« on: May 19, 2012, 10:54:34 PM »
Hi Dirtcastle, after Policar's explanation, I don't really have anything to add. But I'll just mention one thing. The problem with providing a direct comparison to decide which is technically better is that people often compare scanned negatives with DSLR files. This is a problem because the scanning process produces a lower quality file compared with the original negative. You'll hear a lot of people say that a negative has a similar amount of data to a 20 - 25mp camera. But I'd say that a "scanned" negative file might be lucky to have one third of that claimed resolution. Therefore, given that good scanning is hard to do anyway, if you enjoy digital workflow, then a DSLR is going to better. Realistically, way better. But the answer changes if you are comparing medium format and large format film where the film negative area is many multiples larger.
So why bother with film? Policar mentions one of my favourite films - velvia. Velvia is a high saturation / high contrast film and can produce spectacular reds and oranges (ie sunsets) - something that many DSLRs struggle with. Greens and blues also looks awesome and it is a really good medium if you are taking nature or landscape photos (assuming you don't care about realistic colour). It can take a bit of PP to make a digital file look as good. And a really good medium format or large format negative, when viewed on a lightbox through a loupe, has a 3D effect that is captivating and difficult to achieve with a DSLR. These days, film also gives your photos a different look. There is no way you'd mistake a velvia photo for a HDR enhanced digital file.
The other reason why I personally shoot film is because I'm not a professional photographer. Instead, I have a job where I'm in front of a computer all day. I equate computers with work and the last thing I want to do at home is more work on a computer. But that's just me.