Where do you stand?

Where do you stand?

  • 80-100% digital

    Votes: 142 18.0%

  • 80-100% film

    Votes: 281 35.6%

  • both film and digital

    Votes: 286 36.2%

  • hybred: film with digital printing

    Votes: 80 10.1%
  • Total voters
    789
For getting paid digital. For myself out comes the 4X5. Right now B&W. I soup my negs then scan and print on usually the R1900 set up with Cones inks.
This will change as I just picked up a Fujica Compact Deluxe and that will probably be mostly B&W but scanned and printed.
 
I shoot far more film then digital though I am not against using digital. I just find that I am more comfortable working with film. I use a hybrid workflow right now but I am slowly teaching myself how to print with enlargers and photo paper.
 
A fresh story. Just a week ago I did discover an old film . It turned out that it was never copied. Some 20 years ago I shot it with an Olympus Supersoom 700XB. And forgot about it. Today my niece is a student at Exeter 3-rd year. Well, I am not sure this will be possible after 20 year if I shoot only digital.

1-img_5136_14b64_31092190.jpg
 
I shoot film in Leicas, Hasselblads and Rolleis.
I shoot digital with Leicas and Sonys.
I shoot with the tool that seems right for the scene.
Pretty simple.
 
Back in 2011 here was my response:

"100% digital here - mainly because of time"

As of July 2013, film crept back in. Although digital will still be the primary, film will make a bit of a resurgence in our household as evidenced by the 60 rolls of 135 coming from B&H.

....oh and it's because now - I have more time 🙂
 
Film's GREAT, but Digital is better!

Film's GREAT, but Digital is better!

I spent my college years perfecting my BW film technique. I did Cibachrome color with some nice results then too, but nothing from then compares with the control one has with digital, either BW or color. No shame, no regrets. Recently, like yesterday, I pulled out my Olympus OM-1n bag and had a 'hankerin' to do some film, (there is still film in those cameras!) I could smell the darkroom even after all these years . . .

Sure, it has taken a while to get to my Sony A7 with Voigtlander lenses, (or the Sony primes which at release are the sharpest lens I have tested so far) but OH! the journey.

Along the way I tried everything I could afford, which wasn't much, but I eked out a couple Canon Ef Lenses and digital SLR's, but I was always looking for the range finder, through the early Sony's, Canon's and Lumix cameras. I met nirvana when I got my Fujifilm 100s, and flipped out on the X-Pro1. Finally, a camera that would capture the subtleties of the sunrises I love to photograph here at the St. Croix River Valley.

And now, I got my Sony A7. No, not the R. Too sharp, too much. Everybody has an R. I have an A7 and some Voigtlander lenses and, two Sony primes. The primes are tack sharp, the sharpest! but the Voigtlanders are art, I look forward to my 3 camera bag, two Fuji's and one Sony. I'll figure out how to post some images on this forum and expand on the topic. 🙂
 
My Nikon film cameras are now retired after 30 years of faithful service; my darkroom appliances are all laid to rest in storage...I will NEVER use them again.

B/W digital is now my SOLE interest, and I am pursuing that interest with gusto. My new kit - a Leica Monochrom and one lens, a cron 50mm f2.
 
seascribe said:
My Nikon film cameras are now retired after 30 years of faithful service; my darkroom appliances are all laid to rest in storage...I will NEVER use them again. B/W digital is now my SOLE interest, and I am pursuing that interest with gusto. My new kit - a Leica Monochrom and one lens, a cron 50mm f2.
Click to expand...

Why not sell the Nikons and darkroom gear for someone to put to good use? You can pursue your sole interest while helping someone else pursue theirs
 
A fair question!

Should one of my four grand kids express an interest in the "olde wayes," I will be in a position to FULLY kit them out at no expense to them.
 
Today I went out shooting for 4 hours or so and came back with 5 rolls of 120 film exposed. 1 roll of Kodak TMAX 400, 2 rolls of Fujifilm Neopan Acros, and 1 roll of Ilford Delta 400.

This evening, two rolls are already up hanging to dry as I type this post.
 
When I started - circa 1970 - I shot what was available. Film. I was forced, press-ganged, driven, induced, obligated - THERE WASN'T AN ALTERNATIVE!

I tolerated it. Barely. The medium was always the limitation. Not photography, FILM!

It was always the weak point. There are no heroics in using film. Nobody on the viewing end knows what atrocities were commited upon the soul and body in order that a print be available for viewing. No gallery goer understands or comprehends the abuse that a printer has suffered at the mouth of the photographer, no peruser of a photo book knows how many hours were lost in a dark wet place, feverish activity cursed by the memory of some blatheringly idiotic professor confusing medium and process with journalism or art and declaring that "photography" wasn't.

When digital showed up I was only too happy to slip the chains, buy birth control, read banned books, drink my face off and $cr3w my brains out. And I could take all the printing in-house. All of the sudden I could shoot chrome at night. A hundred women moved into my house. Half my age - twice my age - brilliant.

Oh, I'm all picture, baby. All digital long.
 
Oscuro said:
When I started - circa 1970 - I shot what was available. Film. I was forced, press-ganged, driven, induced, obligated - THERE WASN'T AN ALTERNATIVE!

I tolerated it. Barely. The medium was always the limitation. Not photography, FILM!

It was always the weak point. There are no heroics in using film. Nobody on the viewing end knows what atrocities were commited upon the soul and body in order that a print be available for viewing. No gallery goer understands or comprehends the abuse that a printer has suffered at the mouth of the photographer, no peruser of a photo book knows how many hours were lost in a dark wet place, feverish activity cursed by the memory of some blatheringly idiotic professor confusing medium and process with journalism or art and declaring that "photography" wasn't.

When digital showed up I was only too happy to slip the chains, buy birth control, read banned books, drink my face off and $cr3w my brains out. And I could take all the printing in-house. All of the sudden I could shoot chrome at night. A hundred women moved into my house. Half my age - twice my age - brilliant.

Oh, I'm all picture, baby. All digital long.
Click to expand...


Hahaha I love this!

Both, for me, mostly digital, but film is so much fun, when I have time for it. I hope it's always around.
 
Digital is certainly convenient. It also has great potential. At this point in my photographic life I can work either way.

It is nice to quickly download, prepare the photo for printing and make a working copy. After that though it seems that it gets a bit complex for me and it takes time to get from a working copy to a final print. It has to do with options. Lightroom...Photoshop...any post processing software seems loaded with options. So many that it is easy to get totally lost in the possibilities.

The darkroom feels different. I am more able to focus my mind on the end result. There are options there as well but, aside from dodging, burning and filtering, a lot of them are paper options. Since those paper options are limited to some extent by my budget, I usually have no problem working my way from a working copy to a final print.

Interestingly, if I can remain focused on what I saw in my mind when I took the photo than I can usually come to a final print fairly quickly whether I use analogue or digital methods.

There are pros and cons with either technology. I still enjoy film but am becoming more and more intrigued with the options available with digital. The key will be to settle on a workflow that I am comfortable with.
 
For underwater, I'm 100% digital.
For work or project-specific use that requires color and digital use, I'm 100% digital.
For my personal photography above water, I'm still a b/w guy, and I use film whenever I can.

I'm sure one can achieve the b/w film look with digital in post process, but to me, the main reason to shoot film is to be able to go into darkroom and wet print. I don't do that too often due to lack of free time, but if I shoot film, I always have that option later. I still like the idea of wet print on fiber paper to be the final form of photography to present. I did look into the idea of using digital camera (when I had Leica MM) and printing transparent film using inkjet to make negatives, but I couldn't find a good quality, cheap and accessible solution at that time. I found that to be a rather backward process. Not hating digital at all. I just don't know if that's a better approach for me over film camera photography if my goal is to have a possibility of wet printing the photos I really like.
 
So I have shot film from the mid-sixties until ten years ago, when I switched to digital, first a D40, then D70, then D700 and now M8.2, my favourite of the digital cameras. Many of you say digital is perfect and that's fine. But the image is an electronic facsimile of an analog event. it is perfect, and that is what is wrong with it. Film is an analog image of an analog world. It has depth, and it is imperfect. That's why, for me, it's perfect. Life is not perfect, nor do I want my images to be perfect. This is why I shoot mostly film now, simply, with no meter, only years of experience. To each his/her own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom