With the revolution in digital photography, is there any reason for film cameras anymore?

To me, it looks like digital cameras can get higher resolution, better light sensitivity, lighter weight and equivalent optics as any film-based camera, plus it's so much cheaper to get prints from digital (once you subtract the cost of film). Is there any reason for film-based cameras to exist anymore? Asked by conocimiento 56 months ago Similar questions: revolution digital photography reason film cameras anymore Arts > Photography.

Similar questions: revolution digital photography reason film cameras anymore.

There are some reasons If you do not have film camera, there are no many reasons to get it. But, if you already have (good) film camera, I wouldn't recommned to get rid of it. In some situations film cameras still make sense.

Digital cameras require a lot of energy (especially screen). If you take a lot of pictures, you need access to the power sources or you have to have number of extra batteries (sometimes expensive). Film camera with small battery can take much more pictures than digital.

If you have mechanical camera (without battery), you are completely free from any energy problems. It could be important if you plan to spend two weeks vacation somewhere in the middle of the jungle, for example. Good film camera still can take better (more detailed) pictures than many digital cameras.To get equal quality, you need professional level digital camera (pretty heavy and expansive).

Digital photography is not so cheap. You must have: Batteries; Memory cards; You need in many cases: -- Fast Computer, -- A lot of memory (internal and possibly external), -- Good monitor, -- Editing software -- Photo quality printer (with paper and ink) -- Portable memory storage to download images from memory cards: very important if you are on vacation.It could be laptop or portable harddrive. -- Some "fancy" digital equipment, like monitor color calibrators, for example.

Digital cameras still more expansive than equal class film cameras. Especially it's applicable to medium format cameras. Top level film Hasselblad could cost 8,000$ - 10,000$.

Digital Hasselblad cost more than 20,000$. With lens it could be up to 30,000$. Difference is considerable.

There are no large format digital cameras. Some professional photographers (especially in studious) use large format cameras. There are no digital substitute for such cameras.

Actually there are unique large digital cameras, but cost is something like 50,000 - 60,000$. Magic of dark room. I mean real dark room, not digital.

There are still many (I think many thousands) people who like dark room processing very much. Film processing doesn't require complicated equipment. Dark room actually is very simple.

If you already have dark room equipment, you do not need to spend hundreds (even thousands) of dolalrs on digital equipment. Many millions of film cameras have been sold during the last century. I seriously mentioned last century.

Good film cameras could work for many years. I have working medium format Kodak 70 - 80 years old. My first camera (I still have it, it works very well) was produced in late 50s.

Hundreds of millions of people have film cameras..

Except for a few specific reasons You are right. Digital has such a clear advantage over film camera that for most consumers and many professionals alike, digital makes more sense, and film will gradually be replaced. For some specific application areas, such as very large format, or photography that's not in the visible-light ranges, film will still be used for the near term.

Of course, film camera will at least continue to exist for preservation / sentimental reasons :) .

In some cases, yes. I exclusively use digital now, but there are some things about film that I miss. When you use black and white film, you can manipulate the final product in the dark room with filters and the length of time the print is in various steps of the process.

You can get more depth of field in good B&W film still. Thi srefers more to art photography, not portrait or digital. If I had the money to keep my darkroom at school up and running, I would still be using film for some things..

Sure Many hundreds of millions of people in the world do not own or cannot use computers Many hundreds of millions of perfectly good 35mm cameras still exist and will last a long time' Many people actually prefer film for their own artistic process (especially black and white fans). Medium and large format film cameras FAR outperform any digital camera in resolution and sharpness for now. But even saying all that, film is the buggy whip of the 21st century.

Sources: opinion .

Different technologies = different results They each have their charms, strengths and weaknesses It is not really relevant to compare them side by side - they are different forms of media. There are applications which suit each better. It all depends on what your needs are.

See below for a link to a long (but excellent and informative) discussion on the issue Sources: kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.