Is digital capture easier than film?

[shadowfox]

I love film and always will, but driving 8 miles in congestion to Costco for 3200 dpi scans really sucks. A pro lab about 20 miles away, said I could mail in my film for scans. Now I am happy again.

Akiva, a Plustek brand film-only scanner is only $150 (or somewhere thereabout). By the time you scanned your 50th roll, you'd probably already recouped the scanner cost compared to mailing (two ways) and paying for the pro lab to scan your rolls.

I did that calculation two years ago, clenched my teeth and got myself a used Nikon Coolscan. Never looked back since.

 

[shadowfox]

What is "easy" to one person may be extremely "difficult" to another - horses, courses yadda yadda yadda...

Dave, this is true, but it is also a motivation for a newcomer to try both.

What I am sad for the most part about is the fact that the popularity of digital -- thanks to its efficiency and convenience -- "masks" the fact that film is still and will always be a valid way to capture an image into a photograph.

Not all people would enjoy film processes, but nowadays, not a whole lot of people (who might enjoy it) get to try it. That's unfortunate.

 

[dcsang]

Not all people would enjoy film processes, but nowadays, not a whole lot of people (who might enjoy it) get to try it. That's unfortunate.

That's a good point Will

As companies move more and more towards all digital (heck, look what happened to Minolta.. remember them? ) there is little left in terms of film bodies/cameras for people to "try".

That said, if folks are savvy enough they can peruse Ebay and Criagslist and get film bodies once priced out of reach of most for a "song".....

Dave