Analog x digital

[erich_vasconcelos]

I love taking pictures. I bought myself a good old AE-1 from Canon, and enjoyed taking pictures with it. The quality of the equipment is superb, as the photos it takes. But I couldn't resist going digital - sooner than I imagined I ended up with a point-'n-shoot digicam in my hands.

Boths take wonderful pictures, but I wonder if my old, analog camera will survive the digital era. For screen, the digital is far superior as it is almost noise-free. My pictures on paper, when put into my PC through a scanner looks no better than the digital. I confess not have tried with a pro film scanner, but I guess that analog pictures reigns supreme when displayed on paper.

Will we find ourselves reaching for our trusted analog cameras in the future?
In which cases will taking photographs with an analog equipment be prefered?
Should I get rid of the "old stuff" just because it produces fine, natural grain?

- Erich

[Michael Fanelli]

Boths take wonderful pictures, but I wonder if my old, analog camera will survive the digital era.

It survives as long as people use it. There are still people who listen to vinyl LPs.

For screen, the digital is far superior as it is almost noise-free.

This is true of all display methods. Digital is percieved as clearer and sharper even when noise is present. However, not everyone agrees that noiseless and the lack of grain is a good thing.

I guess that analog pictures reigns supreme when displayed on paper.

Not true unless you have a lousy digital camera with enlargements over 8x10. For scanners, a film scanner is vastly superior to scanning prints. But remember, a 2700 dpi scanner is at grain level. Higher dpi scanners can actually read the pepper off of Fuji film backings!. Anything overscanning past the grain level will give you huge files but lots of redundant and useless info.

Will we find ourselves reaching for our trusted analog cameras in the future?
In which cases will taking photographs with an analog equipment be prefered?
Should I get rid of the "old stuff" just because it produces fine, natural grain?

Most people who move to digital never look back. I held on to my film cameras really and truly thinking I'd use them once in a while. I never did. You have no idea how the freedom and versatility of digital will make film very, very old. There are still people who use film and enjoy it. Its up to you. If you like the "look" of grain, stick with it. Film isn't going to disappear anytime soon. But the only true bastion of film left these days is large format and special applications.

[another view]

There are a lot of cases where you might choose film over digital. For one, P&S digital cameras usually have a lot of noise once you get to ISO400 or higher. DSLR's are much better at this but will still show some noise at higher ISO's like 800 or higher. But in each category, some cameras are better at this than others.

Fast film has grain to it, but it's probably a better option to use ISO800 color neg film than ISO400 on a P&S digital. People say that Fuji NPZ is great but I've never personally used it. Fast B&W films (Ilford Delta 3200, Kodak T-Max 3200 and others if you're into your own developing) have a grainy look but it's really cool for some situations.

You're apparently not computer-phobic because you're posting here but some people are, and film is a better choice for them (I know people like this with digital cameras...).

Indoor flash work - like social events and weddings - can be a lot easier on neg film than digital because the film is more forgiving (more exposure latitude) and automated flash systems on DSLR's isn't quite as good as 35mm TTL flash. It's getting better and some day this won't be a problem - but it's expensive to keep up with all of this. Top of the line used 35mm cameras are a fraction of the price of most DSLR's.

Long exposures like for star trails and Northern Lights just don't work with digital. Probably some day, but slide film and a mechanical camera is probably the best way to do this currently.

These are all pretty specific cases, and for general shooting I mostly use digital. But then I pick up my film cameras and get spoiled because the viewfinder is so much better... It's a personal choice. Some days (for personal shooting) I just feel like shooting one over the other.

[erich_vasconcelos]

Long exposures like for star trails and Northern Lights just don't work with digital. Probably some day, but slide film and a mechanical camera is probably the best way to do this currently.

I've managed to capture a long exposure of the northen lights in northen Norway with a Digital Ixus, 2MP, a tripod, and havy, havy clothing!

But I agree with you. I like both methods, analog and digital. A grat picture can be taken in digital, but an excelent one will probably benefits from a grany analog. But that's still my humble opinion.