if you want some good quality output and if ur alone in terms of investment.

I got out of film photography about a year ago because the prices wherent going anywhere fast (upgrading stuff other then the body was expensive, and the price of film adds up, espcecially for shots that are garbage. With digital you can take as many shots as you want and not worry about them being poor quality. Lets you be alot more flexible and allows u to try many different techniques that u normally would not attemp. So in the long term digital is cheaper. Also if ur a canon guy like i was, u can reuse alot of the equipment such as lenses on the digital bodies, so there isnt much expense if u look at it from that perspective. With film i used to take 50 to 150 (150 was rarer) and i spent alot of time makign sure shots were perfect so i would cut down on expenses. With digital, i get anywhere from 200 to 500 shots per shoot, and its much easier to go through the prints and trash anything u dont like, instead of developing all the prints and then deciding which to keep. With walmart and all these other big developers, although there not top of the line labs, they produce descent quality prints at a much much cheaper cost, and so i found it hard to sell many prints because customers often compared the prices. So I like that after a shoot i could just go outdoors and take some random hobby shots to perfect my craft and try out some new stuff without wasting film.

In terms of quality, u need a good body if ur going for quality. I would recommend the 300D/350D for entry level, and then the 10D/20D for those who have experience and want to get into digital. And then I would recommend the 1DM2 for those who are extremely serious. Although i prefer the 20D as it is very well rounded with the best of many worlds. Right now, digital tech is good but noise is the major draw back in digital, although the 20D does a good job keeping it low. Film is still better in terms of quality for larger sized prints. But in the long term Digital will prevailand somewhere down the road (50 years) film will probably be obsolete, as long as the tech continues to improve.

It took me a while to get used to digital, so its better to get in it now then later as u will have more trouble. Kids these days have no problem adapting to new tech as they grow up with all the gadgets, but for oldtimers like myself, it takes a bit of time to get on the bandwagon.

P.S: 16 and going to post secondary? WTF? lol

[Cottonmoon]

Firstly i want to point out a mistake lol, i hate to be picky but its "Digital vs. Film" not non-digital lol. Well the type of photography u want to get into also depends on how much cash u got. The actual camera itself is cheaper to buy a film SLR then digital, but in the long run digital is cheaper as u dont have to buy film. As stated chemicals and equipment and all the other requirements get pretty costly especially if you want some good quality output and if ur alone in terms of investment.

I got out of film photography about a year ago because the prices wherent going anywhere fast (upgrading stuff other then the body was expensive, and the price of film adds up, espcecially for shots that are garbage. With digital you can take as many shots as you want and not worry about them being poor quality. Lets you be alot more flexible and allows u to try many different techniques that u normally would not attemp. So in the long term digital is cheaper. Also if ur a canon guy like i was, u can reuse alot of the equipment such as lenses on the digital bodies, so there isnt much expense if u look at it from that perspective. With film i used to take 50 to 150 (150 was rarer) and i spent alot of time makign sure shots were perfect so i would cut down on expenses. With digital, i get anywhere from 200 to 500 shots per shoot, and its much easier to go through the prints and trash anything u dont like, instead of developing all the prints and then deciding which to keep. With walmart and all these other big developers, although there not top of the line labs, they produce descent quality prints at a much much cheaper cost, and so i found it hard to sell many prints because customers often compared the prices. So I like that after a shoot i could just go outdoors and take some random hobby shots to perfect my craft and try out some new stuff without wasting film.

In terms of quality, u need a good body if ur going for quality. I would recommend the 300D/350D for entry level, and then the 10D/20D for those who have experience and want to get into digital. And then I would recommend the 1DM2 for those who are extremely serious. Although i prefer the 20D as it is very well rounded with the best of many worlds. Right now, digital tech is good but noise is the major draw back in digital, although the 20D does a good job keeping it low. Film is still better in terms of quality for larger sized prints. But in the long term Digital will prevailand somewhere down the road (50 years) film will probably be obsolete, as long as the tech continues to improve.

It took me a while to get used to digital, so its better to get in it now then later as u will have more trouble. Kids these days have no problem adapting to new tech as they grow up with all the gadgets, but for oldtimers like myself, it takes a bit of time to get on the bandwagon.

P.S: 16 and going to post secondary? WTF? lol


Ah thankyou, you make alot of good points there :) I think I'm going to stick to digital photography now, it seems better in the long term

whats post secondary? I'm taking it it's college or uni or something? If it is then most people go to college at 16 over here... then they go to uni when they're 18 -20 depending on if they want to

[w10d]

Digital will prevailand somewhere down the road (50 years) film will probably be obsolete, as long as the tech continues to improve.


1 too many 0's lol

[KevC]

I dunno, I think film will still be around. I mean so many people are still listening to vinyls. Sorta like a novelty thing. My friend swears by his Nikon FM2 and that's ancient.

As for digital vs film, digital all the way! :D But do pick up a vintage camera and shoot some film. Like many point out, it's a different experience. Possibly more rewarding aswell ;)

[w10d]

I dunno, I think film will still be around. I mean so many people are still listening to vinyls. Sorta like a novelty thing. My friend swears by his Nikon FM2 and that's ancient.


Vinyl doesn't really compare - yes you can still buy it 20 years after CDs hit the stores, but it's a specialist product - easy to find a mini HiFi with a record deck?

Vinyl you buy once & listen till the needle jumps. Film you buy it, shoot 36 frames, pay for dev & print, like a couple of shots, buy another roll & wonder where your money went. I live near a tourist spot & realised last summer I'd only seen a couple of people with old film cameras. Everyone was walking around reviewing LCDs. Big film users like press & catalogues went digital years ago. Low film & chemical prices were down to the massive quantities produced - with the market drying up it will soon be a specialist medium with prices to match.

I know major pro labs & independent high street labs that have closed down in the last couple of years, the survivors all have digital services on offer - will they invest thousands in replacing their film lines in coming years? Some may, but they'll be looking to recover their investment from a dwindling number of customers...

[ShutteringFocus]

WAIT GUYS...don’t Hijack the tread...start your own "Digital Kick Film Butt" thread somewhere else.

Hey CottonMoon, Im homeschooled too. Im a senior this year (17yrs old). A lot of this depends on the kind of money you have to spend on equipment.

Digital Pros:

1. You will learn way faster man. There is nothing that could help you learn faster and cheaper than being able to quickly review your shots the moment you take them. You can then make adjustments and shoot again without waiting around for the prints to get back from the lab...not to mention that you don’t have to pay for crapy shots.

2. Digital cameras are exploding off the shelves right now. You buy a camera and in 6 months its replaced by another "NEWER BIGGER BETTER" one. This is a good thing for poor High Schoolers like you and me. Why? Because...let me give you a for-instance. The canon D30- canons first Digital SLR Camera comes out in 2000 and Its a hot item selling for over $3000. Its the latest in Digital Technology. Three years latter its been replaced by about 4 models and can now be bought used for $700. Its still a kick butt camera...still pretty darn cutting edge technology...but at a fraction of the cost.

I got a used D30. The above story happened to me. I bought a $3000+ camera for just a pinch under $700 only 3 years after it hit the market! And its an awesome camera.

Man, I have sooooooo much more to say to you about cameras and also where you should go looking for info. and classes and stuff like that...but I have to fly.

I just realized I have to be at a basketball game in 3 minutes (I shoot for local School Newspapers)

I'll be back later tonight...check back. I have lots of ideas for you that all worked well for me.

[w10d]

WAIT GUYS...don’t Hijack the tread...start your own "Digital Kick Film Butt" thread somewhere else.


OOPS! sorry wasn't trying to hijack someone's thread - just pointing out that for someone who has just discovered photography (digital), there's so much to find out & learn about photography in total, there's no need to go rushing into film processing & printing. Explore picture taking first, (something really suited to digital), then if you really want to find out about film, dive in.

Good Luck.

[Cottonmoon]

WAIT GUYS...don’t Hijack the tread...start your own "Digital Kick Film Butt" thread somewhere else.

Hey CottonMoon, Im homeschooled too. Im a senior this year (17yrs old). A lot of this depends on the kind of money you have to spend on equipment.

Digital Pros:

1. You will learn way faster man. There is nothing that could help you learn faster and cheaper than being able to quickly review your shots the moment you take them. You can then make adjustments and shoot again without waiting around for the prints to get back from the lab...not to mention that you don’t have to pay for crapy shots.

2. Digital cameras are exploding off the shelves right now. You buy a camera and in 6 months its replaced by another "NEWER BIGGER BETTER" one. This is a good thing for poor High Schoolers like you and me. Why? Because...let me give you a for-instance. The canon D30- canons first Digital SLR Camera comes out in 2000 and Its a hot item selling for over $3000. Its the latest in Digital Technology. Three years latter its been replaced by about 4 models and can now be bought used for $700. Its still a kick butt camera...still pretty darn cutting edge technology...but at a fraction of the cost.

I got a used D30. The above story happened to me. I bought a $3000+ camera for just a pinch under $700 only 3 years after it hit the market! And its an awesome camera.

Man, I have sooooooo much more to say to you about cameras and also where you should go looking for info. and classes and stuff like that...but I have to fly.

I just realized I have to be at a basketball game in 3 minutes (I shoot for local School Newspapers)

I'll be back later tonight...check back. I have lots of ideas for you that all worked well for me.


I'm not exactly sure of how much money I have to spend, I'm waiting to see if there any jobs avaliable at my dads work place as a waiteress, housekeeper or dishwasher at a hotel, it won't be great pay but in june I'll be working full time at a supermarket like asda so the pay will be better there.

Digital defently seems like the best way to go, especially since you can send your best images to be printed of, so it works out cheap not having to buy the film too.

You live in america right? Things like class's are harder to find in my area as it's not that known (England, Telford, Shropshire)

Thats pretty cool you shoot for the loal newspaper though =D I'll check this thread tommorow ^^;; (1:20am and mum will kill me if I don't go to bed =S hehe)

[ShutteringFocus]

Oh yeah, that’s right...Ha...its only 10:30 here bro.

Yeah, you're right, I don’t know what things are like there in the UK. But I'll guarantee you that you can find something if you look.

Ok, now where was I?

Oh yeah, the Pros and Cons of film vs. Digital.

With canon producing the new Digital Rebel it has been rumored that the "old one" (which is what a year old?) is going to go down in price by about $300. Which means that it will now cost $700ish dollars (and I hear that's with the kit lens)

I think its important to get an SLR if you want to learn how photography works. With the point and shooters it is hard to manually adjust aperture and shutter speed and all that stuff....it can be done...but you have to flip through menus and push a bunch of buttons...its crazy. With a SLR (not necessarily digital) most of the controls you need are at your finger tips...literally.

But Digital SLRs are expensive. Very expensive.

If you think you can afford it then you should get a Digital SLR. But dont be afraid to get a film camera. Film cameras are WAY WAY cheaper. A $300 film SLR will kick the butt of any $600 point and shoot digital camera.

And with a film scanner...all you need to pay for is the film developing. Then you scan them and work with the photos in the digital world just like digital images.

You already have a decent camera and by all means you can start with that! Try not to get bogged down with the rush for the best equipment...its hard to do...especially if you read these forums because the guys here are always talking about the latest and best stuff out there. It's easy to think what you have is inadequate...but the truth is...if you push the button and end up with a photo...then you have enough equipment to get started!

I'd be happy to talk to you more in e-mail if you'd like. Shoot me a message.

zach@trumendousz.com

Just make sure you title it so I know who you are...otherwise I'll delet it.

[JaertX]

Drafting is my day job. I'm not terribly old (30), but old enough that when I was in high school and learning drafting we HAD to start out on the board. We did have a few CAD stations and I started using CAD back then. Now, everything is CAD, but invariably you can tell the difference in the quality of work between the people who learned on the board and who learned on CAD.

I would imagine the same will end up being true with photography, or most any other form of art. Getting your hands dirty into it will make you connect more with the artform itself. I guess some day when there are 60 year old photographers who have shot digital for an entire, long career we'll know for certain.

Personally, I wouldn't risk it, if I were you. Learn the hard way and if you stick it out you'll be better off for it. Find a local photographer that will let you cling to his heels, do the dirty work he doesn't want to do, whatever...anything you can to get some exposure(no pun intended.) It'd really be best if there were a school program you could part-time it with. . .over here in the States many junior colleges will allow a young ambitious person such as yourself to take a class or two without full time enrollment.

With that said, if you don't have a mentor, I would go with digital for now. Trial and error, trying to diagnos development problems that you don't understand, etc., might get very frustrating and you might give up on something you have great talent for.

Film will never die, for goodness sake. If that sort of thing were true, no graphic artist would ever pick up a paintbrush and no musician would ever play an acoustic instrument. The final product of all our efforts here are PHOTOGRAPHS! The equipment you use to capture light is only the starting point. There will always be several ways to capture a moment, but if you only have one trick in your bag you are short changing yourself.

was that a rant?

BTW...good luck!

[Avalonthas]

Transitions from Traditional to Digital In Our Time:

Tape Casette > CD
VHS > DVD
Analog Communication > Satelite Communication (Digital)
Antenna > Digital Cable

So many other mediums that have gone from there original "invention" state (mainly analog) have transitioned into Digital. Main reasons for this is larger capacity, easier transmission, cheaper to manufacture, easier to network digital devices, etc etc. All these advantages will prevail in the long term. Our world is based on data, and everything we know is made up of data. That data has to keep on the move in order for us to function, without it we will have nothing. Film will be gone to digital soon, its only a matter of when (atleast for 35mm and medium format in the near future) film is drowned out. It would be gone by now but digital photography is still relativly new, compared to film, so improvements come in time, as rome was not built in a day, so there are still faults to digital, but we are overcoming them quickly. So for someone to stay film will never die i find is very wrong, and very one sided.

Comparing graphic artists/painting to digital/film doesnt make sense to me either. For digital photography, you can use the picture on your computer or in the "digital world" but you can also make a physical print (which is what film accomplishes). So in a way digital is backward compatible if u understadn what im saying, that digital has the best of two worlds (Digital, and Prints). Graphic artist can design digitally and print it to. But painting has only physical characteristics. In order to make it digital, or viewable on computers or another medium without repainting it, it must be scanned. Scanning is just like a digital camera, making a digital capture of the object in question. So in that sense, film, paintings, etc, they all demand some sort of digital capturing device to be used in a digital sense wether that be printing a big billboard, or posting ur work on the internet, they all use digital capturing devices. So why not cut out the middle man and use digital in the first place. Well thats how the trend will develope, cutting out these middle men. Although Painting wont die, as it is a form of art. Film photography isnt a form of art. The actual photograph is art, but not the film itself, as film is a medium, not a artform, so the film will die, but the photography will not as a digital capturing device can continue "capturing" that artform. Hope that makes sense and helps you look a little into the future. You cant let bias obstruct your opinion, as an opinion is the only thing these days that can't be taken away from you, so cherish it.

[tim]

Based on my experience, i'd say go digital first, then get film later if you want to. Because feedback's so fast on digital you learn really really quickly, especially since all your settings are stored in the photo for you to see what you did right or wrong.

[OceanRider]

stick with Digital, its the future. Learn really well the "digital dark room" (Photoshop) and dont look back. Darkrooms are a thing of the past....just my 2Cents!

[KelliShaver]

Film photography is a lot of fun, and in some ways, it's a lot more fun than digital. Working in the darkroom and seeing yoru pictures develop before your eyes, tweaking them so they're just right. It's very satisfying and rewarding, though, at times, very frustrating. You quickly learn in film photography that what goes on in the darkroom is just as important (and often moreso) than what happens when you take the shot. If you can afford to go film and have adequate resources, financially and physiclaly, to set up a darkroom, then go for it. You'll have a great time.

If you're just getting started and don't want to or can't invest a lot of money, or you thinkyou would feel more comfortable working on yoru photos from behind a computer, then go digital. The camera itself is more expensive, and a good software package like Photoshop isn't cheap, but in the long-run, it's much more cost effective. A digitla SLR and a good software package will still give you the level of control (and often more) that you would get in a darkroom with the added bonus of not smelling like stop bath all the time. :)

[Steveo31]

I was having a chat from a customer at my work (photo lab) and we came to the same conclusion that everyone should start out with the bare essentials. That way, one can understand how photography works, f/stops, shutter speeds, etc. Diving in can be good in some situations, but I dont think it is in this one.

[Andy_T]

The bare essentials ... that would mean a film SLR with a 50/1.8 lens.

If you look at eBay, used manual M42 or FD cameras can be had for literally a little bit more than a song.

Best regards,
Andy

[w10d]

The bare essentials ... that would mean a film SLR with a 50/1.8 lens.


Why do 'bare essentials' have to mean film?

When my brother started a career in TV he had to train with Telecine & Video equipment, because both media were in widespread use. Today Telecine has been a specialist area for ages & TV is all about video.

For me the bare essentials of photography would mean using a camera on manual & even a hand held meter - it would have meant deving your own B&W too, but not anymore.

[mbze430]

I was taught the old way. B&W film, full manual. No TTL metering. Worked with Medium and large format in studio. Developed and printed our own stuff in dark rooms.

I didn't even have a metering SLR till my advance photo class. this was back in the late 80s.

[Monito]

i hate to be picky but

You were picky, which is why you have triggered this critique. The deciding factors were the large number of errors your post contained and your parting dismissive sarcasm. (Please see the end of this post for some meta-discussion.) Only the first instance of multiple errors is noted.

Firstly

First, though the use of "firstly" is common and acceptable, it does not make one's writing clearer or more succinct.

i want to point out a mistake lol,

The personal pronoun "I" is capitalized unless you have pretentions of being e e cummings.

its "Digital vs. Film" not non-digital lol.

The verbal contraction is spelled "it's".

Well the type of photography u want to get into

The spelling is "you".

also depends on how much cash u got.

The correct form of the verb here would be "have".

The actual camera itself is cheaper to buy a film SLR then digital, [...].

This is not a proper sentence because there is confusion between the initial clauses.

if ur alone

The spelling is "you are" or "you're".

the prices wherent going

"weren't"

anywhere fast

"quickly"

upgrading stuff other then the body was expensive

"than"

espcecially for shots

"especially"

would not attemp.

"attempt"

if ur a canon guy like i was,

The company name "Canon" is capitalized.

u can reuse alot of the equipment

"alot" is not a word. It is not the verb "allot" and it is not the phrase "a lot".

so there isnt much expense

"isn't"

With film i used to take 50 to 150 (150 was rarer) and

There is no object to this clause ("shots" is missing).

i spent alot of time makign sure

"making"

anything u dont like,

"don't"

With walmart and all these other big developers,

"Wal-Mart"

although there not top of the line labs,

"they are" or "they're"

they produce descent quality prints

"decent"

Right now, digital tech is good

"technology"

but noise is the major draw back in digital,

"drawback"

Digital will prevailand

"prevail and"

for oldtimers like myself, [...]

P.S: 16 and going to post secondary? WTF? lol

You claim to be an "oldtimer", but it is not clear if you ever went to post-secondary school, or if you can write in a style that doesn't depend on poor English typical of 16 year-olds.

It is rare that we indulge in criticism of grammar and spelling to this degree, so I hope all will forgive me this excursion which ultimately has the goal of encouraging us all to write clearly for the benefit of the readers so that they may have the maximum comprehension possible. After all, if we are not self-indulgent (as my post is to some degree), we are writing for our readers, not for ourselves.

Now that I've had my little fun, others can have their fun tearing my post apart too. Dare I write "lol"?

[Monito]

Now for a more substantive reply.

Basically I'm asking what do you all think is best in the long run and I do want to do some sort of photography for a career, I'm not sure what sort of photography I want to do exactly but I'd like to do different things over time.

The industry trends and the technological imperatives are clear: digital technology will soon be ubiquitous and the old film-and-chemical technology will be relegated to increasingly rare fine arts projects. I advise you to learn about computers and physics, especially software, optics and electronics, in preference to chemistry and darkroom technique. However, once you have a good grounding in modern technique and technology, it is useful to get some practice with darkroom technique to have an appreciation of how much work was involved, and how much could be accomplished with careful technique. The techniques have analogous techniques in the digital realm and the digital realm has techniques which go beyond film-and-chemicals.

On the other hand, if you have the enthusiasm to try darkroom techniques, then I want to encourage you. It is possible to acquire some basic proficiency with simple equipment and setups and it is likely that you would have some good fun with it.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter in what order knowledge is acquired. Motivationally, it helps to have fun with it, so you should proceed in a way that feels most natural to you.

Do you need to have a small room? Or can the room be a largeish room like a bedroom? I have room in my bedroom to set up a corner for photography, but I was thinking whether you needed a smaller room because of the red light?

The size of the room does not matter. It generally is easier to seal a smaller room against incoming light, but if that can be accomplished then a larger room is easier to work in. The red light will be somewhat weak and will need to be near the point where you are working with the print development, so it doesn't necessarily have to go far.

[Monito]

I'm not exactly sure of how much money I have to spend

One very inexpensive way to proceed is to make a pinhole camera. Then you can process sheet film in trays, and you can make contact prints without using an enlarger. You can even take a couple of the best and have them enlarged (say 4x5 in. enlaged to 8x10 in.) by a photofinisher for you. They won't withstand much more enlargement than that, but it could be a lot of fun for very little money. If you find you have good technique you can make a large 8x10 pinhole camera, or build one with a simple lens, or find a used 4x5 or 5x7 camera for little money (you might have to repair the bellows!).

If you get a taste for fine art processes, you can make your own emulsions, coat your own plates, experiment with bichromate techniques and have lots of fun with a multitude of old systems. You may even find a career as a fine art photographer.

[René Damkot]

Okay, here's my 2 €cents: Both digital and film have pro's and con's.
With digital you can see immediately what you are doing, but the drawback here is, you'll become lazy / sloppy, because 1) You can correct things in PS 2) You can reshoot immediately if you for instance expose wrong or your model has the eyes closed ;).
Digital is more expensive short term, cheaper in the long run. (Buy camera (expensive), computer (expensive, if you don't already own one), no film)
OTOH film is cheaper at first (not much!), more expensive if you shoot much (camera (cheaper), Darkroom (not cheap) film (expensive when shooting much))
I think you'ld be best of shooting lots of film with an all manual camera like a Nikon FM or Contax S2. Manual focus, light metering, everything. That way you really get to know the basics. OTOH you could also pick up an EOS10D or something, and use it in M... This takes a little more self-discipline, because it's so easy to let the camera do the thinking.
Setting up a darkroom will be expensive, and you'll need to learn the basics of developping / enlarging before you can turn out decent prints. As a side effect, you'll get to know the difficulty in correcting faults made during photographing, thus being more carefull when exposing the film. OTOH computers also aren't cheap, and in PS things like 'burning' and other darkroom techniques are much easier...
Probabely the bottom line is, it doesn't matter much what you use, as long as you use it wisely: don't use 'auto everything', but _think_ about what you are doing, and _why_. Even photoshop won't make a mediocre image good. It can however make a good image outstanding....
Buy a decent (second hand) SLRcamera, film or digital (or both) with a nice prime (50mm, 35mm or 28mm, depending on preference), have fun and learn!
(forgive my spelling, I'm Dutch ;) )

[chris.bailey]

...Off Topic....Flame Suit On...It's Colour and not Color....Sorry, but it does make me laugh somewhat when I see an American giving an English lesson....

CottonMoon - If I were you I would look up the local Photography Club and get along to some of their meetings. It is a great place to learn the art .