Film or digital? It`s all economics

The Photo Challenge is sponsored by Hyosung Camera (English: 010-7203-9599) and Babo Shirts (www.baboshirts.com). Winners of the weekly competition receive a 50,000 won store credit at Hyosung Camera and a Babo Shirt. To take part in the competition, si

mply upload your photo at www.flickr.com/groups/seoulphotoclub - Ed.



By Aaron Raisey



The great debate since the advent of digital photography is ongoing: Which is superior, film photography or shooting digital? Over the next couple of weeks we`ll look at the pros and cons of each, and hopefully have a better handle on each medium as a result. Probably the best way to do this is compare different areas of photography and image quality, using the SLR style camera as the common denominator.

This week we`ll compare some costs associated with owning cameras.

A 35mm film camera is cheaper than the equivalent digital. A comparable digital camera will set you back in excess of a couple of thousand dollars, whereas a good film camera is considerably cheaper. However, you can still pick up excellent DSLRs for less than $1,000, but because the image sensor is smaller than 35mm film image quality suffers as a result by comparison.



Don`t misunderstand, the image quality you get from consumer and pro-sumer DSLRs is still very good (actually better in some areas), but when directly compared to a 35mm print, the difference in quality is unmistakable. We`ll look at the issue of image quality in a couple of weeks.

The option that the film camera presents that digital does not is the second-hand purchase. You can pick up a used film cameras as much as 10 or 20 (or more) years old that function as new, and often for less than $500. In contrast, advancing digital technology renders the modern DSLRs obsolete quickly: A good film camera will last you a lifetime, while that state of the art digital you bought the other day is junk in a few years. In terms of value for money combined with longevity, the film camera would appear to be the best option.

The digital camera has the advantage of lower running costs. After all, the ongoing purchase of rolls of film combined with processing and printing costs conspire to make shooting film a high maintenance endeavor, while these costs are non-existent shooting digital, right? Well, yes. But think about what you would spend on keeping up with technology - buying several expensive DSLR cameras over the years - against a single inexpensive film SLR plus film and processing.

How does it stack up?

As digital is the preferred method of storing and sharing images, you can further save in the film arena by forgoing physical prints and getting your negatives processed straight to CD. I don`t know the definitive answer to this question, but seen in that light, the costs associated with shooting film don`t seem quite so great. It`s certainly food for thought.

So all things considered, economically speaking, which is the better option? The justification for the purchase of many expensive DSLRs is the claim that "we`ll save money on film and processing," but as we`ve just seen over the long term, this argument isn`t necessarily founded on facts, and you may just be better off with an inexpensive 20-year-old film camera.

Next week, we`ll look at the question of how easy it is to use film cameras vs. digital. In the meantime, head over to the Seoul Photo Club on Flickr.

(raisey@hanmail.net)