My brother and I are having a debate about which can produce the better image quality. I know Digital costs a lot more and an expensive printer is neccesarry but I say that Digital can actually produce a better picture if taking the top end camera's of both (and printers). Anybody else have an opinion? Money isn't a cost :) Thanks, Ed Schindler

For the picture quality i am favorable for digital camera... But there is a lots of inconveniance to it! The durability of the print isnt yet here..If we remove the price tag in the debate there is noway that films compete against digital. But to get really the thruth out the films for most of us is a better performer since money doesnt grow on tree. But the end of the films isn't yet but at this rate of devllopement of technologie in 5 year it will be thing of the past. I have been and inconditional of films for a long time... But know i whas having the choice of building again my darkroom in my new home and taking in consideration of all the trouble i whould get througth! I move to digital! With all the software you cant get to do so much trick that where almost impossible to do in darkroom or too much time consumming. And thinking of less chemical around the house... well digital is so far a good winner. I did buy a kodak dc4800 and since i got it i did learn more in photo then i did in 15 year of amateur photo. And for a low end digital cam i get very good print too. If you take in account that the average user never make print bigger than 57 inch print digital is more then sufficiant. 3.1 meg pixel cam give you enough to print 810 to 11*17 that are really good. If you put back money in account you get more for your money with films so far...But not for long... :0)

Correct me if I'm wrong..the ammount of light required for a digital capture is greater than that of analog(depending on film, of course). As far as I know, the range of available aperature settings is less with digital than with analog. As far as producing a better picture, I think it heavily depends on your subject matter (for this debate). For a studio setup I'll take digital everytime. For landscape, I like the old gear. I would rather lug a 8x10, with film and holders, around the sticks than a $50,000 setup with laptop,batteries,wires and who knows what else. Thats just me though. Now, If its just snapshots, and memories....how can you pass on the convienence of digital? Win win situation I guess.

Just a note about printers. You don't need an extremely expensive printer to get outstanding results--unless you want a large format printer. I use an HP 932--they are under $150, I'm sure--great results up to 8 x 10--IF your image has high resolution to begin with. I've used all kinds of paper but prefer fine art paper and matte photo. I just bought an Epson 875 for $79 (it originally was about $400 I've discovered) but it uses a 6 color ink system with a dye/ink blend--there are still some around at this price I understand at OFfice Max for one. Its recommended to use Epson paper with the Epson though, but the heavy weight matte is terrific and is supposed to last something like 75 years (under glass). So--to correct the myth that one needs an 'expensive' printer--buy the low end version of the photo printers from HP or Epson (don't have experience with Canon)--they will use the same inks/print machinery as the more expensive in the line, but they will be slower in many cases--the 932 utilizes the computer's resources instead of its own--I opted for the lower price/less speed (and can't do much work while it runs even with a new hot computer). I've been really pleased, 'tho' with the comparitive speed of the USB Epson--AND I can work at the same time S. No comments on the digital vs. film--I think it will depend upon the circumstances--as mentioned above. Diane

I'm such a luddite when it comes to photography. I'd go for film. You have full control over your images. Any one can use a digital camera, but not everyone knows how to use and manipulate the former. My two cents' worth. :-)