Camera Buffs: Why Are You Still Using Film? Go Digital With Rechargable Batteries
Film is Not Only Expensive, the Chemicals Used to Process for it Are Highly Toxic
But, whether you realize it or not, the failure to move to almost exclusive use of your digital camera is costing you - and the environment around you - in far more ways than one. Actually, the list of differences between the two platforms can go on for pages, but let's tackle the ones apt to make the most positive difference to you.
1. The cost of film - and the limited number of pictures possible per roll - often limit the number of shots you take. Think about it: how many times have you missed a great scene just because you wanted to save room for more pictures later? The same holds true for film processing; we avoid taking all the pictures we could because we don't want to make the costs to develop our vacation pictures cost more than the trip itself.
2. Related to the first issue, many cameras let you take anywhere from 30 to 100 shots before you either have to transfer the images into your computer or change your Flash or other storage medium card. Also, it's usually much faster and easier to change the card than it is to insert a new roll of 35 mm film.
3. Film only lasts so long. While we often try to be prepared by keeping an extra roll or two in our bags, we may not realize that extremes of heat or cold - or other less than ideal situational factors - have made the film and the pictures we take with it sub-par. Plus we have no idea how long a roll of film has been sitting on a store shelf when we buy it. Sure, the film usually has a date on the package, but if we rarely check that date when buying food, what's the chance we'll double-check it before we use the film?
4. If your big excuse for not moving entirely to digital is that you know such a camera eats batteries faster than a chocoholic can consume her way through a Ghiradelli shop, think rechargeable. Good quality rechargeable batteries and a proper recharger are much less expensive than they were a few years ago and can save you a fortune (as much as a $100 per month per household).
5. It's much easier, as well as more cost efficient, to store a huge volume of digital images than it is to store developed photographs. Your recordable CD or DVD drive can become your best friend for archiving your photos or making a quick album you can share with friends and family.
6. Without having to worry about the cost of film, you can experiment with your photography to your heart's content. This will help you develop your talent far faster than being nickel and dimed having to process bad shots taken with a standard camera.
7. Software available for use with your camera - including third party commercial packages like Microsoft Digital Image - let you do some very interesting alterations to your photos. You can retouch, enhance, crop, rotate, and add special effects at the click of a mouse.
8. Even more inexpensive digital cameras offer corrective features like red eye reduction and auto focus that you normally have to become skilled to overcome with a standard camera. Many also automatically adjust for light levels better than standard cameras can.
9. Film-produced photos can age rapidly; colors fade and the image can crack. Even storage of negatives can be a problem. But a digital image you can all up and reprint again and again.
10. Not only is the cost of film development quite expensive, the chemicals used are toxic. All too frequently, these toxins end up in waterways or pollute the ground water. Use rechargeable batteries with a digital camera, however, and the environment will (practically) thank you.
And the final bonus? You can just delete your really bad shots. No one ever has to see them or gets the opportunity to tease you about them. That's a great plus all by itself.
Published by Kate J. Chase
Kate J. Chase is a journalist, columnist, and has written, co-authored, and edited more than three dozen books, dozens of magazine and newspaper articles and features, and hundreds of online reviews, how-to... View profile
- Review of the Nikon D2X Digital CameraI would say that the introduction of the Nikon D2X digital camera is a successor or a continuation of the D2H reflex camera.
- Shopping for a Digital CameraDigital cameras offer an assortment of features, and shopping for one can prove to be overwhelming. Before buying your new digital camera, it's helpful to determine your needs and wants in a new camera.
- Review of the Fuji-film Fine-Pix S9000 Digital CameraThe Fuji Fine-Pix S9000 digital camera has become one of the leading products in the Fuji-film product
- Review of the Fujifilm FinePix E550 Digital CameraThe Fujifilm FinePix E550 digital camera model appears a great deal like the FinePix 810 digital camera,
- Beating the Buying a Digital Camera BluesIf you're new to the digital camera world, you may quickly be overwhelmed by the options out there and need a little help finding what you want.
- Children's Toys Tainted with Toxic Chemicals
- Color Hair Without Toxic Chemicals
- Review of the FujiFilm FinePix A700 Digital Camera
- Review of the Canon Digital IXUS I Zoom Digital Camera
- The Review of the Nikon D40 Digital Camera
- Canon's Amazing PowerShot 6-MegaPixel Digital Camera - Model: S3 IS
- Digital Camera for Kids Called Kid-Tough Digital Camera is the Hot New Holiday Toy
- Film processing is one of the more toxic ones, something we should avoid wherever possible.
- Advances in even lower cost digital cameras can rival those of standard camera features.
- You have much more freedom to develop your photography skills in the digital arena.
5 Comments
Post a CommentThis is coming from a person with an extremely blurry avitar. I use digital for internet sales, and I use film for me. I enjoy stereo photography. I'm sure it can be done in digital with prints similar to the early style, but this would be an increase of supplies. Digital will not replace my medium format stuff.
I'll also give the nod to film. I have Kodachromes from 45 years ago that still have their excellent color. I have movie films that are 37 years old, and you feel like you can reach out and touch those family members now gone (except their memories). The resolution of the 35mm photo or slide is superior to the digital image. Just like nothing in digital audio can come close in an A + B comparison with the sound of my 1968 Fisher 100-A amplifier. Digital has its uses. But I'd never trade-in my FM2 Nikon! or my Palliard Bolex 16mm!, or my Canon 514-S Super 8. (You get the idea.)--rick
(continued)... for things like special effects (proof is in the puddin, film is far better for archiving ).In comparison film is not really that expensive ...are we really foolish enough to think camera manufacturers or corporations in general would give us an alternative that costs less and lower their profit margins? they are there to make money, either way you pay and i prefer to drop off my film at a lab as opposed to sitting in front of a computer all day. At least i am getting service for the money i spend. I never took a photo i didn't want and with todays film it is very rare one doesn't come out right .It felt ignorant of me that i was spending the money anyways and doing all the work myself.I have switched back to film.The Fact is unless your work does a high amount of manipulating the photos or you work for magazines or newspapers needing a fast turn around i think the average person would have been better off doing the same.Digital is not for everyone
I disagree also,If digital cameras fill up the landfills as fast as cell phones do the damage to the environment will be far greater.It is already begining to happen.Many digital camera owners are already buying a new one and getting rid of their old one from simply being obsolete.That along with printer cartridges,DVD and flash cartridges.Kodachrome was the only highly toxic film chemical process used in film and with the exception of only a handful of people it's use has long been discontinued.Film processing has very little waste,The canisters can be recycled and you keep the processed Film.I have already lost many photos on a poorly manufactured bundle of cd's not to mention hard drives only lasting approximately 2 - 4 years crashing without warning and then there is a possibility of a computer virus that not even antivirus software will stop (most people don't back up).Museums and motion picture studios still archive on film "not digital" for these reasons and only use digital for
I'd have to objec t, film lasts alot longer than digital. With today's technology who knows how long that type of image file will last. Where as film will be able to be processed 100s of years from now. Also, the storage of digital photographs? What if your computer takes a turn for the worst, you loose ALL your work. An even if you put your photos on discs, the discs only last 10 years. I started as a IT tech before getting into photography. So I knew first hand what type of camera to use. I do use digital but I get much better photos with my film 35mm. Mind you these are SLR cameras. When you use film you dn't have to worry about megapixels.
I hope you change your outlook...
ProPhotographer from Colorado