Photography - digital or traditional?  

New SLR digital cameras are no less in quality than film roll SLRs, they are even better. unfortunately they are very expensive and I only have a compact digital camera, still it's giving me great results that I stopped using my old SLR all together . I would like to buy a digital SLR one day but with lenses and accessories it's too much for my budget and I'm not professional photographer, I just takes photos for fun..

PS. Yes the photo is great :)

The traditional cameras are the best to use & also have very good results but now a days this is a digital era & every 1 want to go digital. I have both of them traditional & Digital. I use both but mostly now a days I am using digital (NIKON 8700) * Migapixil camera & it have great result on 8 MP.

I also prefer traditional photography but nowadays, one can't seem to avoid using DLSRs because it's more practical, in a way. I still love film photography but I've noticed that it's less costlier to use DSLRs. For instance, with film photography, you buy these rolls of films and process them but you don't really use all of the photos because some may not turn out so well. With digicams, you can choose the best ones and print only those you really like. It is also good for the environment. Of course, I still prefer the 'magic' of film especially in black & white photography. Nice shot you have there! I'm going to try that out one of these days... :)

I also prefer film photography, however, once you compare the quality of of photos from a digital vs film camera the differences are minute. let alone the cost factors involved. with a digital camera you take the pic., see what you get and either keep it or disregard it. Where as with a film camera you buy the film take the pic (hope for the best) develope it and then find out the one that you thought was a masterpiece didn't even come out! The quality of digital cameras has improved substantially since they first came out and even the DSLR's for the quality of photo have come down dramatically. Although my preference is for my old SLR, I have switched to a high end point and shoot. (A DSLR with all the lenses is just too much for my budget).

The photo looks like you used a blue filter on it for the horizon).

There are good for both type of cameras. For digital camera, it is good because because you can snap more photo and delete the photos that ypu dislike. And is easy to share the photos online. But the price is quite expensive and very sensitive.

But for manual camera, it is cheaper but you have to bring more films along with you. Once it got stuck or expose, you have to throw away the films

i like the digital photography. aside from the hard copy itself, you can store your photos in your pc as much as you want.

I think I would have to agree with you. The traditional photography is still much better. It has still quality picture.

BOTH THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE AS IN TRADITIONAL WE GET A NICE ALBUM AND STICK CLOSE TOGETHER WITH OUR FAMILY AND SHARE MEMORIES BUT AT THE SAME TIME ITS A EXPENSIVE AFFAIR

BUT DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CAN BE SEEN ON SCREEN AND IS QUITE LIL MESSY

BUT I FIND REALLY GOOD MAKIN ALBUMS FOR MY SELF AND WATCHING THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS

professional photographers probably would prefer the traditional camera, but i'm not a professional photographer, and honestly, when we had our digital camera for the first time, i got sort of addicted to clicking shot after shot. for one, i don't have to be conscious as to how many rolls of film have i wasted!

The quality of the photo is amazing. I have always favoured traditional film photography and at times had 7 or 8 cameras in the house.
But time marches on!
For work and for my hobby which is music promotion I now use a Casio Exilim 6 mega pixel digital job which practically thinks for me and the photos are amazing.
Look at this one I took of Robert Plant at a gig in Wolverhampton. Atmosphere seeps out of every pixel!