Lots of factors in both types of photography to determine the quality of the pictures. Megapixel rates are important in the quality of the picture, but several other factors must be considered.

For most people the Megapixel rate is all that really need to be considered in picture quality. A camera that has a megapixel rate of 10+ takes pictures equivalent to film.

That is not the only consideration if you want prints of your photo. The equipment used to produce the prints must be able to produce pictures at the 10+ megapixel rate in order for it to match photos printed from film. Most printers available for the average person will not produce prints of this high quality. For most people a print in the 5-6 megapixel is sufficient.

Hi, Jim :) What do you think about the actual process of capturing the image when considering film vs. digital? Does using light to "burn" a reflection of reality on film create a more accurate representation than when the subject of the picture is converted to digital data? Regardless of megapixels, film speed, granularity, and so on -- is one process more "accurate" than the other? What do you think?

Simple answer is no. While pixel quality in digital cameras continue to gain resolution, the "resolution" capabilities with traditional films is far superior.

You are wrong it is the pixel and it makes it better

Traditional film does not have "pixels". The quality of the photo graph is determined by granularity of the film. While I would agree that there are better digital cameras out there now then traditional 35mm or 110 film taken by some of the cheaper films; best to best the Photographic Film still wins the resolution race hands down. Do some more research... k thanks

when will pixels=true vision? never. the eyes ability to see shades is immearsurable. sure, the day is coming, that for most there will be no difference. but our eyes dont see in 'dots'. moot point really, digital has already surpassed 'real film'. but if youve never listened to a real lp, ill wager that you think cdz are the best. too bad. things change, and you dont know what youve lost til theyre gone...

Here is an interesting link to check out: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Hi, ChuckBuc :) I had some nebulous thought in my head when I asked the question that the process of traditional photography using light to "burn" an image onto film was closer to the process we use to "photograph" the world and more analogous to our perception of reality than the process by which a digital camera makes an image. But now I've been considering rods and cones and binary numbers ... so I'm back at square one (wherever that was ... lol :) You make good points about film granularity and pixels, though. And I completely relate to the LP vs CD example that Free gave. Great food for thought ... thanks, guys :)

Yes. Taken for experience because I am a computer geek. Yes depending on the megapixel. So if you have a 2.0 megapixel it is not going to be that great. But if you have a 10.0 megapixel made by Apple computer then it is going to be great.

Hi, Spencer -- welcome to QnA, and thank you for stopping by to answer my question :) Yes, I agree -- megapixels definitely make a difference. Does Apple have a 10.0 megapixel camera? I'm sure it would be nothing short of elegant.

I think so! I really like ours but I am not use to seeing the pictures on the computer and not in my hand. All new things take time to adapt to!

Hi, Lisa :) It is a bit of a change, isn't it? We bought my mother a digital camera for Mother's Day (or was it her birthday?) and it took her a little while to grow accustom to it. Once she did, she never wanted to go back to regular film. Thanks for stopping by, and congrats on making Level 10 :)