[Blue]

I'm not sure what your point is. JPEG and TIFF have been around for 15 years or more and hard disk drives (commercially) for 50. But even if some perfect new file format or storage medium was to come along and render all others obsolete, you could automatically convert every file you own in your sleep. It's a complete non-issue.

5.5 floppies, 3.5 floppies, CD, DVD, ZipDisk, "thumb drive," hard drives etc. is part of the media shift. How man of these things are archival? Granted, 99.9999% of my stuff doesn't need archival quality.

[Blue]

I just find it to be a real hassle to haul my turntable and tube amps down to the park on a sunny day. Or, to the store so I'm not subjected to Michael Bolton while buying supper ingredients.
If I you spend less than $10 in film and processing a week, with a 3 year life of a digital body, shooting film can be alot cheaper.

Just turn that vintage Marantz and those 6 ft speakers up and open the windows . . . or open the windows first.

[ILoveVerdi]

5.5 floppies, 3.5 floppies, CD, DVD, ZipDisk, "thumb drive," hard drives etc. is part of the media shift. How man of these things are archival? Granted, 99.9999% of my stuff doesn't need archival quality.

That's my biggest concern with digital. I've had hard drives fail on me before, and if your files aren't backed up properly it can be expensive retrieving them. Storage is cheap, but cheap storage is only going to last a few years before mechanical problems become likely; true archival storage doesn't exist yet in digital as far as I'm concerned, at least not to the duration of well-kept film.

[artobest]

The best storage is high-quality archival prints.

[Pål Jensen]

I still don't have a digital camera. I have almost pulled the trigger several times on a K20d setup. Something keeps telling me to stay analog. Honestly, I worry that once I have a DSLR, I'll neglect analog photography. Seems silly, I know. It's just that I see manual film shooting as a discipline. I don't know if I want the option to shoot 1000 photos in a day. I have to be judicious with my shooting because each exposure costs a little something. In being judicious, I'm carefully checking exposure and composing each photo with the intent of getting a keeper.

Who else is holding off on joining the 21st century? Is this a backwards way of thinking?

I bought the K10D two years ago and have never used for anything but snapshots. The image quality is far from film (35mm) and I don't bond with the camera in any way.
I think the K-7 could be a game changer fopr me; the camera seems to be something that is nice to hold and use. Nifty features like in camera HDR toghether with smaller size of body and lenses may make me want to change to digital in spite of lower image qulity.

[B Grace]

I recommend shooting both film and digital. The big advantage digital offers is in exposure control and selection. There is a major difference between adjusting exposure in the camera for the photograph and adjusting brightness and contrast in the image file later. The incredible potential available for digital images is just simply not there with film unless you do your own processing and printing.

For me, the advantage film has over digital is the very fragile nature of its use. One camera, one lens, and one frame. The limitations of the film media available in the camera only elevates the thought of a person creating art. It definitely steers one away from the "spray and pray" practice many folks seem to utilize with digital capture. So call it Zen and the art of the old fashioned film camera.

[tibbitts]

When I got a K100 in 2007, my first digital camera, I actually bought a few rolls of film on the same order. Never used them. Digital was just so much better in most ways, and at least adequate in others. I would guess the 6mpixel dslr generation might have been the first in which digital was a good alternative for most uses.

One of the biggest advantages of digital is the ability to copy without data loss, which always happens with film. You generally can't make a film copy/backup that's as good as the original. So if you lose or damage the original, you're out of luck. The imperfect alternative is to shoot multiple originals, which of course is expensive with film.

Another downside to film is that for most uses we want to make of our images today (web, publications, etc.), we need to do digital conversion. We've already seen the majority of film scanners discontinued, and while some high end ones may remain, it may gradually become more difficult to convert film to digital.

Paul

[artobest]

One of the biggest advantages of digital ...
Another downside to film ...

Sorry, but you're preaching to an empty cathedral here.

[titrisol]

And thay also fit well in "albums" and frames!!!

The best storage is high-quality archival prints.

[Blue]

One of the biggest advantages of digital is the ability to copy without data loss, which always happens with film. You generally can't make a film copy/backup that's as good as the original. So if you lose or damage the original, you're out of luck. The imperfect alternative is to shoot multiple originals, which of course is expensive with film.



Paul

Actually, if you are talking about darkroom work, it depends on the person operating the enlarger. It also depends on the quality of the enlarging lenses on there as well. It is actually possible to get better prints from negatives than originals.

It is also possible to get good scans to digital done. The irony here is that scanning equipment is actually getting better. A scan of a slide or negative from 8 years ago can easily be surpassed if scanned today.

[alohadave]

The necessity to buy a new digital camera every two years must also be considered when comparing long-term cost.

Chris

That is by no means a necessity.

[alohadave]

The best storage is high-quality archival prints.

Until your storage location burns down, or floods, or is burgled. Nothing lasts forever, film or digital. It's all about risk management and what level of risk is acceptable to you.

[raymeedc]

The necessity to buy a new digital camera every two years must also be considered when comparing long-term cost.

Chris

I shoot with a pair of *ist DS DSLRs ( the last one obtained last week in mint condition for $170) and a pair of recently acquired Canon compacts (G6 & S70, both mint & obtained fairly recently for $150 & $84 respectively), all from 2004 - 2005. Not everyone is convinced of the need for the "latest & greatest". People like me take advantage of others belief in this mantra to acquire dirt cheap "outmoded" equipment.

[ILoveVerdi]

Until your storage location burns down, or floods, or is burgled. Nothing lasts forever, film or digital. It's all about risk management and what level of risk is acceptable to you.

That's certainly true, but data corruption and storage media failure are much more likely than any of those events.

[Jonson PL]

Hi Jake,

For my needs, I believe there is one definite advantage with digital over film (in terms of cost) in a specific instance: wildlife photography. This type of photography is almost always less expensive with digital since with tougher subjects (ie. black and white or mixed dark/light) can be difficult to expose correctly and sometimes you have to bracket the shots.

Birding photographer Arthur Morris even stated that he had to use 20 shots to correctly expose a single bird - a Willet (alternating dark and white plumage). Here is a link to the image: Shorebirds: Beautiful Beachcombers - Google Books. I noted that this image is darker than in his Bird Photography field guide. He even advocates not skimping on shooting film: "Do not attempt to conserve film when shooting action and behavior." Arthur Morris is considered one of the masters of birding imagery during the film era.

Initially I shot a great deal with digital. Now that I've come to understand it's characteristics in low light and high dynamic range situations, I generally shoot much less overall. Why? My keeper rate has gone up quite a bit - usually it's a missed AF lock or outside the DOF due to a sudden movement, not anticipating the moment, etc. of the subject correctly. That's assuming the camera does the job and I didn't mess up on my settings in some way or lost the moment.

Nowadays I still tend to treat digital like film, because I want to use my skill to get the shot - normally only a couple of images in a series is really a keeper and worthy of printing. Besides, I hate wading through a lot of photos only to discard them. Only birding tends to be the exception to this... That's the nature of this kind of photography.

Otherwise enjoy using film and nothing wrong with your train of thought. It's what works for you.

Regards,
Marc

Thanks for the link, an interesting read