Analog or Digital ?

[bugman]

So here I am, an amateur photog who's first real camera purchase was

the Sony DSC F 707. Not an SLR.

 

I want to get back into photography on a serious note with an SLR.

But beyond deciding which macro lense or tripod to get, I'm

beginning to wonder again - do i go analog or digital?

 

Sure, analog will teach me about exposure and color , etc., and will

be cheaper for starters.

 

But if I want to do it right, I'll want to go with slide film (as i

want to print my photos and possibly sell them or whatever) and I

wonder how much it will cost to get the slides developed and then

how much it will cost to get them scanned (the keepers) and after

all that time and expense between film and scanning, eventually i

will have spent enough money and will continue spending enough to

take me beyond the initial cost of going digital.

 

Then I think I should go digital and I'll not have to worry about

continued expenses , just the initial cost.

 

I also hear how people say that when you go analog with slides or

anything else that scanning the film is copying the image which

isn't going to be as good as the original where as with digital

you're not "copying" the image.

 

And then I think about the $ involved in getting the digital camera

compared to analog.

 

So here I am about 2-3 months still without equipment wondering

which way to go. Wondering, if its even worth it at all.

 

It's a hobby. I love nature. But which way do I want to go? Digital?

Spend all those bucks? Or analog? Get into slides, learn , get into

photography the "right" way?

 

Or does it really matter anymore? Eek. Hellllp!

[lahuasteca]

I'm kind of in the same quandary myself, at a cross-roads. I'd like to piggy back a question - I get very good prints, up to 11 x 14/16, using Nikon FE2 with prime lenses, by scanning Reala 100 with a Nikon Coolscan 4000, then doing lots of work in Photoshop and sending out to a professional printer. Am I swimming upstream - time to go to a DSLR and eliminate the time spent in scanning? I guess what I'm asking - high res. scan or Nikon D70 (the DSLR I'd buy). I do like the results from scanning, I don't like the work. Quite simply put - will the D70 be equal to the high res. scan? If so, no more scans.

[GerrySiegel]

Follow your budget guidelines. Don't borrow money. If you can afford a DSLR buy one. If you can't, go for a medium priced new or better even a good used Canon or Nikon and a few lenses. It is that simple. Next comes the lenses you will need, a tripod,a head,a really good bag, and some books and maybe a couple workshops to polish any skill you may have. It is not the digital or analog decision that is so important, it is the commitment to work hard at this thing,even if a hobby. See what I am sayin, Paul. I have seen superb shots made with a Sony DSC F717,one nice zoom lens. It is a get serious camera. So is my modest C 5050. Likely your 707,maybe. I am guessing you better ration your investment,by seeking bargains.

[GerrySiegel]

I like one word in your stream of consciousness---"Learn"..Gerry,(lifelong learning) Siegel. G'luck mate:-)

[james_ogara1]

N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o.........

[huntrbll]

Since I bought my D70 six months ago I have spent more time taking pictures. The initial cost is more, but with no film and processing costs I find no restraint in experimenting. More photography, more experimenting.....more learning. In your shoes I would ask myself how much photography I am planning on doing in the next two years, figure out the cost of film as opposed to digital and then make a decision. If you decide to stick with film figure out which system - Canon, Nikon, Olympus, whatever - buy a reasonable film camera and the best lenses you can afford. In a couple of years re-evaluate and if you decide to go digital at that point you have good glass (which, hopefully, will mount on the latest digital camera). Or, you can buy a digital camera now knowing it will probably be obsolete in 18-36 months and enjoy it during that time, or longer if it still meets your needs.

[rob_landry]

I think this sort of question has been asked enough here on Photo.net that searching the archives will net you the guidance you seek.

 

In the end, no one can tell you which way you should go, you have to cross that bridge yourself. The best thing you can do initially is take out two sheets of paper and write down as may 'pros' and 'cons' for each that you can think of. Do some math to determine the costs of both. Rent or borrow both a digital and film SLR if possible to get a feel for both.

 

While I don't question your motives for posting this question, mark my words, it will degenerate into another digital vs. film debate. Which brings me to another point, whichever route you choose to go, please do not become an "evangelist" for one medium or another. Photo.net has enough of these already.

[daniel_taylor]

Going analog is not learning photography the "right" way. You will learn more and learn it faster with a DSLR because you can practice as much as you want without worrying about the costs associated with film and developing. A DSLR encourages you to experiment with composure, perspective, exposure, new subjects, etc. because there are zero costs associated with the experiments.

 

A DSLR will also offer instant feedback which means you can make corrections on the spot. This is a far more efficient way to learn something than to wait a week for your slides to finally come back and for you to find time to scan them, and then guess what you did right or wrong at the moment of the shot. (Imagine trying to learn how to drive by turning a steering wheel on a simulator, and then waiting a week to find out if your turn was correct or if you crashed.)

 

If prints are your goal, there's no comparing a digital workflow to a film workflow. Calibrate your monitor to your printer and if what you see on screen is good, it will be transferred with 100% fidelity to a print. With film getting the shot right in the camera is only the first step. Then you have to make the scan faithfully reproduce what you see on a light table, which isn't always as easy as it sounds. Then deal with dust. And grain. And finally you have something you can print. Unless, of course, you want to trust a lab with your prints, and give up all artistic control over the printing process. At which point you might as well give up slides and shoot an ISO 400 print film because the variances at the lab will override the variances in your shooting, which means you'll learn none of the finer points of exposure or color.

 

Pick up a DSLR and don't look back.

[jimdesu]

My answer was to go analog and buy a film scanner.

 

1. There are lots of really, really good (film) cameras and lenses being sold for a dime on the dollar.

 

2. A film scanner + photoshop will give you lots of control over how the print comes out (remember A.Adams analogy -- the negative is just the score; the print is the performance) without having to worry about dime-store dumb-heads.

 

3. Slides are great for learning to expose properly, but they can also have a serious liability in terms of contrast. You can always change from Velvia to Efke to NHG, but you can't change your sensor.

 

4. In my rather humble opinion, digital cameras may give you immediate feedback, but they can also encourage a 'blast away and pick the good ones' approach that film discourages. If you're looking to do event photography, this's not a problem, but there's a lot to be said for setting up the tripod, sitting down, figuring out where you want to place what tones in your subject (zone system), taking notes, &c. I lean towards the 'contemplative approach' instead, and have found it to have improved my shooting much more than before I slowed down.

 

just $0.02... =)

[klix]

I have both and shoot both film (F5) and digital (D70), but I find that I only shoot film these days when I'm feeling nostalgic and want to log in some darkroom time or for those occasions where I need the F5's faster AF speed. But that's only because I have a D70; If I have the money for a D2H or the upcoming D2X (and if I weren't feeling nostalgic about spending time in a darkroom), I'd go with digital.

[klix]

BTW, to Gene's question:

 

There may be some who say that film (especially B&W) from start to end is better than digital from start to end, and others will say just the reverse, but I personally do NOT think "crossing over" i.e., shooting film and scanning it would be preferable to or better than either.

 

Yes, a D70 will be better than your current crossover workflow.

[rodolfo_negrete]

with a digital You "save" alot in film.Right asoon as the new model comes up (about a year)your camera is worth @#$%^ and the new one just as expensive or way more becuse is the one that is Perfect and the rest are &%$#@ so you have to upgrade to level or get ahead of the competitions since the new model is able to record better pictures,so there goes all the money you "saved" up on film.

 

then digital is trying to mimic film.So why not just go on with film 'till digital truly matures and is able to offer some decent standart camera that will stay with you for a while as the film one does and all you have to do is use diferent film to get different results?

 

I am probably wrong but that is how I feel about it.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Put your money in good lenses first. Then decide which camera body you can afford. You can always buy a new camera body in the future.

 

You can learn with either film or digital if you turn off all of that blaseted automation. You'll only learn when you have control over the variables.

 

As for work flow - you can still print from film without scanning. That's what I'm doing now because I log a lot computer time at work. I do lose some control, for now, but I may set up a dark room eventually.

[mike_elek]

Be a disciplined shooter, especially with digital.

 

The "no cost" mindset of digital can lead to bad habits and lazy photography. The desire to mindlessly fire off frame after frame won't teach you anything.

 

And don't get so caught up in the religion of reading the histogram that you forget to focus on the scene in front of you.

 

With any camera (film or digital), learn all of its functions so they're second nature. Then you can spend time creating your image rather than fighting the mechanics of the camera.

 

Make every frame count, regardless if it's film or digital.

[Brian]

I agree with Mike. The "no cost" thing with digital is a red herring. However many knee-jerk reflex shots you fire off, if you didn't think about the exposure and the composition, and the final effect you are trying for, they are still wasted shots - you just wasted them quicker and cheaper. And if you are relying on the law of averages to produce some excellent shots at random, you might as well save your effort and give the camera to a chimpanzee.

[richard_milner2]

Buy a cheap secondhand manual SLR like a Canon AE1 and a couple of lenses. You can get them for not much more than 100 UKP. Slide film bought in bulk is cheap and can be processed cheaply by mail order.

 

Once you've done your learning, digital technology will have got better and cheaper and you should have saved up money towards a digital set-up.

[andrew robertson]

Nope. In fact, you should take up painting.

[mjk]

I guess it's a financial and time decision. It's a hobby and how much money and time can you spend on this hobby. Photography is the hobby (you mentioned nature).

 

Slides will require some additional equipment (although not expensive) like a light table and loupe to study the results.

 

With film you pay as you go. With digital, the investment is upfront.

 

The issue most people have is not film vs digital. Most people know this answer. It's film vs scanning film. This is when the digital question arises.

 

I would say that if you are interested in manipulating your images on a computer, or sharing , posting, etc, then the question is whether to use film & a scanner, or digital camera.

 

To be quite honest, either is a good decision. It's a time and financial one.

 

Assuming lenses and computer requirements are equal between both:

 

Film camera & scanner may be less money, but more time spent "developing".

 

Digital camera may be more money, but less time spent "developing".

 

Eventually, the financial differences (albiet, you might argue there is none today) will not be an issue going forward, the time to scan and "correct" will always be there.

 

In 2-3 years, you will not be asking this question....

[rob_murray]

You have the Sony DSC F 707 5mp digital camera with a nice

Carl Zeiss zoom lens and plenty of exposure modes now.

If you cant make good pix with that a new camera will not help.

 

"Then I think I should go digital and I'll not have to worry about continued expenses , just the initial cost."

Whoa! gonna need lots of batteries, charger, ink, paper, probably

a new printer, Photoshop, computer upgrade, media cards, hours

learning new software and fixing your photos. Theres plenty of

continued expenses. Plus that digital camera you may buy will be

discontinued in 12 months and worth very little.

 

Film cameras are cheap now $200 for a Canon Rebel TI with lots of

features...get some slide film and learn how to shoot it correctly

rather than blindly shoot in program mode with a digital camera.

That way you will actually learn something.

[kent_judiesch]

Dante Stella has a very interesting take on the question here:

 

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html

 

He actually looks at the costs and benefits of both. In the long-run, it depends what it is you want to do with your photographs.

[scott_eaton]

<I>digital cameras may give you immediate feedback, but they can also encourage a 'blast away and pick the good ones' approach that film discourages.</i><P>Using my 10D vs my FE2 or RB for macro work means that after I spend 45-minutes waiting and setting up for a single shot, which is not uncommon for me, I can take the shot with my 10D, zoom in on the image, and know if it's perfect right there vs waiting days for the image to come back from the lab. Compared to your insulting 'blast away' comment only forces me to conclude the anti-digital remarks here are being made by the same group who don't own dSLRs.<P>In regards to using film, there are two two distinct classes of photographers here; those who are legitimate photographers and are using their own scanners, and those taking their amatuer print film to K-mart and costco. In the later case Daniel Taylor hit it right on the head in that you might as well be using cheap 400 speed print film if you are going the mini-lab route.<P>I could go either route with macro/nature/wildlife and produce killer images with either, but I couldn't be forced to go back to film unless I had a killer desktop scanner. The good ones combined with slow speed slide or print film can hold their own against a 6/8mp dSLR in terms of final image quality, but it doesn't change the 'in the field' advantage of instant preview dSLR.

[arnabdas]

<p>If you plan to shoot *a lot*, by all means spend the bucks for a good DSLR and you recoup your money within a reasonable

timeframe.<br>

<br>

If you want to spend more time shooting less photographs with good care and great technique, hold off on going digital and

keep shooting film. I recommend both slide (Provia 100F, Kodak E100GX) and color/BW negative (Portra, Reala, Tri-X).<br>

<br>

My entry into digital with a D70 DSLR was a far from pleasant experience. The camera died on me day before yesterday and will

likely cost a hell lot to fix. And I was very careful with that camera. Coming from an FM3A, I even was prepared to live with

the pigmy viewfinder but for godssake it should at least be reliable for that price, right? I know it's no D2h/x, but that

does not mean the camera should be more likely to crash.<br>

<br>

Looking back, 1000 US$ for an electronic piece of junk that loses a tangible %age resale value every month was not a good

investment for someone like me with limited income. Curiosity got the better of me and I purchased it in impulse, letting one

of my dear FM3As go to offset the cost.<br>

<br>

And how much do you <b> actually</b> save on film by going digital? Do you already shoot that much? Apart from the the camera body --

flash cards, image processing software, a computer with enough RAM and HDD and DVD burner etc. are other necessary hidden

costs. If you already shoot/plan to shoot enough film that amounts to the same cost -- then digital is for you. For consumer

grade equipment, reliability would stil be a concern if my D70 is any indicator. Oh yes -- if you're like most

other people, you'll feel a strong urge to upgrade every 2/3 years.<br>

<br>

If I tell you that you also need to spend hours of time before a calibrated monitor post-processing images from RAW files to

identify the real keepers and get the best results, some might argue that scanning involves an even more tedious

post-processing workflow. Agreed. *BUT*, with slides -- I can identify my keepers out of the box (pun intended) and there

only a few of such keepers for me per 35mm cartridge. I suspect that might be the case with most everyone (subject to one's <br>

definition of "keeper", of course!).<br>

<br>

There is no film vs. digital quality issue that I'd address, either are good enough for most situations, for some specific

situations one is better than the other. Most current DSLRs deliver quality compareble with 35mm and DSLRs like EOS 1Ds

already captures more detail (if you need it and/or if your viewers could spot it from 5 metres away) than fine-grained 35mm,

that too at 8 times the ISO rating. If you can afford that camera -- then I'd only congratulate you and encourage you to go digital with the 1Ds or soon to be released 1Ds Mk II.<br>

<br>

In terms of quality wrt 35mm, digital has reached there. In terms of convenience, digital supercedes film. In terms of features + reliability vs cost:

<b>NO</b>.<br>

<br>

Lastly, at least for me this is true -- there is more thought per shot in 35mm compared to digital, and that's a good way to improve.<br>

<br>

PS: I may sound biased because I'm a bit pi$$ed lately due to my D70 crash. If it were working fine still as I type this, I could have sounded very different.<br>

</p>

[arnabdas]

<p><b><u>Things you'll love about digital:</u></b></p>

<p><b>Convenience ("Instant gratification")</b>: Shoot and review

instantly -- you get multiple chances to perfect your shot provided 1. you can

identify what's wrong and 2. you have a chance to re-shoot. The histogram

feature is a small miracle. Flash photography was never so easy with film as it

is with digital.</p>

<p><b>Clean images at high ISOs/change ISO on the fly: </b>this is a major

advantage. I always found it intriguing and very useful.</p>

<p><b>Ease of (at least short-term) storage: </b>One reason I went digital is --

I live in a tropical country and I lost more than 100 keepers due to fungus.

Digital images free you up from this trouble, you just have to use good CD-Rs/DVD-Rs

for burning your files. Whether you will be able to retrieve them 10 years later

is yet to be seem. Adobe has undertaken some good efforts into providing support

for legacy RAW file formats which is good. Your digital storage media also needs

to be cared for though.</p>

<p><b>Ease of printing and control over how your images look: </b>You can post

process and make good-looking prints yourself even on a desktop inkjet. If you

take your processed images to a Kodak or Fuji digital printer they will look

great.</p>

<p><b>Ability to cope with color temperature of light by setting white balance: </b>Another

great feature.</p>

<p><b>Ease of storage with no quality deterioration: </b>Film fades/deteriorates

if not stored with care. Not the case with digital, if your storage media

survives and you have software to read it, your images will look the same. </p>

<p><b>FOV crop, you get even longer tele's:</b> For small format sensors, focal

length of your 35mm lens gets multiplied by 1.3x/1.5x/1.6x depending on

brand/model.</p>

<p><b><u>Things you'll hate about digital (esp. if from a film background):</u></b></p>

<p><b>Cost and obsolescence: </b>Self explanatory. At times you are bound to

feel you are just a self-sustaining beta tester in the evolving area of digital

imaging.</p>

<p><b>Less *effective value* over 35mm: </b>What's the point in having a more

detailed 30x45 print from an 1Ds (compared to 35mm) if the viewers cannot tell

the difference from normal viewing distances? What did you spend the extra money

for?</p>

<p>You spend US$ 1000 for a D70 and you get a pigmy viewfinder. Even the

$200-ish Nikon FM10 has a better VF.</p>

<p><b>Losing detail in the highlights in direct lighting situations: </b>Major

problem. Esp. negative film shooters will find this annoying. Even slide films

like Provia/Astia behave better than this.</p>

<p><b>Reliability: </b>My FM3A has never let me down even in the most

challenging field conditions. My D70 crashed for *no reason*. However, less

applicable  for all electronic auto-wonder consumer film SLRs. Reliability

likely less of an issue with ultra-expensive DSLRs.</p>

<p><b>3rd party support: </b>Too many players in the game for me getting my

final image output -- Microsoft, Nikon, Adobe. Will any of them provide support

for the image formats of platform you have -- after many years?</p>

<p><b>FOV crop: </b>You need super expensive wide angle primes if you want to go

wide enough with a good quality lens.</p>

<p><b>Time for post processing: </b>RAW file processing can be tedious. I find

it easier to review my slides over a light table and toss the non-keepers into

my circular file.</p>