Digital cameras or film cameras—is one type better than the other?
Photo by notlob86 
My daughter and I went to Filoli Gardens over the weekend to take some pictures. She had a project to work on for her photography class and I was testing out my new digital camera. My daughter used her 35mm SLR camera because part of the project includes processing and developing the roll of film. I used a digital camera that has a few bells and whistles but is basically a travel/personal model-not a fancy, high-end digital SLR.
Once I got home, I uploaded my pictures and performed a few enhancements with software, such as cropping and adjusting the contrast, saturation, etc. I was really happy with the pictures in general (although I’m still getting used to the macro feature), and as I glanced over at my once-cherished Minolta X-700 (I know, it’s an oldie!), I wondered if I would ever need to load another roll of film again.
Of course, I’ve yet to see my daughter’s photos. She is a much better photographer than I am and she’ll probably do some creative things during the film-development process.
Still, I’m wondering if using film makes any difference for someone like me-an amateur photographer who may benefit from being able to snap away and delete the mistakes without worrying about the cost of buying and developing film.
What do you think? Any die-hard 35mm film fans out there? Do you have any preference between digital and film?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Subscribe
Digital cameras still don’t match large film professional cameras. Large film cameras have a much higher “resolution” than digital cameras.
Define “better”.
If you mean “is one more convenient than the other”, then, yes. Digital means no more “wet” darkroom in the spare bathroom. No more waiting on the kid at the corner 1-hour to scratch your negatives. It means instant results, “do-overs” (no wasted film), and print your own hard copies.
If you mean “does one take better pictures than the other”, then you don’t understand that it’s not the camera that takes/makes the picture. It’s the ten inches behind the viewfinder.
I actually saw a report on TV today about how they are stopping the making of film, and how there is only 1 film factory left making it (which is supposedly going to close soon?)
Digital has taken over…
Well a digital camera comes in handy and is easier and faster to get the pictures but no digitale camera can compare to a high-end proffesional camera the pictures quallity is so much better and the resolution is better and it’s a simple fact that taking pictures with film comes out much better but to answer your question for an amateur who just wants to snap some quick pictures a digital camera is much more cheaper and better you’ll get a good digital camera as cheap as $80 these days ( Wallmart ) but for a proffesional like your daughter have the latest in professional camera’s is better I only trust Nikon, I have one with manual zoom, a digital screen to show what’s gonna be on the film it has an excellent flash and you can get the film roll done or just download the pictures from my camera’s memory card to the pc and even print em or send to family so I think it’s a great buy! Hope I helped
idk
Lets hope they are wrong about disontinuing 35mm film, would put a lot of us out of business. Plus, like the MODEL A Ford ,they they are still around.
Lets keep a positive outlook on this.
Simple answer Film is better than Digital.
First of all I am a very keen semi professional photographer and I work in a photo lab so I can compare the two very easily.
Film is dying out but it is still massively produced by a few big companies, There are some smaller, more die-hard ones that do it too (they’ll still be making it for a good while yet).
As a lab technician digital photos always look poor, this is generally due to people not knowing how to properly use their cameras and taking them at too low resolutions, also poor photoshopping and file saving add to this.
We do an ok amount of disposable cameras, cheap and nasty so I’ll compare those to your basic digital cameras - in settings like wedding dances etc if they don’t use flash the photos are terrible and the bad thing for a photographer is that they can’t review their images to correct them…leading to disappointment. Using flash though can achieve brilliant photos.
In normal settings i.e. daylight, disposables do a great job, 7 times out of 10 I would say achieving a better image than a digital. it could be down to the ease of the camera compared to complexity of some digital compacts, which is just stupid sometimes.
A lot of the problems with these ones are simply that people can’t use them correctly. But I would say film wins this one.
Using 35mm SLR compared to compact digitals win again, because if people use them correctly the images WILL turn out better, depending on the film you use, say you use IS0 100 against a 10Megapixel camera, the grain of the film will turn out much better, this is simply because of the amount of grain the film has.
In terms of SLRs, using a digital SLR compared to a medium format camera, both will produce excellent images when used correctly. It can be a bit of a tie to be honest with you. I would say digital wins this one because of the fact although you can process 120 roll film at a shop (if they have the right cannister - most do) you can’t print from it because you need a special negative carrier for the mini lab. Most have 35mm, slides and APS film carriers, no medium format though.
Large format cameras are strictly professional, personally through my knowledge of them I would say film is better BUT digital is getting better all the time and it will soon beat it.
At the end of the day, I think both are equal at the moment, film will cease to be used widely but the hardcore won’t let it go without a figh!
The main problems are really that people can’t properly use their cameras and thus achieve poor results. In professional terms I think digital is a better professional medium and film is certainly a better artistic medium.
Also, the fact digital images can be erased so easily is a big problem for me, at least with film it’s physical and takes a lot to destroy it. I know you say you can back up digital but you can easily do the same with film these days.
rant over!
I would echo Danny, above. I’d also add that as a former freelance photographer, I worry about storage and archival qualities of the images I shoot. I’m still selling photos from 25-30 years ago. I scan film images (large format transparencies) and then print them on an inkjet printer.
With film I have an archival, hard copy that I can adapt to whatever technology is available. My scans are now on disc, but what happens in 5-10 yrs. when that technology is obsolete? I’ll rescan them onto whatever format is prevalent.
Remember floppy discs? Where would I be if my images were stored on them? The same will hold true with whatever storage device is in use today.
And I may be a Luddite, but I have yet to see a digital image that compares well with film. They seem flat and lifeless to me. But then again, I still mourn my record albums…
It depends on what you want. If you a normal camera user, have a decent digital camera, are at least somewhat handy with computer, and don’t need a lot of prints to hand out to relatives, I say digital.
If you have the recurring need to hand out a lot of prints to relatives, a film camera might be more convenient for those times.
If you are a professional, there is room for both high quality film and high quality digital. Some professional portrait photographers have moved to digital. Also for news people - digital photos can be quickly transferred to news outlets.
Contrary to what has been said here, The only thing being discontinued is the Polaroid self-developing film. The last plant for it has just discontinued it. The 35mm film will be around for many years yet. It is still the only medium that gives the quality pictures that are required by the picture printing industry such as magazines and coffee table books. Not only that but the same medium in different sizes is still being used by the movie industry. Until digital displays can equal the requirements of the film industry, the media will be produced.
I’ve made the switch from digital to film and don’t ever see going back. For several reasons, one, is cost. You can shoot shoot shoot, with digital, and it doesn’t cost you a thing except electrons on a memory card. Beyond that, look at what the pros are using. Nearly every person that makes a living with a camera has gone digital. It also gives you huge creativity with post processing. As far quality goes? Sensors are good enough to match nearly any film camera. Any doubt? look at the last Star Wars films, principle photography was done 100% digital, So if its sharp enough for a movie screen, its sharp enough for your home use.
As with ANY camera, digital or film, its optics that count. You can have a 1.21 Gigapixal sensor (small joke there) but if you have a crappy lens, you’ll have a crappy picture. You can’t cheat physics. Good lenses are good lenses
The thing is, yes, film does have higher resolution, depending of course on the speed of the film and the resolution of the digicam in comparison. BUT, you have to take the film to a lab that uses light and mirrors and lenses to make the prints, not lasers like most machines use now. Any lab that can make digital prints from the same machine uses scanners to make prints from negatives, so the improvement in resolution using film is lost anyway.
I’m still clinging to my N-90s. I’ll be hoarding film in my freezer.
We have an 8MPixel Digital SLR and a cheap 7.2MPixel digital camera. One we spent $149 for and the good camera we spent about $1000 for. You really do get what you pay for because the cheap digital camera does not really take go photo’s no matter what. Save you money and get a good one and you will be happy for life.
Digital can imitate film pretty well if you consider the software that goes along with it and the time to alter the original to get what you want.
Film in the darkroom is the print, it can be drawn from the film but isn’t, dodging and burning can be simulated now but remain obtuse to the qualities of paper and light so don’t really replace hand printing which is an art, see Ansel Adams, “The Print”, Little, Brown & Co., 2003.
Film records the scene. You can alter a print, but altering the film after it’s developed is pretty tricky …
Film records visible light and tone intensity differently than digital, even Kodacolor is a bit off here and there across the spectrum vs a ccd. Some of this can be faked in digital, but it takes editing to do that and that takes time.
My experience is that film is less prone to wash out shooting into the light source than average digitals.
Unless you want to carry a SLR, a wide-angle compact digital is hard to find under $500 (18mm-21mm).
For art there’s no end to film or digital, for other purposes digital costs less to shoot and use so for most things is the way to go, but by that digital also demands the photographer is framing and thinking each shot or having more is rather meaningless if quality is what you’re after.
I must admit, there are times my dad’s 35mm out-preform my Cannon PowerShot SX100. (Which I got for 200 bucks in Jan. or so) Things like slight shutter delay, and the occasional stabilizing problems still haunt me. He can also focus through the cage bars onto the animals at the zoo. But I was frustrated looking at my old prom photos he took (indoors)- my face was so blurry in all of them because I’m so used to digital quality.
With my camera, I have a great video option complete with a hidden microphone, great megapixels, awesome zoom, and I’m happy with the screen size. There have been times I snapped a picture of a bird and then zoomed in on it (on the camera) and then could tell the species. I was on a mission trip and took pictures of anatomical abnormalities on children and then showed them on the camera to a nurse for a quick diagnosis.
So. It just depneds on what you’re into.
I take pictures for fun and went digital. I’ll never go back. I think the pictures are much better then my little 35. I can even crop and get a closer shot! (I got enough pixals to insure I can do this. Lots of family and friends? no problem, I can print them my self or e-mail them to longs and pick them up.
Digital photography provide you with much more opportunity than with film cameras. You can remove red eye, crop, do multiple things with a single picture, and if you screw up you can always redo!
I have somewhat of an opposite story. I am not strictly a photographer- mostly I do illustration/cartooning. I grew up taking (lousy) pictures with 35mm film. But as soon as digital cameras became practical/affordable, I was into them. Fast forward to senior year of high school. I took a photography class to fill an empty elective. Everything was done manually. Pinhole cameras, SLRs, developing, enlarging and printing, everything. I loved it. There is something thrilling about taking a picture and not knowing how it will come out, and being responsible for every step in the process to the finished product. Unfortunately, now that I don’t have access to the school’s darkroom, it’s a different story.
Both manual and digital cameras have their pros and cons. I own a DSLR Canon Rebel XT, but I also own a Diana+ that uses 120 format film (and want to invest in a Holga 35mm). And yes, I know places that develop and sell 120 film.
Step aside and get out of the way of the future, you film lovers! I feel your pain but have no sympathy for you, having made my living in the printing industry for many years.
When I was still very young, having already “learned” my trade, I was alarmed at the technology that threatened to put me out of business if I didn’t learn anything new…
When I first saw a black and white laser print back in the 1980’s I said “Well it’s OK, I guess but this will never replace photo-typesetting”. Within five years, most typesetters were out of business.
“OK”, I thought, “But somebody still needs to paste everything up and shoot halftones…” Wrong again. And again, and again.
It didn’t take me much longer to realize that the past is over and there are always new, better, and less expensive ways to get things done.
Digital photography will completely replace continuous tone film within a couple of years.
We are living in some fast-moving times and if you try to cling to past technology telling yourself that the quality is better so it’s worth the additional expense and inconvenience, you are going to be left far behind.
im a amateur photographer my self and my teachers have always told me that film or digital theres no “better” they have different perks thats it… hopfully that helped you
I actually think it is very much to the benefit of the beginner to shoot film. Digital makes it easier to take “mindless” photographs, while taking film and operating a manual camera mean paying attention to things like lighting, framing the shot (as opposed to just cropping it later), and many more fundamentals of good photography.
The “snapping away and deleting mistakes” thing actually resolves itself with film. Once you start thinking about your shots, you get better and better at taking them.
Film has always been better and will always be better… you cant get better quality than film honeslty the resolution is way more perfect than digital… digital has issues with pixles sometimes and film you dont have those issues… i do like digital but overall film rules end of story!!!!!!
With film you can crop to your heart’s content and still come up with a decent 11×14. You can get a decent 35mm with 5 lenses on eBay for the price of a comprable Nikon.
It’s really all about vision. Sometimes you do not see the possibility until you are looking at the slide or proof sheet then the creative aspect kicks in. Don’t get me wrong, I now take digital pics almost exclusively but if I’m printing for a show, I go to my negatives and slides. Have aspirations in the print world? Better off with film.
It does not matter whether you use film or digital. It all depends on the person behind the lens. I, personally, prefer to use my 35mm cameras, but since they are not as portable and the film can get a little pricey, I use a digital advance point and shoot most of the time. Film tends to have that special quality and texture that you can’t recreate with digital.
Also, there’s nothing like getting the film developed and being surprised with what you get.
As far as my snap and go photography pics go, I got a midrange Digital And it does fine for me because I can choose my SLR I can choose the type of film I wnat to use, I can choose every setting just like I can on my old 35 year old Minolta 35mm Film cam. I have most of the same lenses for the digital. But stil when it comes to High QUALITY shots, nothing can compair to the 35mm film camera. When I go somewhere I always take both. (but I have over 30 years experience as a photographer) I have taken some pictures the world knows. Sure, film cams are more expensive in the long run, but they are WEELL worth it when The SHOT is needed, and with the experience, I KNOW when that is about to happen. It sounds like though with your usage, a digital would be just fine.
It really depends on the type of camera you have, what you are going to use it for and just how good a photographer you are.
For someone with next to zero knowledge of photography but wants to learn and appreciate the art of photography a traditional slr camera that uses film is the better deal.
For someone that wants to be able to take good pictures with little fuss and save on film, developing and reproduction costs I suggest that your basic (3.5 to 7.1 megapixal) digital camera is your
best bet.
If friends and family are always asking for copies this is super easy. For about $10 U.S. or less depending on where you go you can have the photos from your digital camera downloaded and put on a compact disc. Once you have the compact disc you can email copies to friends and family who have computers or at least a free email account like yahoo, msn, or gmail. To those friends and family who do not have email access you hand them the compact disc with instructions to go to their nearest major camera store and have the clerk show them how to use machine that allows you to download pics from the compact disc and have traditional photos made. They can even get their own compact disc made for a few extra bucks.
For someone like a professional photographer who makes his/her living with a picture I would advise
owning both a professional grade tradional slr camera
and a professional grade digital slr camera. Both have their pluses and minuses and a professional photographer will be able to best asses when to use one and when to use the other.
For ease of use I’d go with digital, you can get great quality with a $1000 digital and it will be much easier than a film camera, though a film camera will offer higher potential resolution for cheaper. I use a digital camera personaly though I have a $1500 dollar film camera I use a 1000 dollar digital most of the time.
I’ve used both kinds of SLR’s, both are almost the same in quality, in my Opinion. The colors in film aren’t that much richer than those on digital. Digital is more convenient, you can shoot using different ISO’s, and different in camera colors- not many limitations. Even high speed shooting. You can’t do most of these things on a Film SLR. I personally think that digital is better, i know some people won’t agree with me though
Film and digital aren’t superior from one to another, just different. Digital cameras have changed photography, not necessarily for the better. Just think, now we can take 100 photos of any given thing, throw it all out until we have 1 or 2 good ones. Most people are much more judicious about film- so one might argue using film forces us to be better photographers. But the conveniences, and environmental benefits, of digital are too numerous for most people to ignore. I think most find that digital is more than adequate for their needs and for the “artsy” photographer that rather adjust color, contrast, and such in the dark room- there’s still plenty of film to be had!
Just to add one more thing- I shoot both, but I favor digital for economical reasons over most anything else. I still love film, and find a great deal more pride and sense of accomplishment in a GOOD picture taken on film than I do with digital. When you take thousands of digital photos- a few are bound to be good.
Both have their advantages.
Film has been used for decades and those who know how to process it enjoy the craft. I loved my photo classes and received much enjoyment from watching my prints develop in the chemical trays. I can’t wait to get my own darkroom going when I have a litle more room to work with. My main use would be for developing infrared flm. It produces incredible images that (yet) no digital camera can produce, and I don’t have the patience to sit at the computer that long to work on one image.
Digital is fast, convienient, widely accepted. I can download from the camera to the computer, convert the RAW files to JPEG, and upload them to my photo sites in hours. But I’ve noticed that with digital I’ve become less patient. I take less time to frame the shot and meter for exposure, almost like it’s a race.
Digital requires a pricey camera and computer, and frequent use to make it cost effective. People who are stuck to their computers most of the day are not able to comprehend the idea that there ARE people who don’t use a computer much, or at all. For them and the occasional shooters, an occasional roll of film, or even a disposable camera works just fine. And also several areas of the pro world still use film because of the quality and reliability of pro films and cameras.
So what’s the problem? Why the arguing? Why does this stupid question come up so often? They both work and serve their purposes. Quit fighting and go take some dang pictures, already!
I was a hobby photographer with first and instamatic progressing to an SLR, and ultimately a 10 megapixel SLR,
While the developing of film pictures is a hobby in itself that has a lot of hobbyists. The truth is you can get a very good digital picture with a hobby priced camera today. Some people forget that 35 mm film was never the ultimate format…with most studio photographers using larger format Leica cameras and such.
35 mm developing for film is expensive, as both the good and bad shots have to be developed. A decent digital makes great pics, and flubs for new photographers are virtually free. Encouraging more creativity. Seeing your photos, can be done in the viewer or large scale on the closest computer.Which is a lifesaver if you are counting on pics that might have to be reshot. Plus a lot of uses for portraits are digital in nature now anyways. My company asked me for a portrait to put up on the company website. Plus the same outlets that print your 35mm prints will happiliy print just your favorite pics selected on a memory stick. Digital is cheaper and more useful.
Digital is less expensive, a lot less expensive. It’s also convenient. You don’t have to worry about taking a maximum of 39 pictures at a time, changing out the media constantly, worrying about light expsure, or waiting to find out if your picture took. With digital, you see you picture imediatly, and if it isn’t what you wanted, you can always delete it and take it again. I work in a processing lab, and I’d have to say that my digital customers are usually more satisfied than my film customers. After purchasing a digital camera, all you really need to buy is a memory card. If you use the most commen card, an sd card, you can purchase a 1 GB for 12 dollars at your local walmart. It is reusable, which means you really only need one. You can print your pictures whenever you need to, no need to fill it up. Your pictures stay on your card until you delete them, so you can print whenever without a reprint charge, you can also easily burn them to a cd. I love digital. You can purchase a digital slr, like the canon rebel or sony a200.
Granted, there are still some die hard film fans. We usually develope 20 rolls of film to our usual 100ish digital orders. The film pictures, with the right camera and photographer, do turn out beautiful, with rich, deep colors. Though, digital cameras are getting very advanced these days.
okay well i perfer the digital camera. you can get the pictures developed as soon as you go home. but with th 35mm you have to wait a week. also if a picture didnt turn out so good you could always change the balance and effects, etc. you cant make a picture better if you use the 35mm. just make sure you have photo paper in your printer when you want to develop your pictures with the digital.
i think digital is better because you can delete pictures and add special effects
i think we should see the transition from film to digital as a good thing
it’s progress
i am a student in high school taking my second year in photography… we do all the manual work, and i think that there is something rewarding about truly creating a picture, sorta being there every step of the way… i mean, i use my digital camera on trips and such for convenience, but honestly, i prefer taking photos using film… we also have to make a pinhole camera… last year, everybody had to make it out of the same thing, an oatmeal container, but this year we got to choose, and my partner and i chose a mailbox! it was pretty interesting truly understanding how the camera works, and in the end we had three shutters that all work pretty well (some minor light leaks) and most of the shots are going pretty well…
i am a film fan that has warmed up to digital.
learning to properly use any camera is 99.9% of the battle.
you could buy the best most expensive golf clubs,but if you cannot play the game the clubs will not make you Tiger Woods.
Digital cameras are more forgiving than film.
Low end digicams ace out low end film cams.
Professional grade film edges out High End Digital, but the differences are minimal.
Just got my first digital (and surely not used to it.)
How do you really frame the picture.
I prefer my 35mm to actually see “in the box”
I love them both! Film cameras give me the “feel” of the photography I have been addicted to since my first Brownie Box camera I bought for 50 cents and 6 Bazooka Joe comics in 1964. I enjoy developing film in the lab, playing with the values, and doing a variety of experiments with photographic papers.
As for digital cameras, they are easy to use, the lab has been moved to the computer on which you have some great effects you don’t get in a real lab.
I can’t pick which one I love the most.
I love, love, love my 35 mm SLR camera. I took a B&W photography class a few years ago and really enjoyed it. Initially I was \annoyed with the amount of time we spent in the darkroom but as I saw the results from playing with the light and contrast I started to appreciate it. The darkroom helped me improve my photography in surprising ways. Since I only made prints from the negatives I liked the best, I was not afraid to take lots of pictures. Also, when I got a print just right, I could make as many copies as I wanted.
I have been thinking about getting a pocket digital camera, just because of the hassel at the airport of having to take out my SLR and worrying that the x-ray machine will ruin my film. This is really frustrating because when I visit new places I want to use my SLR.
I may be old school but I feel the quality you get from a 35mm is better than digital. I still own a digital for everyday use, but if I’m going to an event especially something that will require a zoom I much prefer 35mm.
use those digital cameras that you can take a picture and make a film
Film cameras are far superior to digital cameras. The best digital cameras have the same resolution as ISO200 film cameras. That’s one fourth the resolution of the best film available.
Digital cameras have the advantage of being cheaper to use. They also have much more latitude than film does. In other words, you can over or under expose and you still get a useable image with digital. Most film has only 1 stop of latitude. Digital cameras also show a lot more detail in the shadow areas.
There are somethings that film is much better for than digital. If you’re shooting in black and white the grain in film can be seen giving the image a certain quality that you can’t find in digital images.
The colors that can be printed with film are more spectacular, they have an amazing gamma. With digital it depends on a whole bunch of different factors. What type of printer, types of inks, type of paper, etc.
I myself prefer using large format film cameras. The huge problem with that is that they no longer make film for large format. I’d say my favorite type of film is kodachrome. Shooting chromes (transparency/slides) creates better colors, and sharpness.
Plus black and white film prints are archival where as digital images are only as archival as your hard drive allows.
I guess it depends what you want to get out of your camera. If you want to do photoshop stuff, and edit your pictures, you’re probably going to want to use a digital camera because it’s just easier to get the pictures onto your computer that way. I have a canon digital, and I love it to death. I can’t imagine life without it. But I am addicted to photoshopping, and photoshopping with film would be hell. So for me, digital is the best.
There’s no point in dwelling in ‘ old is gold’ theory.There’s definitely some nostalgia in using old film cameras.I myself have been a die hard fan of old 35 mm SLR cameras like Leica-G and Nikon-EM.But nothing beats a good SLR Digital Camera either in results or cost.Of-course,I agree that the present day digital cameras, have taken away all the professional fun and satisfaction of a good photographer.Today a novice can beat a good pro in this field.
FILM! I want a digital camera, but my film camera is great. I used to have a digital camera, albeit cheap, but it took awful pictures. I just think film is higher quality, more bang for your buck.