5 Reasons to Shoot Digital

[Lobbamobba]

I know. You can print in red wine as well

 

[absquatulate]

I know. You can print in red wine as well

I didn't know that lol.

 

[Arek Halusko]

Whether its film, Digital ILC or a phone cam and stop caring what others think, since you're doing what you want while they sitting there confused about why you're doing what you're doing and liking it.

 

[GeraldW]

I's somewhat older than you; but have a similar history, starting with an Argus C4 in 1955 and then in 1967 my first SLR, a Miranda F. I also had a darkroom; but in college, as an engineering major, I could use their darkroom. And, yes, I too, thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

I see two issues with the thread. First, there's film and then there's film. A huge difference between 110 Instamatic film and medium or large format. In general, my attitudes of film Vs digital are based on 35 mm film compared to at least a 1" sensor, and I think in terms of color in both media. My darkroom experience was all B&W.

Second, (and this may be personal) is the fun factor. I never thought of darkroom work as fun. More of a chore. It was useful experience, and it helped me get my daughter set up; but not fun. Digital got me into daylight. I can work on my own schedule, there's no chemicals, and I can take a potty break or a snack any time I want. I also find the use of editing software fun. Digital also brought back enthusiasm for my hobby. I had lost that with film - partly because I had too many incidents with my shots being processed by a supposedly reputable lab, and partly because of boredom - same-o, same-o for too long.

Another part of the "fun factor" is the instant feedback. For me, the waiting times with film were a killer. I often had a partial roll developed and printed because I didn't want to wait to finish it. I did get halfway to digital in the 90's when I bought a dedicated slide and negative scanner. I found that fun to work with. But it made me very anxious to get a digital camera to get the film processing out of the way. My first good digital camera was a Canon G5, although experiments with the scanner had shown that I really wanted 8 MP, which turned out to be a Canon 30D.

 

[absquatulate]

I's somewhat older than you; but have a similar history, starting with an Argus C4 in 1955 and then in 1967 my first SLR, a Miranda F. I also had a darkroom; but in college, as an engineering major, I could use their darkroom. And, yes, I too, thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

I see two issues with the thread. First, there's film and then there's film. A huge difference between 110 Instamatic film and medium or large format. In general, my attitudes of film Vs digital are based on 35 mm film compared to at least a 1" sensor, and I think in terms of color in both media. My darkroom experience was all B&W.

Second, (and this may be personal) is the fun factor. I never thought of darkroom work as fun. More of a chore. It was useful experience, and it helped me get my daughter set up; but not fun. Digital got me into daylight. I can work on my own schedule, there's no chemicals, and I can take a potty break or a snack any time I want. I also find the use of editing software fun. Digital also brought back enthusiasm for my hobby. I had lost that with film - partly because I had too many incidents with my shots being processed by a supposedly reputable lab, and partly because of boredom - same-o, same-o for too long.

Another part of the "fun factor" is the instant feedback. For me, the waiting times with film were a killer. I often had a partial roll developed and printed because I didn't want to wait to finish it. I did get halfway to digital in the 90's when I bought a dedicated slide and negative scanner. I found that fun to work with. But it made me very anxious to get a digital camera to get the film processing out of the way. My first good digital camera was a Canon G5, although experiments with the scanner had shown that I really wanted 8 MP, which turned out to be a Canon 30D.

 

[Bandman45]

I's somewhat older than you; but have a similar history, starting with an Argus C4 in 1955 and then in 1967 my first SLR, a Miranda F. I also had a darkroom; but in college, as an engineering major, I could use their darkroom. And, yes, I too, thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

I see two issues with the thread. First, there's film and then there's film. A huge difference between 110 Instamatic film and medium or large format. In general, my attitudes of film Vs digital are based on 35 mm film compared to at least a 1" sensor, and I think in terms of color in both media. My darkroom experience was all B&W.

Second, (and this may be personal) is the fun factor. I never thought of darkroom work as fun. More of a chore. It was useful experience, and it helped me get my daughter set up; but not fun. Digital got me into daylight. I can work on my own schedule, there's no chemicals, and I can take a potty break or a snack any time I want. I also find the use of editing software fun. Digital also brought back enthusiasm for my hobby. I had lost that with film - partly because I had too many incidents with my shots being processed by a supposedly reputable lab, and partly because of boredom - same-o, same-o for too long.

Another part of the "fun factor" is the instant feedback. For me, the waiting times with film were a killer. I often had a partial roll developed and printed because I didn't want to wait to finish it. I did get halfway to digital in the 90's when I bought a dedicated slide and negative scanner. I found that fun to work with. But it made me very anxious to get a digital camera to get the film processing out of the way. My first good digital camera was a Canon G5, although experiments with the scanner had shown that I really wanted 8 MP, which turned out to be a Canon 30D.

 

[Lobbamobba]

Same here, I post the same day as shooting if I want. Chemicals is next day delivery and their shelve life is loooooong these days. I think my color kit has 2 years un mixed and months mixed. Can be developed in 25degrees or room temperature as well.

So yes, things have progressed.

 

[Lobbamobba]

That's my philosophy as well. If only more could adapt it.

 

[absquatulate]

I's somewhat older than you; but have a similar history, starting with an Argus C4 in 1955 and then in 1967 my first SLR, a Miranda F. I also had a darkroom; but in college, as an engineering major, I could use their darkroom. And, yes, I too, thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

I see two issues with the thread. First, there's film and then there's film. A huge difference between 110 Instamatic film and medium or large format. In general, my attitudes of film Vs digital are based on 35 mm film compared to at least a 1" sensor, and I think in terms of color in both media. My darkroom experience was all B&W.

Second, (and this may be personal) is the fun factor. I never thought of darkroom work as fun. More of a chore. It was useful experience, and it helped me get my daughter set up; but not fun. Digital got me into daylight. I can work on my own schedule, there's no chemicals, and I can take a potty break or a snack any time I want. I also find the use of editing software fun. Digital also brought back enthusiasm for my hobby. I had lost that with film - partly because I had too many incidents with my shots being processed by a supposedly reputable lab, and partly because of boredom - same-o, same-o for too long.

Another part of the "fun factor" is the instant feedback. For me, the waiting times with film were a killer. I often had a partial roll developed and printed because I didn't want to wait to finish it. I did get halfway to digital in the 90's when I bought a dedicated slide and negative scanner. I found that fun to work with. But it made me very anxious to get a digital camera to get the film processing out of the way. My first good digital camera was a Canon G5, although experiments with the scanner had shown that I really wanted 8 MP, which turned out to be a Canon 30D.

--
Jerry

I don't use a darkroom and I can develop my negs (colour or black and white) and digitise them in a couple of hours, in fact I did just that on Sunday, two rolls of 120 black and white. Things have moved on, chemicals, kit and film are widely available in the UK, and cheap, I can have them delivered to my door by the next day in many cases, a couple of days at worst. The biggest cost is film, but no film shooter sprays and prays these days, we use digital for that.

Any chance you could share with us your work? Sounds interesting!

Sure, here are 4 I developed and digitised on Sunday, may bring a little nostalgic tear to your eye in more ways than one

These were take with a Fuji GW690 (Texas Leica - Incident metering courtesy of a phone app), taken on Ilford FP4 shot at the box speed of ISO125 and souped in D76

 

[absquatulate]

Same here, I post the same day as shooting if I want. Chemicals is next day delivery and their shelve life is loooooong these days. I think my color kit has 2 years un mixed and months mixed. Can be developed in 25degrees or room temperature as well.

Which colour kit are you using?

So yes, things have progressed.

 

[Lobbamobba]

Digibase.

 

[Doux Vide]

Seriously, it looks like a 15 year old thread topic....

 

[Lobbamobba]

Maybe so. But I definitely think there is potential in using digital cameras and that it is something to consider and discuss today.

Feel free to ignore it if you don't find it interesting

 

[absquatulate]

Digibase.

Thanks, I'm just about to start C41 developing, got a Bellini kit (Italian) apparently it's very good, no final wash required, we'll see

 

[absquatulate]

Seriously, it looks like a 15 year old thread topic....

 

[Birdseed5]

I think a benefit we should all rank highly is the lack of chemicals that we, and the environment, are exposed to from not using and processing film.

Does anyone think playing with developer will improve your health? Yes, producing digital equipment does have an environmental cost, but that needs to be mitigated at the manufacturing point, not consumer use (except for eventual disposal).

Healthy body and planet vs cost of toys? What's your priority?

--
Another proud member of the growing Atheist
community.

Yeah, the body count of people who develop film is long and horrible. Why is it even legal?

 

[Lobbamobba]

Why are guns and cigarettes?

 

[GeraldW]

I have this idea that "doing photography" is fundamentally different than just "taking pictures". The difference being the degree of involvement of the brain and the recall of past experience and all the lore I have stored there. "Taking pictures" is letting the camera do the thinking; which our modern "computer with a lens" cameras do quite well. Based on my own long experience, I feel shooting film with something like my Nikon FE2 was more conducive to "doing photography" than is using a digital camera, where I tend to just "take pictures".

It doesn't mean you cannot "do photography" with a digital camera; but you have to stop and think about it. I first found this happening with a Minolta Maxxum 7000i, and quickly went back to my FE2.

 

[absquatulate]

I have this idea that "doing photography" is fundamentally different than just "taking pictures". The difference being the degree of involvement of the brain and the recall of past experience and all the lore I have stored there. "Taking pictures" is letting the camera do the thinking; which our modern "computer with a lens" cameras do quite well. Based on my own long experience, I feel shooting film with something like my Nikon FE2 was more conducive to "doing photography" than is using a digital camera, where I tend to just "take pictures".

It doesn't mean you cannot "do photography" with a digital camera; but you have to stop and think about it. I first found this happening with a Minolta Maxxum 7000i, and quickly went back to my FE2.

 

[Mike_PEAT]

Digital has become a cold and clinical transaction for me, like eating fast food compared to a personally well prepared Gourmet meal. I like to feel engaged in what I'm doing, it's about the journey as much as the end result for me.

I'm sure they said the same thing when film was invented. In the beginning people had to prepare the glass plates before they can take a photo...buying ready made film is like fast food compared to preparing a gourmet meal yourself!

I've actually done cyanotype photography where in order to do it you have to mix the chemicals and actually prepare the paper yourself to be photo-sensitive.

Anyway, with digital more people today can be engaged with the photo with little skill or dangerous chemicals that was required for film processing.