Wow - read this re: Film versus Digital debate!

Is this guy credible. Is it true what he asserts.

No, he's a crackpot. Take his writings with large grains of salt. Much of what he says is tounge-in-cheek. He can nonetheless be insightful and has written valuable articles. He's also written a lot of hogwash.

This article about film's superiority was good for laughs. I agree with some of the things he says there, and he raises some good points.

And to Phil: by all means go ahead and use film if you like working that way. It's the result that counts. I'm shooting mostly film too but I'm not a professional.

You will love your Pentax, I had one for a while and loved the quality and results I obtained. Be confident about your choice there are loads of films out there, rather than film vs digital think film and digital they are quite different mediums.

On the site you linked to, he's not a 'crackpot' as previously inferred but a very shrewd blogger, who publishes contentious material to drive hits to earn cash, kind of the photo blog version of those magazines about celebrities and what surgery they are having etc. Think about what you want to achieve from your photography, look at the work of others, develop a style don't worry about internet debates that are basically driven by bored people who just want to back up their choices. In fact I'd go further, those who tell you to 'go digital' are not to be trusted, ask yourself 'why does it matter to them what camera I use?" There is a huge amount of misinformation out there, based upon others choice, people will try to convince you film is binary (its not) a 6mp DSLR is better than your 6x7 or a $5 camera is better than a $5 digicam. those sites are for entertainment rather than science or guidance. Have Fun!! Mark

Hey thanks guys - this is a very good start. I really enjoyed your responses. I had to laugh Fredrik where you called him a 'crackpot'.

Mark you really made a lot of sense. I am starting to think down that road - better to concentrate on making good images than to worry about which medium I use.

I suppose a more direct question to Ken's link is what he says about dropping off his films to the lab, getting them processed and the resultant slides are then scanned. My question is - the scans that he speaks about - how do they compare with the same image taken on a top range DSLR.

I would be getting 6x7 transparencies scanned. I rang my lab today and they said that their high quality scans are about 18 meg. Would they be enough to submit to a stock library, take high quality prints from or to view on the screen.

Sorry about the stupid questions but I am just getting back into photography. When I gave photography up in the mid 90's, digital was barely around so I know nothing about it.

Cheers - Phil

I don't know much about digital cameras but I do know about computers and scanning. I use film and then scan it because I just don't have the room at the time since I moved for a dark room. I will tell you personally in a print magazine I can't tell much difference between Digital and Film but I can tell it in a print even a digital print from film. You will love your Pentax it is a great camera and shoot tons of film I have not gone digital because I have about 6 liters of rodinal in the cubby and about 3 miles of film in a huge freezer and always adding more to it.

I wish you luck in getting back to photography and the secret I recently learned is shoot and worry later.

Larry

P.S. Crackpot is a bit harsh *g*

I suppose a more direct question to Ken's link is what he says about dropping off his films to the lab, getting them processed and the resultant slides are then scanned. My question is - the scans that he speaks about - how do they compare with the same image taken on a top range DSLR.

I can't imagine that they compare. I do believe that if digital images is what you want, a digital camera is the way to go. I shoot slides for projection myself. I don't shoot color negative film; few labs print optically these days and if they are going to scan the negative before printing, I can just as well shoot digitally in the first place.

However, your 6x7 transparencies are large; scanned competently using good equipment they will give any DSLR a run for the money.

You trade time or travel to get film processed vs some computer time. Scanning or making prints in the darkroom are labor intensive.

To me the biggest advantage is being able to make two pics and load into my computer in a few minutes and I am done. No worries about what to do with the rest of the roll.

With a computer, you can walk away and not worry about chems spoiling. Learn to use action and other tricks to process many pics at one time. Let the computer slug through it.

If you are comfortable with film, continue. I like and use both.

"I wondered how many serious photographers still use film and how much longer it will last."

Many serious photographers continue to use film: some exclusively, some in addition to digital. Film will be around for a long time, although it will probably get more expensive, and quality lab services rarer.

I don't agree much with Ken Rockwell's article, but it's mostly an opinion piece. The problems he has with digital are because he prefers photos "straight out of the camera", and doesn't want to deal with getting too involved in digital processing. There are so many variables in the creation of a photo that's it's best to test your own methods; having the same gear/materials doesn't mean you'll get the same results. A lot of folks on the internet like to show highly magnified samples as quality comparison. I've found hanging large prints side by side on a wall to be a better way for me to compare.

Film has worked very well for over 100 years. Digital hasn't changed that fact.

"I will tell you personally in a print magazine I can't tell much difference between Digital and Film but I can tell it in a print even a digital print from film."

Then you've apparently never seen a well printed digital image. The ONLY way you can tell, is if the print is inkjet printed on matte paper. Why? Because there is nothing in the traditional photographic papers that has that type of matte paper look. That says nothing about the quality of the results - only the difference in media. A LightJet print on traditional photographic paper is indistinquishable from a wet darkroom print on the same paper - unless you're looking at the prints with a 10x or higher power loupe. Then you can see the individual lines made by the lasers on the digital print.