>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
Digital: * Lower cost in the long term * Immediate preview * Immediately digital. I.e., no need to scan if you want to share over the Interwebs * (arguably) less ugliness at high ISO (i.e., a good DSLR at ISO1600 looks a lot better than grainy-ass color ISO1600 film. Or even black and white, for that matter) * No reciprocity failure, making long exposures easier to calculate * Ability to correct a lot more problems in post
Film: * Lower cost in the short term * Larger formats available, which can give higher quality. I.e., there aren't any digital sensors that equal the quality of 4x5 or 8x10 film as of yet, assuming you don't have the budget of a small government * Longevity. A properly cared for negative (B&W, at least. Color less so) will outlive your grandchildren. There's no telling how long support for the current morass of RAW formats will last (although things like dcraw suggest it'll be a while) * That little cash register noise that plays in your head along with the noise of the mirror and shutter means that you're likely to work a little harder to get the perfect shot rather than just spraying and praying. * Reciprocity failure means that film has a nice toe and shoulder at the ends of its exposure curves, effectively giving you more dynamic range for better looking shots without any postprocessing * A lot of people, myself included, find film grain to be better looking than digital noise, especially in color * The look of certain types of film is aesthetically pleasing and hard to reproduce in digital. The best example of this being Velvia 50.
tl;dr: Film and digital are both awesome. Use what you like. Use both and learn what each is best for for massive victory.
|