WiseTome.com

Introduction
Digital or Film, which photography is better; this question is yet to have a definite answer. Lot of discussions, brainstorming, arguments have been going on, but like who came first; Chicken or Egg, this has no ending. I am not being prejudiced in saying that the R&D in digital is quite promising than film photography. Film photography has its own unbeatable advantages though.

Even today the latest model of Nikon or Sony 10-12 Mega pixel can produce images of same resolution as a 35 mm film (standard consumer camera). But the choice of camera, for best results should be application dependent. If there is a requirement of a small image (640x480 pixels) to use in a webpage, use of a regular/inexpensive digital camera can be satisfactory. But if someone is going for a large landscape image (20"x30") or a large image for some public display, film is a better option, it gives the better resolution.

So the purpose of this article is not to give a final verdict to which one is better among the two. This is just to discuss a few factors those are precisely important in the field of photography and where the two of the technology stand in there, each with their own positives and pitfalls.

Technology (pixel count)
If we are going to compare digital and film camera’s performance by resolution or clarity, it will be quite vague. As film being a analogue medium cannot be measured using pixel count which is a important criteria for digital photography on the other hand. Today’s best digitals cameras are just the answers for the standard format film cameras, leave alone the medium or large format professional cameras when it comes to resolution.

Robustness
Film cameras with their removable parts as well as the image sensor i.e. film which is replaced frequently is of course more robust when compared to its digital counter part. Digital cameras are more compact; they come in easy to operate packages and hardly have any removable parts. The CCD used as image sensor is static hence more prone to deterioration from dust and other such factors.

Cost
The cost factor in photography comes precisely under two heading, the purchase cost and the utility cost (image developing, storage, maintenance).
Digital camera is more or less a one time investment. Once the instrument is bought, which is comparatively pretty costly as compared to a film camera, the image developing and storage cost is very minimal. The immediate viewing of the image after taking the snap makes it possible. One can experiment with different shots from different angles and only the best can be printed.

But for film cameras the film (which needs to be replaced constantly) and developing the images (which one has to take to lab and develop ach and every image to choose the best one). And developing the film is again is an art, depending upon the time of exposure to light and the chemicals play a principal role. A profession photographer never being satiated with any labs work, and having one’s own chemical darkroom being a costly affair, it makes the whole process still more tedious.

Storage
Negatives and slides of Film photography can store data in less space and their storage in not very cumbersome. Though they are prone to wear and tear by physical mishandling, if stored properly they can be stored for almost a hundred year. But come DVD’s and films are no way compared to them when it is storage space. But problem with a software medium may be the ever changing technology. No one will be using the same technology used today for image storage (.JPEG or .PNG) after fifty years or so. Technology being obsolete in just a few years may jeopardize the art named photography.

Conclusion
So, come what may this argument is not going to die down or even reach a final conclusion in near future. Digital and Film; both of them are here to stay.