Your photo sharing community!

Share On

I am almost getting crazy here. I am really confused and need help in deciding between film and digital. I am getting offers from new Nikon F100's and f5's for much less that i would pay for a new Nikon d40x. I will be shooting fashion. My question is if i should go and buy a film camera and scan the negatives, would it be better than just shooting digital? Would i get nice usable images? tahnks guys help me here pls...

I made the decision to go for a D200, effectively retiring my F100 and F80 to backup status and for shooting black and white, based on a cost analysis.
The cost of shooting film has increased dramatically over the last several years, to the point where the purchase price of a D200 can be recovered in a year or less based on the savings you make from not having to buy and get processed expensive film (this based on shooting professional slide film and getting it processed at a GOOD lab, shooting consumer grade print film and getting it processed at the local drugstore you're going to take longer to break even).

A D40x costs a fraction of the price of a D200, and as you're looking at buying either it or an F100 (rather than it replacing an F100) you're going to break even sooner.

Of course the D40x is no match for an F100. Comparing them is like comparing a VW Fox (the D40x) to an Aston Martin DB7 (the F100).
The equivalent camera to the F100 is the D200 (or now the D300), and given the choice of a D40x or an F100 I'd take the F100 despite the far higher operating cost as it's just that much better a tool.

And yes, with a good slide scanner you can get excellent results. It's just more time consuming than downloading the files from your camera.
Of course the scanner is another investment you need to make... And you will need to get a GOOD slide scanner, like a late model Nikon or Konica-Minolta, and not some no-brand thing or even worse a flatbed with a slide adapter.

And do use professional slide film. The difference when scanned with printfilm (or any consumer grade film) is massive.

Hi,

I faced the same doubt by 2000 and opted for a 2700 DPI Nikon Coolscan III. Almost all my images here were scanned with it, exceptions being scans from B&W prints and images shot with my digital lovely camera, a Canon S100. Except from it, all my cameras are mechanical - Nikon F2 Eyelevel, F2A, F2AS and F3 (ok, some electronics...), Rolleiflex 3.5F and... a Holga :-)

Today I'd pick any Nikon Coolscan again, specially for they now scan at 4000 DPI, have ED lens and software improved nicely. I think you can't go wrong with one if you decide on it. If I had one my images'd show even more detail thanks to its higher resolution.

I shoot mostly with Fuji's Provia - 100 or 400 - and love its saturated colors and contrast. Film will always make you think twice before shooting since there's cost involved in every shot. I deeply think this helps you improve your quality and save time editing. You'll end up scanning only what's worth.

On the other hand, should you be doing fashion shots as a professional job, you'd better consider carefully costs involved and clients requirements. Digital is the trend and you better be delivering images the way they want to keep jobs coming.

My best,

José Azevedo

So should you shoot film or should you shoot digital? This is an easy one. Just hear me out first.

I have shot nothing but film my entire photographic career. Fuji Velvia RVP 50 is the best film man has ever invented, IMO. (And Fuji has re-manufactured it once again just this past year after discontinuing last year).

I use what I consider the best camera man has ever made, the Nikon F5, along with the F-100 as a second unit. I also use the best lens I believe man has ever created, the Nikon 17-35 2.8 AF-S.

I own what is considered as one of the best film scanners ever made, the Eversmart Supreme II, which costs $47,000 (and which National Geographic owns two of).

I sell my work in galleries and gift stores, a stock agency along with three very successful websites today. I support my family and I through my film based photography exclusively today. No exaggerations here.

Now, all that said, (and all very true).... if I was to start over right now today, I would no questions asked, 100 percent go with (((DIGITAL))). No contest!

No film costs, no developing costs, instant results, change ASA speed in mid-shoot, thousands of images per memory card rather than just 35 images per roll. Editing on a nice, large computer screen rather than squinting for hours through a high magnification loop. No more bags of film needed to be hand checked at the airport. No more boxes of film sitting in my refrigerator (just like now... about 80 rolls)...

And the single greatest reason to go into digital, for me, NO MORE SCANNING!!!!!

Every single image that you take is already just like a clean, high resolution, beautiful scanned image. That one element alone makes film a pain in the a$$ today.

I have shot locations with my son and his Nikon D2X side by side; and let me tell you, the digital process kicks the pants out of the film process.

Yes, I can still create world class quality images by owning the very best film has to offer in each step of the process. But look at how much money and how much time it takes to do just that. I do love working with film most of the time. It feels more natural, organic and real to me. Captures outstanding colors and contrast along with subtle tones with minimal grain. But today's digital technology has lost nothing to film's quality. At least not any longer.

Take the advice of somebody who's been there and done film already. I will be switching to digital one day very soon. If Nikon can get me into 18 megapixels, full frame sensor (so as not to have to give up that amazing Nikon 17-35 lens), then that's when I jump in all the way. If they do not do that fairly soon then I will sell everything Nikon and move on to Canon's 21 megapixel flagship camera.

But in today's digital world of technology, to start off with film instead, is just a major step in the wrong direction for anybody.

Hope this helps.

All the best,

Vince

Wow!!! Wonderful answer :) But, I have to say I have my old and trusty D100, my shiny D200, my glorious 17-35 2.8 AF-S, and the wonderful 35-70 2.8 AFS... and god love it... but, shooting with my old Mamiya 6 Rangefinder is just way tooo much fun!!! I know it wastes time, money and energy compared to digital, but holding that loop and feeling that negative... trusting that your instincts as a photographer are right on without the instant justification of a lcd screen. What can I say, I also shoot with Holga's, so I am hopeless...

I am old school... I learned with film on a fully manual camera. Digi is a wonderful time saver, and I use it with almost all of my clients because it is all about instant gratification. However, I am still working on how anyone learns about light and composition when all they have to do is hit the delete button on the computer if they don't like what they see.

Please forgive my soapbox... I am stepping off now... the advice that Vincent gave is absolutely the right way to go. In today's world, you will get beautiful images with film and a scanner, but film and scanners are not the main stream work flow any more and you will get equally beautiful images from a high end DSLR. The results that can be obtained from a digital print are clear, high resolution images without the effort and time of scanning (time is money)... By the time you add together the cost of a good camera, an excellent scanner, the film and development costs, and the time to preview and scan all of your negatives... I bet a high-end DSLR would be well within budget :)

Good luck on your decision!

Judita S.	dimitar b.	Yasuyuki T.	Andre D.	Abdul Halim A.	Nick L.	Wolf Z.	Sylvia H.

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Your photo sharing community!