Film vs Digital

I've been really going back and forth with myself over this issue the last while. Film or digital? Which is best? But I've settled the issue in my mind ... at least for the time being. And yes, I know this subject has been beaten to death (and then some) on the net, I'm going to add my thoughts to the matter anyway.

I've decided that for me, digital is best.

The primary reason being that I enjoy having the control over the photos that digital allows me to have. I like being able to set my exposure, contrast, and color in the computer.

The only way that I could have that kind of control over my film photographs would be to install a darkroom in the house or to work with a professional custom printer. I have no desire to get back in to a darkroom, and I certainly do not have the funds to hire a pro printer.

Sure I can have my film scanned and have the same digital control. But why spend the extra time and money to do that when I could just start out with a digital file to begin with?

And the second reason that digital is better for me, it costs less.

Many photographers that I respect have been talking lately about how film is less costly than digital. But I'm just not sure how they figure that can be. Yes, you can drop thousands of dollars on "pro" level gear every year, and you'll probably be spending more than it costs to shoot film.

But I don't buy gear like that, and I'll bet not many people do. My latest digital SLR -- the wonderful Pentax K100D Super -- I bought in like new condition (with only about 50 shots on the frame counter) from KEH.com (the best place to get used photo gear on the net) for only $275.

But let's say just for the sake of example that I bought a brand-new digiSLR. My current choice would be a Pentax K200D. Which is right about $500. If my $500 dSLR lasts one year, that works out to a cost of about $40 a month.

That's not a terrible lot of money for photography. A decent roll of film will set you back $5, and getting it developed and scanned at a good place will cost you another $10 at least. And I'm not even counting shipping. So you couldn't shoot even three rolls of film for the same amount of money.

But that's a conservative estimate. I intend to try and get at least three years out of my camera before I have to buy a new one. That may be a long shot, but if I make it that puts the cost of my $500 camera at less than $10 a month.

Let's look at it from the other angle though. I've shot more than 1,100 photographs in the past 30 days (wow, I had no idea I'd shot that much). If I'd been shooting film at $15 a roll of film, that would've cost me about $675. Which means that my $300 dSLR has paid for itself twice in film costs during the past 30 days. Which is really incredible.

Yes, there is the whole artistic thing argument. And yes, I believe that digital looks different than film. And yes, I actually prefer the way that film looks. But I look at some of my favorite photographs that I have hanging on the wall and they were all shot with digital. And when I'm looking at them I'm not thinking "boy that film (or digital file) looks good." I'm just enjoying the photograph, and that's what photography is (supposed to be) all about.