First thing, in this comparison I am only talking about scans from basic desktop scanners, and consumer digital cameras, not more professional equipment. 35mm film can hold more detail than anything short of a $2000 Professional digital SLR, but getting it out of the film with a scanner, may not be cheap either.

That out of the away ... One of the things that I find many people discussing at the moment is:

Should I scan film, or just use a digital camera.

Since not everyone has the opportunity to give it a try, I thought that I'd post my own experiences, and hopefully it may help you along your path. Since everyone's needs will be different, lets just look at some results.

For my test, I thought that taking a shot of a typical bright sunny day snapshot scene from the same place, with film and digital would provide at least an "eggs with eggs" comparison basis. The images below were taken in quick succession from the same location, on the same day, this first image comes from the IXY camera, and then the one below that is scanned from Fuji Provia RDPIII which is one of the finest grain films available, certainly you would not get results as good as this using 400 iso negative films

They both look good, I think that the Provia slide looks nicer, and the skys come out better, but some may argue the toss either way but, one can just load the image from the digital camera onto the PC unlike with a scan where you:

• you have to spend time scanning,
• (if you don't have ICE) you don't have to spend time spotting
• and probably spend time colour balancing.

This means that more of your time and money is needed to get the image in digital form. Of course with the Digital camera

• you won't have to buy film
• you won't have to pay for processing
• you'll have the images immediately

Of course on the PRO side for film is that after you buy it, and process it, you've your storage (scans will consume lots of Hard Disk space, and backup, and transfer to your next computer is an issue), and its a lot easier to find one of your negatives than one of your digital files. You can transport your negatives easily, and there are existing easily accessed professional reproduction services.

What about the detail available? Looking at the chart below, you'll get an idea of the relative sizes of the images from common digital camera sizes, and typical consumer scanners, so it would seem at a glance that film is the winner

BUT

depending on your scanner the image from the 35mm may not be incredibly better than from your digital camera! Why might you not get better? Well that depends a lot in your scanner but here's some reasons 2700dpi scans won't capture all the film detail scanner may not have enough bit depth to capture the range scanner may not have enough dynamic range to get into the shadows film flatness may impede focus of the scanner low resolution of many negative films

Figure 1

In my scans I was only able to see details like these, despite being able to see more detail on the film with a x30 microscope. So while the file was bigger, there was only a little more detail in there. Of course better scanners will improve on this, but its interesting to note that a low end digital camera came so close to a mid range film scan.

Although if your lucky you can get details like this out of really flat black and white film (35mm loves to curl).

When you then factor in things like no processing costs, and time I think that the balance leans towards digital, for all electronic publishing, and most peoples needs of small prints.

So right now, I find that for most of what I do, shooting with digital often gives me as good a result as scanning film and at a heck of a lot less cost.

Does this mean I'll stop shooting film? Not at all. Digital is only one process option, and I think for many non electronic applications that film is better. If I think that looking at a scene, the I'll want a big print, then I'll shoot film and have made sharper bigger prints than I could get from digital with no need to invest in

• expensive colour printers
• high end scanners
• calibrating my monitor to my printer

I can get A4 sized prints made from 35mm negative for about $12, a printer to produce comparable prints would cost me about $500, so I would I need to make 40 prints before I'd break even, and that would still not include the costs of the ink and papers (and goofs).

My decision was to downgrad to a compact convenient 2MP camera for my many snapshots, and buy a basic scanner so that I can scan film if I have a photo I want to send by email or put on my www site, all up, it cost me less than a good scanner or a good digital camera. I still think that 35mm holds the edge for making prints, and while I'm sure that cameras like the D-60 and so on will challenge this they have a cost factor that keeps me using 35mm film for now. (Roger Clark has made a comparison for this look at his article here as well he has a number of more detailed examinations of digital VS film on his site).

Have fun :-)