Should I trade in my digital camera for a film camera?

[sublime]

Two minutes ago I read an article in Popular Photography about why film will never die. It mentioned that for the price of my digital camera I can get a high end film camera and take better pictures.

Now, the obvious question to ask is "What do you want to do with your camera." Well, I want to take great pictures, even though I don't know how to take them as of yet. I still know nothing about photography, but I imagine that I'd like to learn a lot about it in the future.

Here is how I weigh the situation:

Pros of digital camera:
-easier to use
-delete bad pictures easily/no waste

Cons:
-more money for way less features
-much worse quality picture printout
-very limited for upgrading

Hell, I don't know. I'd like the ability to take great pictures, but I know nothing about film and it looks as if its difficult to learn. My aspirations to take great pictures are not the foundation of a future profession, but merely an ability I'd like to have.

So should I start learning film, or did the magazine overexaggerate? Is learning to use film worth the effort?

[Bob12]

While I think there'll be place for film for a good long time, I don't agree with Popular photography's assertion about a high end film camera. Take for example the Canon high end 35mm SLR, the EOS-1V. It's currently going for about $1600 US while the Canon Digital Rebel (6.3mp) can be had for about $900. Yes, you can buy film cameras for far less than either of those prices but they'd certainly not be high end.

Will a film camera let you take better pictures? Not necessarily. You'll have many of the same issues with film you have with digital plus some others. Some of your questions which have been answered here apply to both film and digital. You'll still need to learn all the ins and outs of the camera and the film before taking those great pictures you mention.

Yes, there are pros and cons to both formats which you must weigh for yourself and decide which most meets your needs and wants. I would disagree with your con that digital cameras are more money for less features. It's partly because of those features that you pay more money. Take white balance for example. White balance is how a camera sees and records whites. Most digitals have some form of white balance built in - some better and more extensive than others. With film cameras, in many instances the same is accomplished through filters. An example of this is fluorescent lighting. Without a filter on a film camera or special film, not only will the white be wrong but the other colors will be off as well. With a digital's built in white balance, this is generally not a problem.

As for picture quality, film still has the edge but, for most prints, the higher pixel count of a digital camera will easily rival the quality of film. The secret here is a good printer and photo quality paper.

Getting back to the digital Rebel (and any other digital SLR), they can be upgraded just as extensively as a film SLR and often with the same items.

As I said earlier, the format that best suits you is up to you, but, since you are still learning, the digital is hard to beat for the reasons you mention and others. Jumping to a film camera right now won't help you learn to take those great pictures any easier or quicker. I'd suggest that, since you already own the digital, learn the basics first then decide if you want to stay with digital or switch to film. What you've learned with the digital will apply to the film and your learning curve for film specifics will be much shorter. Then you can buy a high end film or digital camera and do pretty much anything you want with either - or both.

[Bob12]

OH, and BTW, if you're reading the current issue of Popular Photography, read their one of their cons about the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, the number of controls on the back. It's because it has so many features that it has so many buttons. Trying to control all those features with just a few buttons would result in a terrible and confusing mish-mash of menus and sub-menus. And for reference, my high end Canon EOS-1N (predecessor of the 1V) 35mm film camera has 15 buttons or controls on the back.

[JTWise]

-more money for way less features
For the most part, I must agree that you can buy a cheap 35mm for much less than a low end digital. The more you spend, the less I feel this is true.

-much worse quality picture printout

I would definately disagree with this statement unless you are a professional photographer. While it is true that film has an edge, you will not ever notice it unless you are making pictures over 8x10 or 11x14. A normal sized print from a good 4 or 5 megapixel camera will be virtually indistinguishable from a film one.

-very limited for upgrading

Once again, depends on the camera you have. If you buy a $50 35MM, you have no features. Same is true if you buy a low-end digital camera. Also, one of the nice things about digital is the ability for post-shutter alterations in the software (ie filter effects). You would have to buy lots of filters from a film camera to reproduce this post-production. Other than buying new lenses (for SLRs), how would you upgrade a film camers?

I think that digital is a great way to get started with cameras. You can learn the basics without wasting lots of money on film.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Whoa, that's a first. Most of the time it's the other way around.

Well, I think you should take a break from reading all the equipment articles, and concentrate on taking pics. Your A70 isn't that bad, and swapping cameras in weeks won't do you any good if you don't really know why you're swapping other than a vague idea that it's "better".

[rtrueman]

Over in dpreview.com there's a guy who has a perfect tagline, "If I want to play like Mozart, which piano should I purchase". I'm a gadget guy and have always purchased equipment that was way beyond my abilities. Hell, I spent $2K on golf clubs and I've only broken 100 once (in other words, I SUCK!!!). I've been using a Nikon 8008s for 10 years and still think that it takes fantastic pictures and that any limitations in my shots are not from the camera, but from my abilities. That said, I'm looking to "upgrade" to digital mostly because of the convenience. I'm fairly confident that I'm not quitting the software development company I own to become a famous wildlife (or wedding for that matter) photographer. What I do want is the ability to easily display and store the pictures I take, which is why I'm looking to digital. A year ago, I was drooling over a Nikon D2X with a long, fast zoom lens, a great macro lens and awesome flash. Basically, a $5K + setup. After the birth of my daughter 10 months ago I see things, financially, different. Right now I'm scraping together some buck to purchase a Nikon D70 kit. Yeah, it's not the best camera or fastest lens, but it gives me what I'm looking for. A great platform to start learning digital SLRs at a price that's not going to start a divorce!

Ultimately, you need to decide what you want to get out of photography. If you want to create poster sized images and you're good enough to want to display them, film is still the leader. If you're like me, smaller hides the imperfections better! I show all my shots in thumbnail view! :)

Good luck!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

D2X isn't out yet, I assume you meant D1X.

Film is better at creating poster sized outputs, but that's only for large formats (4"x5"). At 35mm level I have to say that film has been surpassed by digital. Digital's relative noislessness compared to the grain film has at even low ISOs means they enlarge better. And at high ISOs, digital has film beat silly.

[bjornkeizers]

I have a digital camera - an Ixus V2 - and the benefits of digital far outweigh the benefits of film, IMHO.

Sure, *potentially* you could take a lot better picture with a good film camera - but there are a lot of downsides too. For one, do you have the skills? Do you have the time to invest in learning? Do you want to spend hundreds of dollars on rolls of films and developing to master the medium?

And when it comes to practicality, I'll take digital over film any day of the week. I take a lot of pics. I can, because I can store 250 odd pictures on my card in the highest res. I don't have to change rolls every other minute. I can see my pics right away and delete them. I can take a new one if I don't like it. And when I'm done, I pop the card in my laptop and I can work on the pics right away... I don't have to wait for them to develop and then scan them.

If all you want to do is take the occasional family picture or whatever, stick with digital. Unless you're willing to invest in film as a medium, I wouldn't bother.

[Falinn]

Just throwing in my 2 cents;

I have a nikon 4300 (digital) and nikon f80 (Film), i've been into photography for a while and got the digital camera first- previously i've had only a point and shoot 35mm and an APS camera. I got the digital because i'm into PCs, 'the digital age' and all that. 1st ly the 4300 is a great camera, and its got lots of features, i've taken about 4000 pictures in a year and a half.
Yet still i purchased an SLR.
The reason? 1) Durability, the F80 costs less than the 4300 by a fair margin, yet its built so much better. It seems that all digital technology these days apart from pro gear costing thousands isnt built to last, planned obsolesence. The F80 on the other hand, if its raining a bit it doesnt matter, i can throw it in the bottom of my bag without worrying
2) Speed, the 4300 takes an age to focus, change to different modes etc. The F80 is instant, everythings there
3) Versatility, with digital you're stuck with the sensor the manufacturer put in. F80- just stick in another film.

I dont think film will *never* die, one day the ccd will be superior to every film, in sensitivity, colour reproduction etc. But that days not here yet!
Desite that, I still use my 4300 a lot. Its great for trying things out, costs nothing to take a pic etc.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Hmm, I think I'll add some of my views:

1. Those newbies who scrimp and save to buy DSLRs just because they don't want to pay for film and developing: I find them really silly. I'll use the Nikon system as an example:

Nikon D70 + 18-70 + 1gb Lexar = $2500.
Nikon F80 + 28-105 + 8x loupe and light panel = $1400
Nikon F80 + 24-85 + 8x loupe and light panel = $1300
Cost of shooting and developing 1 roll of E6 film = $10-$16

Number of rolls to shoot before digital is cheaper = 68 to 120 rolls
Or 2516 to 4440 shots.

I didn't factor in time-value of money for the film costs, as that'd make the excercise too complicated. Oh, and the prices are all in my local currency and context.

Now I can hear some of you digital shooters saying: but I shoot 2000 photos in a month. Silly, you won't be shooting that much if you're on film. I personally average 2 rolls a week. Using the above numbers I'll take more than a year before I find using film is more expensive, and one can learn a lot in that period. Which brings me to my second point:

2. Film is still better as a learning tool than digital.

Too often I see newbies firing ermm.. 20 shots of the same boring photo, with minor tweaks in their settings, then use the LCD screen to pick what they want.

Now, personally mistakes are best learnt when the message hits home, and they hit home best when it's a painful one, and one that is the result of a shot that was done with the best of their abilities, applied with the most care, but yet still didn't come out right.

When newbies take 20 shots, and pick the best one off the LCD, they don't really push their abilities. They take a shot without pushing their abilities, then go back home and wonder what's wrong with the camera. No buddy, what's wrong is with you, and your inability to get out of your comfort zone.

When you're out of your comfort zone, you pay a whole lot more attention to what is going on. As a result you gain an increase in your understanding of things, because of this increased mindfulness.

Unfortunately many people want to stay in their comfort zone. That's why their photos stay in the mediocre zone as well.

That said, sublime, don't go and change your camera. That's the start of an expensive process, heh. What I'd suggest is to take a memory card that'll give you about 60-80 photos, and DON'T TOUCH the delete button when you're out shooting. Get back home and evaluate your images thoughtfully on the big screen instead.

[bjornkeizers]

1. Those newbies who buy DSLRs just because they don't want to pay for film and developing: I find them really silly. I'll use the Nikon system as an example:

Oy, those are some harsh words! :o


I didn't factor in time-value of money for the film costs, as that'd make the excercise too complicated.


But those are *exactly* the reasons why most of us went digital!


Now I can hear some of you digital shooters saying: but I shoot 2000 photos in a month. Silly, you won't be shooting that much if you're on film.


Exactly. With digital, I *can* shoot more. That doesn't mean I *do* shoot more. I have a 128 mb card, which is more then enough as it allows me to take 250 pictures in high resolution, and around 150 in the highest. I prefer to take two pictures, because you'll always have one slightly more blurry or out of focus. And what's wrong with that? At least if I *do* need to take those extra 50 pictures or that movie, I know I can. I agree that having your cam on full auto and shooting 20 frames on rapid fire, and then bitching about the cam *is* wrong.


2. Film is still better as a learning tool than digital.


I haven't shot enough film to say whether this is true or not. It all depends on the photographer - you can get just as good shots with digital as film, if you work at it. And film isn't the be-all and end-all of photography. There's pros and cons for both mediums.


When you're out of your comfort zone, you pay a whole lot more attention to what is going on. As a result you gain an increase in your understanding of things, because of this increased mindfulness.


Shoot first, ask questions later is what I say. I don't want to worry about whether or not my white balance is exactly so and my film loaded is exactly so and my shutter is set exactly so - I can take multiple pics and not have to worry too much about it. Over time, most people will get better with the camera. Back when I first started on digital, with a fuji finepix, most of the time everything was blurry, dark or just plain ugly... Now, with my Ixus V2, I can make great shots. Practice makes perfect.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Darn, I forgot to edit. Lemme change some bits of the original post.

Err, if I factored time-value of money, the film will be cheaper. Because I'm paying for the film costs later in time.

I prefer to take two pictures, because you'll always have one slightly more blurry or out of focus. And what's wrong with that?

See my point about staying in the comfort zone.

you can get just as good shots with digital as film, if you work at it. And film isn't the be-all and end-all of photography.

This isn't about getting good shots, or if the medium is the be-all and end-all of photography. It's about the medium as a learning tool.

Shoot first, ask questions later is what I say.

That's a snapshooter philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, as your goal with your camera is probably different from one who spends 2k on a DSLR, lenses and accessories.

[bjornkeizers]

That's a snapshooter philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, as your goal with your camera is probably different from one who spends 2k on a DSLR, lenses and accessories.


Obviously. I mostly use my camera for vacation shots, trips, selling things etc. Since I edit my shots to a internet-friendly resolution anyway, I don't mind a slightly blurry shot or something with a lower megapixel. That's not to say I don't care about quality - I try to take the best shot I can, and back when I got my first cam, that meant taking perhaps 5 shots. Now I can do it in 2 - my camera is better, my skills have improved, and I know the limitations of both cam and skills.

Still, I'm always willing to learn and grow. I'm planning to buy a better camera, even though I don't need one *right now*. I want a higher megapixel (I have a 2mp Ixus, so I want to at least double that) as well as better optical zoom - something lacking in the small cameras. I also want even better control over shutter, white balance, etc. All this because over time, my skills have grown to a level that my camera can't handle...

So, even a digital photographer can grow. Whether it's faster or slower then with film... I don't know. Personally, I'd get discouraged using film.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, have you tried using film before?

[bjornkeizers]

Well, have you tried using film before?

I have. Quite a lot. From your $4 disposable to a $1500 reflex.. I found it difficult to use and it didn't meet my needs. Plus, I don't like to wait for them to be developed :D

About the only thing that I miss with digital are the reflex type cameras - I like a bit of bulk. Nothing like a big honkin' camera with a lense the size of a rocket launcher...

I've been looking at some new cameras. I upgrade every two years. I'm thinking along the lines of a Minolta Dimage Z1 / HP 945 / Kodak DX6490... these are pretty good and look pretty much like the reflex type of old, with a few new gadgets. I study journalism, and as such I take a lot of pictures... and I would like a bit more heft and reach then the Ixus has. (still, can't complain mind you) Plus, for some odd reason people seem to associate SLR's with journalists :roll:

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Hmm, a $1500 reflex camera which probably has smoother operation than an average digital camera didn't quite suit you? What happened? Considering that DSLRs still have their film roots, I suppose that means you won't be getting those for a while. =P

I suppose the 5 megapixel cameras are out of your budget? I think a Minolta A1 is a good camera for those who want control but want something smaller than a DSLR. The 8 megapixel cameras tend to push the bounderies of technology a bit too much for my liking..

[sublime]

Boundaries of technology? No such thing

[evil laugh] buahahahaha! [/evil laugh]

[Crocuta]

This is an interesting little debate going on here. I find myself completely unconvinced by Lee's position, though. Not only doesn't it add up financially, it completely misses the impact of human nature and learning in developing a hobby like photography.

First the financial. Let's use Lee's numbers and consider the time effect on money. Here are the parameters:

Cost of F80 (per Lee): $1,400
Life of camera: 5 years, not unreasonable for an expensive SLR or DSLR
Rolls of film shot per year: 30 and we'll play with this in a minute
Cost per roll: $13, the midpoint of Lee's range
Discount Rate: 2.08% today's avg U.S. rate for 1 year CD (much higher than a savings account)

Using these values, the present value of the film camera is $3,234 compared to the digital camera at $2,500. Clearly that's not a bargain over the life of the camera. And that's using a higher interest rate than most people will get. The avg savings account rate today is 1.09%, which raises the film camera present value a bit to $3,288.

Don't think you'll use that much film? Run it at 20 rolls per year and you come up with a present value of $2,623, still higher than the digital camera. I would suggest that anyone planning to take less than 20 rolls per year belongs in a different market and shouldn't be looking at either of these cameras. (The break-even point is 18 rolls of film.)

We can play with these numbers all day, and different assumptions give different results, but the point is that the financial case for film is not compelling.

More important, though, is the advantages digital gives to a photographer in learning the craft. The first thing is recognizing that people don't think in terms of cost-benefit analyses when they're taking photos. They don't think 'I saved so much on this camera that I'll just shoot off a bunch of photos just to see what happens'. Every click of the shutter is more $$$ and the photographer knows it. That just does limit the things someone will do to experiment with their hobby.

There's good reason for this, and it is completely consistent with the behavior predicted by economic theory. You may pay more for the DSLR up front, but once spent your marginal cost of that next photo is zero. As any economist will tell you (and I am an economist and I am telling you), consumption decisions are made based on the marginal costs and benefits, not on the total costs and benefits. That is why we observe in the real world that people who own digital cameras tend to average more photos taken than do people with film cameras.

And I don't buy this nonsense that real artists take less photos because they're so careful. Real artists produce their art, they experiment and try new things, they are passionate about exercising their craft. And that leads to the most important reason that digital is a better choice for learning and practicing photography.

You simply cannot overstate the value for learning of instant feedback to your experimentation. Can you imagine a painter having to paint blindfolded and only getting to see his/her work a few days after it was complete? I still remember the old days of carrying a notebook with me when I took photos and tediously recording the camera settings and environmental conditions for each shot. Then, a week later, I'd get my slides back and poor over them trying to see what I did right and wrong. Of course, my conclusions were only theories because I couldn't test them since that particular day, with its own particular light, had come and gone. Learning was slow and laborious.

But with digital, I can experiment freely and immediately see what worked and what didn't. I can form ideas on the spot and test out new theories of how to make my photos better. When something works, I know it right then and can immediately try to improve on what I've done. When something doesn't work, I can try something else until I find something that does work. You just don't get this with film.

So in conclusion, I must respectfully disagree with Lee. Film does not make a compelling financial case and it is a significantly poorer medium from which to learn and grow as a photographer. If I were in sublime's shoes, I would try to make my current digital camera last as long as possible while learning everything I can about light and composition and the art of photography. Then, when that camera becomes too constraining to his or her art that a new camera is in order, I would go with a digital SLR.

In the interest of disclosing any potential biases I may have, I am an amateur photographer, though I do have published work. I currently use a digital camera (non-SLR) for casual snaps and practice and a film SLR for my most important work. I believe DSLR's have finally reached a price/performance relationship that they can finally replace my film camera and I'll probably do that in the next year or so. My preference for digital is based on my own experience of the type of photography that I do. It may or may not apply to someone else and what they do.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

5 years is optimistic. 3 years is more like it. Maybe even 2. Average turnaround time for DSLRs here appears to be about 2 years.

I edited my post to indicate that my stand is on those starting out who scrimp and save just so they can get a DSLR. Even if it takes 3-6 months before they can get the camera.. hence my point about buying now and shooting over 1 year.

I still say that film is better as a learning medium, because I have seen it too often. Happened to me as well. This even by those who say they're passionate about their craft. Take a ton of shots, chimp along the way, go home and review the hundreds of photos, get a vauge sense of what is right and wrong. Unfortunately this vague sense isn't good enough when confronted with a new situation. So it's back to chimping and taking a ton of mediocre photos, going back home, reviewing said ton of photos, and so on. The learning process is actually slower.

As I said, without mindfulness, the state of being mindful of one's thoughts and actions, the learning process is diminished by quite a bit. This state is enforced when one uses a medium which forces one to think, and film happens to be that medium. Digital tends to create less discipline, especially among newcomers to the craft. And with that your comparison to painting isn't quite fair. The very act of painting requires a state of mindfulness. Painting isn't as easy as pressing a button to create a picture.

Oh, and I never used a notebook when shooting. Never saw a need for one. Also it bogs down the photographer and breaks the flow of shooting.

My experience comes from myself, and several others whom I know in person, many others through my observation of their experiences, as well as the collective experiences of a few close friends. I'll add that 3 hour slide processing, 15 minute negative processing and cheap 1 hour printing services here help to remove some of the barriers of film. The longest I ever wait for my slides is 2 days.

[bjornkeizers]

Hmm, a $1500 reflex camera which probably has smoother operation than an average digital camera didn't quite suit you? What happened? Considering that DSLRs still have their film roots, I suppose that means you won't be getting those for a while. =P


It's the little things that start to annoy you. Changing rolls in the middle of an airshow. Carrying rolls of different film for different pictures... setting one up is a bit tricky, and you don't see the results immediately. At least with digital I can see the results of different lighting / shutter / iso settings right away. I take less 'utter crap' ones with digital. And since I mostly use pictures on the internet (an online gallery, selling things on Ebay, that sort of thing) a film camera is just too much of a bother. When I'm done shooting, I pop the card in the laptop, download and edit them, and upload them to the net. I can even do batches of them with PSP8! Can't do that if you have to scan every pic or wait at a one hour photo for your picture CD, can you?


I suppose the 5 megapixel cameras are out of your budget?


Depends. I've been looking at cameras like the ones I mentioned above. I can get a 5mp compact for about the same price as a big 4mp with great optical zoom. But the fact is, I don't need 5mp and I want to get away from a compact body.


I think a Minolta A1 is a good camera for those who want control but want something smaller than a DSLR. The 8 megapixel cameras tend to push the bounderies of technology a bit too much for my liking..

Definitely don't need 8mp. I've seen the Minolta A1, but it's twice as expensive as the Z1, and I really don't need a top-of-the-line DSLR for my line of work & play photography. I'm going to buy the new camera around summer time (june, july) so something interesting might just show up... ;-)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Oh, well. I guess I underestimate the instant gratification generation. *shrugs*

Next batch of new camera annoucements will probably occur in September, at Photokina. Maybe a few cheap deals await you in July, just as they slash the prices.

[Falinn]

Ok i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the reason people still use film even though digital is widely available, and in some circumstances already better has NOTHING to do with money. Its about handling. I love my digital camera, but if i want to depend on a camera as a tool to capture something then its my film camera, its more rugged, more reliable an order of magnitude faster than my digital camera.
Now ok perhaps if i invested in a mega expensive DSLR then perhaps the handling would be more up to scratch, but like many people i cant afford that luxuary. Thats why i stick with with digital+film solution. For now at least :lol:

[Suhit Gupta]

Ok i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the reason people still use film even though digital is widely available, and in some circumstances already better has NOTHING to do with money. Its about handling. I love my digital camera, but if i want to depend on a camera as a tool to capture something then its my film camera, its more rugged, more reliable an order of magnitude faster than my digital camera
There definitely are some digital camera that are slow, however IMO, most of the latest point-and-shoot cameras are quite good with startup as well as operational speeds. Plus, I don't necessarily agree with you in terms of reliability. All of my digital cameras have been rock solid, in fact it was my film cameras that always had trouble. Since there are the moving parts wrt fim rolling and unrolling, something would invariably get stuck and the film would have to be wound manually.

Suhit

[Crocuta]

5 years is optimistic. 3 years is more like it. Maybe even 2. Average turnaround time for DSLRs here appears to be about 2 years.

Well, this is one of those things that we'll just have to disagree about. You may be independently wealthy, but most of us aren't. I make a very good living, but cannot imagine spending $2,500 every other year just to have the latest camera. I've had two film cameras since 1982 and they both served me well. I'm taking the better part of a year to wait for just the right DSLR because I know I'll keep it for a long time. It's funny you talking later about the 'instant gratification' generation, since buying a new camera every two years is part of that culture, not mine.

I edited my post to indicate that my stand is on those starting out who scrimp and save just so they can get a DSLR. Even if it takes 3-6 months before they can get the camera.. hence my point about buying now and shooting over 1 year.

Sorry, I missed that. In my mind, this whole thread has been about sublime's original post asking whether he or she should trade in a digital camera for film. Everything I've said is from that perspective.

I still say that film is better as a learning medium, because I have seen it too often. Happened to me as well. This even by those who say they're passionate about their craft. Take a ton of shots, chimp along the way, go home and review the hundreds of photos, get a vauge sense of what is right and wrong. Unfortunately this vague sense isn't good enough when confronted with a new situation. So it's back to chimping and taking a ton of mediocre photos, going back home, reviewing said ton of photos, and so on. The learning process is actually slower.

Your logic is flawed here. That you've seen people use digital cameras poorly does not mean that digital cameras are the cause of the poor use. More likely, the person has no idea how to go about learning the craft and so does exactly as you say. My problem is that you blame the camera instead of the artist. I've heard many poor piano players playing on exceptional quality pianos. It's not the pianos' fault they are being played by poor players, and it's not the digital cameras' fault that there are many poor photographers.

As I said, without mindfulness, the state of being mindful of one's thoughts and actions, the learning process is diminished by quite a bit. This state is enforced when one uses a medium which forces one to think, and film happens to be that medium. Digital tends to create less discipline, especially among newcomers to the craft. And with that your comparison to painting isn't quite fair. The very act of painting requires a state of mindfulness. Painting isn't as easy as pressing a button to create a picture.

Nicely said! I don't agree that film forces one to be mindful (there were prolifically bad photographers around for decades before digital came along), and I don't agree that digital inhibits it, but I do agree that in the absence of mindfulness no real artistic progress will be made. In fact, this is exactly what I'm talking about too, and it's this mindfulness coupled with close feedback that can really help an artist to develop. This is not about instant gratification. This is about how the human mind learns new skills. The pedagogical literature is filled with studies demonstrating this point.

Finally, I'll add that the painting analogy works even better with your mindfulness concept. You're right that painting requires this state of mindfulness... as well as immediate visual and tactile feedback to the painter. Take away either one and you have no artistic progress.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah well, my experience is that a digital camera has an effect on a person's shooting habits. It's just a matter of how much. Inevitably it'll result in some sloppiness for those starting out. This is regardless of the person using the camera.

[Littleshmee]

Let me start by saying that I love my Olympus 5050 (albeit not DSLR, but with full manual features).

I've had the camera for a little over a year now, and I'm starting to think I'm ready to get an SLR.

The digital has been an amazing learning tool - no matter how careful you are with film or digital, you ARE going to underexpose a few pictures as a beginner. I'd rather screw that up without paying to develop an entire roll.

I've taken some (IMHO) nice pictures with that camera, and had these 5 megapixel images printed on a dye-sub printer (I've done 4x6's and 8x10's), and I can honestly say the quality is NOT the same as film. While the resolution rivals film quality, there is some other quality to digital prints that make them look... well, digital. I can't say what it is, something about depth of colour maybe, just overall not quite as lively as a high quality film print (or slide).

Finally, several years ago my dad went to Antarctica as a teacher chaperone with students on ice. He took a digital that belonged to the school, and my mum's old N-2000 - Guess which one worked in ridiculous temperatures?