I am doing a science project on this subject. I would really like to hear your opinions. This is my question: What type of camera will produce the better image, a digital camera or a film camera? Thank you for taking the time to answer. Austin :o)

Attached Link: http://www.normankoren.com/sitemap.html

Wow! What a broad dangerous topic! A camera is a tool. Photographers make their images using tools. Some photographers are arguably better than others, though the word "better" is very contestable. Some tools are better at some tasks than other tools. Analog/chemical technologies have been improving for at least 150 years. The disposable cameras in the grocery store are, in practically all respects, better instruments than the photography Masters had at the turn of the (previous) century. Likewise, the digital technology has been improving to where in some cases it is just as good, or demonstratively better than film. I would tend to argue that at the "consumer" sub $150 level the digital cameras are superior in most respects to film. However even in this category I can still find applications where film is useful. [How 'bout those disposable underwater jobs?] At the "prosumer" level between $200 and $1000 things are definitely not definite. So many arguments can be made either way that I could only timidly venture an opinion. In terms strictly of image quality; sharpness, correct exposure; I would almost vote for digital. For convenience and creative capabilities there are plusses and minus-es to both. Film cost become an issue, but also obsolescense. At the "professional" level -a professional will use the tool best suited to getting the job done. Likely this is both film and digital. In the 35mm category, I believe that digital is now gaining the edge. "Image quality" in terms of sharpness and exposure is equaling film. Film does have "special" features that make it attractive; wider speed range and exposure latitude, longer life battery. [If you are comparing something actually measurable, like sharpness or exposure latitude, it would be interesting to compare film and digital vs size of output. I think with the 6-8M pixel level we are about in the area where digital crosses over the capabilities of film. Except for some very important special cases.] At the "professional" level, there is also large format, which is a whole new level of performance, and difficulties. This is mostly opinion -changable and debatable. For some tangible technical stuff, I like to visit the linked site.

Misha has covered just about all the important points, I dont think that one is better that the other, they both have their pros and cons. Digital is in my opinion defiantly better for convenience and cutting down work flow. Film can still offer better large images at the high end and has a better tonal range. For the sake of your particular argument it might be wise to outline the pros and cons of each medium rather than trying to say which one is better. I know two professionals both of which use film for their published work and one of which uses digital for work that doesnt require printing over 15" x 10" One uses 35mm film and a digital SLR and the other uses medium and large format only. Just recently I was involved in a discussion forum with guest speakers that are active international professional photographers, talking about film/digital and the traditional/digital darkroom. Neither speaker would commit that one medium was better than the other. But both were in agreement that the digital darkroom (namely Photoshop) was far more versatile than the traditional darkroom in the sense that in Photoshop it is possible to do things that are just not possible in the traditional darkroom. It was suggested that it was possible to do anything in the traditional darkroom that can be done in Photoshop, both said that was not so. Traditional printing methods last longer than anything currently available in inkjet printing. Film negatives can last over 100 years whilst digital files have a projected lifespan of 5 - 10 years!? (Info from a major technology source)

My brother reckons that a film camera is something you can carry around, and be sure it will work when you need it, but he's talking about those which don't depend on batteries. Modern rechargable batteries are improving all the time.

Hi All! I told Austin to post his question here, because this could be part of his research! He interviewed another photographer that is a friend and myself, and I will show you what he wrote about my interview LOL! "One photographer said that he preferred to use the film camera because digital cameras are more expensive when comparing quality of images to mega pixels. The other photographer said that it depended on what she was shooting. She prefers to shoot film when shooting images of flowers because the sharpness of a digital camera loses something when shooting them. She also said that she preferred shooting digital when doing macro images of insects because the sharpness is excellent. She liked the digital camera because she could instantly see her photos. Just thought you would like to see! :) waves to everyone Brenda :)

I was wondering whose turn it was to ask that question this month? he he he (",)

The first camera I had was a digital... then I switched over to film and LOVE IT! I think misha covered it.

1.) Yep, Misha has great points and should be taken seriously. 2.) It's normal for me to shoot about 2 to 5000 frames a year. I now have a reasonably extensive set of 35mm film cameras (Anybody in the market for some practically new A2E's?). Now I'm totally digital and here's my story. I was rather resistant to digital until I finally broke down and purchased the cheapest point and shoot Costco had because I was trying to sell my car and I needed a digital photo IMMEDIATELY! It was a 3+ MPixal Olympus. The results I got back for such a cheap investment really surprised me so I did a lot of candid shooting with it (packing it around on trips, going to the grocery store, stupid stuff like that). Results for these types of shots were EASILY superior to film and weren't costing anything so I am wholly convinced digital is a complete and perfect substitution for the average point and shoot consumer over film. Next, I bought the digital rebel SLR. This was a considerable move for me because there was some reasonable $ involved and I wasn't convinced the rebel could replace my 35mm SLR film results. 90% of my stuff is shot on Velvia which can be blown up pretty big with no grain and great saturation. I took about 1400 shots with it out at the Grand Tetons, Yellowstone, and Craters of the moon in Idaho. The results were incredible. I've blown up and printed shots up to 22X18 inches with absolutely no pixelation or grain. I've since sold that camera and now have a 20D. I could see what the snot I was doing as I was shooting and I ended up with more printable shots on that trip than any other I've been on. I shot 2000+ pictures in Utah two years earlier and only got 5 printers. I got over 15 on the Teton trip. My conclusion is that the Digital SLR can now also replace the 35mm film technology 99%. I don't think my night time multi-hour exposures are digitally possible just yet. I'm not familiar with formats above 35mm and I have no doubt that you can still make enlargements off of medium format that are better than the higher end digital SLR's that are out today but I suspect it will change. Large format film will probably always have a place. There are these guys running around with these really wild and wicked large format scanning digital cameras and they can take some really CRAZY huge images that are just mind numbing in their detail. But be mindful, people who are out there on the large format edge are skating around on technology that few people need or use and they typically need pretty spiffy stuff anyway. I wouldn't consider the practices and needs of the large format guys for stuff that the rest of the world does. They have a world of their own with results that are also in a class of their own. Just my thoughts. -Kix