[Steelwind]

So, I never bought a camera (I asked about SLRs a while ago) as I had some unforseen money issues. However, most of these have resolved, so I'm looking to pick one up soon.

I've spent a good portion of the time since I first thought about buying one looking at the differences between digital and 35mm cameras, trying to figure out which is better, and I've come to the conclusion that they're different. Yeah, I'm a genius.

At any rate, I thought of something recently: I could get a 35mm SLR and a new scanner that does really stupidly high res (as I scan drawings and stuff anyway, so it'd be useful for other things too) and that would solve all of my problems except for the whole 'pay to have them developed' bit (as I have no access to a darkroom, and I have no idea if it's even possible to develop your own color film anyway). But I went to look at scanners.

And lo and behold, I saw one that had a '35mm negatives attatchment' with it. However, I can't find anyone who knows what exactly you get when you scan a negative. Do you get a negative (which you can invert with PS and be happy)? Do you get an actual image? Does it depend on the scanning software? Can you get a ridiculously high res from a negative, or would you need a print to start with? Anyone know?

So, here's what I'm thinking at this point:

Digital camera: Really easy to get images into the computer, no developing cost. Limited resolution (admittedly high, but sometimes may be not high enough for the camera I can afford). Certain things that can be done with film that can't be easily duplicated with a digital.

SLR camera: Cheaper camera, can afford more for the same cost (additional lenses, filters, etc), developing fee (and possible trouble getting certain shots developed...I know some chains won't do anything with film that has nudity on it). Can scan images to whatever res your scanner can cope with. Negatives easier to lose than expensive memory cards; negatives more physically fragile. More shutter control (usually) and the shutter closes when I hit the button. That bugs the hell out of me.

If you made it this far and are still reading, you get a gold star.

So, anyone have any insights? Thanks in advance, gang.

[Impaler]

Get a digital camera if you're learning photography.

You can learn composition, color, lighting, and all the other components of this art that don't require the technical details of a 35mm camera, since you have basically an unlimited roll of film at your disposal.

You can expect to pay the same price for either type of camera, so the main issue here is freedom of practice.

[[Shizo]]

Yeap, digi is expensive but very fast to learn camera. I got mine having no previous knowledge of aperture, exposure, ISO.. but i learned many of those things in the first few days and actually knew what different settings did by taking a lot of 'test' pics.

[edraket]

Well I'd have to say that an slr is more flexible. The operating speed is much higher. So if you go and do sports or animals or people (check the pheasant in my virtual tour of the netherlands thread) an slr might be a better option.
You also get a higher quality. Even the highest res digitals don't come close to a negative.

Negative scanners can get you a tremendous quality. I don't know about those flatbed-attachment things. Considering the insane resolutions scanners can do nowadays I think it would work quite good.

That all said You should know that a digital camera is incredibly easy to use. I have made more pictures in the three months that I have had mine then in the rest of my life with my slr.

I guess in the end it's all about your budget.
An quality slr can be bought for a few hundred dollars. That won't get you anywhere with a digital.

[[Shizo]]

ehh what are you talking about?
Digi camera already beyond 35mm negative is that's kind of negative you're talking about.
6M cameras.. look at them :0

[edraket]

As you can see shizo...film is 35m whereas digital is only at 6m as of now.
hehehe : )

[edraket]

Actually a 35mm film is considered to be able to give you an image between 14 and 20 MP.

[[Shizo]]

Not from people i talked to.. Your people are wrong, mine people are correct :0

[Steelwind]

Thanks for all the responses, everyone, I really appreciate it. And I have one more for edraket (or anyone else that has experience with negative scanners).

I take it you've used a negative scanner, or at least seen one used? So what do you get from scanning a negative, do you get a negative image or not? I'm just curious at this point.

[Impaler]

Shizobum: You're wrong, foo. The resolution for a 35mm is still higher than ANY digital camera, especially any that costs less than 5 grand.

Steelwind: Negative scanners have this built-in scanning curve that basically corrects for negatives. If you scan in a negative on a flatbed and invert it, you get a blue-ish mess. Keep in mind that a negative on film is slightly different than a negative in Photoshop. I'll have to go find one of my photog books and get more technical later on.

[[Shizo]]

Impalerbum: no, there IS no resolution in film, thats why everybody still says it's better because you cant compare directly. But yeah if you do compare the 35mm image is very blurry when you enlarge it to digi's size. I saw =]

[edraket]

I've used negative scanners and was pretty satisfied with them. I don't remember having to do anything in photoshop. And I'd think it would make sense if the driver just took care of that for you.
The add on for a flatbed scanner on the other hand might work less good.

A film negative is definately different from a photoshop inverted picture. Film is about opacity as well you see. And you get a weird colorcast over your pics
Especially with a b/w negative it wouldn't even make any difference what color the opaque parts have as long as they are opaque.

What a film scanner or one of those add ons for a flatbed does is project light through your negative at the opposite direction of the scanner sensor.
You should also know that those add ons are pretty easy to make yourself(quite some tutorials on that online). They are basically just a mirror at an angle that goes over your negative to project the light from the bottom around and on top of your negative.. But it won't get you the quality of a scanner made specifically for slides/negs due to the inconsistency of the lightsource and the resolution limitations of the sensor.
A search on google came up with some interesting info. So I suggest you do that.

Oh btw. I've scanned some b/w negs directly in my flatbed and it was pretty interesting. Looked pretty much like a daguerrotype or whetever those old crappy photo's from a 150 years ago were called