Which is better? Traditional film and film cameras or memory cards "digital film" and digital cameras? Now, in 2005, digital cameras are so prevalent, reasonably priced, fast and relatively easy to use (depends on the type and model) and require no film. I can remember about 5 years back when 1 megapixel cameras were fairly expensive! Many of these cameras 6 megapixels (even 4 MP up to 8 x 10 in) and higher will give you an excellent, sharp image. With that, you may say, "digital, stupid!" Is that really true? Is the image quality from digital worse, the same or better? I will explore this topic briefly in this article and you can make up your own mind.

My answer to you right away is they are both better. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, depending on the application. In general, I would say today's digital cameras with at least 6 megapixels(about equivalent to 35mm) are better than a consumer level 35mm SLR in terms of fast, easy workflow and decent quality of the picture. Even 3 or 4 megapixels will give you nice prints up to 8 x 10 inches in most cases. In my experience, I get sharper pictures from a Canon D60(6 megapixels) than a Canon EOS Elan IIe and the workflow is faster and cheaper. I want to mention that I rarely go bigger than 16" x 20" though and film used to the fullest potential is equivalent to about 19 megapixels(4000 dpi scan of high quality film like Fuji Velvia). I make an initial investment in memory cards and a device with a portable hard drive that I can offload pictures to when my memory cards are full. This device is called a X's Drive.

There are many similar devices on the market that do the same, some have more features some have less. With this setup, I can virtually take all the pictures I want without worrying about having enough film. Then, when I am done taking pictures, I take the X's Drive home and plug it into my computer and edit the photos in Adobe Photoshop and print the pictures on my Epson inkjet. From my printer, I get excellent prints that rival what I can get from a custom lab. I also get much more control over my picture editing it in Adobe Photoshop. This is much cheaper, faster and easier than using my Canon EOS Elan IIe. If you are an amateur photographer or average Joe and rarely go above 11" x 14" or even 16" x 20", digital is the way to go. It may be the way to go if you are a pro too, depending on what type of photography you do and your subjective opinion. I personally prefer digital now, but I bring along my 35mm Canon EOS Elan IIe on every important photo trip I take, mainly because I like the look of Fuji Velvia slide film. It gives me sharp, low grain, high saturation and high contrast pictures and that adds up to an excellent landscape photo. I can of course try to duplicate that "Velvia" look in Adobe Photoshop by increasing the contrast and saturation, by using an action like "Digital Velvia". etc. but I don't always get the results I want. It's better to get the right shot when you hit the shutter button than to try to manipulate things in the lab or Photoshop.

Now to argue on the side of film. Film has the "potential" to be superior to digital in all the facets of image quality, but it requires a lot of work to reach that potential(scanned with a drum scanner at 8000 dpi maybe). Even 35mm film has a much higher resolution then any digital camera out there. Countless studies have concluded this by doing such things as comparing both zoomed in and looking at how sharp the image is. Film has a much more dynamic range, recording more colors. 50 ISO Velvia 35mm film or 100 ISO Provia 35mm film can make huge enlargements without losing much detail. Many photo buyers, such as magazines, will not accept digital files less than 11 megapixels and many will not accept digital at all.

There are countless "studies" out there on which format is better, but they differ so much it is close to impossible to conclude which is better for "you" without actually experiencing both and drawing your own conclusions. One study says 6 megapixels is equivalent to 35mm film, another says 11 megapixels, another says, 19 megapixels, and even another says 100 megapixels(maybe drum scanned at 8000 dpi or something)! The same can be said about other image quality factors like dynamic range, etc. Some say film is better, other say digital. I personally like to use both, but I am at the point where I prefer using digital because of its convenience and pretty good image quality.

In conclusion, digital is great for most people. Instant feedback, no film, and a fast workflow are just some of its advantages. Film is only better if you have a stationary subject, you want the most detail possible, want to be able to submit to more photo buyers and you want to be able to make huge enlargements. Film will be around for awhile, but more and more people will be moving to digital as the technology improves. I don't know if film will ever be extinct, but I can for see a day when 95 percent of photographers use digital.

Article by Jeremy Baker