digital users...what would entice you back to film?

[OurManInTangier]

Without wishing to appear too flippant, someone to develop, scan and print my images would get me using film again.

Workflow versus time commitments was the only reason for me switching to full digital in my own pictures. I've kept all my OM gear so it's not impossible to make a return just impractical. The aesthetic of film is still pretty much unique despite SE and others but it all comes down to time for me...and yes, I probably agree with most here that that is quite sad.

 

[kingqueenknave]

hm....I use digital and film, and I am not much slower with film.
I drop it off for development in the morning, pick it up on the way home, and after 45 min to an hour I have all 36 exposures scanned and edited. Nikon ICE helps with dust. What takes so long for you?

How many rolls do you shoot per day?

 

[radical7]

The only reason I would like film is for the quality/tonal range, etc. But like Tangier said, would not like to deal with the shipping, developping, shipping back, scanning. Other positves is not being able to see the results ASAP (makes you careful and aware) and not having to deal with a screen (I already spend too much time behind a computer)... which is why I got the Epson RD1, so that I do not have to deal with a screen

 

[Morca007]

Scanning never bothers me.
I read books or RFF when I scan.
You want your images online, you do what you have to do.

If you're frustrated because you scanned 36 only to discover 2 keepers, improve your skills. Read more photo books, train your eyes and brain.
If you really hate scanning, get some slow contact print papers, developer, stop bath, and fixer, and 3 trays. Learn how to contact print in your bathroom.

If you are too lazy to do any of those, use digital.

I'm sorry, excuses don't get you where you want to be.
Thinking and start removing hurdles, does.

What absurd condescension.

 

[kingqueenknave]

What absurd condescension.

Yeah that was a pretty amazing statement. I'm guessing he doesn't shoot a lot of film. If you shoot a lot, it's a pain in the ass, even if you love it. Also good pictures are rare, despite talent.

 

[radical7]

I think that not knowing if you screwed up really decreases the keepers rate.

 

[kingqueenknave]

I think that not knowing if you screwed up really decreases the keepers rate.

Depends on your approach I guess. My shooting habits don't change from film to digital.

 

[Rogier]

The hassle of having the manage 500 pictures after a weekend getaway... :bang:

 

[jsrockit]

I could see a 8x10" camera getting me into film again... but I'd have to be somewhere other than NYC.

 

[kanzlr]

I think that not knowing if you screwed up really decreases the keepers rate.

my keeper rate with film is much higher.

on a trip I shoot...say...two rolls of film instead of 400 RAWs and still have the same amount of keepers due to being more careful.

 

[clayne]

I think that not knowing if you screwed up really decreases the keepers rate.

Ah but that's the irony. "Knowing" and immediacy produces a self-cyclical feedback-loop approach to creating things - usually with crap ratio going sky high as a result.

 

[Nermi9]

I think that not knowing if you screwed up really decreases the keepers rate.

Not the way I see it. Not knowing gives me more time to imagine the picture before and after I take it. That helps me learn how to visualize.

 

[kanzlr]

honestly, I think that I benefited a lot from my first DSLR. I learned more about photography than I could with film, due to the immediate feedback and the freedom to try what I want.

now, almost 7 years later, I do not use DSLRs any more ... 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

It doesn't matter how many photos it takes to get to what you want. The final image is all that matters. Hit rate is a machismo thing.

 

[radical7]

Better hit rate, less money spent 🙂
What is good about film is that you are very very aware of your limitations, so you are way more careful. Digital gives them impression that its unlimited so you are less careful. Epson RD1 to the rescue 🙂

 

[kingqueenknave]

I disagree.

 

[jsrockit]

Better hit rate, less money spent 🙂
What is good about film is that you are very very aware of your limitations, so you are way more careful. Digital gives them impression that its unlimited so you are less careful. Epson RD1 to the rescue 🙂

I've got to ask... why does being more careful matter? Some great photos have been made when the photographer didn't have time to think. There is no one true method to photography.

 

[radical7]

True True, HCB comes to mind with the man jumping the water, he didnt even see it, the hole was big enough for his glass only.
I agree that there is no true method of photography, but I think one has to stack the cards in his own favor, to increase the chances of a good photograph.

 

[shadowfox]

What absurd condescension.

It's easy to write a sentence.
Care to point out where was I being condescending?

 

[kanzlr]

It doesn't matter how many photos it takes to get to what you want. The final image is all that matters. Hit rate is a machismo thing.

yes and no!

of course it matters how many good images I bring home, not how many are wasted. Thing is, the amount of keepers is the same for me, if not better with film.

but it depends a lot on what you do, of course.