Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Both shooting film and shooting digital can get expense, and doing both I think has even more added costs.
If you want to annoy people, be like me and concentrate on image capture to become a better photographer/shooter. IMHO this means learning how to nail exposeure like a deadly Kung-Fu move and concentrating on shooting. In my book printing can happen later, meanwhile you can really advance your skills by concentrating on just image capture, and this is the most photographic output for the dollars spent.
For me this meant shooting only B&W because color is more expense and because you already have a film camera. Going or adding digital means buying another camera.
I do not have a darkroom, and I live in a Madhattan apartment, but with a changing bag and an eight reel tank I can develope my own negatives and even though it is a lot of work, I save mucho money. What I'm suggesting is concentrate on image capture and making negatives, but realize that printing is another expense that can happen later.
In my case I especially annoyed many of my photographer friends who demanded, "I want to see prints," when knowing I have mucho good negitives and images.
Even my girlfriend yelled at me, "I want to see prints."
Now understand that since 2007 when I got back into photography in a big way since having gone to art school in the 70's when someone compares you to Garry Winnogran it is not in a good way because my behavior is looked upon as being selfish and reckless because I openly am hoarding images and not sharing them. Realize that perhaps some years I have shot over a thousand rolls of film and processed all that film myself saving tons of money, and that over the past 7 years I only had a few enlargments made because later when I have more time and money I will print my images when it is good for me
Remember Robert Franks only shot about 800 rolls of film to create "The Americans" which he printed later, after he concentrated on just image capture.
So about five years after 2007 when I returned to being a photographer, guess what I did? I bought a Leica Monochrom, but like my analog photography I concentrated only on image capture continuing my legacy as a selfish photographer who purposely choose not to share his images. Again printing can be done later, but now after two years of owning the Monochrome I am almost ready to print. I own a 27 inch Eizo calibrated monitor; an Epson 3880 17x22 inch printer; and tricked out Mac Book Pro.
Anyways if you want to annoy people you can do mucho photography for the least amount of money by concentrating on only B&W film and limiting yourself to only making negatives for printing later. No scanning film for me because this is like taking the same photograph twice.
Cal
If you want to annoy people, be like me and concentrate on image capture to become a better photographer/shooter. IMHO this means learning how to nail exposeure like a deadly Kung-Fu move and concentrating on shooting. In my book printing can happen later, meanwhile you can really advance your skills by concentrating on just image capture, and this is the most photographic output for the dollars spent.
For me this meant shooting only B&W because color is more expense and because you already have a film camera. Going or adding digital means buying another camera.
I do not have a darkroom, and I live in a Madhattan apartment, but with a changing bag and an eight reel tank I can develope my own negatives and even though it is a lot of work, I save mucho money. What I'm suggesting is concentrate on image capture and making negatives, but realize that printing is another expense that can happen later.
In my case I especially annoyed many of my photographer friends who demanded, "I want to see prints," when knowing I have mucho good negitives and images.
Even my girlfriend yelled at me, "I want to see prints."
Now understand that since 2007 when I got back into photography in a big way since having gone to art school in the 70's when someone compares you to Garry Winnogran it is not in a good way because my behavior is looked upon as being selfish and reckless because I openly am hoarding images and not sharing them. Realize that perhaps some years I have shot over a thousand rolls of film and processed all that film myself saving tons of money, and that over the past 7 years I only had a few enlargments made because later when I have more time and money I will print my images when it is good for me
Remember Robert Franks only shot about 800 rolls of film to create "The Americans" which he printed later, after he concentrated on just image capture.
So about five years after 2007 when I returned to being a photographer, guess what I did? I bought a Leica Monochrom, but like my analog photography I concentrated only on image capture continuing my legacy as a selfish photographer who purposely choose not to share his images. Again printing can be done later, but now after two years of owning the Monochrome I am almost ready to print. I own a 27 inch Eizo calibrated monitor; an Epson 3880 17x22 inch printer; and tricked out Mac Book Pro.
Anyways if you want to annoy people you can do mucho photography for the least amount of money by concentrating on only B&W film and limiting yourself to only making negatives for printing later. No scanning film for me because this is like taking the same photograph twice.
Cal
