Littleshmee
06-26-2004, 01:27 PM
My friend was trying to convince me to switch to film the other day. I'm having a hard time deciding if my reasons to stay digital are justified, or if I'm just making up excuses, and I'd like to know some of your opinions on the matter. Here's my reasoning:
#1. Cost. Even with my discount at Black's, a roll of film costs $5 to buy and develop. That's around 21 cents per picture. I don't even buy meat because I need to save money. If I knew I had to pay for every picture I took, I wouldn't be so inclined to bring the camera everywhere. I know, I know, digitals are a much bigger initial investment, but I'd still rather spend a bunch at once.
#2 End Result. And I'm not talking about picture quality, film still has the edge there. I'm talking about where the pictures end up. If I got prints done all the time, I'd have a box of prints, and I'm not the type to put them in albums or anything. The only thing I want print-wise is the occasional enlargement - which costs about the same whether it's film or digital. Anything else I want to do with a picture is on the computer, where I can photoshop to my heart's content. And scanning negatives still doesn't end up with the same quality as a digital image (unless you spend a pretty penny on a scanner).
Alright, I think that's about it, those're the two main reasons. Thoughts?
#1. Cost. Even with my discount at Black's, a roll of film costs $5 to buy and develop. That's around 21 cents per picture. I don't even buy meat because I need to save money. If I knew I had to pay for every picture I took, I wouldn't be so inclined to bring the camera everywhere. I know, I know, digitals are a much bigger initial investment, but I'd still rather spend a bunch at once.
#2 End Result. And I'm not talking about picture quality, film still has the edge there. I'm talking about where the pictures end up. If I got prints done all the time, I'd have a box of prints, and I'm not the type to put them in albums or anything. The only thing I want print-wise is the occasional enlargement - which costs about the same whether it's film or digital. Anything else I want to do with a picture is on the computer, where I can photoshop to my heart's content. And scanning negatives still doesn't end up with the same quality as a digital image (unless you spend a pretty penny on a scanner).
Alright, I think that's about it, those're the two main reasons. Thoughts?