First let me say that I do own a digital camera - it is fun, useful and does produce very good images. I may even purchase a much better one.

Digital photography is however very different from the topic of this web site. What I have written here about digital, is here because I have been receiving so many questions about digital versus film. Although film and digital are both related, in that they are both photography, no connection exists between the chemical darkroom and the digital data file.

There is a way to go "digital" without actually purchasing a digital camera
- use your film camera and rather than having your commercial photo lab make prints from your negatives, request that they burn the images to a CD as JPG files. Now, in addition to the negatives, you have a digital image file of much higher quality (resolution) than you can get from any of the currently available consumer digital cameras. An alternative would be to scan the negatives yourself with a good scanner.
This will limit some of the advantages of going true digital, but at the same time will overcome some of the disadvantages of the current digital consumer format --

Read On --

There is a general misconception about the term "Digital" - people incorrectly assume because it is "digital," that the resulting image will be of optimum quality.

Digital and film both have their uses, neither is completely better or worse than the other and neither can completely replace the other. Possible factors in determining your choice between film or digital would be such things as ease of use (convenience), expense and the desired quality of your final print.

Digital is now being used by many professional photographers, although many still shoot film in conjunction with digital. Most newspapers have now shut down their darkrooms in favour of the speed and ease of digital. A photo journalist's image requirement is usually small prints and of course speed is of the essence - however, high quality magazines and other publications demand the quality that currently can only be produced by using film.

Digital cameras, although excellent, are relatively new to the marketplace and while they are extremely useful and just plain fun, the media has limitations. Digital images from cameras have less pixels than the equivalent pixels in film. Good digital cameras in the 3.2 to 8 MegaPixel range can now be purchased from $200 to about $1000 Canadian, but the image capabilities of film from a cheap $20 point and shoot film camera can very much surpass what is possible from digital. It has been estimated that it would take 4 to 5 times the current pixel count to match the resolution capabilities of 35mm film. While a digital image from a 6 MegaPixel camera will give you a very good print, it will look good, but not great if you enlarge it over 8 x 10 inches. On the other hand a 35mm negative can give you large prints of higher quality.

If you were to heavily crop a digital image and attempt to make a medium to large print, you will find that you will be looking at a more pixelated (grainer) image, than if you were to attempt the same cropping with a 35mm negative.

Digital may never match the resolution of larger format film as it would take about 500 MegaPixels to match a 4x5 negative and there may never be a large enough market to justify the production of such a camera.

Film is still the master of the big enlargement, but this may change over the years if digital cameras advance toward the 100 MegaPixel range (there is some doubt that this is even possible, or cost effective for the industry).

Images produced from black and white negatives also have a far greater tonal range than are possible from a digital file. In addition to this a color negative has a greater color range than its digital counterpart. In time this may change as technology advances and digital cameras get better.

Film does have its limitations - film cannot give you the instant preview of your last shot like the digital camera can. Film will not allow you to post your images to the web on the same afternoon that you shoot them, but digital can. Film requires chemicals to process the image, and of course a lab or darkroom, which can be expensive.

For the amateur photographer with a home computer and a ink jet printer (which are very good), digital images are better suited to color prints of vacations and portraits, where you are generally producing small prints or images to email to others. If you want to produce an artistic quality black and white print (the subject of this web site), then stay with film and a home darkroom. If you want to produce high quality color prints that you have complete control of, then I recommend film and a good custom color lab.

Home printing from digital files, can be frustrating. Your image can be manipulated using a computer and software such as Adobe PhotoShop, but when you come to print the image using your ink jet printer, you will be dismayed that what you see on your monitor will not necessarily be what you get on the print. Repeated calibration of your software may not totally solve the problem.

Permanence of the ink used in ink jet printers is also in question, - will it still look correct in 5, 10, or even fifteen years? Unfortunately no one knows yet, but I would guess that the dyes will react to light and fade and change color fairly quickly. On the other hand, properly fixed film and prints, if stored correctly should last a lifetime or more.

Most ink jet printers available for home use, are limited to a maximum size of 8 x 10 inches, whereas the home darkroom worker may want to make a print that is 16x20 inches or larger, which of course can be easily made from a negative.

You can of course upload your digital images to an online photo lab (or burn them to CD and then deliver it to the photo lab). This is the route I have chosen - prints made this way while lacking the resolution of film, should have the same permanence and color balance as those made from film.

Storage of digital images is also somewhat uncertain - you certainly wouldn't want to keep your precious images on any type of magnetic media such as a hard drive. Magnetic fields will gradually diminish the file until it is unreadable and if that doesn't happen, the drive will eventually fail to function, as it is a mechanical device. As for burning the images to a CD-R or a DVD, - these discs are relatively fragile and prone to physical damage. There is some talk in the computer industry of these discs delaminating or peeling over time (try breaking one of these sometime - USE EYE PROTECTION - the shiny data layer is very thin and fragile).

There is also no guarantee that there will be any hardware in 20 years that will read your CD or DVD that contains all of your valuable images - the images may be gone forever. Use caution here - at least you know that properly stored negatives or slides will still be printable.
I burn any images that I wish to keep long term, to more than one DVD disk, as these are photo quality and should last for 10+ years - this way if one DVD fails, I may still be able to access the other files. Still not as guaranteed as film, but might be ok.

As for the possibility of digital media rendering film obsolete - no, film will still be around for many years until digital can meet the requirements that are necessary for the publishing industry. There are also many darkroom enthusiasts, both amateur and professional that will still provide a market for the manufacture of film.

Ultimately you must decide for yourself what is the appropriate choice for your circumstances. Yes, for the masses, digital has replaced 35mm film, but for the serious photographer and hobbyist, film should still have a place. Have fun with digital, but know its limitations.