jmc56
Member
mostly digital, very little film
mostly digital, very little film
I shoot and I collect. Shooting comes first. Digital wins.
I shot film 1960-2000, then digital found a place and gradually digital has pushed film out of the picture to the extent that film is primarily shot for keeping vintage items (including some barely vintage) in shape, their clocks wound, etc. I shoot large negative occasionally, at least in party to remind me why I shot a fair amount of large format in that first decade.
Why not more film now? In terms of absolutely straight photography, the only real hitch is processing, i.e. I have to either farm out processing or do it myself. I prefer the latter if it's B&W. But for physical reasons, I just don't feel like setting up a darkroom again for printing.
So in the end, everything gets digitized. I maintain a library of items from the 60s digitized which collects some royalties most years. Digital is essentially a requirement now.
That extends to large negative, up to 5x7 now. I have the ability to scan 8x10 if I can ever convince the other half to let me bring a monster in the house.
I like the merger of film and digital, especially really old film. Spot once, get it right, keep printing.
I all but lived in a darkroom for 20 years when I wasn't shooting. I applaud those who shoot film but in the end, it's about what I see and how I can get that done.
If I was doing a lot more film and silver work, I'd be a lot more upset than most at the scaling back of the non-standard BW papers and irritated about how very few majors are involved in Photo chemicals. I hope we can manage to keep enough so I can indulge myself with film.
mostly digital, very little film
I shoot and I collect. Shooting comes first. Digital wins.
I shot film 1960-2000, then digital found a place and gradually digital has pushed film out of the picture to the extent that film is primarily shot for keeping vintage items (including some barely vintage) in shape, their clocks wound, etc. I shoot large negative occasionally, at least in party to remind me why I shot a fair amount of large format in that first decade.
Why not more film now? In terms of absolutely straight photography, the only real hitch is processing, i.e. I have to either farm out processing or do it myself. I prefer the latter if it's B&W. But for physical reasons, I just don't feel like setting up a darkroom again for printing.
So in the end, everything gets digitized. I maintain a library of items from the 60s digitized which collects some royalties most years. Digital is essentially a requirement now.
That extends to large negative, up to 5x7 now. I have the ability to scan 8x10 if I can ever convince the other half to let me bring a monster in the house.
I like the merger of film and digital, especially really old film. Spot once, get it right, keep printing.
I all but lived in a darkroom for 20 years when I wasn't shooting. I applaud those who shoot film but in the end, it's about what I see and how I can get that done.
If I was doing a lot more film and silver work, I'd be a lot more upset than most at the scaling back of the non-standard BW papers and irritated about how very few majors are involved in Photo chemicals. I hope we can manage to keep enough so I can indulge myself with film.