burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I understand where you’re coming from. But I moved from analog to digital media for the advantages of immediacy, simultaneous multiplicity af access, speed and ease of access...

As for newspapers, I miss great journalism a lot more than I miss the paper.

I’m happy not to read a map, but listen to turn-by-turn direction instead. I do keep a paper road atlas, but like the stupid DVD map system in my car, it was out of date before it was sold.

My phone is my book, magazine, and much more.

Nostalgia isn’t necessarily a set of bad habits, but it can be.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Tempting. Very tempting. My issue with it would be that, like all of Nikon's first-series of AF lenses, this 70-210 has a dinky, metal focusing ring. I guess that Nikon engineers all thought that, if a lens had AF, then nobody was going to want to focus manually. I DO! Often. And those tiny, darn-near-useless focus rings on the initial AF Nikkors were so horrible that Nikon redesigned the exterior of all their AF lenses within just a couple years because of public out cry. I had a few of them (not this one, but others). Hated them. Couldn't wait to "unload" them on EBAY. Yes, for a good, sharp lens, for sure the EBAY price is attractive. But I would almost certainly hate myself in the morning.

anotherview Loc: California

FWIW: "Comparing modern DSLR image quality with 35mm Ektachrome is totally pointless unless there is something about the look of film and scanning that you prefer and simply can't duplicate with digital. If that is so, nobody has defined that for me.

"Maybe it has more to do with using old cameras and having a 'film' experience... whatever that means to you."

Found this opinion in the comments at: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4704907054/kodak-begins-shipping-ektachrome-film-to-select-photographers-for-testing
'''''
My view: Film photography now fills a niche for those photographers who enjoy and appreciate it. But in my opinion, they should stop trying to defend or present it as somehow better than digital photography.

They should instead describe their experience with film photography as it presents itself to them, separate and apart from digital photography, just as users of other niche photography do.

For my part, I did film photography for a short while when it dominated the craft of photography, using a Yashica Mat 124 camera. I took a couple memorable family photos. But I used a lab to process my negatives and make prints. I never had my own lab due both to cost and convenience. I moved around too much. So I gave up photography until the digital era in photography began.

I say long live film photography for those individuals who practice it.

All must allow, however, that the advent of new photographic technology has given us digital means of photography. The future of photography belongs to digital.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Very well said.
In what has become a tedious thread, what annoyed me was the suggestion that many digital photographers know that film is superior; but fueled by lazyness, lack of concern for best quality, for the sake of convenience, or whatever; have abandoned film and now shoot digital.
That is simply not true; nor has the convenience of digital created a "sad state of affairs."

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There have been many unreasonable claims made on both sides of the argument, most of them in defense of a commitment made with little consideration for or experience with the alternative.

Since I regularly use both film and digital I can see both sides of the argument. There are situations where one approach is better than the other but neither wins hands down in all cases.

Behind all of this is the assumption that it's all about small format photography. It's not.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Okay, why don't we all take a look at these two postings; same subject mater, same photographer, one shot with film and the other digital. Can you see any difference?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-548336-1.html

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-547949-1.html

Everybody agrees with the advantages of digital. There are some of us here that think film has to use a non technical term (and to attempt not to get into a further argument over which media has better resolution) a better look to it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Other than a slight difference in brightness (brighter red in one and darker blue sky in the other) they both look fine.

BebuLamar

I can see the differences. I can tell which one is which but I can't say which is better. They are both good.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

All I see are two digital images. We cannot compare a digitized version of a film image with a digital image. Just ain't happnin. Both shots and very nice. Aircraft and spacecraft put the meat on my table for over 40 years.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Maybe you need to step away from your computer. Look at a book or visit a gallery. You might learn something new.

There is more to life than digital.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Nice response smellslie.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Well Streets, you may not have that ability but I, for one, certainly do.

therwol Loc: USA

All very fine photos, but as someone else just said, we're looking at digital images of scanned film. I think that process loses something not matter how well it's done. I guessed correctly which was which without scrolling down to see the description of the film used. I spent more years shooting film that I've spent shooting digital. I'm familiar with the different appearance to begin with and what it looks like when it is scanned.

BebuLamar

And so I printed my negative and now I lost the darkroom I project my slides.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Scotty, NO offense or personal attachment taken.
I interpreted, "spray and prey(S&P)", as a technique that takes no skill by those that have no skill, not as an alternative professional technique, no different than using a tripod or ND filter to be used as needed in a situation that will improve our chances of landing the shot just as we envision prior to shooting!
Not defensive but I do speak up if a technique used at any given time by every sports professional on this planet is used to imply a mindless way to shoot by beginners that don't know how to get results. That said, cameras don't use themselves, we need to know how to use them.
The following is a good example of combing everything both of us have said. Taken with a Canon 5Dmkll, with a focus system that sucks for action and a pedestrian frame rate!

(Download)