It seems like every few days someone sees photos on my website (or some other place); and asks, is that digital? When I turn in my 35mm film at the photo lab, someone always asks me, "Haven't you gone digital yet?" Most people seem shocked when I state: "I am not 100% digital, nor do I plan to be."

Don't get me wrong, I do have a digital camera, and there are things I absolutely love about it. But in the real world, there are some good reasons for sticking with 35mm. Let me repeat, this is NOT a "bash digital cameras" story. But here are a few points to consider:

A) My digital camera has a flash that covers about 15 feet. My handle mount flash that I use with my regular 35mm camera is rated with a guide number of 120. That means I could shoot a portrait from across a basketball gym if so I desired. It also means I can shoot family reunions with 50 plus people in them, and not worry about the flash not covering everyone in the shot.

b) My digital camera has a 10x zoom, (which is nice); but it does not except any of the dozen or more filters I have used through out the years. A polarizer filter does great things for clouds and reflections. If I want to get really close, my close-up filter set can make a world of difference. A cross star filter can add that little touch of class that makes the

difference between a nice shot and a great shot!

c) Everyone says that digital cameras are so much cheaper than developing regular 35mm film. That depends on your perspective. When I shoot a weddings; for example, I usually shoot 4 or 5 rolls of 24 exposure film. I can get these processed (as jumbo "5x7" size) for about $7.00 per roll. That works out to about .29 cents per print. If I bring in my digital card and want a jumbo "5x7" size print, it cost me (at the same lab): $1.47 each. Let's say I shoot five rolls . . . which would you rather pay $35.00 raw cost, or $176.00 raw cost?

I realize that if I could afford a good 35mm digital camera (about $1,000.00) then many of my complaints would be null and void. But as a working man trying to get by; I can't ignore 5x7 prints for only .29 cents. To me, it’s just not cost effective, yet. I could probably get them for even less if I went on-line or sent them out to a different lab.

Do I own a digital camera? Yes. Do I enjoy it? Yes. But will I ever go totally 100% digital? Not as long as there are still Photo Labs on the planet that allow me to print from negatives. Someone once asked," But what if you got a color laser printer? Then you could print your own." Maybe . . . but that's another $1,000.00 I just don't have laying around. Until I get to that point, I will continue to use both and enjoy both for what each can do.