If you’re just taking pictures of jewelry to sell on the Internet then yes, please shoot digitally and give your film to someone that wants it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSu1STyW3NM

Personally I wish film would never die.

>Taking pictures with a digital camera costs practically nothing.

So your camera, computer, memory cards, software and internet connection were all free? That’s great! Tell me where I can get mine! And do the yearly upgrades required for all this stuff come free too?

Yes the incremental cost of digital photography is negligible. But the fixed costs are probably more expensive. Especially these days, with film cameras being so cheap on the used market.

My entire collection of film cameras – I’ve lost count on how many I have – cost less than my dSLR. So to shoot a little film here and there is fun. I think of all the money I’ve saved (well sort of, since i did actually buy the dSLR too).

> There’s no waiting, no suspense [with digital].

That’s as much a downside as an upside. Many photographs benefit from careful consideration, rather than using a tripods-be-damned and shoot-on-full-auto mode. Not being able to check your image instantly builds a certain amount of discipline to your work. You really have to know what you’re doing. With digital…not so much.

Digital has its strengths. I use it professionally 80% of the time. It’s convenient, and gives me instant feedback when time is critical. But when I’m shooting for myself instead of a client, I almost always shoot film. I shoot fewer shots, but I still end up with a similar number of ‘good’ photos.

Shoot both, then decide. If you haven’t shot *extensively* with both formats, you’re not really in a position to judge.

(And by you, I mean the reader in general, not the blog owner specifically)

As for B&W, as a concept as far as I’m concerned it was never sick to begin with, that said except for those scenarios where digital just doesn’t work using digital for B&W work is fine with the level of control you have in Photoshop over B&W if you have the proper skills.

digi is making its way into the art word too, but only in post processing. many of my teachers now advocate to shoot film, print digital. i’d have to agree.

I think there is a large sector of our population here on earth that has totally been robbed by the digital age of photography. Cheap 35mm point and shoot cameras that were totally automatic can take great images, the quality of those was declined by all the 1 hour photo labs and inferior poorly maintained equipment with poorly trained underpaid employees. Grandma and Grandpa could handle this and all the other non computer literate people out there. It is a well known fact,( ok maybe not well known, but it’s true!) that no digital camera out there puts out an image that is really ready for print, it requires post computer processing…..and of course we all know most Grandmas make better pies then being photoshop experts. But no one hardly notices because most of the 1 hour places put out junk with either medium.

I set up a little test a while back with a Canon 20D(not exactly state of the art but still considered a decent digital SLR) and my Canon EOS 1v with cheap 200 color print film….some cheap off brand no less. I set up 2 tripods and shot a series with both cameras shooting the same landscapes. I used the same lens on both cameras and the lighting stayed fairly consistent throughout the tests. Then I used a cheap 4490 epson scanner to scan the film. I only had the film processed, not printed. I was blown out of the water by the results. Across the board the film was still superior on color and handling the light spectrum and yes I shot raw on the digital, but I couldn’t get them to pop like the film ones did coming out of the scanner without hardly any fiddling in photoshop. Yeah I know neither camera is a true landscape camera and this test doesn’t seem realistic to some, but that’s what happened. I actually shot a second series with the digital, same landscapes, with a lens designed for Canon digital only and it was a little better, but still lacking.

Yes with more fiddling and practice the digital might be improved both on the camera and the computer, but my moment is gone! I just scanned so old memories from 20 years ago..good times…and the film was fine…but I’ve lost images I shot less then 6 months ago…yeah yeah I shoulda been more careful, but we know everyone that just want’s to shoot pictures is a digital wizard.

Robbed I tell ya robbed! When you gave Grandpa a digital camera for his birthday last year…was it a gift, or a theft?

Disclaimer: Yes there definitely are some grandparents that are digital wizards for real!

Unfortunately, yeah, the art world is a snobby one. Digital has it’s uses, but the point is that film is far from dead, even though it may seem like it is (Polaroid).

Digital photos can have just as much character/warmth/expression/etc/whatever as film, whether they’re printed or viewed on a computer screen. They’re slightly different medium, that can produce slightly different results than film, but neither is a “better” art form.

“Fine art photography will always be shot on film”? What? Just because some tradition-snobs are indignant that it’s easier and more affordable for the grubby masses to shoot and display photos doesn’t mean that there aren’t quality artistic photos being shot digitally.

(ps: sorry for my english..)

But for stock photography, product photography, etc. digital is definitely the way to go.