Those who use film cameras also use computers.
You don't have to. You even get often the best quality at lowest costs using film
without a computer, without scanning.
95% of my film photography is meanwhile without scanning / computer.
1. Using reversal film (colour and BW). No computer needed at all. Outstanding quality at lower magnification with an excellent slide loupe (my Schneider-Kreuznach loupes are awesome).
The quality is 1000x better than any scanned picture on a computer monitor.
Computer monitors are offering the lowest picture quality of all viewing mediums: Extremely low resolution, no real half-tones because of the discrete LCD structure, problematic colour reproduction.
And of course slide projection: Absolutely unsurpassed in picture quality for big magnifications. Highest resolution and best colour brillance. At tiny, negligible costs.
For example with my Leica Super-Colorplan lens and Provia 100F I get 120 Lp/mm resolution at medium contrast of 1:4 onto the screen.
That is a 50 megapixel equivalent (!!).
Even with the extremely expensive 4k digital projectors I get only 8 MP in horizontal direction, and less than 5 Mp in vertical direction.
I've made the comparisons in projection side by side:
Leica Super-Colorplan with Velvia and Provia, shot with my F6, compared to D800E shots with 4k digital projection.
Digital cannot compete at all.
Slide projection is a league of its own: In resolution, color brillance and extremely low costs.
2. Making wet prints in my own lab. Also no computer involved.
And also often better image quality using optical prints compared to scanned images.
I've done several comparisons of the best drum scanners with APO enlarging lenses.
The sharpness and resolution with the APO enlarging lenses surpassed the best 8000ppi drumscanners significantly (same is valid for the best projection lenses for slide projection).
And an enlarger with an APO enlarging lens is much cheaper than any drum scanner.
So using film without a computer is not only easily possible, it is also
- much cheaper if you want the best quality from film
- it delivers often a better image quality compared to the hybrid workflow.
Another point, at least important for me:
I am an engineer. I have to work with a computer for hours every day.
It is so nice and relaxing, that with film I can enjoy photography without a computer in my spare time.
It's not right to put the cost of the computer onto the digital camera.
I disagree, you have to include it in the calculation. Seen it so often with my friends: Bought a new digital camera, that has much bigger files, problems with the old computer (e.g. too slow), new computer needed.
A digital camera alone cannot fully deploy its potential. A computer that fit the capabilities is needed for that.
A film camera can deploy its full potential without a computer.
Generations of photographers have done it before the digital age as well.
Digital storage costs are not high. A large hard drive is not so much these days.
The costs are very high if you want security and longer lasting files. Please take the time and really read the scientific article I've posted above. It is really worth a read.
I am confronted with these problems in my job every day.
Cost for hard drives are not the problem. It is the work and time effort you need to migrate your data permanently. To keep up with new storage media and formats (you know floppy discs; only some years old but almost unusable now; the same will happen with our current media).
Copy errors are a real problem: To be secure you have to control each copy. A huge time effort. Time = cost.
Whether you have copy errors in 0,1%, 0,5%, 1% or 2% of your copied files. Well, it depends on the quality of your hardware and software. You don't know. You have to control.
There are further problems, too.
Don't want to go further in detail. The article posted is a good read.
There are lots of reasons why the Hollywood studios and lots of Governments store their important data on film, and not on digital.
