Think I'll stick with film.

[ch1]

The strike was best thing that ever happened. I may never have tried it otherwise....
Another bonus is I'll be sitting pretty with all my assignments done when classes resume! I should mention that this forum is better than a set of Encyclopaedia Brittannica....answers in seconds.
Re that link....gorgeous. I know what you mean.......film will always have that particular look. Imitated but never duplicated...

Well, glad to hear you are taking the educational denial in stride. Guess that's part of the difference b/w up there and down here.

We have zero patience for so-called educators denying their students of learning in order to prove their point with their employers!

Other info crossed with RML's digital input.

Not sure what is gained by coming into a film thread at this point except to be provocative. 😕

I'd like to talk about how I am seeing much higher scanning quality with newer chromes than I saw when I started scanning my older (mainly Kodachrome) stuff but afraid now that the digis are going to take over this thread.

Yes, I do need to get through the first three classes and learn how to load and develop a roll of B&W! :bang:

 

[dadsm3]

If you legislate people back to work it usually does more harm than good......they agree on an arbitrator that often gives them more than what they would have got by staying out in the cold. Look at what arbitrators award pro sports players.......
I don't complain because I'm just a continuing-ed guy....the young people who have to extend their leases or find a new place to stay to finish their year are the real ones being hurt.
Unfortunate way to settle differences........but everybody has a right to be represented nowadays, something I'm sure you're well aware of! 😀
But re the film vs. digital thing, I prefer to take the moral high ground and leave the nastiness to others.....

 

[franceluxemburg]

Aaah, so nice to start the day with the smell of film vs digital napalm in the morning... NOT!

Get over it. We'll never be able to resolve this issue until film has finally been eradicated fully, which will never happen. Decimated, yes; eradicated, never. In the meantime, can we just live together without all the name calling and film or digital bashing?

My dear V.S.O.PAL ,

i must agree with you.
Many phographers around me turn digital. I am happy for them, truly.
For myshelf, and for the moment, i am still having more fun with film (tried digital).
At my photoclub, last evening, i did a digital projection of my color negative films with a commercial scanning of my negative.
So i use film but i can easely present my pictures as a slideshow on the screen.
It did come out well, i just had the suggestion that i could know enhance some of my pictures with photoshop (i nearly never re-frame one of my pictures - unethical from MY point of view- ).

Cheers.

J-B

 

[Gid]

This hasn't really been about film versus digital, more about personal approaches and preferences. To each his/her own. All I care about is ending up with something that pleases me. Its not any easier to get a good digital shot than a good analogue shot. I've just got back into film and I am enjoying the experience, but I haven't abandoned digital. I get pleasure from both mediums and thats what counts for me. If somebody wants to buy an 18 x 12 from you they'll do so because the image says something to them and they wont care about how it was created and printed.

Just enjoy YOUR process, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Gid

 

[Andy K]

BTW, where do you get your chemistry from? I had a job sourcing all the stuff I wanted.

Hi Gid, mostly I buy from Silverprint (I just received three 100 sheet boxes of 10x8 pearl MGIV RC, a ten sheet pack of 12x16, three 30m bulk rolls of film and a toning kit from them).

There are also:
Retrophotographic,
Nova,
Arem Direct,
Firstcall, and
Secondhand Darkroom Supplies.

Hope this helps,

Andy.

 

[Andy K]

I'm not sure when I will get back over to the UK for a visit - but when I do - would you be willing to "take me for a spin" around your darkroom etc.?

Well I'm moving home this year, need a bigger place, so the darkroom is my kitchen at night for the moment, but next year when the dust has settled, if you're over I'll gladly take you for a spin.

Andy is apparently a very accomplished film photographer - including possessing considerable darkroom capabilities - so my hope was to "channel" his energy tonight into talking about what it is about film that he so enjoys.

Hehehe, I am nothing of the sort! I have been using film for thirty years, but only doing my own processing for perhaps two and a half years or so. I consider myself a complete beginner in processing. There are many thousands who have probably forgotten more than I will ever know!

I figured Andy could teach me the first part -but probably would be "rightouesly indignant" about the second.

Ciao!

I would not be righteously indignant at all. just puzzled that you would go so far with the process, and no farther. Seriously, finish your DR course, develop those negs, make those enlarged photographs. Feel for yourself the feeling of achievement as you hang your photographs, which you made, to dry.

 

[Andy K]

Andy,
What rules do you follow if you want to be as analogue as possible with your photography? No film scanning? Scan your prints on a flatbed and only use your computer to resize the image? Is it ok to use film cameras with microchips?

R.J.

Even though I feel you may be baiting for an argument, I will answer this.

Film - shoot - develop - enlarge - view. It isn't about being 'as analogue as possible'. It is about using a traditional process to make the photographs I want.

With cameras my personal preference is using all manual. The main four I use are a Canon QL17 GIII, Voiglander Vito CLR, Olympus OM-1nMD and Agfa Isolette I folder.

 

[Andy K]

That approach doesn't make any practical sense and it reveals a level of unfamiliarity with the tool. Im confident this is reason behind most of the extreme anti-digital sentiments.

Nonsense. It is the insecurity of digital users who jump in on film threads and start arguments that creates any 'anti-digital sentiments'. Answer this, if digital is so great, why do so many digital users spend so many thousands of hours trying to get their images to 'look like film'? Why not use their medium and be proud of how it looks?

Water colourists don't spend their lives trying to make their work look like oils or vice versa.

By saying you'll just scan the image, without correction, you are not using the tool correctly and thus end up with an inferior result, which in turn is blamed on the digital process, and the vicious cycle continues..

I say, use it before bashing it.

Scanning the image is not important to me because it is not my primary means of showing my photographs. Therefore if I do scan, I spend as little time as possible doing it, low res, quick resize and upload, that's it. An image on a computer screen is always going to be a poor representation of an original photograph, so I have no interest in wasting my time in front of a computer when I could be making photographs in the darkroom.

 

[Gid]

Andy,

Thanks for the info. I got some stuff from Morco, but their mail order service was dreadful. Eventually got some more stuff from Morris Photographic in Oxford - called in and they actually had stuff on the shelf! Not much, but at least I could see what I was getting.

Regards

Gid

 

[Andy K]

Gid, Silverprint are very good. You can speak to them on the phone and have it confirmed that what you want is in stock before you make the order. I made my order on a Thursday, it was despatched on the following Monday and arrived Tuesday morning.

 

[Toby]

The problem with film is that the cost of film and developing has been factored out of the price for most commissions. If I'm shooting for a client shooting digital means I don't have to ration my shooting to keep the cost of the job down, Film does look better, but unfortunately cost is all too often the bottom line, for many of us shooting film is not a viable choice anymore. For example I considering doing a self commissioned series of portraits, if I shoot film I have to budget £600 minimum for film and processing costs -all that digital costs is my time and if I sell the work I earn more money. In an ideal world I'd love to do this work on 6x7, but the world is currently far from ideal

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I really, really need to find a place that I can get Red Devil lye in Iowa. I was going to try my hand at the Rodinal formula (before I buy 4 500ml bottles from a supplier), found out my grocery store had it, but may not be able to get it in anymore.

I'm also planning to order some bulk chemicals so that I can save money...stuff to make paper developer (most likely the Beers formula in the Ansel Adams books since I'm going to be following his printing instructions for a while). May just break down and buy Dektol, though. The Ilford Multigrade RC Pearl is the paper I plan to get, first a box of 50 5x7 sheets and then, when I get my enlarger, a box of 50 8x10 sheets.

I'm so excited about all of this that I could bounce up and down for joy.

 

[Socke]

Nonsense. It is the insecurity of digital users who jump in on film threads and start arguments that creates any 'anti-digital sentiments'. Answer this, if digital is so great, why do so many digital users spend so many thousands of hours trying to get their images to 'look like film'? Why not use their medium and be proud of how it looks?

Since you started the thread over a digital issue which is no problem to you and which is not so important to 90% of the digital camera users I didn't jump in a film thread, did I?

Ok, to your question, I don't try to mimik film with digital cameras but I do some postprocessing to get a look I think is apropriate for the subject.

And why should I mimik film when I can use film anytime I feel like it?

OTOH, it is funny to hear my friends who never shot much film bragging about some new Photoshop PlugIn called "digitalVelvia" or B/W converters adding "real film grain". Believe it or not, I scanned the clear film base of HP5, Tri-X, APX400, FP4 and APX100 for my friends so they can "add a typical B/W emulsion look" to their pictures.
But you won't meet them here, they shoot digital SLRs exclusively and have never used a rangefinder.

I'll use various films in my Contax Gs and FSU cameras as long as I can get some.

 

[Andy K]

The problem with film is that the cost of film and developing has been factored out of the price for most commissions. If I'm shooting for a client shooting digital means I don't have to ration my shooting to keep the cost of the job down, Film does look better, but unfortunately cost is all too often the bottom line, for many of us shooting film is not a viable choice anymore. For example I considering doing a self commissioned series of portraits, if I shoot film I have to budget £600 minimum for film and processing costs -all that digital costs is my time and if I sell the work I earn more money. In an ideal world I'd love to do this work on 6x7, but the world is currently far from ideal

How much does a digital back cost? And how much to replace it when it is no longer the 'latest' technology and your clients insist on the best possible? I'm betting £600 won't even come close to the cost of a new digital back. How much does a computer and commercial quality editing software cost? How much does a high end printer cost, (definitely required if you want saleable quality prints)? How much do ink cartridges cost (if that's what you use)? How much does the paper cost? All these are factors often left out of the equation when people cite 'costs' as one of their reasons for not using film.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

And the thing is...film photography costs us money, too, but you can't really say that those shooting digital are saving all that much. The money angle for this argument is something I've never understand. Both things can cost a large amount of money.

One of the reasons I think film users get so up in arms about this a lot of the time is that digital users tend to give us a LOT of flack. By a lot I mean one guy in on the IRC network I go to continually asks me why I won't go digital, tells me I'm behind the times, acts all high and mighty about the fact that he has a $2000 machine, etc.

So, as a note to everyone: it matters not what you use, but how you use it. My using film isn't up for debate, just like your using digital isn't. I'll use what I want, you'll use what you want, and we'll both be happy.

Just had to get that off my chest.

 

[Andy K]

Since you started the thread over a digital issue which is no problem to you and which is not so important to 90% of the digital camera users I didn't jump in a film thread, did I?

I started it as a film thread. 'I'll stick to film thanks...'
I think it is a film issue because it shows how manufacturers are trying to exert control over what people do with their digital images, something they were unable to do with film users.
If proprietory formats are tolerated how long will it be before you are only able to upload your images to a proprietory website on a Pay-As-You-Go basis, or only use proprietory equipment and software to make prints? You only have to look at the iPod and iTunes to see what happens with proprietory formats. you can download from iTunes, but unless you burn a disk and then rip it again you cannot use any other player to listen to music YOU paid for. Sony recently tried to make CDs that could not be ripped even though you had PAID for the CD and therefore it was yours to do with as you please (within copyright laws).

This is a film issue because it could bring people back to using film when they realise they are free to do as they wish with photographs they made themselves.

 

[Toby]

How much does a digital back cost? And how much to replace it when it is no longer the 'latest' technology and your clients insist on the best possible? I'm betting £600 won't even come close to the cost of a new digital back. How much does a computer and commercial quality editing software cost? How much does a high end printer cost, (definitely required if you want saleable quality prints)? How much do ink cartridges cost (if that's what you use)? How much does the paper cost? All these are factors often left out of the equation when people cite 'costs' as one of their reasons for not using film.

£600 was a rough price for a series of 10-12 portraits on 6x7 dev and contact at a commercial lab not including prints etc.
You have to remember I already have the digital stuff so it's not like I have to go and buy it. Admittedly, software etc. does cost money but less than setting up a good darkroom. But once you own digital the incentive to use it is very strong. Plus for clients the real killer is being able to review your pictures at the shoot and re-shoot if necessary -no more nervous trips to the lab. But at the end of the day people want digital most of the time and if they're paying you you can't just go around saying they're wrong, it's bad for business. I think there is a place for film but for jobbing work digital saves you money. I know a good 6x7 print will blow almost any DSLR away but often work just has to be good enough and anything else is wasted

 

[Andy K]

£600 was a rough price for a series of 10-12 portraits on 6x7 dev and contact at a commercial lab not including prints etc.
You have to remember I already have the digital stuff so it's not like I have to go and buy it.

25 sheets of 5x7 HP5+ costs about £22.50. Developing per sheet probably about £1.50. Contact printing on fibre probably another £2.00. So for 12 prints you are talking approximately £52.50. £600? I think your lab is ripping you off!

I was pointing out that digital is not 'free' as so many would have us believe. You may already have the digital outfit, but it wasn't free, and sooner or later you will have to upgrade it and make all of that initial outlay again. Whereas with film your camera and lenses don't need upgrading every few years. All you have to do is buy materials a couple of times a year, and you have to do that with digital too (paper, ink etc.).

As an example, if I was one of those who had recently paid over £1700 for an Epson RD-1, I'd be pretty pissed off to hear of an improved version coming into production so soon after it's debut as is being discussed here.

 

[Gid]

On the few occasions I've done stuff that matters I've used digital. More because of a lack of confidence in my own ability than anything else. The thing with film is it does test my ability and I like that.

If there is an issue with the film vs digital merry-go-round its the fact that I don't see heated debates about Tri-X being better than HP5 being better than Neopan and Rodinal being better than DDX and this enlarging lens being better than ............ or even CCDs being better than CMOS I'd like to see more arguments within our respective camps. All this polarisation is boring 😉

Gid

 

[Stephanie Brim]

You've never been to APUG, have you? 😛