SLR: Digital vs. Film

[TimmyBoston]

What are the pros and cons of Digital and Film SLRs? I've been looking at Nikon for both.

Thanks all!

[paydepst]

I have both a Nikon film and digital SLR. They are both fantastic. In short I like the digital for the instant gratification and ease of upload aspects and I like the film for the simple reason that you can't take slides with a digital. As good as my digital is, if you really want to live and breathe the photo, nothing tops a good slide.

[roughrider]

What sort of photography do you plan on using your camera for?

[Wil]

Something I have noticed-

Start up time for a candid shot- With Digital- you need to wait for the system to start up and focus-

With film- almost instantaneous - thus what you see- you shoot-

But over all on a very high level- Digital - based on the lens quality- will give you more - memory cards are getting larger and cheaper- as well as editing programs- thus brings the darkroom back to you - but in the computer and not the basement. You will be able to control your photos much better with digital.

[Haiku]

This is in fact the great debate for the last number of years. My take on it is simple: film cameras and all the related equipment costs a fraction of digital. You can pick up a truly fabulous film camera for a fraction of the cost of a mediocre or poor digital. These days film actually costs almost nothing if you buy it in bulk on the internet. To process and print film costs the same as to print digital images.

Bottom line: a used film camera from Nikon, Canon or Pentax will cost you almost noting compared to digital.

Lots of film camera lenses, such as those that fit the EOS line from Canon will work fine with the EOS digital bodies. Same with lots of the Pentax and Nikon lenses. So your film lenses will continue to work fine with digital if you buy the right ones.

Buy a new film camera and you'll pay a fraction of the cost of an equal quality digital. Buy one used, and you'll be getting the camera for essentially nothing.

You can easily pick up a recently serviced fully guaranteed film camera for no more than $150. I did just that. You can load it with a roll of 400 ASA film and you are getting better images than you will get from a $1,000 digital camera. And the cost of the film? Take a look at the bay, you'll find you can pick up some of the best film ever made for $2.00 a roll. I recently bought a load of Kodak Portra VC 160 for $1.60 a roll including the shipping. And, the cost to process and to print the pictures costs the same as to print an equal number of digital images.

If you want to manipulate the images on a computer, scan the negatives, or the prints and you have digital images.

Lots of the accessories you'll want such as filters, bags, tripods and so on will all work fine with digital cameras, save for polarizers that you need to ensure compatability, but even they will work fine if you get the right one.

As things currently stand, film technology is a mature technology. It may be on its last legs, and it may well be that it will be replaced soon by digital. Certainly it looks that way. For most people digital probably has already replaced film. Digital is a new technology and the cost of entering the market is very high, the cameras all become obsolete in a few months or perhaps in a year. Will digital replace film, almost certainly for the mass market. How long will film be around? No one knows.

But, if you buy a good quality film camera, and learn to use it properly, if and when you eventually move to digital you'll know what you're looking for and you'll know enough about the equipment to not be ripped off.

For whatever it's worth to anyone, were I in the market for a first time camera, knowing what I now know, I would have a hard time not taking a good hard look at a used Canon EOS film camera. I would use it for a few years until I knew more about what type of photography I enjoyed, and I would then look around at the market to see what new stuff is out there. One thing I will almost certainly guarantee: doing it that way will cost you a fraction of what it will cost to go digital.

[letterk]

Will, start-up time and focus for digital SLRs isn't an issue. They're just as fast as film SLRs, if not faster now. P&S cameras is a different story.

[letterk]

Tim, I was a die-hard film user for many many years. I swore I'd never go digital. Then I bought a N70. All my film gear has been sold.

[Wil]

Will, start-up time and focus for digital SLRs isn't an issue. They're just as fast as film SLRs, if not faster now. P&S cameras is a different story.

Very true John- I jumped from an old school F3- one of my original cameras for press work- and now have only two digital- older models- and since I no longer work in that field- they are not the newer ones available- so i guess the initial start up time is quicker- not sure if they can be faster though- since the older SLRs are turn on point focus and shoot- and I will challenge you to a shoot off on that one :a11: :biggrin:

[Haiku]

Tim, I was a die-hard film user for many many years. I swore I'd never go digital. Then I bought a N70. All my film gear has been sold.

This is a perfect example of the type of thing I was speaking of. John is a knowledgeable and experienced film camera user who bought a digital camera and never looked back. He knew what he was buying and why.

Am I correct that the Nikon N-70 is the previous generation of the N-80? If so, the body alone, without any lenses sells for more than $1,000.00. To my way of thinking, if someone does not yet know whether digital or film is right for them, that's the type of money that they should not spend right off the bat on a camera body.

[gallantman]

I went thru this debate myself a year ago. From everything I read about print quality, you would need a 10 megapixel digital camera to approach the quality of 35 mm film. And as others have said you can get used 35 mm gear very cheap today. Digital has an advantage in that you can computerize your pictures, but you can do the same with film. Just ask the developers to put it on CD for you. I wanted to get into photography cheap and I did not have alot of time to learn new technology. So for me, a simple mechanical rangefinder has been great.

[Dennis]

I can't imagine pulling out my Nikon stuff since shooting digital. Instant gratification, you shoot until you get the shot and know that you have it. With film, you may be bracketing, pushing ISO, etc... and you will likely use only one of those shots so multiply your film cost by 2 or 3. I don't think there is much of a difference now between film and digital, most especially if you are not printing large format. I do think film cameras are useful for actually learning how to shoot photographs. There is nothing like the hands on of changing f-stops and shutter speeds and seeing the difference either in DOF preview or when you get the slides back. I find digitals (that I have used) not as intuitive compared to film cameras like an F3, but I have not used the nice high end new Nikons either.

Dennis

[letterk]

I went thru this debate myself a year ago. From everything I read about print quality, you would need a 10 megapixel digital camera to approach the quality of 35 mm film. And as others have said you can get used 35 mm gear very cheap today. Digital has an advantage in that you can computerize your pictures, but you can do the same with film. Just ask the developers to put it on CD for you. I wanted to get into photography cheap and I did not have alot of time to learn new technology. So for me, a simple mechanical rangefinder has been great.

Regarding megapixels, it really depends on your final output. I have 13x19 prints from my 6.2 MP D70 that some photography friends swore were from film. For anyone not really doing LARGE format printing, don't even pay attention to megapixels when selecting cameras.

[letterk]

This is a perfect example of the type of thing I was speaking of. John is a knowledgeable and experienced film camera user who bought a digital camera and never looked back. He knew what he was buying and why.

Am I correct that the Nikon N-70 is the previous generation of the N-80? If so, the body alone, without any lenses sells for more than $1,000.00. To my way of thinking, if someone does not yet know whether digital or film is right for them, that's the type of money that they should not spend right off the bat on a camera body.

The N70 and N80 were film cameras. I owned the N80...very nice camera. They're really different to the digital bodies out now, so are hard to compare.

[mparker762]

Unless you're talking medium format then film is pretty obsolete, and has been since about the time the 6 megapixel cameras came out. If I were still into photography I'd be in standing in line for the new Leica M-series digital body.

[Haiku]

I went thru this debate myself a year ago. From everything I read about print quality, you would need a 10 megapixel digital camera to approach the quality of 35 mm film. And as others have said you can get used 35 mm gear very cheap today. Digital has an advantage in that you can computerize your pictures, but you can do the same with film. Just ask the developers to put it on CD for you. I wanted to get into photography cheap and I did not have alot of time to learn new technology. So for me, a simple mechanical rangefinder has been great.

That's my story, and also about one year.

My entire set up, including two used Canon cameras, two 50mm lenses, one 135, two bags, one superb tripod with a ball head, a load of filters incuding a Nikon polarizer and some macro equipment cost me about $500 - $600. Everything I own is mint. I bought the tripod new for $200, it can hold 11 pounds on the ball head and it is good enough to last me the rest of my life.

I think that if one does a rough and ready calculation, even including the cost of my tripod and the rest of the gear that I can use with digital cameras, at $10 to $15 per roll of 36 pictures counting the cost of the film the processing and the printing of it, I can shoot a roll of film every two weeks for the next five years before I equal the cost of a middle of the road digital camera, not counting the cost to print my digital images, nor the cost of a computer, or software or printer or memory card or anything else. Add the rest of it in and I can shoot a roll of film every two weeks for the next ten years and still come out ahead. Add in the cost to print digital pictures and that equals the cost to me to buy, shoot, process and print my film.

Will I eventually buy a digital? I am sure I will. But not quite yet.

Bottom line: for me my two used 25 year old Canon cameras has been the answer.

Your answer may be something else including up to a top of the line Arca Swiss Monolith or a Sinar P3 with a $20,000 Phase One back. Personally, I don't think anyone can go far wrong in starting out with a quality used 35 mm film camera.

[letterk]

After going digital, I could never shoot only a roll of film every two weeks. I used to shoot about that much with film, because I just didn't want to spend more on it. Now often shoot 50 shots in a day, sometimes many more. I shot over 5000 shots last year. At $15 a roll for a 36 shot roll, that would be over $2000, twice what I paid for my D70.

[paydepst]

Recommend this site to anyone-

www.kenrockwell.com

fantastic site and he knows his stuff. This is where I learned not to fret the megapixel.

[jazzman]

LetterK and Ontario represent opposite sides of my brain, and their constant bickering is making me dizzy. I have a terrific set of EOS film gear. When I bought it, only Leica types would think of spending the kind of money it would take for me to get the digital SLR of my dreams. But now, everybody is spending $1,000 or much more to go digital, and they seem happy. I've come close to pulling the digital trigger a few times, but I keep waiting for the perfect wave of price and quality. For example, I want the full-frame feature, but Canon's cheapest digital SLR now has more megapixels than the $2500 5D. In fact, that relatively cheap Rebel has more features than most of Canon's other digital SLR's, but I'd never be happy with such a small viewfinder or the cheap feel of the thing. By the time Canon comes out with the maga-megapixels in a better body, I won't be happy with the price. In the meantime, I'm getting the standard two to three "keepers" per roll, and basically wasting the rest of my film, which really is the standard ratio for almost all photographers, if we're honest with each other. That means I'd save a bundle by going digital and just deleting the duds.

Help--I'm going crazy!

[DoubleE]

Let me say that I love film. I still have 3 Canon SLR bodies including an Eos 1N. I have a Leica rangefinder. I have two autofocus Pentax 645Ns and a Bronica 6x7.

I just threw out probably 40 rolls of out of date film both 35mm and medium format.

After moving to digital several years ago, I've become addicted to the instant gratification. I like being able to shoot freely and delete what I don't like. If you've learned your craft, that's not a bad thing. If you haven't, I think it CAN be more difficult with digital. You do slow down shooting film and really concentrate on your exposure and framing because you know you're paying for each shot. With digital, it's easy to become sloppy and just shoot machine gun style and hope you get something good.

On the flip side, it's easier to experiment with digital because it costs you nothing to screw up 100 shots. So.....as it started out, pros and cons.

I would probably sell all my film cameras but they're worth so little, I may just use them as door stops.

[letterk]

Steve, I wasn't trying to bicker, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was just trying to point out alternative ways of thinking about the delima. I apologize to Ontario as well if this was how it was taken.

[jazzman]

Steve, I wasn't trying to bicker, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was just trying to point out alternative ways of thinking about the delima. I apologize to Ontario as well if this was how it was taken.

Woa! Sorry if my sarcasm came out the wrong way. What I meant was you and Ontario each are making good points that make a lot of sense to me, and I'm struggling to make a decision for myself. The only "bickering" going on here is inside my own head. The information you are giving is very helpful.

[Haiku]

I didn't think that we were bickering neither did I pick up on any sarcasm. So don't worry.

I also don't think that John and I are on different sides of the debate either: He shot film for years and knows the craft. I keep saying that eventually I don't doubt that I will go to digital, but not yet. Perhaps next year, perhaps next month. But not right now. So I don't think that we are in disagreement at all, I think we are at different stages time-wise.

I think everything really depends on the type of photography one does. In my case, I enjoy working very slowly and I almost never shoot a picture without a tripod. I use a 35 mm camera pretty much the way people use medium format or large format (without the controls offered by those cameras). I don't generally do snapshots and I never set the camera on any of the automatic settings, I do everything manually. This has forced me to learn the craft.

If I enjoyed doing snapshots, or action shots I would almost never shoot film. I would certainly go digital. If my hobby was street photography or shooting candid pictures of friends or family, digital is the way to go because one can shoot hundreds of pictures, perhaps thousands before one's batteries die. one can keep shooting until one's family throws one out of the room and one doesn't have any friends left.

Take a look at what Dennis said a few posts back: for him, film is the right answer for learning the craft. I don't know, but it may be that John might feel the same way.

I have no doubt that many people get two or three keepers from a roll of 36. But I'm convinced that's because people generally do not take the time to analyze what they've done or not done, and then correct things. If that's your story, stop and take stock: what are you doing, why are you doing it, how are you doing it? Every "non-keeper" has a lesson or two to be learned and if you take the time to figure out what you've done right and what you would like to change next time, you'll make absolutely stunning progress very quickly. You'll go from the two or three keepers ratio to two or three non-keeprs very quickly. Just take the time to figure out what you've been doing.

One of the big problems with digital is that people shoot hundreds of pictures and hope one is a keeper on the theory that it costs nothing. Well there is a cost and it is a huge cost: the lost opportunity to become better at the craft.

I don't dislike digital although I don't think that it's quite where I would want it before I buy into it. I suspect that when I do buy into it, I will have a hard time not saving up for something like a Sinar with a Phase One back. But not yet. Probably not until I win a lottery. I suspect I'll end up with a Canon EOS system.

My take on things is that one cannot really go wrong if one buys the cheapest possible solution and learn the craft. At the moment for me that means a used film set up. Take a look at ebay item number 110140755939. That's a Canon A-1. It went for $63.51. It was serviced and came with a 30-day guarantee. Add another $15 for a 50mm lens and you own one of the best "pro-sumer" cameras ever made. Take a look at item number: 230145465646. That's a 200 mm Canon lens that went for $39. A mint boxed Zeiss 80 -200 zoom lens for the Canon FD line went for $31.01. The Zeiss has a macro capability and may be the best lens that the average person will ever own unless they buy into Leica. Add the Zeiss lens to the A-1 and for less than $100 (not counting shipping) you're all set to go with pretty much professional quality equipment.

These are NOT forward compatable with digital cameras, but to learn the craft this to me is the way to go.

[jazzman]

You're making many good points, Ontario. My background is: I learned on a manual 35 mm SLR, and I'm now shooting with an EOS film SLR with a few good lenses, setting exposure manually or aperture-priority or shutter-priority or otherwise adjusting the settings chosen by the camera. I take a lot of family snapshots, but the real payoff is a fair number of 12 x 16 framed shots that I'm pretty proud of. As you suggested, I think I use every non-keeper as a learning experience, and I fear that will be lost if I just delete bad digital images. My only struggle is identical to yours, "Perhaps next year, perhaps next month, but not right now."

[icemncmth]

I have several film cameras.....I have an older digital point and shoot...

I haven't bought a newer high end digital camera because I would need to spend over a grand to get what I want and need...

With the new software out there you can do some really cool stuff with digital...

But it will be a long time before digital replaces my large format film camera...8x10 .....nothing like making a contact sheet with a negative that is
the same size as the paper!

[jazzman]

But it will be a long time before digital replaces my large format film camera...8x10 .....nothing like making a contact sheet with a negative that is
the same size as the paper!

Part of me says, "If you're going to spend the kind of money it takes to get a top-quality digital SLR that will be obsolete in a few years, why not get the 8 x 10, or medium format, or Leica 35 mm you've always wanted?"

[Haiku]

Part of me says, "If you're going to spend the kind of money it takes to get a top-quality digital SLR that will be obsolete in a few years, why not get the 8 x 10, or medium format, or Leica 35 mm you've always wanted?"

How I would love to own an 8 x 10 and make that kind of contact sheet! What a kick that would be. All my darkroom stuff is limited to 35 mm.

[paydepst]

Amongst other things Ken Rockwell also discusses film SLRs and large and medium format cameras on his website.

I am not affiliated with Ken Rockwell in any way but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other night. :smile:

[DoubleE]

Amongst other things Ken Rockwell also discusses film SLRs and large and medium format cameras on his website.

I am not affiliated with Ken Rockwell in any way but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other night. :smile:

:lol: :lol:

[Haiku]

:lol: :lol:

I am a very big fan of Rockwell and his site. Rockwell is intelligent and his site is top flight.

There are two other sites that are just great, photo.net and rogerandfrances.com. The latter is run by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz. Hicks and Schultz are two of the real photography gurus. They, and in particular Hicks, have written some of the very best phtography books on the market. Their site has a "photoschool" with both free and paid for modules. What Hicks and Schultz have forgotten about photography most people never even hear about let along learn. I'm a paid subscriber and I read everything that they publish.

Photo.net is superb, in particular the forums, and this topic has been discussed to the nth degree there. The bottom line with photo.net is that it is rather oriented toward digital and extolling its virtues. Some forum members have in discussion groups even alleged that the owner is biased toward trying to push people into digital for commercial reasons. I don't buy that, but there it is. The site is however superb.

[HoustonianYankee]

I was a Nikon film user for many years. I still have a N90S since I refuse to sell it for what I can get for it-so it gathers dust. I use a D200, which replaced my D70. I could not conceive of going back to film once I had made the shift to digital. The quality of photos and your ability to create is substantial in digital. Unless you are equipped to duplicate in a darkroom what Ansel Adams was able to achieve, I suggest you move to digital and don't look back.

[Biker]

For the best results use a high quality digital, except when shooting landscapes. Good lenses are essential. All the info you need can be found on http://www.dpreview.com/ and http://www.kenrockwell.com/

[Roman414]

Ansel Adams used rather simple equipment, shot in b&w, and did all his own developing and printing. He made some pretty good pictures.
In the early days of photography there was a French (what else?) photographer of note who experimented with the acidity of his developer by urinating in it. I suppose that spirit of adventure is lost in the digital age. Uh, no one on here pees in his lather, does he?

[ratcheer]

Good lenses are essential.

Absolutely.

Tim

[farace]

In the early days of photography there was a French (what else?) photographer of note who experimented with the acidity of his developer by urinating in it. I suppose that spirit of adventure is lost in the digital age. Uh, no one on here pees in his lather, does he?

There have been a number of artists that used urination to create art, perhaps the most notable being Andy Warhol and his Oxidation series of paintings, created by urinating on canvas prepared with copper paint.

To my mind, digital makes a lot of sense for snapshots. For more artistic photography, everyone should follow the methods that inspire them. Just as I'd rather created a painting by actually using paint on a medium rather than with software, I find using film more enjoyable. I miss having access to a stocked darkroom (wasn't college wonderful?) and the Man Ray-type experimentation I could engage in there. I like happy accidents, and digital, being essentially mathematics, is too predictable for me. For example, if you want to solarize a print, digitally you apply an effect in Photoshop or similar software. Apply it the same way, and you'll get the same results. In a darkroom you flash the film or print with light, and there is a lot of room for error. Sometimes what happens accidentally is much better than what you can plan for. Using actual film feels more hands-on to me. It's the same with music: I'd rather record myself playing an actual instrument than to create something completely in software. But each person will find their own methods.

[HoustonianYankee]

There have been a number of artists that used urination to create art, perhaps the most notable being Andy Warhol and his Oxidation series of paintings, created by urinating on canvas prepared with copper paint.

To my mind, digital makes a lot of sense for snapshots. For more artistic photography, everyone should follow the methods that inspire them. Just as I'd rather created a painting by actually using paint on a medium rather than with software, I find using film more enjoyable. I miss having access to a stocked darkroom (wasn't college wonderful?) and the Man Ray-type experimentation I could engage in there. I like happy accidents, and digital, being essentially mathematics, is too predictable for me. For example, if you want to solarize a print, digitally you apply an effect in Photoshop or similar software. Apply it the same way, and you'll get the same results. In a darkroom you flash the film or print with light, and there is a lot of room for error. Sometimes what happens accidentally is much better than what you can plan for. Using actual film feels more hands-on to me. It's the same with music: I'd rather record myself playing an actual instrument than to create something completely in software. But each person will find their own methods.
I second your comments on music. My son is a jazz musician and pointed out to me the use of digital "music" in many light jazz recordings. Once you are aware of it, the old jazz recordings of Mingus, Coltrane, etc become infinitely more enjoyable than some of the canned stuff we are bombared with today.

My comments before on digital were meant to convey the notion that digital photography, together with adequate software(Photoshop, Lightroom, e.g.) can put in the hands of many what was the capability of a few who had darkroom equipment and were able to exercise the time and learned skill to achieve dramatic photos. In fact, skilled use of these new tools can result in equally creative heights of photography and these come with a commensuarte skill, albeit digitally vs. chemically.

There is certainly room for both, but I find, for myself, the facility of digital to outweigh any benefits from the film method, which, alas, I did not get a proper chance to experience.

As they used to say where I grew up in Bklyn, "sauseech his own." (Had to get that one in for my fellow Italian American!).

That being said, I will never sell my N90S, and I still like to play around with it occasionally.

[paydepst]

I was a Nikon film user for many years. I still have a N90S since I refuse to sell it for what I can get for it-so it gathers dust. I use a D200, which replaced my D70. I could not conceive of going back to film once I had made the shift to digital. The quality of photos and your ability to create is substantial in digital. Unless you are equipped to duplicate in a darkroom what Ansel Adams was able to achieve, I suggest you move to digital and don't look back.


Dennis, how do you like your D200 compared to your D70? That will probably be my next digital upgrade.

[HoustonianYankee]

Dennis, how do you like your D200 compared to your D70? That will probably be my next digital upgrade.
It is great if you have some vintage Nikon manual lenses. It certainly has a better build quality than the D70, my last camera. It has some shooting options that can prove quite versatile. All in all, an improvement over the D70, but not as dramatic as some would expect. The D70 is a great camera and were it not for the manual lens issue (I have at least a half dozen of these babies) I may have stayed with the D70.

[ratcheer]

So, if I got a D-200, I could use my AI-s lenses?

Tim

[HoustonianYankee]

So, if I got a D-200, I could use my AI-s lenses?

Tim

Yes. Exposure metering will work albeit less than with the modern lenses. Focus will remain manual but you will get verification of correct focus from the camera (same as D70).

[duna]

I really love this thread. Some 3 years ago I was tired of the good 'ol analog chemical hardware. I bought an expensive (for me , at least) digital camera , Nikon Coolpix 4500, that works great and I was happy and dreaming a digi SLR ( I resisted only because full format SLR were, and are, really expensive and a dubious investment for an amateur). Then 2 years ago I went on a 3 weeks raid in the Sahara desert (precisely, in Akakus, Libya). I dropped inside the luggage an old Russian mod.122K SLR (the least expensive camera I own) - just in case.
I was bited. 2 weeks in the voyage, my russian SLR was the last man standing. Everything else jammed (including all ballpens, and we really missed some pencil or maybe a fountain pen). The desert is a severe environment. I was astonished by the results I had from the old film camera in such extreme environment (heat, dust, soot, dirt, vibrations, nothing was spared). The camera stopped only when I ran out of film.
http://zemlya.atspace.com/lybia/index.htm
So, I bought many glasses and cameras around the 35mm format, and I had really astounding results. I respect digital, it's the future, but believe me classic photography is still alive. Even dead formats (127, double 8 mm , super8 and the like) still manage to limp. The Internet is a great source of strange and hard-to-find materials (we know this too well) still produced somewhere by some obscure specialist. By now, the best value-for-money is in film, it's a century old technology (not really, but...) that always served us well . The future is digital, but what format, what 'standard' if any... who knows?

[farace]

The future is digital, but what format, what 'standard' if any... who knows?

I think another question that needs to be asked is what storage medium will stand the test of time. A photographic negative will always be able to be used. With digital, you not only have to ask which medium won't deteriorate over time (I've lost family photos on a not-so-old Zip disk), but which medium will still have the hardware necessary to retrieve the data? (Anyone still using a Bernoulli drive?). CD-Rs, from what I've read, have a finite lifespan. It's sounding like anyone storing their photos digitally will need to engage in a maintenance program, transferring images as media deteriorate and as technology marches forward, leaving formats behind.

[duna]

I think another question that needs to be asked is what storage medium will stand the test of time. A photographic negative will always be able to be used. With digital, you not only have to ask which medium won't deteriorate over time (I've lost family photos on a not-so-old Zip disk), but which medium will still have the hardware necessary to retrieve the data? (Anyone still using a Bernoulli drive?). CD-Rs, from what I've read, have a finite lifespan. It's sounding like anyone storing their photos digitally will need to engage in a maintenance program, transferring images as media deteriorate and as technology marches forward, leaving formats behind.

that's too true. Even with film... most ancient footage is lost (really old film shrinked with time and cannot be easily re-printed) and the preservation of old surfaces is a long struggle since Leonardo and the Cenacolo in Milan (that deteriorated still in the Reinassance :ohmy: and the surface was a strong wall)

The consequences of modern format wars (and evolution) is beyond imagination. A friend asked me some time ago how to 'eternally' protect the DVD movie of his marriage :tongue: and was shocked when he knew that there is not a way to 'guarantee' the preservation of his data for the posterity... only work, redundancies, backup and... timeless hope.

[HoustonianYankee]

that's too true. Even with film... most ancient footage is lost (really old film shrinked with time and cannot be easily re-printed) and the preservation of old surfaces is a long struggle since Leonardo and the Cenacolo in Milan (that deteriorated still in the Reinassance :ohmy: and the surface was a strong wall)

The consequences of modern format wars (and evolution) is beyond imagination. A friend asked me some time ago how to 'eternally' protect the DVD movie of his marriage :tongue: and was shocked when he knew that there is not a way to 'guarantee' the preservation of his data for the posterity... only work, redundancies, backup and... timeless hope.

"... in the long run, we're all dead". JM Keynes may have said this about economic theory but it applies to many other facets of life as well. Photoshop has created a new format for the digital negative to help deal with the proliferation of the raw formats out there(DNG) and enhance the prospects of a long-lived format. This appears to be developing some legs. I am confident that as technology changes, there will arise a technique to deal with the transition and we will be able to convert our media then, kind of like scanning old film/slides.

Sandro, your desert shots were quite beautiful but I question. Surely there is much to be said for using old (classic) technology for artistic effect. Some photographers use pin-hole cameras and Walker Evans(if memory serves me), in his latter years, became enamored with the Polaroid.

One medium is not BETTER than the other, although one might serve one person's needs better than another's. Use what makes you happy. I have an old TLR that I have been meaning to dust off and try out. But I doubt it will replace my D200.

[farace]

Walker Evans(if memory serves me), in his latter years, became enamored with the Polaroid.

IIRC, Ansel Adams loved the Polaroid as well. I enjoy doing things like emulsion transfers, but never got very good at it; it's been a while since I've touched any of my Polaroids (of which I have too many).

[duna]

Sandro, your desert shots were quite beautiful but I question. Surely there is much to be said for using old (classic) technology for artistic effect. Some photographers use pin-hole cameras and Walker Evans(if memory serves me), in his latter years, became enamored with the Polaroid.

Thank you, Dennis, believe me I don't deserve your compliments, but there landscapes were really STUNNING.

I really appreciated your post. Back then I bought the old Russian camera (very simple mechanics, only 5 time-settings, good optics, extremely unreliable under NORMAL circumstances) to 'study' some old-fashioned techniques, avoiding all the features (and the expression possibility and choices, of course) of modern electronics. A more radical choice was a pinhole camera... or a wooden frame optical bank (and some brave people uses those, along with rangefinder 6x9 and the like). The unexpected behaviour in the extremes of the desert was a total surprise, I joined a yahoo group devoted to russian cameras (zenitcamera group, ZCG) and I begun to learn again, a lot of interesting thing I lost in time , knowledge that faded from my memory. Many more cameras followed. And I'm still looking for a full-format digi-SLR (still damned expensive, and I have too much glass to crop it all 1.5x). Sigh :biggrin:



One medium is not BETTER than the other, although one might serve one person's needs better than another's. Use what makes you happy. I have an old TLR that I have been meaning to dust off and try out. But I doubt it will replace my D200.

I am not against digital, but film is not (still) dead and is (still) a rational choice, of course if you like Photoshop (I don't) you'll love the digital. Personally I find the film very simple and practical.
With a chisel, a brush, a TLR or a Canon digital full-format SLR, what's important is to express yourself. Digital or film, it's in my opinion only a sort of technical choice, they are closer than appear.

[Roman414]

Of all the cameras I have ever owned or used, the most pure fun, and the most instructive, was an old Cirroflex TLR, Top shutter speed of 1/200, as I recall. Shutter cocking and film advance were separate, uncoupled operations. No built-in light meter, of course. You used a hand-held meter until your eye got good enough that you didn't need a meter. You could do anything with that camera...there was very little technology to get in the way. The only limit was your own imagination. With digitals, focus, exposure, everything but composition is done by a computer chip. Then you process the shot with off-the-shelf software. Convenient and almost effortless, but hasn't something been lost?

[JonEdangerousli]

Slide rules.
Reel to reel tape.
Typewriters.

[HoustonianYankee]

Of all the cameras I have ever owned or used, the most pure fun, and the most instructive, was an old Cirroflex TLR, Top shutter speed of 1/200, as I recall. Shutter cocking and film advance were separate, uncoupled operations. No built-in light meter, of course. You used a hand-held meter until your eye got good enough that you didn't need a meter. You could do anything with that camera...there was very little technology to get in the way. The only limit was your own imagination. With digitals, focus, exposure, everything but composition is done by a computer chip. Then you process the shot with off-the-shelf software. Convenient and almost effortless, but hasn't something been lost?

Roman,
Many do not use auto feature in a digital camera just because you have it? Nor matrix metering just because it's available? I use aperture mode most often, and frequently resort to spot metering when I need to deal with a tough lighting situation. Frankly, I wouldn't buy a camera that doesn't provide these features.

As far as "off the shelf software" is concerned, I suggest that using Photoshop requires a GREAT deal of experience, feel,technical and yes artistic ability. This is not a simplistic program. Now, there are programs out there that do not require such a "buy in" of time and learning, but, that is for the true amateur, and not a photo enthusiast, which is what I thought this thread was addressing.

Yes, a digital camera does provide one with the ability to produce decent snapshots with only a modicum of skill. But that does not mean that it denies a skilled practitioner from using the added technology to produce something of the highest quality.

It really boils down to a matter of taste and preference since no metier is, per se, better than another.

[duna]

Yes, a digital camera does provide one with the ability to produce decent snapshots with only a modicum of skill. But that does not mean that it denies a skilled practitioner from using the added technology to produce something of the highest quality.

It really boils down to a matter of taste and preference since no metier is, per se, better than another.

Exact. Absolutely exact. As an example , Cartier Bresson, if my memory is correct, made all his important work with a simple Leica rangefinder and a single 50mm lens, and discarded all this for a canvas frame and colors and brushes, tagging all his previous photographic work as a series of extremely fast paintings. That's __not__ implying that photoshopping pictures isn't art... photoshop is only a different, and extremely powerful and refined (and difficult to master) ... brush, or tool. I've seen pictures of the long gone (1980) shop of the last Zanotti gunmaker artisan, a XVII sec. shop in downtown Bologna, without electric power or light, and there they made incredible pieces... by hand, file, hammer and chisel. Art is in the mind and taste and ability of the artist.
Cellini used wax and bronze and gold, Cartier Bresson film and oil paint, and artists in the 22th century will look down to our digital equipment thinking...Those masters of the past... HOW they made such stunning work with such rough devices? :lol:

[Haiku]

What a very interesting discussion this has become.

It looks to me like this thread has gone so far beyond the question originally posted, ie. what should a new photographer buy, a film or a digital camera, that I suspect the original poster is likely rather befuddled.

[JonEdangerousli]

Perhaps he should repost it as a poll?

[Haiku]

Slide rules.
Reel to reel tape.
Typewriters.

Vinyl LP records.

Fountain pens.

DE razors.

[JonEdangerousli]

Vinyl LP records.

Fountain pens.

DE razors.

I think the analogy breaks down much more severely when you get to the DE. There is not a "modern" product that I've found that improves upon the quality of shave that you get with a DE (or straight for that matter).

Maybe I'm rationalizing?

[HoustonianYankee]

What was the question????????????????????

[ouch]

Slide rules.
Reel to reel tape.
Typewriters.

Abacus.
Wax.
Pencil.

[farace]

I think the analogy breaks down much more severely when you get to the DE. There is not a "modern" product that I've found that improves upon the quality of shave that you get with a DE (or straight for that matter).

Maybe I'm rationalizing?

To my ear, CDs have not improved upon the quality of vinyl. And ballpoints have certainly not improved upon the quality of fountain pens.

"Progress" might make methods that are cheaper and easier to use, but not always better. Sometimes, but not always. (But we're always told it is.)

But hey, I've got an 8-track player. And a couple of Victrolas. :001_smile

[ratcheer]

Slide rules.
Reel to reel tape.
Typewriters.

Man, I love slide rules! Now, I have to go find my old one from my Georgia Tech days. :wink:

Tim

[JonEdangerousli]

We went to the moon with slide rules.

One of my favorite stories about the difference between the US and the USSR comes from the space race. The US spent a million dollars to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity. The USSR used a pencil.

[ratcheer]

But hey, I've got an 8-track player. And a couple of Victrolas. :001_smile

I no longer have an 8-track player, but I do have a Victrola. :cool:

Tim

[farace]

One of my favorite stories about the difference between the US and the USSR comes from the space race. The US spent a million dollars to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity. The USSR used a pencil.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

[JonEdangerousli]

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

FTFA:
"The lesson of this anecdote is a valid one, that we sometimes expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a "high-tech" solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple solution is right before us."

&

"Fisher spent over one million dollars in trying to perfect the ball point pen before he made his first successful pressurized pens in 1965."

Fisher being an American it is correct to say that the US spent a million dollars developing the pen. Whether the US government paid that much for them is a different statement, although it is semantics. The Russians did use pencils. Again, whether they used the Fisher pen when it was developed or not the statement still holds.

[farace]

But where it doesn't work is 1) Fisher was never asked to develop the pen; he saw a business opportunity and used his own money and approached NASA only after he had developed the pen. He never asked for reimbursement of his R&D costs. 2) Pencils are dangerous in an oxygen environment; the original story implies that pencils were the low-tech perfectly good solution, when in fact they were not a solution at all, they were the problem. Besides the fire danger, there was the danger from floating pencil debris. Yes, the Russians used pencils, but so did we, and they needed to be replaced with something safer.

I agree that we often go high-tech when it's unnecessary, but Snopes also stated that this was not an example of that. I'm sure we can find another example of an overengineered "solution" to a very simple problem. The Power Fusion comes to mind . . . :biggrin: (And I'm still trying to figure out diet water--what the hell is that? But that's a solution where there was no problem to begin with.)

[JonEdangerousli]

Isn't that the ultimate description of marketing? Creating (and selling) a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?

[farace]

Isn't that the ultimate description of marketing? Creating (and selling) a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?

Or sometimes going so far as to create the problem in the first place? :wink:

[Duggo]

After going digital, I could never shoot only a roll of film every two weeks. I used to shoot about that much with film, because I just didn't want to spend more on it. Now often shoot 50 shots in a day, sometimes many more. I shot over 5000 shots last year. At $15 a roll for a 36 shot roll, that would be over $2000, twice what I paid for my D70.

With me, I took a class where I had to finish a roll of 36 exposures in two weeks. I couldn't do it because, I was too worried about getting the perfect shot, for the money I was paying. (15.00 - I think for the roll and 15 to develop) so it had better be good!

When I bought my Olympus C-2100UZ in 2001, and I went into class the next week, the teacher said, "I expect great things from you Duggo." Suffice to say, she was pleased with what I handed in. I definitely felt a certain freedom and I wasn't always thinking about the cost involved. It was definitely the right move for me. Unfortunately, 6 years later, 1, they still haven't come out with the perfect camera, and 2, I'm in need of an upgrade.

[paydepst]

Isn't that the ultimate description of marketing? Creating (and selling) a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?

Isn't that sort of what King Gillette did with his safety razor?

[JonEdangerousli]

Exactly the example I was thinking of.

[mnealtx]

I disagree with the posting about startup times and costs. Modern digital SLRs have startup times less than 2 seconds - by the time you have the camera up to your eye, it's ready to take the shot.

As to cost - yes, film is cheaper than ever but there is still the processing cost for the film. The price difference between a decent film camera and a decent digital camera will be absorbed by the processing costs of 100-150 rolls of 36 exp film. Prints, of course, would be the same cost. Digital has the advantage of being able to change "speed" in midstream - going from ASA 100 to ASA 400 in a film camera requires wasting at least part of a roll of film.

A final thought, for those considering digital - while both Canon and Nikon are good cameras, Canon has less noise at the higher ISO speeds.

[mnealtx]

Amongst other things Ken Rockwell also discusses film SLRs and large and medium format cameras on his website.

I am not affiliated with Ken Rockwell in any way but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other night. :smile:


There's plenty of better sites to get info than KR... he's been caught in quite a number of (shall we say) exaggerations. Sites like POTN (www.photography-on-the.net), FM (www.fredmiranda.com) and others would serve you better.

[Roman414]

How long do you want the photos to last? Do you want your grandchildren to have a photographic record of what the world looked like in Grandpa's day? There are prints and negatives a hundred years old. What is going to happen to your digital images? If you want them to have any permanence, every few years you are going to have to copy them to new media as old media becomes obsolete. Could be a pain in the ass if you have thousands of shots. And every time you copy, you lose a little image quality.

[paydepst]

There's plenty of better sites to get info than KR... he's been caught in quite a number of (shall we say) exaggerations. Sites like POTN (www.photography-on-the.net), FM (www.fredmiranda.com) and others would serve you better.

Really? I always found him to be spot on. Do you have an example to cite? I don't know why he would be motivated to embellish since he doesn't accept advertising.

[Haiku]

For my money, the best site on the net is rogerandfrances.com It's run by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz. What those two don't know about photography, including digital, isn't worth knowing.

They have a photoschool with both free and paid lessons. Read the free lessons before spending the money to subscribe. It cost $20 per year to subscribe and it's the best $20 I've ever spent on photography.

[rusirius]

A few comments about some posts (since this is the first time I've even paid attention to this one). Anything not stated as fact is of course my own opinion...

Wil: Shoot time on a digital SLR often times can exceed that of a film camera. Take for instance the Canon 30D... It has a .15 second start up time. That may not be the 0 second start up time of a film, but you also have to consider focus time, etc. MOST digital SLR's (if you're using newer glass intended for digital SLRs) actually have much faster drives for the autofocus... Therefore it can actually get a shot off faster than with a film camera. Unless of course you're talking manual focus, but in that case a .15 second difference isn't gonna make any difference at all.

Ontario: You said "To process and print film costs the same as printing digital images." This is not true at all. To begin with, when processing film images, you're paying for the development as well as the printing. When processing digital images, you're paying only for the printing, thus it's by far a cheaper option. Further, when processing digital images you can process ONLY the images you want. You have no choice however than to develop an entire roll of film. Even if you choose not to print the entire roll, your costs are still higher. (Not to mention the original price of the film).

You also said "pick up a used film camera and a roll of 400 film and you'll be getting better pictures than from a $1000 digital". This also just isn't true. Leaving the debate that it's the photographer not the camera that determines the quality of the pictures behind, keeping all other things the same, almost ANY digital SLR will take "better" pictures than a 35mm film SLR. While it's true that the CCD in a digital camera is either the same size or in many cases smaller than a 35mm frame, the actual sensors on the CCD are actually smaller than a grain of film. I have printed 24x36 prints off my digital SLR even without post-processing to remove noise which had almost no grain at all in the image. On the other hand, I also have 24x36 prints from 100iso 35mm film which you have to stay back quite a ways to keep the grain from becoming rather distracting. Obviously this doesn't apply for the medium format and landscape cameras, but you'll not be picking up and operating any of those for pennies...

You also mention scanning the negatives if you want to manipulate the images on a computer. Have you ever done this yourself? If you have, have you ever compared it to an equivelent picture pulled off a digital camera? I have a film scanner I paid $1200 for USED, and it won't scan a negative with nearly the quality of an image from my digital SLR. That's WITH all it's extra processing it does to improve the image. Again the issue is grain. Try using one of the "negative" attachments that comes with your typical consumer grade scanner... Those things provide scanned images from negatives that are absolutely worthless.

LetterK: You mention the megapixels and the size of the prints. That's very true, but it's also important to mention that megapixels aren't everything... Many consumers get wrapped up in the whole "megapixel" frenzy... I'll never forget the time I was shooting with my 20D (8.4MP) and a guy started asking me questions about it, including megapixels and cost... Then immediately pulls out his point and shoot and says, "Yeah, guess you're kinda mad about all these new cameras coming out. I bought this one two weeks ago and it's 10 megapixels, but only cost me $150! Bet you wouldn't have thought when spending that much money that a few months later you could have bought a better camera for a fraction of the cost?"
Needless to say I busted out laughing so hard I couldn't even explain. He walked off kinda bewildered.
Megapixels mean NOTHING... Well okay, it means something... It means how many pixels they've crammed onto that CCD... It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the image it can generate. Only, as John pointed out, how large of a print can be made without seeing those pixels (i.e. like film grain). However, what is MUCH more important is the amount of noise the CCD generates. When all those sensors and capacitors are fired up, they can actually capture "noise" from their neighbors. This "noise" actually gets worse the tighter you pack these things in, which is why in a lot of cases, given an 8x10 print for example, a 4 megapixel camera can often make a print FAR superior than a 10 megapixel camera.
This is also why an 8 megapixel camera of one type or brand may only cost $100, while another costs hundreds more... It's not because of extra "features" on the camera, etc... It's because the CCD is much lower noise.

Farace: A photographic negative will always be able to be used? Negatives can have all sorts of things happen to them, the most obvious of which is scratches... Not to mention they're just plain easy to lose. You're looking at digital in a completely wrong way... First, it's completely medium independant... That's what makes it so wonderful... It's nothing more than a stream of bits (ones and zeros)... It can be transfered from one storage medium to another at whim... I have images on my hard drive, backup drive, memory cards, CD's, DVD's, memory sticks, you name it... I can go out to my PC and make a full backup of every photograph I've ever taken (including film that I've scanned) with a couple of quick clicks... How to you suggest making backups of those film negatives? Not with a few clicks I can tell you that... As technology changes, a few more clicks will be all that's needed to "migrate" to it... It couldn't get much easier than that. Also, CD-Rs and DVD-/+R's do have a finite life span, since the ink will break down over time.. Right now that's estimated to be around 150 to 200 years.

Roman414: You say, "Every time you copy you lose a little image quality". Again this couldn't be further from the truth... You're aligning your thinking back to analog technolgy (and in truth the same technology you're defending). It's ANALOG that suffers generation loss from copying... Not digital... Audio cassetes for instance loss parts of the data they represent each time you copy one... However, I can copy a CD hundreds of thousands of times over, and it'll still be EXACTLY the same as the one before it... Why? Because digital is just that, binary... Ones and zeros... If I have a byte (01100101) and copy it to a new byte it's STILL going to be (01100101).. It's not going to suddenly become (0[maybe one]1[almost zero]01[not quite zero][maybe 1])... I can copy it a billion times over, and it STILL stays exactly the same... (not to mention I can even introduce things like parity bits to actually PROTECT against any sort of loss suffered by a storage medium failure.)

[ouch]

You mentioned parity bits, which is one of the great advantages of digital transmission- error detection.

Any error detection scheme does basically this- a calculation is performed on the packet of information being sent at the transmitting end and the result of that calculation is sent along with the packet. At the receiving end, the same calculation is performed, and it is compared to the answer that was received. It may be as simple a calculation as "add up the total number of 1's sent, and determine if the sum is odd or even", or involve the heady mathematics found in cyclical redundancy checks (CRC errors). The fromer case is called a parity check, and will tell if you're off by one single bit (or an odd number of bits, for that matter). Errors in transmission involve a single bit over 96% of the time, so even this simple technique is effective.

What's more poweful than error detection is error correction. Calculations may be performed to isolate which bit (in a stream of predetermined length) has suffered the error. Then it's a simple matter of flopping the bit (1 for 0, or vice versa) in that slot to acheive error correction.

[jazzman]

almost ANY digital SLR will take "better" pictures than a 35mm film SLR. While it's true that the CCD in a digital camera is either the same size or in many cases smaller than a 35mm frame, the actual sensors on the CCD are actually smaller than a grain of film. I have printed 24x36 prints off my digital SLR even without post-processing to remove noise which had almost no grain at all in the image. On the other hand, I also have 24x36 prints from 100iso 35mm film which you have to stay back quite a ways to keep the grain from becoming rather distracting. Obviously this doesn't apply for the medium format and landscape cameras

That's true as far as it goes, but the one area in which 35 mm film still has an advantage is contrast. Film will record a greater range of dark to light "data" than digital. If the digital medium records pure white or black because it can't get that last portion of information, no amount of work on the computer will put it back, but if film catches it, a print can be made that shows it. In practice, this is almost meaningless for most photographers and most images, but I have a few framed prints that would have ended up as deleted files if I had used digital.

[mnealtx]

Really? I always found him to be spot on. Do you have an example to cite? I don't know why he would be motivated to embellish since he doesn't accept advertising.

A few examples:

"The low magnification of an ultra-ultra wide 14mm lens allows longer speeds than a normal lens." - um...no, it doesn't. With that said, you can get away with handheld at a slower shutter speed with a short lens, but it's it's not due to magnification.

He consistently says that "tripods are for the weak" - not a very astute thought for a purported landscape photographer, where exposures could be several seconds.

Then there's the whole "left handed Nikon" issue... :rolleyes:

Try POTN (photography-on-the.net) for Canonites, or ByThom (www.bythom.com) if you're a Nikon nut - you'll get better info.

[paydepst]

Point taken Mike. Still he was always spot on for the information I consulted him for. The left handed Nikon is a new one however. Good to have some more websites to consult however.

[mnealtx]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there's not good info on his site, just that some of his comments are a bit questionable, that's all.

Have fun with the other sites - some great info there!

[icemncmth]

Also, CD-Rs and DVD-/+R's do have a finite life span, since the ink will break down over time.. Right now that's estimated to be around 150 to 200 years.


Actually CD-Rs and DVD...r's etc life span can be as
short as a week depending on how you store them...The companies that make them want you to think they will last a lifetime but I wouldn't trust them over a year in perfect storage. the bubbles in the gel begin to break down over time...and UV light, heat have a lot to do with it..

Roman414: You say, "Every time you copy you lose a little image quality". Again this couldn't be further from the truth... You're aligning your thinking back to analog technolgy (and in truth the same technology you're defending). It's ANALOG that suffers generation loss from copying... Not digital... Audio cassetes for instance loss parts of the data they represent each time you copy one... However, I can copy a CD hundreds of thousands of times over, and it'll still be EXACTLY the same as the one before it... Why? Because digital is just that, binary... Ones and zeros... If I have a byte (01100101) and copy it to a new byte it's STILL going to be (01100101).. It's not going to suddenly become (0[maybe one]1[almost zero]01[not quite zero][maybe 1])... I can copy it a billion times over, and it STILL stays exactly the same... (not to mention I can even introduce things like parity bits to actually PROTECT against any sort of loss suffered by a storage medium failure.)


Digital does loose bits as it is copied ...That is why when loading programs onto computers they sometimes don't work right. Most of the time the program used to copy a file is to blame...it also has to do with the buffer overflow. Bits can be lost when the ram fills up and buffers over to the drive...this happens more than you think on large pictures..there is a lot of information on that is being transfered and they do loose some information...

Heat build up is probably the biggest cause of bit loss....Processing large files, even moving, transfering them causes heat build up in a computer. As the information moves through the system the heat can cause some fluctuation in the quality of the information.

Also you have to look at the hardware itself. Let say you are going to backup a 100 gig HD full of your photo's...and the read head is not functioning properly...you could loose everything..

I have several computer customers and I do backup on their systems all the time...but I am redundant and this keeps my loss at a minimum.

Digital has it's faults and so does film...

It still will be a while before digital replaces my 8x10" large format...it makes a great contact sheet!...LOL

[rusirius]

[COLOR="red"]Digital does loose bits as it is copied ...That is why when loading programs onto computers they sometimes don't work right. Most of the time the program used to copy a file is to blame...it also has to do with the buffer overflow. Bits can be lost when the ram fills up and buffers over to the drive...this happens more than you think on large pictures..there is a lot of information on that is being transfered and they do loose some information...


With all due respect, speaking as someone who has been involved with computers for the last 25 years, is the Director of Information Technology for a large company, have experience with networking, programming (C++, C#, VB, ASM, Pascal, etc), and yes, even designing both digital and analog circuits, let me be the first to say, You frankly have no idea what you're talking about.
Bits don't just "dissappear". A "bit" in a digital circuit is represented by a potential (a voltage). Let's take standard TTL logic for example. Generally a "0" is represented by a 0 voltage... a "1" is represented by a 5 voltage. When a "bit" is shipped off on a data bus, that bus is either raised to 5 volts, or left off at 0 volts. That's where transitors come in and make computers possible, they are "switches" that turn on or off.
In other words, when a transistor or "bit" is ON, the voltage doesn't just magically dissappear sometimes resulting in it being read as a 0 instead of a 1...

RAM is a different story... current RAM technology is "charged" much like a capacitor. Much like a battery or capacitor, that charge can "fade" over time... This is precisely why RAM is "cycled"... In other words, every so many nanoseconds, every single bit stored in ram is read, and then re-written. This "refreshes" the bit for that next cycle. Further, RAM does use CRC checks and parity to ensure that even if by some chance a bit is "lost", it is corrected...

Programs not working once they are loaded have NOTHING to do with "lost bits"... It can have any number of a thousand reasons... It could be an incompatibility with any of the hundreds of dynamically linked libraries... It could be an incompatibility with certain hardware, hardware drivers, operating system, etc...

You mention "buffer overruns"... First of all, a "buffer overrun" has nothing to do with running out of ram and it "spilling" over to the hard drive. When you are getting low on system ram, most operating systems utilize what's called a "page file". This page file or paging ram is set up to model system ram in how it's accessed, but instead uses the hard drive as a medium. The OS will take the memory allocations (every program running must allocate certain areas of memory by utilizing calls to the OS. If the application wants more ram, it must make another call to alloc more, etc) Anyway, it will take the memory allocations for a specific program (it tries to choose processes that are dormant) and move their memory allocations over to the page file. Still though, this does NOT result in any data loss in these processes. In fact, if you understand the structure of a file (take for instance a .jpg file), especially a compressed file like a .jpg, you'll understand that "losing" bits doesn't result in less quality, but rather a "major destruction" of the image... I urge you to try the folowing... Take a .jpg file, any image you want... Open it in a byte editor. Now just change a few bytes here and there and save the file back out. What you'll find is that you didn't just change a few pixels, or change the brightness, contrast, etc... Instead you probably ended up with HUGE bars of solid colors, or areas which are completely unreadable.
In other words, "loseing bits" is NOT common, and when it does happen, the results are NOT just "small degradations", but rather actual destruction of the source.

Coincidently, stepping back for a moment, a "buffer overrun" has to do with program code. Remember I told you when writing a program you must allocate every area of memory you intend to you? Occasionally a programmer will make a silly mistake... For example, if I allocate a variable for a numeric value to be a double (assuming a 32-bit store, a double would be 64-bit, or 8 bytes). A double has 52 bits for the mantissa, 11 bits for the exponent, and 1 bit for the sign. With that in mind, the absolute largest number I can store in a memory space designated as a doube is 1.7976931348623157 x 10^308. Now let's say I have a variable called "dblMyNumber" that currently has the above number in it, and then I do something silly like this:

dblMyNumber += dblMyNumber (<--- Adds dblMyNumber to itself and then stores the result back into dblMyNumber)

or for that matter even:

dblMyNumber += 1 (<--- Adds 1 to dblMyNumber and stores the result back into itself)

What results is a "buffer overrun"... My number no longer fits within 8 bytes of space, so what happens is, the extra bytes "run over" or "buffer overflow" into another section of memory... If my process is running with high enough rights, this can even be an area of memory that has nothing to do with my process.

In fact, this is why "buffer overrrun" errors are most commonly used to "hack" into a system. If let's say a programmer defines 60 bytes for a string array, but they never "limit" or make sure that an input field doesn't exceed 60 bytes, a very LONG string can be passed to the process... It can contain extraneous information that can overrun even into the system areas, and cause code execution, etc that results in administrative rights being granted, shells firing up under the root user, etc...

Anyway, I digress...


As the information moves through the system the heat can cause some fluctuation in the quality of the information.
Once again, there is no "quality" of the information... it's all boiled down to 1's and 0's... Heat CAN cause a system to fail, but not to lose "quality" in it's files.



Also you have to look at the hardware itself. Let say you are going to backup a 100 gig HD full of your photo's...and the read head is not functioning properly...you could loose everything..

Sure, in the case of a hardware failure something like this could happen... But to begin with, if the files can't be read due to a hardware failure, the OS is going to be kind enough to notify you that it couldn't read the file(s). I don't think anyone on this forum is silly enough to "backup" their files, ignore all the "source file could not be read" messages, and then proceed to delete all the original files...

Yes files can be lost due to hardware malfunctions... That's the point of backups in the first place... But they do NOT lose quality... .jpg, .raw., .tga, .tiff, or .psd images don't just suddenly start looking fuzzy or losing detail because they've been copied too many times... .wav's, .mp3's, .aiff's, etc don't just start sounding worse and worse because of excessive copies... My word documents don't just start looking more fuzzy when they are printed, or having A's start to look like a pre-schooler drew them...

In the worlds of 1's and 0's, there's no in between...

[ScottS]

Here we have a hallway with huge enlargements of the Med School graduating class photos. You can tell INSTANTLY which year it was that the school photographer went digital from the fuzziness of the enlargements. I'm sure the photographer always used up to the minute pro equipment. Of course, the digital SLRs of today have tons of Megapixels more than the pro gear of yesterday-- but if my business involved huge enlargements, I'd still go with film.

[chrish]

I could be wrong but I think film is better for low light work where higher iso's are needed. Film may get granier at higher iso's but I think most people would rather have grain than noise.

What about wide angle lenses? Who can find a wide-angle digital lens (not fisheye) that can match the fov of a 12mm wide-angle for film. Don't forget that a 12mm wide-angle on digital doesn't have the same fov anymore because of the crop factor.

You can find and get film processed for less than $15 these days too. I roll and process my own b&w. I'm probably spending $3 a roll for a roll of 36 exposures including developing. Thats hardly braking the bank and I'm in school without a job.

I think TTL flash metering works better on film cameras. Something to do with light not bouncing off of a ccd as well as film does. Sure there's i-ttl and d-ttl and what else, but I don't think they work as reliably as "analog" ttl did.

Plus, not really a film/digital thing, more of a new/old thing, with older cameras that had the DOF printed on the lenses you could set your lens at the hyperfocal distance and not worry about focusing for the rest of the day. Not having to focus is quicker than autofocus can ever be. Also, older film cameras could work without batteries.

I dont really have a film/digital preference, I just use film because it's all I got. Just fanning the fire here.

[cr8n]

My Canon xti with an 85mm f/1.8 lens takes better shots, sans flash, than my old Olympus OM-1 ever did.

And all of the upfront costs (in fact almost all the costs, period) are known.

Only on a traditional shaving forum could anyone ever have a serious debate about film vs digital photography.

Oh.

Wait.

Where are we again?

[chrish]

thats very relative and vague.

[Haiku]

There really is no debate as far as many people are concerned. For many, and I'm one of those, there is no question but that film is better.

That isn't to say that digital is just great for many folks as well, but when 9,000 professional photographers were surveyed by Kodak, they chose film over digital. Kodak has, in part as a result of this, introduced a new black and white film. So there it is: Kodak, which is doing what it can to reposition itself from a film company to a digital company, has introduced a new black and white film of all things.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2007/09/c9349.html

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a807b9764

[ouch]

Film will be around for awhile for fine arts applications, but for the regular Joe, it's no longer a viable option.
The only film I'll likely continue to use is medium format and up. Even those days are numbered.

[chrish]

Kodak, which is doing what it can to reposition itself from a film company to a digital company, has introduced a new black and white film of all things.

they updated their portra films last year too.

[Haiku]

they updated their portra films last year too.

Yes, they did didn't they. I have a few rolls of their VC 160 and it is truly wonderful stuff. Fuji also updated their films and has introduced 100 ASA Velvia which they advertise produces finer grain than their 50 ASA. I've not tried it yet, but their 100 ASA is just great.

I think Ouch is right that film looks like it will be around for a while, and I hope a long while. I don't think that it isn't a viable option, but that's not something I would debate.

[micah1_8]

You know, all I really want is a digital equivalent to the Pentax k1000. I'd love to have 1:1 conversion factor on the lenses... use old pentax glass... I'd even be willing to give up access to a preview screen, if it meant that I could have a full frame sensor. If you know how your camera works, you shouldn't need that screen anyway. I'd just love to be able to eliminate the need for developing/scanning, and just insert the card and download. I sometimes think that the instant gratification aspect of digital hurts my art; With film, you have to trust that you got the shot right-- you have to trust your skills and your equipment. Besides, sometimes it's the shots that weren't quite "right" that later appeal to you. What do they call them? Happy Accidents.

That said, I almost always shoot digital now. 2.3 megapixel photosmart 912 It's kind of like an slr, but without interchangeable lenses. It's much derided, but I tell you, I get excellent 8x10 prints and I'm happy with it.

Funny, photography is sort of like shaving... who needs 23 heated vibrating blades with a flexi-core shaft when a '61 Gillette Speedster still works fine? Who needs 99 gigapixels and a "movie mode" with built in cellular service and mp3 playing capabilities?

ok, I'm starting to sound a little old-mannish... :incazzato Back in my day....

[chrish]

You know, all I really want is a digital equivalent to the Pentax k1000.

my dad picked up a pentax k10d. It can take k-mount lenses and i think its the closest we'll see to a k1000 for a little while.

and it can take one of the thinnest pancakes i've ever seen!

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Compact-Samsung-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00077KMXG/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8983729-4376922?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1193972459&sr=8-1

[Haiku]

You know, all I really want is a digital equivalent to the Pentax k1000. I'd love to have 1:1 conversion factor on the lenses... use old pentax glass... I'd even be willing to give up access to a preview screen, if it meant that I could have a full frame sensor. If you know how your camera works, you shouldn't need that screen anyway. I'd just love to be able to eliminate the need for developing/scanning, and just insert the card and download. I sometimes think that the instant gratification aspect of digital hurts my art; With film, you have to trust that you got the shot right-- you have to trust your skills and your equipment. Besides, sometimes it's the shots that weren't quite "right" that later appeal to you. What do they call them? Happy Accidents.

That said, I almost always shoot digital now. 2.3 megapixel photosmart 912 It's kind of like an slr, but without interchangeable lenses. It's much derided, but I tell you, I get excellent 8x10 prints and I'm happy with it.

Funny, photography is sort of like shaving... who needs 23 heated vibrating blades with a flexi-core shaft when a '61 Gillette Speedster still works fine? Who needs 99 gigapixels and a "movie mode" with built in cellular service and mp3 playing capabilities?

ok, I'm starting to sound a little old-mannish... :incazzato Back in my day....


I understand that the new Pentax digitals take the old lenses, but you should look into it to confirm. You might find that your old lens collection has been given new life.

I know that the digital/film argument is really more akin to a religious argument than a technical one. For me, digital is just way too expensive for what it delivers. My entire rig including a top-notch tripod cost me in the range of $500 or so and includes some fabulous macro equipment (a 100mm macro lens, an auto-bellows unit) as well as a host of other accessories. It costs me between $10 and $15 to purchase and print high quality 36 exp. film. It costs way less for me to process traditional silver halide black and white.

If and when film is no longer available and when I can get the same quality at the same price using digital, I'll switch. Actually, what I'm really waiting for is medium or large format digital. At the moment such a set-up runs into the tens of thousands of dollars.

I'll have to look into the 23 vibrating blades on a flexi-core shaft. It sounds intriguing. :smile: Actually, one of the best laughs I've had about shaving was when I heard that Gillette started marketing their new electric multi-blade. Their opinion about the "best a man can get" turns out to be an electric vibrator.

[jazzman]

Last month, I made the leap from 35 mm. SLR to digital SLR--a Canon EOS 40D. I also bought Photshop Elements 6 and the "Missing Manual." I am very impressed with the capabilities of the camera and the software (which could take a lifetime to master). Everything I ever dreamed of doing with a darkroom or advanced in-camera film techniques seems to be within my reach. I'm making time to go out and use the thing, and not having to worry about wasting film is very liberating. Most importantly, I'm satisfied with the prints I'm getting from my relatively inexpensive printer.

[Hobbesoxon]

Good work, Jazzman.

I guess the biggest advantage for me is the control of the "speed", without need to actually replace films, or have separate cameras. Just clicking "ISO 400" is too convenient to avoid, especially when the quality of modern digitals is soooo decent.


Toodlepip,

Hobbes

[jazzman]

Good work, Jazzman.

I guess the biggest advantage for me is the control of the "speed", without need to actually replace films, or have separate cameras. Just clicking "ISO 400" is too convenient to avoid, especially when the quality of modern digitals is soooo decent.


Toodlepip,

Hobbes

I'm seeing little or no difference between 100 and 400 (although today's 400 speed film also is great). But the super high ISO settings on the DSLR are just amazing, and the ability to go to a slower speed without jeopardizing or wasting the unused portion of a roll of 800 or 1600 (expensive!) is just too convenient. Should we feel guilty for being lazy or feel like we're cheating? Of course not.

[Hobbesoxon]

I'm seeing little or no difference between 100 and 400 (although today's 400 speed film also is great). But the super high ISO settings on the DSLR are just amazing, and the ability to go to a slower speed without jeopardizing or wasting the unused portion of a roll of 800 or 1600 (expensive!) is just too convenient. Should we feel guilty for being lazy or feel like we're cheating? Of course not.

True enough; maybe you can see more of a difference under lower ambient light conditions. Of course, all this convenience means that I frequently forget to set my ISO back from its previous setting, and wonder my my shutter speeds aren't working as I'd expect... :)


Toodlepip,

Hobbes