I'm an old geezer; after many years happy with film the M8 sucked me into digital as inevitably as interstellar junk falls into a black hole. I'm just so glad to be in the "digital darkroom" rather than the chemical one, much as I enjoyed that in the past.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'm 62 and have spent literally thousands of hours in a darkroom over the last 50 years. Not because I loved it, or film for that matter, but because that was the only way to end up with photos! Out of necessity I became a good printer, but the limitations of film and the darkroom always frustrated me. As soon as digital became practical, I jumped. No nostalgia for film. Digital overcame the frustration I had with film.
Still shoot "very" little film (a little 4x5), but scan it, shut my darkroom down around the time the Canon D30 came out (wow, that was 12 years ago). Never looked back.
Still shoot "very" little film (a little 4x5), but scan it, shut my darkroom down around the time the Canon D30 came out (wow, that was 12 years ago). Never looked back.
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
29 and took up photography back in 2005. Kind of that weird transition where digital SLRs were picking up. Found digital point and shoots limiting and the only "real" camera I had access to fresh out of college with debt was my dad's old 35mm SLR. Film was cheap to shoot and process then and NEVER wanted to let it go. Overtime, I found a happy marriage with digital. Looking back, I didn't think it mattered if I shot film or digital, as long as I had total "control" in the most minimalistic and convenient way.
Adanac
Well-known
Yeah.
It's called dust spotting.
While I do miss the simplicity of my old SLR and film rangefinder cameras, I don't miss "handling" film at all and I particularly do not miss scanning film.
The only thing I miss - and only briefly on reflection at that - is the pleasure I got while wet printing when the image starts to appear on paper in a sea of chemicals. I love that one moment more than almost anything else.
Twenty some odd years ago ... ugh, maybe a little longer now ... I used to shoot and print product images for mail order catalogues, producing quite literally thousands of prints a year in "camera ready" form for reproduction purposes. As far as film goes, been there done that, have the T-shirt and am happy not to do it again not even for limited personal work.
I'm very happy with the results obtainable from digital and enjoy the digital process thoroughly. Digital development leaves *a lot* more time for photography and it's the front end, and result, that I'm mostly interested in despite of, or because of, where I've been in the past.
Ronald M
Veteran
70 and went 90% + digital 5 years back.
Color darkroom chems have always been hard to get in small quantities, got to near impossible now.
Monochrome is heading in that direction. I sold off 5 M cameras a month ago. Kept the two M6 cameras.
Color darkroom chems have always been hard to get in small quantities, got to near impossible now.
Monochrome is heading in that direction. I sold off 5 M cameras a month ago. Kept the two M6 cameras.
mugent
Well-known
33 and film. Tried to get on with digital, and for a while I did, but I keep coming back to film, it's not better, but it is more fun.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
First, excellent poll.
41 yrs old here.
I took zero photos and had zero interest in photography until I was 28.
Digital held my interest for a while until I got bored with both the process and the results.
Later on film photography woke me up to the fact that the history, process, and evolution of photography is so deep and rich. I've been hooked since.
That's why I cannot understand the point of view that says the medium *always* doesn't matter. There are times when it does not matter. But it almost always enrich my appreciation when I know the process and the background story of why a certain photograph is created. This applies to both digital and film.
41 yrs old here.
I took zero photos and had zero interest in photography until I was 28.
Digital held my interest for a while until I got bored with both the process and the results.
Later on film photography woke me up to the fact that the history, process, and evolution of photography is so deep and rich. I've been hooked since.
That's why I cannot understand the point of view that says the medium *always* doesn't matter. There are times when it does not matter. But it almost always enrich my appreciation when I know the process and the background story of why a certain photograph is created. This applies to both digital and film.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
survey response
survey response
why only either versus a category of both which applies to myself.....
survey response
why only either versus a category of both which applies to myself.....
tase
Member
19 and film.
I remember having my very first film camera at about 8 or 9 but really started shooting fully digital about 2-3 years ago after I learnt photography and developing from the ground up with some old Pentax SLR.
This February I got the chance to try out a Hasselblad 500 and since then I just went more and more film.
I bought the hasselblad, a small Ricoh 500, got a developing tank and some chemicals and now have been developing at home for about half a year.
I remember having my very first film camera at about 8 or 9 but really started shooting fully digital about 2-3 years ago after I learnt photography and developing from the ground up with some old Pentax SLR.
This February I got the chance to try out a Hasselblad 500 and since then I just went more and more film.
I bought the hasselblad, a small Ricoh 500, got a developing tank and some chemicals and now have been developing at home for about half a year.
Pioneer
Veteran
59 and predominantly a film user, though I do work with digital as well. I prefer to use film, but I must like the digital darkroom because I have scanned and inkjet printed far, far more of my work in the last two years than I have printed using my enlarger.
I think the problem is that none of the new digital cameras excite me near as much as using my old film Pentax, Minolta, Contax or Leica cameras do.
I think the problem is that none of the new digital cameras excite me near as much as using my old film Pentax, Minolta, Contax or Leica cameras do.
Kenj8246
Well-known
MikeDimit
Established
40 and...both. I did involve in photography when I was 17. For 7 years I shoot a lot. Then I burned my prints and forgot about it until April this year. Since then I shot around 15 k on digital and old love film some 15 rolls. I catch myself that for a month I do prefer to carry my Zorki 4K and shoot only film. Just it makes me home.
dabick42
Well-known
I'm 70 years old and 100% film. Digital photography is a totally foreign - and alien (!) - country to me, I've never ventured there.
To me, photography means using film in all-metal, precision instruments with no plastic in sight and no batteries.... (!)
To me, photography means using film in all-metal, precision instruments with no plastic in sight and no batteries.... (!)
Messsucherkamera
Established
I am 100% film based. I don't own a digital camera of any kind.
I used to shoot Fiji Velvia and develop it at home - now I mainly shoot Tri-X and develop that myself too. I probably shoot 90% Tri-X and 10% Velvia these days. I've really gotten hooked on Tri-X in beginning back in 2009.
I love the visual texture of Tri-X, the ability to hand hold most of the time thanks to the ISO of 400 in conjunction with fast prime lenses and the fact that you never have to worry about mixed lighting (incandescent and fluorescent) which plagues color shooters. With B&W light is light.
One of the strengths of B&W is that it causes the serious viewers of your photographs to take a more deliberate look at your photos. It causes viewers to look deeper, to reflect upon the subject matter and the content of the image as well as the photographer's message and intent.
A lot of times with color, the viewer never gets past the flash-bang of the color. The viewer is distracted from the content of the image and the photographer's intent, causing the viewer to take a more superficial, less considered approach to viewing and understanding the image. That's my take on the color vs. B&W issue.
I have become hooked on B&W but if I were going on a photographic adventure of a lifetime, I would take both color and B&W emulsions.
I used to shoot Fiji Velvia and develop it at home - now I mainly shoot Tri-X and develop that myself too. I probably shoot 90% Tri-X and 10% Velvia these days. I've really gotten hooked on Tri-X in beginning back in 2009.
I love the visual texture of Tri-X, the ability to hand hold most of the time thanks to the ISO of 400 in conjunction with fast prime lenses and the fact that you never have to worry about mixed lighting (incandescent and fluorescent) which plagues color shooters. With B&W light is light.
One of the strengths of B&W is that it causes the serious viewers of your photographs to take a more deliberate look at your photos. It causes viewers to look deeper, to reflect upon the subject matter and the content of the image as well as the photographer's message and intent.
A lot of times with color, the viewer never gets past the flash-bang of the color. The viewer is distracted from the content of the image and the photographer's intent, causing the viewer to take a more superficial, less considered approach to viewing and understanding the image. That's my take on the color vs. B&W issue.
I have become hooked on B&W but if I were going on a photographic adventure of a lifetime, I would take both color and B&W emulsions.
dabick42
Well-known
@ Messs, etc - - -
Good post ! Your thoughts on film photography mirror my own...
Good post ! Your thoughts on film photography mirror my own...
varchs
Well-known
My age is 32
I am using film on my EOS 30, EOS 3 & Zeiss Ikon ZM.
I also have a small IXUS for some instant representations...
I am using film on my EOS 30, EOS 3 & Zeiss Ikon ZM.
I also have a small IXUS for some instant representations...
Cyriljay
Leica Like
I did about 20 years shooting films and bought my M8 2Years ago!
raylarose
Newbie
Hello!
My name is Ray and I'm new here. 41 years old now, but I began using film in the 80's at the age of 12 and shot that way until 2008 when I made the jump to DSLR's. Made my way through the Nikon range and decided to strive for simplicity. So, I now shoot digital with my new Leica M-E and 120 film with my 1950 Rolleiflex.
My name is Ray and I'm new here. 41 years old now, but I began using film in the 80's at the age of 12 and shot that way until 2008 when I made the jump to DSLR's. Made my way through the Nikon range and decided to strive for simplicity. So, I now shoot digital with my new Leica M-E and 120 film with my 1950 Rolleiflex.
jwnash1
Well-known
I am over 60 and I voted predominantly digital. However, that is because the only way to vote is one over the other. I think I am pretty equally split between the two and which I choose depends on what I am photographing. I do a lot of nature and closeup and use digital exclusively. Also, I do a lot of street scene and people and use film exclusively for it.
John
John
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I'd like to repeat what Doug said, word for word.