I'm finally making the plunge to digital photography after about 20 years with my 35mm film SLR, as I finally think that digital cameras are good enough now, especially in terms of colour quality.

Peer pressure to switch was a big issue as well though!

Anyone still using film out there? And what do people think of film vs digital, which is better?

When I use my film SLR and DSLR side by side, I get better results from my DSLR. That's mainly down to making exposure mistakes with the film, and not realising, whereas with the DSLR i can experiment and get things exactly right.

However, there is no doubt you can get a better quality image out of film given easy lighting conditions.

Neither is really better, they both have strengths and weaknesses. Which will suit you better depends on what you shoot and how you do it.

Digital all the way. I may have never used film but I find the idea of having to trot down to the camera shop and wait hours to get my photos developed horrifying!

I can't really comment on the quality of film against digital.

Film still has it's place, you can't beat instant cameras for convenience sometimes.

But at the same time being able to check photos straight after you've taken it is very very useful.

The death of film is coming closer and closer though, even Kodak don't do film anymore...

je suis nouveau j'aimerai etre guidée par un belle fille pour pouvoir jouir de ce domaine

Don't we all!

I was always an film man - purely because to me digital didn't seem that good, (you couldn't change lenses). Then I eventually found out about the existence of digital slr's and I haven't looked back. To me, the only value to using film cameras was the ability to change lens. I detested the thought of an 18-50mm stuck on lens with digital and so I stuck with the film cameras. Now I have the ability to change lenses on a digital and the convenience of not having to get the pics developed. It's perfect.

I have to say i could never go back to film and i have been using digital for about 2 years and love being able to delete photos that do not come out well and you can store so many on a memory card you will wonder what has taken you so long to swap.

No way could I go back to film. I haven't got the patience to wait for the prints to come back from the processors, only to chuck most of them in the bin. ;)

Digital is the only way to go.

Got to agree Lurkio.I've always been one for instant gratification. I've had a number of polaroid cameras and absolutely loved the instance of them. So digital was the only way for me to go and I bought my first way back when they were 1.4megpixels and you were glad of it! I can't quite remember when that was but I suspect as time flies so quickly when you're getting on that it might be nearly 6 years ago.

I still like the way film 'looks' it has something about it that you just can't put your finger on.

Having said that I use digital all the time now (I still have my Bronica SQAi, collecting dust though)
Digital is not only better resoloution than film these days but many of the cameras deal with grain better than film did too now - ie I read somewhere that shots taken on a canon or nikon at iso 800 are far less grainy than their film equivalents would have been.
I read a comparason that said the old canon 1Ds was about equal in quality to a MF film, scanned image...
I'd actually say that my new 1Ds mk 2 only just betters 35mm in reality, but I'm sure the new 39 million pix MF backs are getting close to medium or large format quality now.

I love it and hate it - I love it cos you can experiment and get stuff right without it costing you lots in film, but I hate it cos now anyone without any knowledge of light, exposure and appertures can pick up a digi cam and get decent results - it's putting alot of 'Pros' out of business.

... but it is the future you either get on, or get left behind these days
;) Paul

i still use both, and have been using my medium format gear more often lately, and i really like the developing process myself as the control is yours and you mess the exposures up its your own fault unlike as i think paul said, people can get a digital and get good results with no photographic background, but to answer the question digital is definately more convenient and possibly better than 35mm but it doesnt compete with medium format imo (yet)

I've been studying photography for the last 8-9 years in local colleges and have got a couple of qualifications under my belt. That said however, I was taught with film and like the processing and printing side of it.

As said elsewhere on this sight I am Going Digital in the summer and have been given a lot of very useful advice. I now think that Digital is at the level of producing images almost to film quality. I am also very aware that Digital is the way forward and it will improve even more.

The only thing that I question about Digital is: Will it have the same Archival Storage as film? At this moment in time I am not sure whether it does or not.

The idea of seeing the results immediatly is a huge plus for Digital. Saving on processing and developing is a plus for digital too.

The most expensive part of starting in Digital is the outlay and buying the right outfit for the individuals needs. Having said that, It was the same when buying your first SLR. The outlay could be very expensive. Then however, you have film and processing to consider.

Another thing that often bothers me with Digital is when images are taken, you often see and hear of how most images taking Digitally have been tweaked in Photoshop or some other Softwhere package.

My response to that is: If the person who took the Photograph in the first place did it right. They would not need to manipulate the image with whatever software they use.

Then again, Digital is great for playing about with and experimenting even from scanned images. What a lot of people may not know is that you can manipulate images in the Darkroom which is just as much fun.

When I do buy my Digital Kit in the summer. I doubt if I would sell my film gear, as it took me a long time and a lot of hard work studying, and to build up my film kit. So it has a lot of sentimental value.

Finally, I think using film alongside digital compliment each other as I found while doing one of my college projects.

I use Digital and Film (more digital than film} but unlike most who have posted here I use a dedicated film scanner rather than have to rely on the mediochre results of labs...B&W film still has the advantage for producing B&W images at least for a while :}

Think I'm enclined to agree with you there craftysnapper. I miss processing and printing my own B&W images. I only wish I had my own B&W Darkroom at home, as do enjoy working with B&W and seeing the image appear in the chemicals is still magic to me. I suppose some people may think that B&W work is quite dated.

I also miss doing my own colour printing to. In some respects once you get the filtration right with colour it can be quite easy. the hardest part is getting the filtration right, but that's part of the fun when you print your own work. (Ah Happy Days)

I've been working with professional photographers for about 15 years as I work in the publishing industry. I still think that the result from transparencies is the best (medium format) when the images are printed.

However, I do appreciate all the advantages of digital, and I think it's great for someone like me who wants to take up photography as a hobby. As lurkalot says, you get your results instantly. I love working on my computer and so I enjoy tweeking photos with photoshop (although I've enrolled on a photography course with the aim that I won't need to spend as much time with photoshop!) I like the fact that I have control over which pictures I print out, and even a beginner like me can get reasonable results, over which I have total control (plus I can print them out at 3am, without having to wait for a lab to open!)

I think that there will always be a place for film for specialist work, but that digital is definately "coming of age" - you only have to look at the number of film labs that used to be 24hour in central London which have now either closed or have reduced opening hours, to see the effect that digital is having. On a photo shoot we used to have couriers come 3-4 times a day to collect film and could have test shots back by the end of the day and then the processed film the next day. Now we have the complete disc at the end of the day - without all the processing costs! (all done by the photographer).

Yes I do tend to agree with you Pink Gerbera. Transparencies do tend to produce excellent results. I have particularly found Transparencies very vibrant when photographing Close-up and Macro. The results seem to come alive. I do hope that film will continue, as I think there will always be a demand for it.

In our archives at work we still have a few 10x8, although by the time I started work all our shoots were on 5x4 and then (for cost saving) we changed onto smaller film sizes - but it's amazing how good the quality is on some of the pictures that were taken 15 years ago! I'm sure that in 15 years time, the digital images of today will look much more dated! (that is if the files can even be opened - I expect that in 15 years TIFF and JPEG files will be obsolete!)

When I've read some of my Photographic Magazines this is an issue that has been raised many times. It's the one problem with Digital that I think hasn't been looked into much. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

People that have been married for quite a number of years can still get out their Wedding Albums and see their images some 40-50 years on. This is something that should be tackled by the Digital Media Moguls. In comparison to film and archival storage, I suppose digital is still in it's infantsy.

Of all the weddings that I have photographed over the last few years not one person has mentioned Digital. it's only been mentioned when I've said that I don't shoot Digital as I don't have the gear yet. Their response has been: "I prefer film anyway".

Having said that, there's no denying the costs saved with shooting Digital, and after all, we do have to move with the times. I just want to be in the position to offer the client the choice of their wedding being shot Digitally or Traditionally.

Where film scores is the ability to go the whole way from shooting to the final print.
I still find the manipulating of B&W prints a joy to do, but not so coloured prints. Every box of paper is different, every film type is different, it was a pain in the ass to get the right setting for filtration. I have two Durst colour processors, and I do not suppose I will ever use them again. Time march`s on.