The "truth" really doesn't matter to me. I agree that pro film quality is better than digital, especially at low iso's. From my experience (nothing scientific mind you, just my observations) the gap narrows as ISO increases. I've found 1600 film unusable because of grain, whereasI use 1600 iso digitally with results good enough to print 8x10, or even 11x14.

Bottom line for me and most others who have converted is that digital wins hands down in convenience and price. Pro quality film is nearly impossible to find except through mail order which makes an expensive item even more expensive due to shipping. Pro labs to develop the film are few and far between, so you're now using mail to develop (unless you have a darkroom, which is also beyond my price range, not mention I'm not fond of storing some of the chemicals in my house). Factor in instant feedback, the ability to delete and change Iso on the fly to adapt to changing conditions, the ability to change white balance without fussing with filters (or changing film), not needing to carry rolls of film around or storing them in my freezer (where I can now store food on the door since i don't have film there anymore!!) and I know I'll never shoot film again, even though I still have a film body (for nostalgic purposes). I'm not a pro (or a scientist) but I've been fortunate to make some ok money on the side with my photography habit, and digital has allowed that to happen. I'm free to shoot and experiment without the added expense of film and developing which has allowed to hone and improve my skills. It is these factors that have rendered the film vs digital debate a moot point. All the scientific data and comparisons don't change the convenience factor. If film were 100 times better, it wouldn't matter.

Thank you, rjseeney, for your reply! I agree wholeheartedly with you about the convenience of digital cameras being much greater than that of a film system. I have a few digital cameras which I use when convenience is important (or where quality isn't so much of a concern). In fact, the majority of my pictures were shot with a digital camera.

The inconvenience of film isn't so much for me since most of the film I shoot is FujiFilm consumer negative film. It's quite inexpensive to buy, can be found just about everywhere (if you know what chain stores stock it), and it can be developed in (just about) any Walmart, Sam's Club, Walgreens, Costco, etc. I always have the negative developed only, no prints are made. This typically reduces processing time from 1 hour to 15 minutes. The total cost is about $140 for every 1000 pictures I shoot.

I honestly don't see any difference between consumer and professional negative film. Grain has always seemed to be equal and color is never a problem (at least not with a digital workflow). The only exception grain-wise is when a new stock is introduced into the pro market before the consumer market.


-Ted