why we don't shoot film?

[msvadi]

Nikon Coolscan V has scanning area of 3946 x 5959 pixels. This is more than one can get from 1Ds II, but its price is only $570.

Don't get me wrong, I realize convinience of digital, I understand that professionals may need quick results for assignments. However, for "regular" shooters, I don't see a point, say, in upgrading from 300D or 10D to higher end cameras. Quality improvement is insignificant comparing to what one can get by buying a film scanner and shooting, say, with Elan 7 camera. Find your subject, take several quick shots with digital, and then pull out film for ultimate quality.

What do you think?

[FlipsidE]

Betcha that it won't take long until you've spent more in buying film and having it processed than you would have on a Canon 20D. With as many pictures as I have taken, I know that would be the case.

FlipsidE

[msvadi]

actually, it's not that bad, if you shoot b&w and process yourself. of course, you'll take less shots, but this may be a good thing.



Betcha that it won't take long until you've spent more in buying film and having it processed than you would have on a Canon 20D. With as many pictures as I have taken, I know that would be the case.

FlipsidE

[robertwgross]

In some of the shooting situations that I've been in, the cost of film and processing is insignificant compared to other expenses.

Typically, I shoot my DSLR. However, when I think I am into something really good, then I pull out the film SLR loaded with Velvia 50.

Although many publications have entered the Digital Age, many still have their feet stuck in the Film Age. Besides, if I have finished slides, I can always scan those quickly and get a digital file if that is what I need. However, if I have a finished digital file, it is kind of awkward to convert over to a slide.

---Bob Gross---

[gramps]

I think digital is the future of photography for the majority of picture takers. With the convenience of have a computer at home, work and sometimes when you go somewhere (laptop) the marriage of the digital camera, photographer and computer is going to be a hard combination to sway from. I'm not saying that film will completely be a thing of the past but the convenience factor of digital is so great many of today’s photographers 30 years ago would not have tried to use a camera.

[Littlenose]

Gramps, right with you on that one... without digital, i'd never have picked up a camera for anything more than holiday snaps... now i've got a new [to me] hobby that i can enjoy. :D

[mbze430]

I shoot more film than digital. Matter afact I just shot 3 rolls over the past 4 days.

[OceanRider]

I have shot both and digital rules, hands down. With the digital darkroom I have results faster and I am in control.

[cmM]

there is more than resolution to a photograph. While film has better dynamic range, etc... digital sensors can do things that film can only dream of as well.

[Persian-Rice]

I shoot film 50% of the time...........

[primoz]

Hehe and every time I come to US I bring back few 100 films since they are cheaper over there then here in Europe, but obviously you have pretty expensive films around there. :)
Whenever I hear this reason for going digital from hobby shooters makes me gigle... no offence, since I don't mean anything bad. 20d is around hmm... let's say $1500 right? Sorry don't know right prices so I might be a bit off. 20pack Velvia is around $100 at Samys where I usually buy when I'm in US. If you choose some other film (Sensia or even negative) it will be even cheaper (and with such amounts of film you usually make some special deal with lab for developing... at least I do, so developing prices are not that high either). This means you have around 10.000 shots before you get equal with film or digital. 10.000 shots is A LOT for hobby shooter. Yeah I get money for 1d back in year or something, but most of you don't make few 1000 frames a week.
I agree with any other reason for going digital but definitely not with this one... at least not for non-pro.

[KennyG]

I would hate to go back to film. At my current rate that would be almost 100 rolls per weekend, processing and then scanning it all. Only suitable for the 'snapper' not the working pro these days.

[Avalonthas]

I agree with kenny. With all these fast cam's these days your taking so many shots, and no one has accounted for the time it takes to scan film. With digital, I can quickly snap em, process em, print em, and then send em, easily and cost effectivly.