For those who have gone from good film SLRs to digital - Why?

[glenhead]

Greetings to the forum. I'm glad I found y'all - I've already found answers to several of my questions. However, I have a really basic question that I know my wife will want answered.

I have an A2e, and my wife has an Elan IIe. We have an EF 50 f/1.4 USM, an EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, and an EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. We have two Speedlites, a 540EZ and a 380EX. I have a vertical grip, and she wants one. Nothing real exotic, just an assortment of good, workable gear. We're both what I'd call advanced amateurs. Our claimed interests are primarily landscape and nature shots, but there are zillions of snapshots and candids in the blend, too. I've rented studio lights for family portraits, and have shot second and third weddings for friends. My wife has a real eye for composition. I've been known to shoot two rolls of film on a single flower, playing with DOF, lighting angles, etc. Neither one of us uses full-auto mode. My wife uses primarily P mode, and I do too for snapshots. For more composed photos I go to aperture-priority mode to control DOF. I love the sound of the A2e - a quiet "snick" that disappears completely under normal conversation. Rewind is essentially silent, too - I've missed a couple of shots because the camera rewound without my noticing it. The Elan IIe has a typical SLR sound - "kachonk-scree" - but it's still pretty quiet.

We just got back from a two-week trip to England, Scotland and Wales. Between me, my wife, and my eight-year-old daughter (armed with her trusty Kodak point-and-shoot) we shot 56 rolls of film, nearly 1600 exposures. My wife and I constantly swapped lenses - 28mm to get the grandeur of Westminster Abbey, 300mm for a closeup of a gargoyle, 50mm for snapshots on the Underground, etc. With film and processing, we're looking at right around $600 (thanks to Sam's Club). Plus, it's going to be three weeks after we got back before we can get the film to be processed, due to life interfering.

I've had several people say that one or both of us should go digital. I've spent the last couple of weeks investigating digital SLRs to go with our existing glass, and have made up a spreadsheet on the Rebel XT and the 20D with costs, features, etc. I know what they can do, how they compare, what we need to go with them, and all that.

I just can't get my arms around the "why?", and I know my wife is going to want a reasonable answer. I'm hoping y'all can come up with an "aha!" that will help with my decision. Why should I spend another $1-2k on photo gear? Is it all about the instant gratification, the ability to winnow blown shots, the geek factor, or just because it's there? Yes, I know that we have to make up our own minds, yadda yadda. What led you to make the decision to change? There's a lot to be said about the thrill of the unknown (will that shot come out?), the feel of a new set of prints when you slide them out of the envelope for the first time, and the aroma of a new canister of film.

I look forward to your responses. Thanks!

[PacAce]

Your $600 film processing cost should be one of the big reasons for going digital. One or two more vacation trips like the one you just came back from and the digital EOS will have been paid for itself, no? :)

The second reason is the instant feedback you get with digital. No more wondering if the shots you got are going to come out how you hope they will. No more waiting for them to get back from the photo lab. Upload them to the computer and your pictures are ready for viewing and/or printing. Or, if you care to and have a compatible printer, you can go direct from camera to printer.

There are a couple of more reason but I think these two are the top reasons, at least for me. :)

[dsze]

Yes, you only need to get prints of the images you want. You don't need to pay for all the prints when you really only wanted/needed maybe $300 worth of your $600 in processing fees. However, with digital, you'll spend your time processing your own images before getting them printed. So, you'll save a lot of $$ in the long run, spend more time processing your own images, have ALOT more control over your final images.
Additionally, the instant feedback of the LCD/Histogram, along with the EXIF data to look back on are super tools for improving your skills.

-daniel

[weemannie]

Leo's right. Its the ability to view images immediately, and feeling free to experiment without worrying about development costs. I used to have an EOS 3 which I loved, but was reluctant to experiment because it would cost about £7 to develop each roll, and the processing lab standards varied so much. There was no guarantee that the pictures would come back processed to my satisfaction.

Being able to go out for a day's shooting and see the results as soon as I get home is a winner for me:)

I now shoot around 800 pictures a month, its my principal hobby. I could not have contemplated that pre digital.

If you've already got a computer and the necessary software, its certainly worth considering, now that Digital SLRs' have 'come of age'.

[shiato storm]

well, glenhead I think I'm inthe same position as you, I use an olympus OM1 and an Eos 1N, I take a fair number of shots which I grudgingly take down to the processing lab and hand over my money...
There is a pay off between digtial/film which may throw your thinking about a bit (sorry!) but here it is:
Film - take you pictures, you go and get them processed. if they're neg.'s then you get your prints, in your hand and 'there' once done. if its slides you take then again you get a product you can stick in a projector and admire at HUGE sizes (nothing beats this in my mind, a 12 foot image I took...cool). the cost each time you process a film gradually eats away at your wallet...
digital: you take hunderds of pictures 'for free' after an initial big hit for the camera/memory cards/spare batteries etc, and then you download them to the computer. then you select maybe a handful to print - which you may get done at a lab or d.i.y. (the latter required a decent printer and ink and paper...cost of that = ??). ok so you can alter and mess around with them in PS but how many of them will you actually enjoy as pictures, up on a wall?
I assume that if you wanted something blown up to A3+ then you'd get it printed professionally, digital SLRs - at least the 350/20D - do pretty well up to this size, but slides can do better...

it all relies I guess on how YOU use the prints/images you take. but I agree with the thoughts of others, the sheer numbers you take could indicate you're perhaps not after showing off all of them but may select a few good ones from a location you visit...in this case digital might be best for you as the control of what gets printed at the end of the day remains with you rather than 'blind luck' of handing over a stack of cans and having to pay for the entire lot - including the fudged shots (cause there's always going to be some!).

think I've made you mind up on that one, go digital and select the prints you want printed...! :D

[Rob612]

I see several reasons (the same that made me get back into this world, basically).

1) Quality. Todays mid-to-high level digital stuff is more than sufficient to get even very big prints. Nothing to regret from that point of view. sure, film is another world but for the average use (even as a pro/semipro/advanced amateur) digital today is more than fine.

2) Financials. There is some investment at the beginning. but once you have your gear set up the way you want it, its basically over. the only expense will be the prints that you really want to have. Or to buy new gear, but that's the same with film :) With what you have spent on processing with your last vacation you'll probably have a free vacation every 3/4 years. Or a new lens/piece of equipment every year, your choice.

3) Speed. Personally, albeit I know a lot of photographers that like the wait and the complications involved in film as "part of the game", I always hated to wait for labs to process whatever I needed. Digital is almost instant. You have a quick chimp on your LCD, then as soon as you get home you see the real results. This is less important when you do not have the chance to reshoot (i.e. sports, but in that case the fact that digital is very cheap saves your butt in another way byt allowing you to take tons of pics) but for example during a vacation, if I found a pic taken during the day that I do not like or I could have done better, well... the next day I just reshoot it. If I have to go back home, maybe from a place where I will never return, the pic is gone forever.

4) Flexibility 1. Especially if you shoot RAW, a lot of mistakes can be corrected making those hard to repeat shoots very often recoverable. Of course, the target is to have the correct result straight out of the camera, but sometime it just does not happens.

5) Flexibilty 2. I do not really know how many times I missed a shoot because I had the wrong film loaded. I used to have 2 bodies with different film inside, but still sometimes I could not made it. With digital (good quality digital, forget the toys) I just have to decide at te moment what the correct ISO would be and set the camera accordingly. And this works for every single shot I take. This is IMHO the greatest thing about digital. The right film at the right time. Always. And if its the wrong film well... its only my fault if I forget to set the right ISO :D Edit to add: and of I need BW, its even easier, either in camera or in post processing. Just discard the color information and you're done.



I hope this helps. And welcome aboard !!!

[Hellashot]

Your $600 film processing cost should be one of the big reasons for going digital. One or two more vacation trips like the one you just came back from and the digital EOS will have been paid for itself, no? :)

The second reason is the instant feedback you get with digital. No more wondering if the shots you got are going to come out how you hope they will. No more waiting for them to get back from the photo lab. Upload them to the computer and your pictures are ready for viewing and/or printing. Or, if you care to and have a compatible printer, you can go direct from camera to printer.

There are a couple of more reason but I think these two are the top reasons, at least for me. :)

You're assuming everyone switching to digital would never want to print their images? Someone coming from film to digital would probably want 95% of their images printed. Also if you take as many as they say, I doublt they would enjoy post processing 1600 images from just one trip. Sounds like they should stay with film.

[pierrot]

Beyond all that has been said here, I consider digital as a way to (at last!) afford experimenting all the tricks I never tried with my film cameras.

Although I've practiced photography for decades (as an amateur), there are still some domains I didn't dare to really explore because of the cost involved, the time needed etc.

My 20d is my fourth SLR and my first digital one, and since I got it I feel free to experiment all those magic tricks, explore all these special domains I never had before.

I'm still far to be an expert but there is still sooo much fun and excitment to keep on learning!

(btw I kept my EOS5 film camera for one thing I can't do with a DSLR: B&W pictures ; IMHO digital is not able to achieve the same results as the good old BW film and prints).

[chtgrubbs]

Believe me I have been in your shoes. I am a working pro, and hoped to get through the rest of my career without having to go digital after spending 30 years honing my skills as a master B&W printmaker. I have the same two film cameras your have, but since I got a 10D two years ago they have been sitting on the shelf. I still use my medium and large format cameras but given the choice I would prefer to shoot digital or 5x7/8x10 film. Once you learn some Photoshop skills your ability to contol your color photography will be completely addictive. I get much better prints from a cheap mass printing place than I use to get from custom pro color lab because I can control the exposure, the color balance and saturation and the contrast in shadows and highlights. I never really cared much for color prints until I switched to digital. The Rebel XT body makes excellent digital photography available to almost everybody.

[neil_r]

Becaue I now get to stay warrm and dry and am able to sit down in the dark room and of course, it isn't dark. :D

I now prepare my prints in CS and get them professionaly printed with no colour correction. I retain all the control and get to do it in comfort.

N

[Hol6039]

I also spent over 20 years shooting with film SLR's and have gone digital in just the last 2 years. my wife and I still have our film cameras, Elan 7e's, but since we have both gone digital, a 10D and a 20D, we have not touched our film cameras. I keep the film cameras for back up, but I have not used them in over a year.

Here is another angle which chtgrubbs pointed out - the versitility you have in the field. Let's use your last trip as an example. I am sure there were many times when you were shooting in full daylight, perhaps flower shots, and wanted the great color pop that Velvia 50 gives you. a few minutes later you may have walked into an abby or castle where you wanted to shoot in low light, but that roll of Velvia was only half used and the sign on the doors says "no flash". With digital this is not a problem. You just change the ISO setting and go for it. With daylight balanced film, you were doing great outside, but back in the abby, under the incandescent lights you new your pictures were going to be yellow unless you had the proper filter at hand, but again that reduces your light even more which compounds the problem. With digital, you just change the white balance and it is as if you changed to a different color balanced film. Even if you had a roll of the proper color balanced film in ISO 400 or 800, you still would be rolling the dice on color because the light might be mixed; sunlight through a high window mixed with fluorescent and incandescent and candle light. When shooting raw and using a white card, you can get it dead on! You can even switch to B&W in the preferences of the 20D and shoot a few frames that way! Going digital will expand your ability to capture the image the way you want to.

I know you feel like you are "turning to the dark side" after all those years with film, but once you switch you will be extremely happy with the new possiblities.

I can hear the echo of our fore-fathers within the photo fraternity saying, "What? Shoot on celuloid? A man is not a man unless he is shooting on Tin!!!"

Mike

[dicky109]

We have an EF 50 f/1.4 USM, an EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, and an EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM....Our claimed interests are primarily landscape and nature shots....Why should I spend another $1-2k on photo gear?
Having had a Canon G-1 digital as my carry-around camera for 4-5 years. I recently went to a d-SLR (Rebel XT). I also have have similar film equipment to yours which I used for my more important work (almost everything) and similar shooting interests. The immediate reason for finally pushing me over the edge, was a trip last fall to Ireland and the disappointment in results from shooting in such overcast conditions without any immediate feedback so I could correct for exposure in the difficult lighting conditions. The XT is a great camera, and I've probably shot my last film, and everything everyone else says is pretty much valid, however, IMO, with some caveats.

Unless you purchase a full frame sensor camera, you WILL want to buy new lenses. Minimally, something along the lines of either the 17-40 L or 17-85 EF-S to replace the 28-105. This is due to the 1.6 crop (magnifcation) factor. Also for landscapes, to get wide angle, which you don't currently list, something like the 10-22 EF-S, or between those 2 about $1400 USD in glass. Neither of the EF-S's can be used on the film camers. There are 3rd party lenses which you could use instead, however, you're still talking about a chunk of change and probably not useable for film. That $1-2k quickly can become $3-4k!
Plus, it's going to be three weeks after we got back before we can get the film to be processed, due to life interfering.
If this is your normal situation, then a digital SLR may not be for you, since most users feel you MUST post-process. There are numerous threads about dissatisfaction with d-SLR's not being sharp enough unless post-processed and this takes a lot of time, especially when first learning. The upside as previously pointed out is that you have complete control.

If these points are hurdles to you, you may still be happy going digital with an advanced point & shoot, which take great pictures. The biggest drawbacks to those IMO is the limited interchangeable lens choices, lack of DOF and relatively long (compared to SLR) shutter lag.

Good luck.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Simple.. when I had film cameras.. I never took photos...

[PacAce]

You're assuming everyone switching to digital would never want to print their images? Someone coming from film to digital would probably want 95% of their images printed. Also if you take as many as they say, I doublt they would enjoy post processing 1600 images from just one trip. Sounds like they should stay with film.
I'm just going by the premise that if someone takes 1600 pictures in one trip, he really isn't going to want all 1600 of the pictures, if he really had a choice, and would just select the ones he really thought were good, which you can't determine ahead of time with film. :)

[kkapple]

I still shoot both film and digital.

Just very picky now on what I shoot with film.
And even more picky about what I shoot with medium format.

Use to shoot mainly film since in the early days the stock agencies
only accepted film.

Now they have always accepted digital files but they want a 40 meg file.
They accept prints as well so those images I have shot digital and are
accepted, I print off an nice 8x10 from my Canon I9900 and I am good to go.

I think as time goes by and the megapix gets higher and cameras get cheaper, I will shoot
film less and less.

I used to have outrageous lab costs. Getting images scanned with a drum scanner
was killing me. Then to get that image on a 4x5 film output was even more.

Now there is not much of a need for them.
You can get a good scanner now with a Dmax range of 3.4 for under $800.

Pretty much my own little photo lab now.

[dsze]

Well put CDS... I agree.

-daniel

[BigRed450]

I've shot film for 25 years and switched to digital 3-4 years ago. My film cameras are now paper weights.
My suggestion: Borrow or rent a D-SLR for an afternoon, shoot side by side with your wife and her film camera. Compare the results. Whether its quality/resolution, greater flexiblity, outstanding Dynamic Range, or cost effectiveness, You will not want to shoot 35mm film again. I print and sell A3 / 13x19" images on a regular basis and in my own experience, 35mm cannot touch 6-8mp DSLR resolution, you must see that for yourself to be convinced.
PS as also noted the ability to shoot usable images at ISO 1600....

[johneo]

Why shoot digital?

Everybody has a reason, all are very good and they got me to thinking ...

I went digital in February 1999. If I divide the number of shots I've taken with my digital cameras by 36 (as in a 36 exp roll of film) plus the cost of developing (at cheap prices) I've saved about $13,000. Cost for all my digital cameras, lenses and so on ... Probably a little better than half of that (but that also includes film camera and my Canon lenses for both digital and film)

Now, would I have shot that much film? Never! Doubt I shot that many rolls my entire life. BUT ... here's the kicker ... Photography has become my hobby, a passion, that it never could before because I could not justify the expense for the results I got. Now, I'm asked to shoot weddings (which I hate) parties (which I hate) and even sell my photos in a few shows I've been in.

I feel I have improved greatly in what I get from shooting digital ... and even my film prints and slides prove it now.

As mentioned ... just the cost savings in printing only the good shots is reason enough.

Having said that ... it's because of digital that I'm enjoying shooting film again and shooting films I never would have wasted my money on previous to digital.

My regret ... I wish there was digital about 30 years ago so I MAYBE would have had a chance to do it professionally ... OR ... I wish I were 30 years younger!

[GPR1]

Digital has costs that aren't as obvious. Not only do you buy the body, memory cards, batteries..., but you end up improving your computer processor and memory, then you need an excellent monitor to callibrate and the device to do it, and Photoshop of course. I know I haven't "paid for" all the new investments I've made to go digital over the two years since my switch.

On the other hand, I'm shooting a lot more, and having more fun with my photographs with complete control from capture to print. I wouldn't do it for the cost -- high volume pros might see the benefit that way, but I don't as much. I consider myself a serious amature, and last week I just had a 1D MarkII delivered.... Back in film days I thought my A2 was just fine and I didn't own one L lens. Really, digital won't save you money, but it will probably increase your enjoyment and might just improve your photography.

Good luck,

Greg

[iwatkins]

All good points made above.

However, you say you are quite happy to bang out a couple of rolls on one flower. How about if you could do that and more and incur no cost after the fact. I.e. you could select the three or so you really like from a session and get them and only them printed ?

How about shooting continously for several hours ? Build a time lapse sequence from shots taken. Or maybe try and capture lightning ? Run the camera non-stop taking shots until you have a good capture. Things like that are cheap on digital and expensive on film.

But do note, that going digital also means you are going to have to invest in a digital darkroom to go with it to get the best out of it, e.g. shooting RAW, processing these/using Photoshop, computer costs etc.

Not an easy decision to make and it does require quite a large initial investment, but just having the ability to experiment and see the results instantly was the biggest reason for me, closely followed by lack of processing costs.

I haven't looked back since going digital. Saying that I still bang off a couple of rolls of B&W from time to time and process them myself, just to keep my hand in.

Cheers

Ian

[cyclone]

Two more points that may hit home because of your recent vacation. My wife and I recently went to Europe for two weeks. The digital did two things that film could not have done (besides all the other things mentioned above). First, we did not have to worry about x-rays. Our stuff went through multiple x-ray machines, and let me tell you, it was nice not to have to ask for a hand inspection, or worry about it at all. Second, ISO 3600 allowed me to take low light pictures, that frankly, there is no way I could have gotten with a film camera. Stuff in museums, shows in low light, etc.

More to think about.

[cyclone]

Oh yes, and welcome to the forum. Digital camera or not.:)

[lostdoggy]

To be frank, it just more fun and don't smell as bad.
Not to forget its cheaper in the long run.
Allows me to save more money for more glasses.

Film processing and films are very expensive.
Think about this in one year I've shot over 8000 frames.
Thats 222.22 rolls of film
Thats $889 worth of film at $4/roll
Thats $1556 of developing and 4X6 prints.
Thats $2445 I could use for new Glass.

[lostdoggy]

You're assuming everyone switching to digital would never want to print their images? Someone coming from film to digital would probably want 95% of their images printed. Also if you take as many as they say, I doublt they would enjoy post processing 1600 images from just one trip. Sounds like they should stay with film.

I beg to differ. I think that most people will print less and shoot more in digital because you can. So when it is time to print, one would less likely to print images that serve very little interest and rellagate them to digital slide shows of sort. I think one would more likely print maybe 20% and enlarge maybe 1%. 20% of 1600 shot is 320. At $0.19/print at Sam's Club thats about $61. Even if he was crazy enough to print them all thats only $304, thats half off. Now there is nothing that assume that one would shoot in RAW in all incidences and even if one did, one might also have the option to shoot in RAW+JPEG and could definitely just use the JPEG for printing.

[MarkH]

Here's my situation:
I never had a real interest with photography until my step-father bought a film SLR in 1985 (I think). It had autofocus, auto aperture and auto shutter speed - or manual for any/all. I ended up buying the same camera with 35-80 (or something like that) plus a 70-210 lens. I enjoyed it very much, but the cost of film+processing always restricted what I could afford to do. A few years later I was low on money and couldn't afford to have a couple of rolls developed, so I sold my camera and lenses.

After a few years I was missing having a camera, mainly at times when I went somewhere and wanted to take some photos. :)

Then digital cameras came out and I thought they were pretty neat. I bought a Kodak DC-50 and had some fun with it, but the res was too low. I then replaced that with a NIkon CP950 in 1999 - it was a good camera, I wanted a 6MPix D-SLR at the time but they cost well over $10K. In 2003 the 10D was released and cheaper than the D60, so I took the plunge back into SLR photography. Now I have shot 18,000 images over the last 2 years, my camera is still going strong and I would have spent over twice as much if I had been shooting with film.

So:
How much have you spent on film + developing over the last couple of years?
Have you found yourself inhibited in your photography knowing the cost of each shot?
Do you already have a computer that is suitable for processing the images?

Have you considered the ability to take a couple of hundred shots of a flower and picking the best one, having it printed at a large size, framed and hanging it on the wall in the living room? With digital you can take the pics, check them on the computer and if you don't see the results you were trying for you can go back outside and try again. With film I would never consider shooting that much just to get one good picture.

Depending on what you find comfortable to hold I think that either the 350D (Rebel XT) or 20D would meet your needs rather well. Compared to spending $600 on a single trip, the cost of a D-SLR is not that prohibitive (how much do you spend per year on film and developing).

[lkorell]

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed shooting with my film cameras. They are legends and still perform perfectly after years of use. But - - -
film cost a lot of money to process and print and it is getting harder and harder to find decent labs that consistently understand how you would like your images to look.

Advantages of digital - instant feedback in the form of histogram, not LCD!
choice of which shots to bother with in post processing, creative control over cropping, filtering, and other effects without extra lab costs, ability to shoot as much as you like while experimenting and learning, with no lab fees. Ability to shoot in low light and adjust settings on the fly without changing film or bodies.

Disadvantages - up front costs of computer gear and related hardware for decent post processing, continuous upgrading of gear when new technology is available/needed, time spent in front of a computer (puts a crimp in your other extra-curricular activities), carrying a computer (the camera body) into the field under harsh conditions and worrying about damage.

There are probably a lot more on both accounts, but even though I have the best film gear money can buy, if it weren't for my 20D at the last wedding (no flash allowed in dark church) I would have been sweating bullets about shooting at ISO 1600 @ 1.4. ;)

Try digital. You might get hooked.


Lou

[glenhead]

Wow.

Thank you!

This kind of advice/experience/feedback is exactly what I was hoping for. I won't recap - no need - but you've all given me lots of serious points to ponder.

My wife and I both have new-ish 3+ GHz 'puters, each with a gig of RAM. I have an nVidia 6800 driving a color-calibrated 21" CRT, and she has a 5700 driving a 17" LCD. Computing horsepower is not a problem! We also have an Epson 1270 printer, which will go to A3, and it has been calibrated to CorelDRAW. Yeah, I'm a geek.

My wife is out of town this weekend, and she and I talked about my question and some of your responses when I called her a couple of hours ago. Not only does she think I need to go digital, she thinks we both need to (!?!). Quite a different reaction from what I expected! I make the money in our house, but she runs it - stay-at-home expert Mom (and an accounting-type, to boot) - and I expected she'd give me a virtual pat on the head and tell me to cool my jets (again). We have a chance for some additional income from a couple of patent applications, and if they come through I'll have the liquidity to pull the trigger (not to mix metaphors or anything...) If not, we'll have to see what else we can sell on eBay to pay for this... I'll keep lurking, and will let you know how things progress. Thanks again for your thoughts, and keep 'em coming!

[Mark_48]

One of my reasons for going digital was that over the years I've amassed it seems thousands of prints. Some get filed in albums, but most not. The albums take up a fair amount of space and tend to be stored away where neither myself or my wife seem to take them out often.
With digital I've gone the route of creating Photo slideshows which I burn onto DVD-R media. I build the show with the images I want and add a music track. The software I'm using has the ability to add effects and transitions as well. Best of all they don't take up much space and thus are viewed more often. Much more enjoyable this way than flipping pages of an album. I can imagine your vacation presented in this manner would be wonderful to watch. If you haven't had your vacations photos processed yet, you may want to consider having them digitized to a CD with the prints. Generally it doesn't cost that much more and then you could use them later in a slideshow if you wanted.
I've also done a few weddings in this manner and it makes for a wonderful storybook of the wedding events which is very well recieved by the bride, groom, and families.

Proshow Gold 2.5 > http://www.photodex.com/

As others have said also, with digital you tend to shoot more pictures with digital than with film. I've started to shoot some local events (essentially freebies) with digital that I would have never have thought to do with film due to the cost of film processing and developing. I do still shoot film on occasion, but it is becoming less and less as I learn how to use digital more and more.

[Rob612]

Glen, glad that we gave you some hints. Now that you're sold, go out and become digital :D :D

[ScottE]

I had been shooting 35 mm film for about 25 years.

We were planning a trip to Africa and had to take a variety of telephoto to wide angle lenses and enough film for four weeks of heavy shooting. I do not trust baggage handlers and want to bring the camera equipment as carry-on. Film cannot safely be sent in checked luggage due to the X-ray machines. Airlines have reduced the sized and weight restrictions for carry on luggage so I could not fit all my camera equipment and film into my bags. The choice was made for me. Go digital or leave some of the equipment I needed at home.

It did not take long shooting digital before the other advantages became so obvious that I have hardly touched my 35 mm cameras in the last three years.

Quality. Enlargements from digital are just as good as what I was getting from film, and better in some cases because the shadow detail is better than film like Velvia is capable of.

ISO changes. You can change the ISO of your digital from shot to shot when going from indoors to outdoors, twilight to daylight, shadows to open sunlight. With film you have to either waste the rest of a film or go through that process of recording the number of exposures, unloading the film, inserting the partially exposed film of the correct ISO, and advancing the film for the number of exposures needed.

Cost. I shot 35 mm Provia and Velvia film. Film and processing usually cost me about $20 CDN per roll. If I wanted prints, I would then have the slides scanned. Unless you paid for custom scanning the results were often disappointing. A quality film scanner was not that much cheaper than a digital camera. It was not long before my digital camera had paid for itself just in the cost of film, processing and scanning.

Time. I come home, download my digital shots to my computer and can make prints immediately. With film I had to drive to the shop (or wait for the next day after shop hours), to drop off my film, drive back the next day to pick it up, make a third trip to drop off the slides I wanted scanned and a fourth trip to pick up the prints or scans if I was doing the printing myself. A week or more has passed before I have my prints.

Changing film. With digital I can get 200 RAW shots on a 2 gb card. With film you have to reload every 36. I missed some very good sports shots while I was putting a new film in the camera.

Immediate feedback. With digital you have a histogram and a display available to check exposure and composition. In tricky lighting conditions you have to bracket with film in tricky lighting conditions and can't tell whether you got it right until the film is processed.

In short, my advise is DO NOT GO DIGITAL because your film cameras will feel lonely sitting on the shelf all the time.

Scott

[johnlo]

I have find myself asking the same question before actually making a purchased to a digital camera. I have been using film camera for a very long time. as a matter of fact, i dont think I will ever stop using my film camera. I actually like it ALOT more than any of my digital camera. But of course I am not saying I wont use it. I have two SLR digitals... and I mostly use them for work. another word, only if I am getting PAY for.

I still shoot film now, maybe because I still have dozen of rolls laying around the house. actually I shoot slide film. so my processing fee doesnt cost as much. and I dont get them printed at all. I normally scan them and print them at home if I want to use them for my portfolio.

Film can be VERY Costly.... just have to be careful how many shoots you need on the same subject, with the same pose. a good photographer dont need to take a picture of someone or something twenty times. thats the fun part about film. waiting for the result at the end of the week.

as far as for digital, i have been using that (for work) for over 2 years now. I LOVE it, because especially when the bulk of my work are PreSchool Photography, I need to double check my images before calling on the next child. I need to make sure I got that smile that all the parents LOVE. and Just because I am using a digital, it doesnt mean I can shoot 20 -30 images. again, a good photographer dont need to take that many... plus I dont have the time and the patient to be editing when i get home. I like to sleep and watch TV.

with Wedding pHotography - it is also great to using digital. Just to make sure you get the shoot you want. This event is once in a lifetime.

personally I think you should get yourself a digital camera. $600 in film processing is alot. plus SLR digital camera these days are so closed to film result. it doesnt matter anymore. so this is just my opinion, just how I see things about camera between film and digital. i might have went off the topic, i might have just talk something that has nothing to do with wat you are saying.....

I love the sound of the film after you press on the shutter buttom. THAT'S a Real sound of a SLR Camera.

for the record - I never bring my digital camera when I am shooting for personal. :-)