Sshlitz

I am (was) a film photographer. I've used Nikon F4, Russian copy of Hasselblad and many others in the past.
The only digital cameras I've used so far are Canon point and shoot, Nikon pixel and my iphone camera. I am looking to purchase a digital SLR sometime in the near future.
My question is, are digital cameras of today capable of taking pictures comparable to the best film cameras of not so distant past?
The reason for my question was a recent conversation with a "professional" photographer hired to photograph a wedding.
He was using a Pentax digital camera and stated the film cameras were (are) taking better pictures and the only advantage digital technology has is the convenience (no need for film, processing, etc).
The reason I stopped taking professional pictures was the digital revolution. I sold all my film cameras (for next to nothing) and was afraid to jump in the new trend. I was afraid of the new technology and I could not decide on the camera to purchase. I prefer Nikon, but the prices for the top Nikon cameras are outrageous.
I would like to hear from other professionals regarding their opinions on this subject.
Thank you all in advance for posting your honest opinions.

BebuLamar

Your question would likely start a long and heated debate of digital vs film. To determine which would take better pictures you will have to test and decide for yourself. Digital images are not the same as film images, which is better you will have to decide. If you take a vote then I would think digital would win as I think there are more people who think digital is better.
Why are you afraid of new technology? Nikon, Canon, Sony top of the line cameras are priced not much different with the Sony being less expensive.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

S, first I still shoot B&W film but not because it’s better but because it’s different.
I went full digital in 08 and wouldn’t think of looking back.
There is no way that 35mm vs FF that film even comes close.
Now what’s better, for example, digital can’t even come close to 4x5 film in any way other than ease of handling. At least not for normal shooting.
I use a 50mp FF camera and there is NO comparison to 35mm film.
There are a few old hold-outs that shoot film. Sure, it’s a beautiful medium but that’s about where it ends. Like driving an old 60’s muscle car, they’re different, not better.
Probably any cheap 24mp digital is better than film.
Of course LF films are a completely different animal.
Get yourself a used Canon 5Ds, cheap, and you’ll be blown away by what a 50mp digi camera can do!!! Good luck
SS

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I'm not a professional but I used to be into film in a big way. Bought film in 100 ft rolls, had my own darkroom, several different cameras. When I started working the photography became secondary and the photos went to the processor. Had no time for the darkroom and didn't have time to take enough photos to make darkroom work worthwhile.

Got a P&S in 1999 and a DSLR in 2005 (and another, and another, and another......). Jumped into digital with both feet and an arm and a leg. Back around 2005 the DSLR was probably the equal of 35mm film (at least in my experience). Since then digital has advanced a lot and film hasn't. Digital has better resolution at better sensitivity than the film I had experience with. And the convenience is really significant. No chemicals to deal with (and dispose of in an environmentally safe way). My "darkroom" is well lit and I can see what I'm doing. If I don't like what I got with dodging and burning I can adjust it on my computer. I can move the adjustment around on the image. I don't have to make a new image every time I change something. My images are given useful names like "Suzie's Birthday Party 20180813 110243" so finding them on my computer takes seconds, and no searching through drawers of negatives.

If you're going to get into DSLR work you have a wide range of decisions to make. You can probably do it for a couple hundred dollars (used equipment) or you can spend $50K for top of the line stuff (which you will probably want to upgrade on a 4-year cycle).

If you enjoyed your darkroom work, you will probably enjoy postprocessing. Good luck and show us the photos.

PS: Digital and film are indeed different. Film has distinct characteristics, particularly color rendition. Digital is widely adjustable so it can be made to emulate different films.
PPS: If you're asking the question in this forum you are likely going to get mostly answers from people who are committed to digital.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Repurchase your film cameras or equivalent from your past! Go back to taking 35mm film and medium format photos using the outstanding films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford (and others) now available. Recapture the photography joys of your past. I have and it is really a kick, even with gear that is not the top of the range.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I shot weddings and senior portraits with Hasselblads. Digital comes no where close to the quality of film. (Medium format anyway) I used a lab for all of my negative processing and printing. I processed slide film at home. Now I have a few Canon 1d bodies and getting ready to get the 1dx 2. The reason I use digital is because of the cost. Sending in my negatives for 5x5 proofs was about $1.50 for every shutter click. The last time I used film was hiking thru the Colorado mountains, it cost about $250.00 to get prints from the trip.
If cost were not an issue I would shoot only film.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Still waiting for an affordable 8x10 sensor digital camera to compete with my large format film camera. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Which tech is better is hardly a discussion worth having. Each has it's merits and faults. Both will create praiseworthy images. Yes, digital provides access and ease. Yes film is more demanding and limited with respect to ISO, and with long exposures there is reciprocity failure and color shift to contend with, among other things - none of which are part of digital. You can fire off as many as 24 frames per second, take outrageously good video, "develop" your images in a "green", chemical-free workflow, etc etc etc.

I switched over completely in 2006. But I still have my tanks, trays, Gralab timers, enlarger, etc and a 4x5 camera - just in case I ever feel nostalgic.

And as good as current digital tech is, it is no match for 4x5 negs.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Do what you like. Guaranteed someone will explain how it is wrong, and someone will explain how it is right.

I will tell you that if and only if you are able to climb the learning curve, digital is not just better but FAR better. If you can't learn the new technology it will not be better.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I helped guide a pro portrait lab through the transition from film to digital. Having made that journey, I am convinced by the entirety of it that I need never use film again.

The best recent full frame digital cameras are better than most 120 film when that film is exposed to 6x4.5 cm images. Only a handful of specialty films can resolve more, until you get up to 9x6cm, 4"x5", and larger films.

It used to be that most of us dreaded making any prints larger than about 11x14 from medium and high speed (ISO 125 and 400) 35mm films. These days, even lowly Micro 4/3 cameras generate very nice images at ISO 800 that are acceptable at 16x20. APS-C bumps that up by 2/3 to 1 stop, and full frame by another stop for roughly equivalent image quality.

There are so many advantages to digital imaging that we never had with film, I can't list them all.

For all but THE most critical uses, digital cameras are — or can be — better than film.

If you're a film photographer, that's fine. Many still enjoy the processing and printing, and the care and thought that goes into full manual exposure. I used film for 40 years. I made B&W and color prints, slides and transparencies, and processed it all. But we live in a different world now, one which travels at the speed of light. My Lumix camera WiFi can send images to my iPhone, for immediate tweaking and upload to the Internet. The same camera I use for stills can capture stunning 4K video with great audio from external audio sources. And it's smaller than my Nikon F3.

Does digital imaging take a lot of getting used to, with a long, steep learning curve? Oh, HELL yes! But it's sort of like scratching through a brick wall with your fingernails, or learning a computer. Once you break through that wall, once you know what you're doing, you're in this giant toy store with all the coolest things you could ever want to play with!

Just a reality check... Here's a list of the things you'll need to do digital photography right:

dSLR or MILC/DSLC/EVIL camera and lens(es)
Fast computer (Mac or Windows) (dual or quad core, fast video, 8 to 16 GB RAM, 500GB hard drive, more resources would be better)
Really good monitor (not a laptop monitor!) (at least 1920x1080 pixel resolution)
Real, hardware-and-software monitor calibration kit (from DataColor or X-Rite)
Software such as Adobe Photographer Bundle (Lightroom Classic CC, Photoshop CC, Bridge, ACR...) or Affinity Photo or Capture One Pro, or Photoshop Elements or...)
Relationship with a good pro lab OR a photo quality inkjet printer, OEM ink, and inkjet photo papers with ICC profiles
TRAINING AND EDUCATION AND TENACITY AND PATIENCE
EXPERIENCE

Fortunately, practically everything you knew/know about film photography has a matching counterpart in digital photography. The physics of light have not changed!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yes, but only if you compare full frame (24x36mm) digital to 35mm film cameras and only if you don't blow the digital highlights and shoot color or need high ISO.

When it comes to B&W, film still has an edge, even at 35mm, for a multitude of reasons - especially if you use the same lenses.

Once you move up to a larger format (120 or sheet film), film is still superior in a lot of ways for both color and B&W starting with resolution.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I think when people ask about the "comparable results" of digi-vs-film they are missing the point.

Both are fine in their own way.

The question for me was: what PROCESS do you enjoy?


In my opinion (so now that I said opinion, please don't pile on me and tell me how wrong I am...this is subjective, not OBjective) the process that's most enjoyable is film. It informs my choice of which film to use, which developer to choose, how to shoot, what to shoot, and all. It's more of a ZEN experience in my opinion. I dislike just clicking away and then importing tons of digi-images into LR and then messing on a computer, and then exporting them to a hard drive.

That just doesn't interest me.


What does interest me is choosing a particular film in an awesome tank-built simple camera from the distant past, choosing how to shoot it...then going out with purpose, shooting only things that I'd be willing to print later...and then being surprised when I see what I had shot after developing the film (I get to enjoy the images twice so far!) and then making the contact sheet, sitting down with a cup of coffee and a loupe and choosing the keepers....then hitting the darkroom again and making prints.

I like that workflow MUCH better and so I shoot film exclusively. I'm not interesting in seeing LCD's or culling through 1000 pictures to get a couple that won't ever be printed. That's not my thing.

Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion about my PREFERENCES so no need to argue that your way is better or that digital can do the same or whatever....to each their own joy.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

How about hearing from a semi-professional photographer that started in film with an AE-1 and did my own processing for years, still occasionally uses tri-x, but mostly uses Nikon DSLR bodies. Also, worked a long career in the graphic arts industry in both film and digital mostly in pre-press, but spent a fair amount of time in the pressroom.

Professional DSLRs have a higher dynamic range than film (around 10,000 to 1 or about 12 stops for film and about 100,000 to 1 or about 16 stops for better DSLRs). Professional DSLRs have a much higher equivalent film speed. Remember ISO 50 slide film with ISO 400 B&W film being the fast stuff? Digital noise/grain and film noise are very different, but when measured at the same ISO speed, a professional DSLR has less noise and grain, but the grain of film can add a lot to a photograph as it can add some beautiful random texture. [You can actually make some digital photos better by adding some random white noise.] Professional DSLRs actually have a higher resolution than equivalent ISO film at 35mm. Larger format film like 4x5, has higher resolution than DSLRs. As far as cost and convenience go, DSLRs win hands down and you can keep perfect duplicates of you digital photo files forever. I can afford to take a lot more photos with my DSLRs, so I can experiment more and be more creative. I don't spend anywhere near the time and money I spent in the darkroom. In addition to being much, much faster, doing PP digitally at my desk is much easier on my knees and back than standing in the darkroom and I can do some fancy things I could never do in film. Remember nose grease and dodging? It takes me minutes to make up a catalog or magazine page digitally. It took craftsmen hours to make up the same page in film. Digital is a big step forward. I think I occasionally still use film mostly to remember how good we have it now.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Better or worse is probably not the main issue.

There are millions of images being uploaded to the internet every hour of every day. If you want to be 'yet another' photographer doing this - or as a professional, providing the services that most people now expect ....then digital is going to beat the workload you have set out to do.
Film has come back, because there are hundreds(rather than millions) of people out there who realise that there is a niche market for those who can handle Film. Plus there is kit out there going 'cheap'. There are people out there wanting 'something different' as a service.

So where do you see yourself? What are your needs? Where would you like to participate or show your work?

As a hobby - starting from scratch, Film is probably not the easiest option for most people. However, with your experience in using this medium you could excel quite easily in the 'smaller' market. The romance surrounding 'Film' is probably going to be worth more - as time goes on. Digital has already set 'photography' at quite a low benchmark. Everyone with a phone believes that they can be the next 'great' name.

Film on the other hand is now seen as being, sufficiently different, and 'uncommon'.

As you now have a choice.......! only you can answere which route you want to pursue.

Have fun

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Because "better or worse" is too vague.

Even if you have been using film for decades, film is not the easier option. But that is exactly why so many of us love film. It's more of a challenge and that makes it more fun.

After decades of using film in several formats, I continue to learn something new all of the time about film, cameras and processing including scanning vs. wet printing.

I learned just about everything I needed to know about digital in a few years. I have now reached the stage of whether to continue to spend more money. That's not so much fun.

Taking everything into account, film actually costs a lot less than digital.