Need Help "Making My Case"

[carney2]

I have been "volunteered" to get involved in a film vs. digital debate at a meeting of a local organization. I have been assigned to the pro-film/anti-digital side of the argument. I have about a half dozen points that I know can be made in favor of film and/or against digital, but am interested in anything and everything that this site's panel of experts may have to help me load my gun. Nothing is too obvious, too mundane, or too off the wall. All cost justification arguments gratefully accepted.

NOTE: I am not interested in opening a digital vs. film debate at this site. Digital is the wave of the moment and the tide of the future. I recognize that and don't want to reopen all of those wounds.

Thanks.

[another view]

Sounds like fun. My first thought is to run screaming. Quickly. ;)

Aside from that, I shoot both film and digital and choose film over digital in certain situations. Here's a few of mine:

1. Digital just has a different look to it. If you're trying to get the look of a particular film, it's at best very difficult. I'm not talking only about grain here either - which obviously digital doesn't have (it does have noise, but again it's a different look). I've never seen a B&W digital print that really blew me away compared to an expertly printed Selenium-Toned Gelatin Silver Print. Sure, it will take years to learn to be a darkroom expert and I don't plan on going that route, but there are high-quality labs that can do these prints for you. I don't believe HCB made his own prints...
2. Digital has a much narrower exposure latitude. If you have to shoot outside on a bright sunny day, in a correct exposure you're likely to have both blown highlights and blocked up shadows. Color neg film has a few (or several) more stops of latitude, depending on who you believe - or better yet, what your own findings are.
3. Digital can blow the highlights really quickly. Digital has a similar exposure latitude to slide film, but with the same exposure on each you're more likely to have blown highlights on the digital exposure.
4. DSLR's flash exposure systems aren't usually as accurate as 35mm film SLR's. Film SLR's have been using TTL flash metering for many years and it's quite accurate. With the extra latitude of color neg film, it's almost a no-brainer in a lot of shooting situations. Digital flash systems are getting better (heard great things about but have no personal experience with Nikon's iTTL) but not quite there yet, and with the less amount of exposure latitude and more easily blown highlights, this can be quite a problem.
5. Myth: Digital is a one-time investment. My reality - upgrade this, upgrade that, add more memory cards, buy another hard drive, wait for a better camera to come out... And I still only have one camera body - I'm afraid to go on a job with one DSLR (although I've done it). I could have shot a lot of film for what I've spent on digital upgrades, but if it makes life easier and image quality better, it's probably worth it.
6. DSLR's are very expensive and become obselete quickly. I paid the better part of two grand for a DSLR that's built on a ~$300 Nikon N80 body about two years ago, and it's obselete (but nothing necessarily wrong with that). It has a horrible viewfinder, slow and not-too-accurate in low light AF. My Nikon F100 I've had for three and a half years, paid half as much for, has a great viewfinder and AF system. It's still made today, and was released about as long before I bought mine as the DSLR. To match the AF performance, etc I would have to get the $5k D2X. Not this month... I suppose a more fair comparison would be the D1X which when it came out was the same $5k, but now can be had used for about $1500.

OK, I'm done... Next? Before the backlash, I could argue all of my above points! Most of what I shoot is digital and I do believe that in most cases for me personally it works better. But not all cases, and it's not perfect. That's what I'm trying to get across above.

[carney2]

The first response turns out to be a great one. I have also been reviewing old posts at this site and my list is now approaching a dozen. I even think that I may be able to make an effective economic argument.

Keep it coming, guys (and gals). This is good stuff.

[Michael Fanelli]

OK, I do have to take issue with two points. It's in my nature!

Myth: Digital is a one-time investment. My reality - upgrade this, upgrade that, add more memory cards, buy another hard drive, wait for a better camera to come out... And I still only have one camera body - I'm afraid to go on a job with one DSLR (although I've done it). I could have shot a lot of film for what I've spent on digital upgrades, but if it makes life easier and image quality better, it's probably worth it.

This is the tech myth that involves everything from computers to cameras to PDAs to phones to...

When something new comes out, the old equipment still works! In fact, it works just as well as it always did! If the images are what you want when you buy something, its still going to perform the same job.

My desktop computer is 5 years old and still works. My old laptop, until I dropped it, worked for 6 years and would have still worked if it weren't in a thousand pieces. My Canon S400 is a few years old and still takes wonderful photos as does my Canon G1. I didn't rush out to replace my DigiRebel when the XT was released. My cell phone is old, chipped, and ugly but still places calls as it always has. Upgrading is a state of mind that has little to do with reality or necessity.

DSLR's are very expensive and become obselete quickly. I paid the better part of two grand for a DSLR that's built on a ~$300 Nikon N80 body about two years ago, and it's obselete (but nothing necessarily wrong with that).

See above!

It has a horrible viewfinder, slow and not-too-accurate in low light AF. My Nikon F100 I've had for three and a half years, paid half as much for, has a great viewfinder and AF system. It's still made today, and was released about as long before I bought mine as the DSLR.

That sounds terrible so my only question is why did you buy it in the first place? Perhaps the first kid on the block with a new toy? :-) I held off on purchasing a DSLR until one came out that worked well for me. The DigiRebel is no worse than my film Rebel. Is it the same as my EOS-3? Of course not. But then, the EOS-3 was a big heavy beast that I hardly used even when film was king (it was bought for a very specific job).

Your other points are OK but stretching a bit. That's OK! I will agree that B&W looks better with film. Of course, I'm an old geezer who has petrified opinions about the B&W "look." I always used slide film for all but the last few years of my 30 year film period so the narrow lattitude is something I'm used to handling. Digital actually has a bit more lattitude than slides and a histogram as well to see exactly what you are doing.

But hey, its poor carney2 has to make film sound good! That will require lots and lots of quick-talking tap dancing. Sounds like fun!

[another view]

Michael, does your 8-track and/or cassette player still work? Don't tell me you've upgraded to a CD or MP3 player!

In my experience I'm not really stretching my points, but again that's my own experience. And actually I waited until two years ago to buy a DSLR so I was hardly the first on the block! One of the main reasons I got it was because of the serious decline in quality E6 processing around here. I bought the Fuji S2 because it was the best overall camera for me - the other choice was the Nikon D100 or a used D1. In my opinion, the S2 was the best choice and none of them had a good flash exposure system (the two Nikons had the DX system which didn't seem any better). Now the options are better (two years is a long time for DSLR's), and the D70 does a lot more than the S2 for half the price. That's how digital goes. Sometimes upgrades are necessary - because if a piece of equipment isn't doing the job that you need it to (even if nothing really exists - like the flash technology) then you'll probably go for the upgrade when it comes out. The S2 is just as good as the day I bought it and still delivers great images. It's just not perfect - never was.

The D100 and D70 have better viewfinders than the S2, but not enough to really matter. The S2 gets the job done but in low light it's tough to tell exactly what's going on, and the AF system isn't the greatest on top of that. The D2H is pretty nice in this respect. But then I pick up my F100 and F5 and then even the D2H looks pretty bad. Someday someone will make a DSLR with a nice viewfinder that doesn't cost $5k, and that will definately be a wise upgrade, at least in my case. I know the discontinued D2H was being blown out for $2k but I'm not convinced that's the right camera for me...

If I went completely digital, I'd probably better have a laptop, but I couldn't run Photoshop CS on a 6-year old laptop. And I'd need CS to work with RAW files, at least efficiently. So sometimes upgrades are a fact of life. When one part of the chain is upgraded, sometimes the other "links" aren't as strong.

***

Thought of a couple more:

Star trails and other very long exposures, like moonlit landscapes - digital just isn't there yet. 30 seconds or maybe a minute or two looks good, but not three hours. Plus you'd have to carry a bag full of batteries. Gimme a mechanical camera and a roll of Provia 400F anyday...

Shooting in the rain - yeah some of us do it, whether on purpose or not. See the point of the $2k camera built on the $300 body. I'll bring my F5 out and not worry about rain - other than keeping it off the front element (one of the few uses for a UV filter). I can't afford a DSLR that's built like an F5 (well maybe an older one) and their 35mm counterparts are dropping in price every day. (Wanna buy an F100?)

I get tired of sitting at a computer. I do it all day long and some times I don't download my images right away just because I don't feel like it. Standing at the sink developing B&W never bothered me, tedious as it may seem.

[Outdoorsman]

I love this debate, actually. It's great to hear people argue points over which tool is better for the job, when both work just fine.
I personally prefer film, but right now I can't afford it. And with the "wave" and "tide" of the world going digital, it's getting a little harder every day to convince potential customers that using film is still okay. When I show some folks the results from good slide film exposures, many wonder why in hell they've blown many hundreds on a digital camera, memory card, PC upgrade, new printer, ink, paper, etc. Other people aren't as easily swayed and still like the idea that digital is "free".
As I posted in another thread recently, I've crunched the numbers a million different ways and it all amounts to this: each time I hit the shutter release on my film camera, it costs a quarter. So it would take something like 8,000 exposures to equal a $2,000 investment in digital camera, memory card, PC upgrade, new printer, ink, paper, etc. And if I went ahead and got a 20D, vertical grip, lens, CF card, printer, etc, it would cost in the 'hood of two grand at least. I could make 8,000 pro-quality film images (any of which could have the potential to make lots of money) or I could have a starter digital setup and shoot many thousands more images at my whim for no further cost (at the moment).
Here's another angle:
-- I often use an Olympus 740UZ, which is a 3.2 MP compact digital. It cost $300 new. The images aren't astounding, but for birthdays, day-to-day normal family stuff and all around general snapshots and such, it does just fine. It would be hard to beat it with a compact film camera. It zooms to 10X, with another 3X in digital reserve. It can only shoot like 1.5 FPS, however. The lens isn't the greatest, and the body is too small for my hands and it's all plastic. Menus are complicated and hard to navigate at times. AF is snail-slow and the aperture range is limited, from f/2.8 to f/8. You can use super macro to take closeups 1.5 inches from the lens. Blows out highlights and shadows go black. Less exposure latitude than any film I've ever used. White balance not impressive... just a simple snaphot camera.
--My main camera is a Canon Elan 7N 35mm SLR. It also cost $300 new. I already had lenses and a flash but I also picked up the vertical grip and remote, which added like $100 to the price. So for $400 I have the quietest SLR Canon makes, a camera that weighs little, has metal construction, uses the super-fast pro AF system from the EOS 1- series cameras (1V, 1D, etc). Also has interchangeable lenses, mirror lockup, 7 AF points, 4 FPS, excellent metering system, and a huge long list of functions and specs that all blow the Olympus out of the water. The two aren't even comparable. But for the price?
Of course I would go with the Canon.
I think digital is going to eventually be perfect, but right now it isn't. Film, I think, is more consistent and more versatile than digital. *** FOR THE PRICE***
If you can afford the 1Ds Mark II, then great, you're going to make pro-quality images all day and never look back to film. But the rest of us (who can't come up with eight grand for a camera) will need something more affordable, and to me, film is the easy answer.
Shoot, for the price of a new 20D body only, I could have like three or four Elans or an Elan with a sweet lens. The 20D would be lensless and cardless and useless.

On thing to remember is that you can scan film at very high resolutions if necessary, and you are always shooting at max resolution (with 100 or slower pro film). Digital is limited to the resolution of the camera, which may or may not be high enough for all applications. How big can you go with film versus 6 MP cameras? I had some Fuji Provia 400F slide film blown up to 20x30 and it looked good. The 6.3 MP Canon 10D is supposed to go up to what, 11x14? No comparison. You could upsample I suppose, but why degrade the quality just to try and beat film? Better to simply use film and not worry if your resolution is going to be enough.

That's enough for now, but I could go on and on over other points...anyone who disagrees with anything I've said here is totally welcome to blast me! I prefer to be corrected and learn something new than to be right and learn nothing...

[another view]

How big can you go with film versus 6 MP cameras? I had some Fuji Provia 400F slide film blown up to 20x30 and it looked good. The 6.3 MP Canon 10D is supposed to go up to what, 11x14? No comparison.

By the numbers, it's no comparison. My Fuji is also about 6mp and I get really nice 16x24's from it. I've also done 24x36 once and it looked pretty good. I should do another one because although it was on a tripod w/cable release, it wasn't my sharpest lens. 16x20 optical (darkroom) prints from 35mm neg film never looked as good as the digital prints of that size from the Fuji.

The thing is, pixels ain't pixels. It takes more film "resolution" to equal the look of a digital capture, comparing two prints of the same size. And, the pixels from a DSLR are different than from a compact digital. You'll get a better large print from a 4 or 6mp DSLR than from an 8mp compact. To my eyes, anyway - try it and see what you think.

Not trying to blast you... Something to think about: If you're not making big prints, who cares?! I mean really, not trying to sound like a smart (you know what), you have to take your own needs and uses for the equipment into account. I'm sure there's a lot of people who will rarely print larger than 8x10/8x12.