90% of pro's use slide film: COMPLETELY untrue
Tell that to the people who concluded the study.
Digital is less challenging than film: false
That's your opinion. I have mine.
Digital is cheating: Prove it
I did in every one of my replies in this post.
Digital is grainy: Show me a Provia or KR scan that is clearer & sharper than a D60 image.
Digital is not grainy, it's blotchy on colors.
Here is a comparison for you between digital and film.
You be the judge and pick which is better. I've already picked mine.
You learn more when using film: How so? Andy made a very good point about this...Seems the opposite to me.
I've said it in every one of my replies in this post already.
Digital isn't a better choice for professionals: Tell that to a newspaper photog or to anyone on a deadline.
Newspaper photographers make up the majority of professional photographers?
Digital has poor color accuracy: Come shoot my D1H and tell me it has poor accuracy. If you expose your shot properly, this won't be a factor. This applies to film as well.
Compare the above 2 shots. The white on the fuselage has a yellow tone while on the K64 film, it's pure white. Exactly how British Airway's livery is. Take a look at the sky also. The sky has a slight greenish tone (never seen a green sky before), while the K64 shot is pure blue.
These are MY opinions. Respect that! You don't have to agree with them. These are MY own personal opinions. If I feel digital is cheating, then let it be. You believe differently fine.
Why is it so hard to accept other people's views? Am I forcing my opinion on you? I don't think so, if I am please let me know. Don't force your opinion on mine.
I stand by what I said, and that's that. These are my own opinions.
Did you just make that up?
Read my previous post.
Ok so if you had the choice between a Pentium 2 and a Pentium 4 what would you take? Older technology gets obsolete (sp?) over a period of time.
Pentium 4, because I have a lot of programs that won't work on a Pentium 2. Now what does this have to do with digital vs. film? Are you saying film is the Pentium 2, and digital is the Pentium 4? Interesting comparison. It doesn't even work out!
The challenging part of shooting SLR vs Digital is you have to remember what you did wrong, what settings you used and you have to wait extra time to go back to the airport.
That's exactly why it's challenging.
That's how my dad did it with is old Pentax Spotmatic and 20 year old Nikon. Maybe I'll give it a shot one day.
You are right, that is an even bigger challenge. I'm not disagreeing with you there.
Another thing I don't like about digital is you don't have a hard copy. It's a computer image. Sure, you can make prints, and even slides out of them. But they are not originals. The original is a computer image. While in print film, the original is the 35MM negative and in slides the original is the slide.
Also, digital cameras are always becoming obsolete and outdated by newer better digitals that are coming out. In 3 years, people will look back at the D60 as a regular D-SLR and nothing special. Quality standards in digital will keep going up and the only way to keep up to date with them is to keep buying a new digital every year.
Now if you have that type of money to spend, then great. Buy a new DSLR every year. Infact, buy one every 6 months. But the average person cannot spend that much.
While in film, the quality of the photo has to do with the film used. If a new better higher quality film comes out. That's no problem, you can use it in your 20 year old SLR.
Just think about it, a 20 year old SLR can produce AS good (and possibly better) images than a modern film SLR (such as my ZX-7). That's not the case with digital, unless you are always replacing the CCD. You might aswell keep buying a new digital.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran