cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Analyse your own question. I bet the answer is contained within it while you're perusing. It sounds like the people who keep horses - it's really expensive, and you get a lot of cleanups for exercise, but otherwise unproductive (except for the subjective).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Unless you have a ranch like we do regarding horses.
They are a vital tool even in 21st century

MJPerini

In general, and for most people, Digital is better.
That said there are lots of people who do shoot film for various reasons.
For example, if you own and love using a large format camera, there is a small but robust group of artists who scan their 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 negatives which allow them to use some great lenses and in camera corrections.
These files can be printed very effectively on large format pigment printers.
Some people just love the look of Tri-X in any format, and that can be largely preserved by that process.

I would say, If you are asking the question, it is not for you.
It is far more work so unless you have a burning desire to do it, FOR SOME AESTHETIC REASON, you will quickly tire of the expense and process . Digital Photography is very good.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Based on my own experience, the biggest issue with scanning negatives and transparencies (slides) is dust. You really have to be careful and you often still have to go in and clean-up your images. Granted, there's options with most scanning software which can remove dust, but it could also impact some of the finer detail of your images. I prefer to just try and physically remove as much dust as possible and then use Photshop to do whatever clean-up is needed afterwards.

Note that I started to scan my negatives and slides in 2000 (my wife and I have been shooting photos since the early 60's) when I bought a CanoScan FS4000US film scanner. Initially, I used the Canon software on my Mac, but they've stopped supporting this scanner years ago. I now use the 'VueScan' software from Hamrick Software (www.hamrick.com). It works great, with ALL of my scanner hardware, the CanoScan, my Epson flatbed scanner and the scanner on my all-in-one Epson printer.

My archive currently consists of over 56,000 images, of which some 18,000 were scanned from film (slides and negatives). The vast majority of these were 35mm stripes of negatives, mounted 35mm slides and APS cartridges, all of which were done using the CanoScan device. Now there's probably close to a thousand images scanned from larger negatives and transparencies, which were done using one of the flatbed scanners that I've had over the years. The rest of the images in my archive, some 38,000+, are from digital cameras.

Note that I started to shoot digital images in December 2000, but I was still using film for some time, shooting my last 35mm negatives in August 2006.

Also note that in addition to the actual archive, I've got a forms-based database built using FileMaker Pro, which includes not only a description of the image content, but also the date and place where the image was taken as well as the camera and lens, media type (film versus digital) and the names of any known individuals in the image. All of this data can be accessed via keyword searches. Also, each file record includes a thumbnail image.

Anyway, whether you shoot film and then scan, or just go pure digital, that's your choice, but if you do want to scan either current or legacy negatives/slides, please keep in mind that a little effort keeping the media clean will go a long way in reducing the work that you'll need to be put into this.

MJPerini

I heard a fine photographer say (and I cannot remember his name at the moment, sorry) but he said roughly this:
'Digital is the full flowering of Color Photography, B&W was already Perfect'

I think there is great truth in that, Ctein, who was one of the finest Dye Transfer Printers who ever made prints (in Eastman Kodak's opinion) Gave it up because he could surpass it with digital prints.

But in the last few years with the advent of quad tone and then main stream Black and multiple gray inks even digital
B&W in the best hands it pretty close, Is it Weston's Pepper #30, Penn's Platinum prints or Gene Smith's Pittsburgh....no, but neither do we have those guys trying Digital

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

No argument. I'm talking about the 5 acre "estates" with grazing for about 10 minutes.

User ID

Thaz OK for this year ....

User ID

I miss using those exact cameras. I also miss some great dogs now long gone. I even miss my 62 Mini.

(Download)

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

To those who may be interrested here's another article discussing the difference between film and digital with respect to dynamic range and resolution. It apears that there are unique creative oportunities available with film but for most of us digital is far more suitable. I hope you enjoy the article.

https://thedarkroom.com/film-vs-digital-comparison/#:~:text=The%20color%20consistency%20is%20famous,not%20as%20a%20digital%20reproduction.&text=Adding%20to%20this%2C%20the%20film,your%20shadows%2C%20or%20increase%20saturation.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I still love the process of threading a roll of Delta 400 into the F3 and wandering the streets. I usually have a deep yellow or orange filter on the lens. I then drop it off at the lab for souping and high res scanning.

Bill_de Loc: US

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If there were a local lab.
Many do not have that luxury.
Curious, why wander streets?
Is there that much variety or perhaps a large city.
Sounds like fun if a large city with plenty of unique features and architecture.
You are very lucky.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

A few of my street snaps.

View my photos at: https://www.spiritvisionphotography.com/Street-Life

SPV

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

I had a '69 Austin-America that I still miss fifty years later 🤓🤓

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

More than a few.
Interesting, so yours are primarily people.