«

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:48:44 AM UTC-7, Alfred Molon wrote:
> I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
>
> mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
>
> them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
>
> supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.
>
>
>
> To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
>
> amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
>
> anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
>
> film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
>
> instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
>
> exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?
>
> --
>
>
>
> Alfred Molon
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


It's different for everyone. Buying a instant camera and developing photos can be costly. Say you pay $8 on average for a instant camera and get to take 25 photos, usually. Then you have to take it to get the photos developedwhich will range from $7 to $13 ( in my experience ). The photos may not even turn out, but you wouldn't know that until you got them developed. Filmcameras do provide quality photos, but so does a $150 digital camera. It all depends on how knowledgeable you are with your device.

For instance, my Mom prefers instant cameras over a digital. This is because she grew up with them and has grown familiar with how to operate it. I guess it all depends on the person and what they prefer.