Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I like and prefer to shoot film ... but I also appreciate my digital workflow and what can be done with a properly scanned film image and reasonable post processing skills. Results that may involve years of learning and a fair wastage of materials can be achieved on my computer in the time it takes to make a cup of coffee.
This is the only way film is going to survive in the future IMO ... not with odorous chemicals in a darkroom but with a hybrid work flow. I admit that a properly done black and white wet print is a thing of beauty but it's unrealistic to think that it alone can ensure film's survival!
I'm also starting to think that we may see some new scanners at some stage from manufacturers other than Epson or Plustek etc.
This is the only way film is going to survive in the future IMO ... not with odorous chemicals in a darkroom but with a hybrid work flow. I admit that a properly done black and white wet print is a thing of beauty but it's unrealistic to think that it alone can ensure film's survival!
I'm also starting to think that we may see some new scanners at some stage from manufacturers other than Epson or Plustek etc.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Keith,
I think a bit differently... My opinion is that wet printing is precisely what gives film shooting a valid life apart from digital world...
For digital processing and printing, I think a digital capture makes more sense...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
My reality is: I take a negative inside my darkroom, and 10 minutes after that, my perfect fiber paper wet print is ready and drying, and for a lot less money than what a lab charges for a similar print: a wet print here is around $50 (8x10) and my materials (paper and chemicals) may cost $2...
Cheers,
Juan
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Nicely said -- although I would emphasize that making high quality digital prints at home requires a comparable commitment of time, knowledge, and money. For me, setting up a B+W darkroom (I've set up several home darkrooms and managed a multi-user facility) would be easier and cheaper than setting up digital printing at home (color or black and white), and both would be easier than setting up a color darkroom.
You have to really want to do this stuff, to do it well. For the small volume of prints that I currently produce, it's actually cheaper and easier for me to work with a good custom lab than to set up any of these processes and to keep them up and running at home. I do run all my own B+W film, and I do my own scanning, but for now that's where it has to end.
I also know a bit about fiber arts -- my spouse is quite serious about knitting.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It can be good, for certain things. It can also be very, very bad.
Chimping takes me out of the act of photographing and into the mode of editing. The moment I press that Recall button I'm no longer on the street, paying total attention to my surroundings. Instead, I'm at the light table, reviewing my work.
I will go further. I suggest that chimping is antithetical to street photography, because rather than focusing your attention on what's in front of you, it causes an attention deficit.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I totally agree. It is obvious and determinant for street shooting...
And even thinking of the big studio I worked for, any shooting session for fashion catalogs with models or for product catalogs (Digital Hasselblad and Sinar with digital back) was done just like with film: no images checking, and after the whole shooting session, another totally different moment came for all the team: checking shots... But never as TV or movies show it (shoot, look at, shoot, look at...) Constant switching was seriously avoided...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
I agree... and many have said this in this thread... chimping with static objects seems to work for many (I do this)... and chimping when you could be missing action most likely doesn't work for most (I don't chimp in this situation).
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
it works for me...what can i say?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I don't think it does so any more than taking a meter reading with an external meter, or changing lenses, or changing a roll of film.
benlees
Well-known
I really don't see why people are so against chimping. When you use film you check exposure and replace rolls out on the street, don't you? I assume you don't walk into poles! Just think what could have happened in those moments!
rxmd beat me to the punch...
rxmd beat me to the punch...
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's part of being a purist...and if you're a purist then you're just a little better than everyone else.
i've been shooting on the streets since the early 70's in nyc and feel confident in my abilities, chimping and all.
joe
i've been shooting on the streets since the early 70's in nyc and feel confident in my abilities, chimping and all.
joe
wgerrard
Veteran
i don't "chimp", either. Chimping is not bad and it is not good. It just is. It's a tool. I find it annoying when a few folks use it as a club to beat on digital users.
i like your casting all this as a "game". We all shape the craft to our own ends, for our own purposes.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
So basically, this thread has shown me that, regardless of medium, photography is a time and money intensive hobby. Good thing I didn't know that already... 
Heh.
Heh.Mcary
Well-known
I stopped chimping after my first few rolls of film as it really didn't seem help that much.
Tzelet
-
To me film is "free as in freedom, not as in beer".
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
smk
Established
Here is how I see the issue of cost at the moment (and I could be wrong).
I am using a Leica, and I like rangefinder photography. I have nothing against (D)SLR's, it's just that I prefer the rangefinder for the kind of photography I enjoy doing (I am not a professional photographer). So if I were to go digital, that means in order to be able to keep doing what I do now, I need to invest 7k to get an M9 (full frame film to full frame digital).
The last few years I average about 70 rolls per year. At say 7 dollars per roll, and assuming I'm keep shooting at the same rate it will take 14 years for me to cover the cost of an M9 and start saving. Regardless of how wonderful the M9 is, I'm not sure I will be able to use and M9 for 14 years without incurring more expenses.
So for me, it is cheaper to stick with film for now, but of course if my photography interests change, and/or film prices increase significantly, then I may have to reconsider and adapt, but for now film is cheaper for me.
Savvas
I am using a Leica, and I like rangefinder photography. I have nothing against (D)SLR's, it's just that I prefer the rangefinder for the kind of photography I enjoy doing (I am not a professional photographer). So if I were to go digital, that means in order to be able to keep doing what I do now, I need to invest 7k to get an M9 (full frame film to full frame digital).
The last few years I average about 70 rolls per year. At say 7 dollars per roll, and assuming I'm keep shooting at the same rate it will take 14 years for me to cover the cost of an M9 and start saving. Regardless of how wonderful the M9 is, I'm not sure I will be able to use and M9 for 14 years without incurring more expenses.
So for me, it is cheaper to stick with film for now, but of course if my photography interests change, and/or film prices increase significantly, then I may have to reconsider and adapt, but for now film is cheaper for me.
Savvas
lewis44
Well-known
Ain't That the Truth.
Film Makes You Think Before You Shoot.
Not a bad Concept
back alley
IMAGES
one does not STOP THINKING because the medium has turned digital.