RichinSeattle

Kodachrome was essentially grainless, and rich in dynamic range and color density. But, the drawback was shooting at ASA (ISO) 25, with all the dangers that low shutter speed and wide apertures bring to "sharpness."

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I was, and am, a very steady photographer. Most of these photos were things like railroad cars with lettering of varying sizes that allowed me to watch for any artifacts of motion. I am quite sure I was getting all the sharpness there was to be had from that film. Later, I used the same lens on my digital camera, and discovered how much additional sharpness was available from 16mp. We really have made progress in the past fifty years.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

Thank you, I don't go there often, usually I go to Kenmore Camera, it's another good store.

chippy65 Loc: Cambridge

perhaps the most telling difference is that in the case of the film camera the captured image will be what the camera recorded, modified a little

by the photographer's skill,perhaps some use of filters. Darkroom manipulation in the case of prints........ "As Is" in the case of slides.

Digital images sometimes seem to have been "tweaked" to within an inch of their lives and can appear to be unrealistic

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Unlike digital, film requires developing - and patience.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have an EasyShare around here somewhere. It was my wife's camera, and it's very good for what it does. I also have the little Kodak printer that uses colored film to make 4 x 6" prints.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I still shoot film on a regular basis. It's very difficult to try to do a head to head comparison of digital and film. Though similar, they are two different genres.
--Bob

captivecookie Loc: Washington state

Yep, I know that film and digital are entirely different in almost every respect. Im one of those ancient chaps who discovered photography way back before digital showed up. When I think of a comparison, I guess my mind conceives not of identical images at same shutter speeds and aperture and other settings, but a couple pictures to show, in general, the best possible in each format given controlled efforts. It's more of a general interest comparison than a scientific comparison I was thinking of.

When digital came along, it was a big surprise for me. I wonder what other big surprises or paradigm shifts await us.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm not the one who put real in quotes. I'm not the one who stated you have only two real cameras. I'm not looking for an argument either so why don't you lighten up yourself. I was simply adding to the conversation by establishing the reason for my question, then asking the question. As for the reason you state for putting real in quotes, really?! By putting real in quotes you put emphasis on real, as if your other camera is not a real camera, thus adding another dimension to the conversation. Obviously your little Kodak is a real camera albeit an older more technologically challenged one, but real none the less. You already offered a valid reason for the lack of sharpness; the much older digital camera.

knoxworks Loc: Western Mass.

I love my digital Canon and f2.8 Canon lens, but I'm resurrecting my Minolta SRT-101 and 201 film cameras. Someone said "but you'll have to pay to have it developed." I replied that I had already invested in lenses. (Mainly Minolta primes, but a couple of Sigmas and one Vivitar zoom in the mix.) I'm fortunate that there's superb photo lab in a nearby city and a camera store close to me that picks up and delivers from there twice a week. Long live film!
P.S. The battery in the Minoltas only powers the meter, so if it dies I can still take photographs.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

To my way of thinking, most photography is the same. I use(d) same basic methods with my Kodak box cameras, my later film camers, my digital cameras, and my smart phone.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The best digital output is done on high-end, 8- to 12-color inkjet printers, using pigment-based inks and specially coated archival inkjet papers. Printing with a direct connection to a computer running Lightroom, the operator can tweak the raw-file-to-print conversions on a 10-bit or better monitor, keeping everything in the ProPhoto RGB color space until the final conversion to the printer/paper/ink profile.

Using that setup, it's possible to create both black-and-white and color prints that surpass just about anything we can achieve with film. The learning curve IS substantial, and the experience curve is substantial, as well, just as it was with film. But the precision and repeatability and predictability of results are much improved.

To each his own. Film or digital, the preference boils down to experience, knowledge, end-use applications, and availability of equipment. In the end, what truly matters is the content of the image... its message, the emotion conveyed, the history recorded. Only we who are photographers "get off on" a particular technology's quality. Consumers of our images don't care what we used to produce them.

I, too, started in the late '60s. I gave up film in 2005. In the previous five years, I had just led the development of digital production departments in a major pro portrait lab, as we transferred all our processes from film/optical printing to full digital processes. The improvements in quality and consistency and waste reduction were palpable. But the FLEXIBILITY and SPEED and MULTI-TASKING natures of digital processes were the key features for us.

I agree with Nicholas Negroponte, at MIT Media Lab. The bits of computer data beat the atoms of film in so many ways, the switch is welcome. Of course, it has also been disruptive of many industries. The congruence of media technologies — radio, audio, and telephonics; video and photography; design, text, and graphics; plus the Internet and social media — has created a digital revolution centered around computers, tablets, and smartphones.

Left in its wake are newspapers, AM/FM radios, broadcast TVs, film cameras, landlines, vinyl records and cassette tapes, movie theaters... All of which are still around in dedicated physical forms, as small shadows of their former selves.

Progress? Yeah, but it is still photography (etc.). I still have my Nikon FTn and a few lenses, too. But the camera is in a drawer, and my son uses the primes on his mirrorless camera, via an adapter. I've moved on to mirrorless gear, too... plus an iPhone, of course.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Quit being a jerk.

Carnpo Loc: North Carolina

Great! In another 50yrs that Nikon F will still work. It probably needs new light seals and mirror foam. Try Garry’s Camera Repair. Did a nice job on my Nikkormat.

RichinSeattle

In 50 years, my grandkids (should I be fortunate enough to have any) will haul that thing off the shelf and laugh at what grandpa used to make pictures. Once I finish playing with it, it'll be a museum piece - or junk.