radiojohn

I've always thought that for MAJOR family events, shooting a roll of real silver-based BW film and having it properly developed and washed would give you something that could be accessed 50-100 years from now.

Not at all sure about digital images. The computer industry took over the photo industry and their idea of a long time is 18 months.

If that is not a concern, film is pretty irrelevant lately.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

• You can probably access digital 50-100 years from now if they were adjusted (converted) for different <new> formats and stored on "current" media along the way. e.g. don't save them on a floppy......

• Where in the world did "18 months" come from? Relative to what?
I have digital images that are over 25 years old.

• I'm not concerned, that would be up to my descendants.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Not worth using film then scanning.
If you use film then make prints directly from it or project slides.
For digital images shoot digital "film".
If you have old negatives, slides or prints, as most here do then scanning to digital is so worth it.
I actually make a white area below the photo and type in who. What, where and when with information as known. That way anyone looking at the photo knows immediately about it regardless of how they are looking at it.

User ID

Well one reason may be that altho the camera is enjoyable to use, it produces latent images on film rather than ready-to-use digital image files. Intriguing toy but no really useful output.

MrPhotog

Film is its own backup. Digital copies make it more accessible by electronic transmission, but it can be viewed as it is.

As digital processes continue to improve in both hardware and software areas, ‘marginal’ old negatives can be viewed with clarity. So an old negative might be scanned again and again at decade intervals and the more recent scans might dig more out of the negatives (or transparencies) than older scans. Digital software improvements in adjusting focus errors can improve out-of-focus film images.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Shooting film and then processing it seems like paying twice for one picture. If you like to shoot film, that's something else.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I might be off base here, but after seeing both prints and negatives that my dad shot over 100 years ago, I remain impressed with the quality and durability of these. I shoot a roll of B/W film now and then and hope my grandchildren can have the same experience long after I'm gone and laugh at their faces 75 years from now.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It has been mentioned, if you enjoy shooting film then why not. It is not cost effective to shoot film and then scan it to work with an editor. In that case digital will save you a lot of money.
We do not find today many professional printing labs printing film.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I use the DARKROOM in Ca.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

......took a minute.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

sorry, the name of the company that processes B/W. They return prints, negatives and digital on a CD; at least that was the package the last time I sent film for processing.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

In terms of resolution the answer seems to be no on an apples to apples comparison but the comparison can be more subtle. Personally I find digital to be far better; the results are immediate, the investment far lower (no darkroom) and the quality at least as good. There are other points of view on this though and I offer the following article on the subject for those interrested in the question:

https://petapixel.com/film-vs-digital/

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I learned photography in the 60s, using 35 mm and medium format cameras. Recently, I was feeling nostalgic, and bought a few old film cameras, namely, Speed Graphic, Rolleiflex & Hasselblad, for a relatively modest amount of money. I bought them to display as art, and they changed the feeling of the entire room, sitting on floating glass shelves, on both sides of some of my photos. Below are a few pictures of the display. Getting back to the original question, I can’t resist taking out the Hasselblad and shooting some landscapes. I will take the same pictures with my Sony A7R IV, and I am looking forward to comparing the images from each camera, after having the film digitalized and running the shots through post processing. I am not suggesting I’m going to shoot film to any significant degree. But sometimes it’s just fun to break out of my comfort zone and experiment, even if it is “inefficient” uses of time and money. At the same time, I did some “interior decorating“ that has a uniquely personal touch and appreciation for past experiences. Hope some of you find this some interest…

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Interesting.