Andrew

As much as I want to stop debating digital vs film on a travel forum, I feel the need to correct statements like this:<BR><BR>Rod writes: &quot;Sometimes we really need to control depth-of-field which is patently impossible with digital.&quot;<BR><BR>Just not true, Rod, unless you are talking about the cheaper digicams. My D30 (a digital SLR) takes the same lenses as my 35mm body, and I have as much DOF control as the lens gives me. The cheaper cameras preferred by travelers probably don't have the lens you need to get good DOF control anyway, but how many of those compact 35mm cameras do?<BR><BR>We are really talking about two entirely different things here: cheap(er) cameras for travel snapshots and more expensive cameras for professional photography. For travelers who are not computer savy, 35mm point-and-shoots are just fine (remember, I still use my 35mm camera). Travelers who like computers will probably enjoy a digital camera. <BR>In fact, travelers should probably make their choice for a new camera (digital or not?) based on their computer preference (do you like working on a computer? Do you have a good one to use?) more than anything else. A digital camera would offset its extra cost if pay not itself if you take a lot of travel pictures. A $300 digital camera with a $200 flash card might seem pricey, but if you take 20 rolls of film on a couple of vacations in a year, there's $300 (at about $15/roll processing) saved right there - and you can print only the few prints you really want and not have a whole stack of prints and negatives to box up, just a few CD's.<BR><BR>And I repeat: print quality from a decent digital camera can be *fantastic* nowadays - please don't take my word for it, look at samples from various 3MP and 4MP cameras. If you think &quot;digital prints&quot; are going to look like pixelated and faded compared to film, you are going to be shocked.<BR><BR>As far as professionals: whether they use 35mm or not depends on what they are doing with it. I know a 30-year veteran photographer who makes a whole lot more money taking pictures than I do (he does a lot of notecards and specialty stuff) and guess what he mostly uses? 35mm. He is finally getting into digital, however. Many photographers are. In certain fields people still demand medium or large format photography, but that is changing as digital cameras start to rival MF and LF.<BR><BR>No, you don't need an expensive camera to take a great picture. You can take great pictures with an old manual-focus-only 35mm with a decent lens - or sometimes from a disposible 35mm camera if you know how to take a picture. The electronic gadgetry offered on digital and 35mm cameras doesn't improve the quality of your photos; it makes taking pictures much easier (auto-focus, etc.). Photographers who learn how to use these tools can be much more effective.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Jim Tardio

I'll tell what is nice. I've been putting my scans on DVDs and making dics that can be viewed on the TV, via a DVD player. I use an ACDC product called &quot;FotoAngelo&quot;.<BR><BR>It provides various disolve options, and music &amp; caption options as well. I like it because it lets me add black &amp; white and panoramic images to my slide show...things I couldn't do with a standard slide projector.<BR><BR>The quality isn't as good as a large projected slide, but it's a good way to show your images to a large group...perfect for vacation pictures.

mel

That a great idea Jim!<BR>I guess what it comes down to is that prints are more important to me than digital images are &amp; as such, a 35mm probably makes more sense for the time being &amp; just use the scanner for those times when i want to email pictures.<BR>Cheers everyone...

Andrew

Mel, 35mm may well be the best bet for you right now. However, for you or anyone else who is thinking about digital in the future, I make this suggestion: get one roll of your pictures scanned to a CD during development (I think this costs about $10 extra per roll - try just one roll).<BR>Get high-resolution scans if you can - I get 6.0 Megapixels scans when I get my 35mm film developed. From these files I can get fantastic prints, even great enlargements.<BR><BR>If you have a simple photo editing program, try the &quot;red eye removal&quot; feature if one of your photos with people has a bad red eye problem. This is a great example of how you can use a computer to enhance your photos...<BR><BR>Take one of your pictures from the CD (red eye removed or not) and get prints using an on-line service like Walmart.com or even Costco.com. Or if you have a CD burner, see if your local Wal-Mart or Costco does one-hour digital prints and burn a new CD with one of your high-res scans on it. This will give you a good taste for what digital photography is like; if you hate this process, you'll know digital is not for you. You might learn a lot though and be surprised how much fun it is.<BR><BR>Andrew

Chela

When comparing our European vacation prints (my friend's digital vs. my 35 mm slr) there was no comparison! My 35 mm won the day. Besides quality, there is nothing that spells travel-magic-anticipation quite like taking your vacation rolls in for developing and getting back the rolls!

xxx

<BR><BR>I'm with Chela. While I understand the allure of immediately knowing what your photo looks like with digital photography, there is also something fun about the anticipation of waiting for photographs or slides to be developed. Call me a techno-neanderthal but I guess I like a little mystery. <BR><BR>But that will probably all change when I buy my first digital camera.

Andrew

Chela, if you compared my digital vacation shots to your 35mm shots, I'm sure mine would match or surpass yours in some cases (I shot both digital and 35mm on my last vacation, so I could do some comparison). That's not because 35mm is bad or digital is good - it simply means that digital cameras vary in quality, just like cars do. 35mm has had decades of advancement, to the point where you can take fantastic pictures with a cheap camera and cheap film. Digital hasn't gotten to that point yet, because it hasn't been around nearly so long.<BR><BR>Still, cheap digital cameras have come a long way in the last few years. Take a look at prints from some 4 Megapixel digitals in the $300 range and you'll see what I mean. I'm guessing your friend either did not have a decent digital or that it is a few years old.<BR><BR>If you are going to shoot only a few rolls of film on your vacation and you like your 35mm camera, there's no reason yet to switch. If you like computers and you tend to take a ton of photos on vacation, however, you should think about switching to a digital. &quot;Quality&quot; certainly isn't a reason not to switch, if you get the right digital camera.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Nancy

Andrew: whom are you trying to convince, us or you? Wind it back a notch or two. I've known people for years who actually beleive that they take &quot;great prints and enlargments...&quot;<BR><BR>Sez who?

Andrew

Nancy: I'm tired of people posting inaccuracies about digital photography. I'm not trying to put down 35mm at all (remember I STILL USE my 35mm camera) - as I have said more than once, if you like your 35mm camera and are not really computer savy, you should probably keep using it.<BR><BR>More than once people have commented about how digital prints are lacking somehow, using this as a reason to stick with 35mm. It's just NOT TRUE anymore - print quality (including enlargements) is great with a decent 4MP or even 3MP digital camera. Once again, stick with your 35mm camera for other reasons but *NOT* because there's something wrong with print quality of digital.<BR><BR>Don't believe me? Look at prints from a consumer-grade 3MP or 4MP camera (any retailer that sells these things should have print samples to show you). And don't tell me how your friend's 3-year-old 1MP camera makes lousy digital enlargements - of course it does. I'm talking about recent (yet affordable) consumer cameras.<BR><BR>I am not trying to convince myself about the quality of digital - people are buying enlargements taken with my digital camera, so that's testament enough. I do know that at least one person who was happy with the photos he bought from me did not realize they were taken with a digital camera. Many people have no idea how far digital photography has come.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Jane

Andrew, have you ever heard the expression, 'more flies are caught with honey than vinegar'? <BR><BR>Most people will be persuaded to listen to your opinions, but they will not be coerced or bullied into acknowledging them.

Andrew

Oh, BS. Since when have I coerced or bullied anyone?<BR><BR>I'll say it one more time: don't take my word for it, look at print samples from recent digital cameras (3MP or 4MP) before making judgements about the quality of digital photography.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Jane

Andrew, has it dawned on you that repeating yourself (&quot;I'll say it again&quot can sound like browbeating, more than a convincing argument? Or &quot;I'm tired of people posting inaccuracies&quot; - sounds like a tiresome tirade - speaking of tiring? And as for your suggestion that people who don't use digital cameras are not very capable with computers, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all that is, an opinion.<BR><BR>By the way, since accuracy is important to you, the word is 'savvy', not 'savy.'

kathypompe

I have to say, I've really enjoyed reading the comments on this thread. and it is travel related in a round about way. What to take? Which way to go? I think the only thing I have to add is this. If you see photography as an art form and a means of personal expression, then you probably like the process of making photographs. This would include all aspects of it --loading the film, waiting for the right light, shooting, getting the film processed, deciding which ones work and which don't, which to enlarge, etc. The means to the end is as important as the end result itself. Digital is a great addition to the field, but it is only that, an addition. Most people who are really into the prosess and who enjoy the journey associated with it will continue to use and do both.

Andrew

Jane, I never made the suggestion that &quot;people who don't use digital cameras are not very capable with computers&quot;. Go back and re-read what I said. I said that people who are *not* computer savy should probably stick with 35mm for now. My mother for example is not that computer savy - for now, 35mm is all she needs. Someday soon this may change, but for now using digital would frustrate the hell out of her.<BR><BR>&quot;Savy&quot; vs &quot;sawy&quot;? Oh, spelling flames are so lame, especially on a forum without a spell checker...<BR><BR>Kathy: Yes, artists like the process of creation. But there are enough other things going on in photography - the colors, the framing, trying to capture the *feeling* of what you see in front of you - that the limitations of your tools can be distracting. As a photographer I like to use the best tools available - also the ones I enjoy the most. If an artist prefers 35mm for any reason, well, that's a personal preference I'd say. <BR><BR>And don't forget that digital opens up a lot of artistic possibilities that are much harder (or impossible) to achieve without a computer. Just as some painters ridiculed film when photography first came about, some film enthusiasts today ridicule digital. But digital artists will expand (aready are expanding) art into new areas. The computer is just another paintbrush.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Turla

Poor Andrew! Okay, okay, we're all convinced, no doubt about it, that's good enough for me, yessir, that's just about it, okey-doke, no doubt left in my mind, I'm convinced...yep, yep, yep....

Carolyn

IMHO I enjoy using our Digital camera (Olympus camedia - about $599) I feel that the pictures come out better (great zoom &amp; alot of options) than on regular film. Yes, the cost is high for the camera &amp; cards, but you do not have to continue to by cards everytime (just download photos to your computer &amp; clear the card) I also have a HP printer that will also let me print photos (including an index) from the card without the computer - but I can then also after printing I can download to the computer to be burned on to a CD for storage. I do not have to go to any place to have them process my photos!!!<BR>I still have a regular 35mm camera (till I use up the remaining rolls of film I have currently.) but we will be taking only the digital camera to the UK next summer - great that I will not have to wait for security to clear my rolls of film.

William

My son and his wife are serious amateur photographers. I visited them in California and they took me to an exhibition. One of the exhibitors let it be known that some of his work was digital. This caused a lot of disparagement; he was viewed alsmost as a traitor. The worst thing he did, however, was to refuse to tell which prints were digital, and no one there could give a definitive answer. <BR><BR>This led me to the conclusion that digital is just as good today. The purists claim that film remains marginally better, but I think they are just reacting negatively (sorry) to technology that gives a rank amateur capability that it took them years to develop (sorry, again).<BR><BR>To me digital produces as good a product, and is much more convenient. Even though a good digital camera is not cheap, I am convinced that the savings on film and developing more than offsets that cost.

Tim

Film: A romantic process..??<BR><BR>Again, this being the Travel Forum, I guess there are many who feel that Getting There Is Half The Fun. So it's not surprising that some people here enjoy the more intricate and subjective processes involved in film vs. digital photography.<BR><BR>I would draw the analogy to food. Personally, I hate to cook, but I love eating (typical male). Digital has simplified or eliminated much of the cooking that accompanies photos, which has to make the cooks among us wistfully nostalgic. You may disparage the digital trend much as we sometimes cringe at frozen foods and microwave ovens. (Still can't get a good pizza from a microwave, I'll say....)<BR><BR>And William: Going along with this idea, I'd say that people who have spent their dye-soaked lives in elaborate labs must get weak in the knees when they see a beautiful print that someone knocked out with a few mouse clicks and a $150 inkjet printer.

Andrew

William, a lot of those film purists don't realize that most film printing today is done on digital printers. Negatives and slides are scanned and turned into digital 1's and 0's and then printed on a digital printer. All 1-hour photo labs are this way now, and many pro labs are too. Some people still print optically but this is becoming more rare - not only is it more expensive, but I've heard some people claim the color from digital printing sometimes surpasses that in optical printing.<BR><BR>I'll bet the people at those shows rarely ask how the prints were made - but a digital print from a film camera is no less of a &quot;sin&quot; than a print from a digital camera. You're still talking 1's and 0's in each case, just a different way of capturing them.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

x

I posted earlier about how we have a digital and don't really care for it. But Tim gave me a good laugh...maybe we ARE backwards since we just bought our 1st microwave oven a year ago. Everyone wonders how we managed to get through the baby years without one, LOL!