DarrylT: August 2010

Which photography format is better, digital or 35mm film, depends largely on whom you ask. With digital photography, and a computer, one has the option of using "Photo shop", and it's myriad of tricks and tools to turn even a mundane picture into virtual work of art. There are NO trips to the photo developer. And no negatives to keep track of. You can print as many copies of each photo as you like (as long as your printer has ink) And, if you're a "do it yourselfer" there are no photo film tanks, developer, or "fixer" solutions to bother with. The "downside" of digital photography for many is the cost of the camera. It's not uncommon to spend between $150 and $400 for a good one.

35mm film photography is much more affordable if you already have an (old school) camera. I have a Minolta Maxxum 3XI. Film can be purchased in quantity to lower the per roll cost. And the pictures can be virtually indistinguishable from their digital cousins. The downside is of course, not being able to use your personal computer printer to print pictures. In most cases you do have to visit the local photo developer. And using "Photo shop", to tweak your 35mm film pictures is not even an option. If you don't already have a film camera, they can be fairly inexpensive. The Fujifilm Smart Shot Supreme 35mm film camera (I own one of these also) is a good choice for beginners because it is budget priced. You can buy a used one on E-bay (I checked before writing this article) for between $9 and $15. The camera features drop in loading, automatic film advancement, a built in flash attachment, a self timer, (if you want to take portraits of yourself), and even a Panoramic picture feature. If you must have digital photos but can't afford a digital camera right now, film photos can be digitized at your local developer's store, and recorded on a computer disc. (You can do the same thing with a computer scanner and a printer). So, which format is best? Reply to this article with your choice, and reason(s) why.