clayne
shoot film or die
Everyone always says time, but they almost never bring up the real time costs of screwing around behind a computer in order to actually finish the digital stuff.
False economy.
False economy.
bugmenot
Well-known
Calling people lazy is a bit much. Not everybody has spare time for film processing. ._.
However, you forget that a lot of us are behind computers anyway. Might as well multitask.
However, you forget that a lot of us are behind computers anyway. Might as well multitask.
clayne
shoot film or die
Then pay for it?
Ah multi-tasking, yet more false economy.
How does one multi-task processing an image at the same time as other things? Have you mastered independent control of each eyeball?
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
Kodachrome being processed and made again!
I've never shot kodachrome, and would love to very much.
I've never shot kodachrome, and would love to very much.
bwcolor
Veteran
I think that the "no time" argument is valid for those just starting into film, especially color. If you limit yourself to B&W, one developer, scanning with Vuescan and you enjoy the shooting discipline which must be adopted, then repetition makes the process pretty transparent and for the most part a multi-tasking effort along with house chores and the honey-do list.
My pet love is Velvia 50. I can live without Kodachrome, but I must say that when my father nailed his exposure on his Argus C3 (a somewhat rare occurance), his Kodachrome shots from over fifty plus years ago still look great. I doubt that many of the current digital files will still exist in fifty five years.
My pet love is Velvia 50. I can live without Kodachrome, but I must say that when my father nailed his exposure on his Argus C3 (a somewhat rare occurance), his Kodachrome shots from over fifty plus years ago still look great. I doubt that many of the current digital files will still exist in fifty five years.
mathomas
Well-known
Heh. I shoot film very happily, but I spend a lot of time screwing around behind a computer to actually finish my scans. My lab can't do them right. I don't mind it, but it is time.
gilpen123
Gil
I didn't actually stopped, I just slowed down on film a lot. That is mainly because of the RD1, M8, X100 and OMD. It just gives me very good color output but still missing the real thing on film B&W output. So now, just as some here, I may use mostly film on B&W and color on digital. I still have about 100 hundred B&W films in my ref.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think you could say much the same about those using film. Regardless of the medium there has always been more mediocre mind numbing images than gems. Yes, it is always a bad thing when the riff raff are allowed access to dilute an elitist form of art such as photography. Always enjoyed it when someone harbours that attitude too. Personally I don't much care what medium someone else uses, each to their own.
Bob
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Some might find it helpful to read Kirk Tuck's post about scanning (with a cheap scanner, no less).
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/window-light-in-early-evening.html
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/window-light-in-early-evening.html
Aristophanes
Well-known
But the other false economy is the added cost of processing, scanning (time + equipment), and printing, if one wants real prints which is the whole point of film photography.
The tech exists to have processing and scanning and printing done automatically at high-res and accuracy (C-41 and E-6) in volume.
My time editing for digital is minimal. A few presets and knowledge of camera is all that is necessary and is much, much faster than anything in darkroom.
The happy medium was always the lab, where an automated and (usually) highly accurate system delivered the goods. But the kicker these days is high-speed, high-res, affordable scans to give film the assist it needs to compete in the digital age.
A computer can do multiple things besides edit photos, so their cost is spread out amongst many useful economic activities. An enlarger can't vacuum the floor.
NickTrop
Veteran
As a former film die hard, there's really very little that can be done. With DSLRs shrunk down in size, down to comparable pricing (to what a film SLR cost "back in the day" adjusted for inflation), availability (at long last) of some decent affordable primes, battery life very good, and image quality comparable to film - clean high ISO... especially color, and a variable iso. There is nothing really in small format that can compete.
What advantages does it have?
1. The sheer fun of shooting a roll
2. The sheer fun of using a classic camera
3. Large format sensor "in your pocket" (smaller film cameras like the Olympus XA).
4. Medium and large format - of which no digital sensor can affordably match.
Digital has made incremental gains release cycle after release cycle to where the IQ comes close to small format IQ in good light/slower speed film and actually exceeds it in low light - especially color.
Sorry to see it happen (not sure why).
What advantages does it have?
1. The sheer fun of shooting a roll
2. The sheer fun of using a classic camera
3. Large format sensor "in your pocket" (smaller film cameras like the Olympus XA).
4. Medium and large format - of which no digital sensor can affordably match.
Digital has made incremental gains release cycle after release cycle to where the IQ comes close to small format IQ in good light/slower speed film and actually exceeds it in low light - especially color.
Sorry to see it happen (not sure why).
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Yep, probably you are right here, still I find something (possibly existing only in my mind) in prints from large format film cameras which I hardly see in digital images. I am not sure whether this "something" really exists but this one reason is why I sometimes still enjoy using view cameras. I guess that soon it will be clear that, at least from a technical point of view, digital image has become clearly much better than film based one, even in this respect of the tonal range that only the nostalgia aspect will survive. Still for now I find that some image taken with a view camera is hard to replicate using a digital camera (I mean, using accessible digital gear, possibly the latest digital back is there already but that's not something which I have readily access to).
GLF
mathomas
Well-known
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I use this model locally, with Dot Dotson's Photo on Willamette Street in Eugene. They've been in business continually for generations, and have adapted. It's more like $13 than $10 including a hi-rez CD; that suits my pocketbook, unless/until I decide to do my own scanning. But yes, a Netflix model with cloud options would be great.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
the #1 reason to use film, for me, is that I enjoy using these cameras.
That, and the good quality modern Films provide.
That, and the good quality modern Films provide.
rluka
Established
Someone else who stock and pay for the film and processing. 
Really have no interest in doing the darkroom despite many peoples saying that doing darkroom process for your own work will deepen your understanding about the meaning of life and universe (hyperbole).
That said, I had one feet on each side (film and digital) and still in the group that have shooting pictures as recreation rather than serious interest.
Really have no interest in doing the darkroom despite many peoples saying that doing darkroom process for your own work will deepen your understanding about the meaning of life and universe (hyperbole).
That said, I had one feet on each side (film and digital) and still in the group that have shooting pictures as recreation rather than serious interest.
bugmenot
Well-known
Right now, after looking at some 6x9 transparencies and prints, I think a medium format rangefinder (6x9) and about 20 rolls of a combination of Velvia 100F, Provia 400X, and Ektachrome 100G, with perhaps some Portra 400 for those pesky negatives would be enough to make me shoot film for the whole summer ... if only the above could be free ... *sigh*
Nelson Tan
Established
I love both film and digital photography, and I've great gear on both ends of the pond. I shoot film because I love the tactile experience of loading the film and the creamy smooth wind-on. But I want to share my images and I absolutely loath the time taken to scan the film images. I still shoot film, but I'd shoot a lot more film if there's a quick and painless way to scan my film (35mm and 120mm) with a great scanner that cost not more than $2k. Something that can pull out the details in the shadow/highlight in one scan, automatically retouches the dust spots, and give me accurate and clean colours right off the bat even with color negative film. But of course, I must be dreaming...
Aristophanes
Well-known
They do it in the motion picture industry. It's called a digital intermediate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_intermediate
The technology is there for quality and speed. What is an issue is the cost.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
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?
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?