Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Funny...I still miss the smell. Probably goes back to the late 40s when helping my Dad in his darkroom was a priviledge and a such fun!

Dave in SD

dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.

I like both. If I need it in a hurry I of course use digital but if it a landmark or something of that nature that isn't going anywhere I stll enjoy setting up a film camera shot. That being said I do send my film out to be be developed and digitally scanned. Early on in life I discovered my body had an extreme and nasty reaction to developing chemicals. I have to admit I wish that digital had been around when I was younger.

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

Love my digital cameras but still can't resist loading some B&W in my F5,F4,F100 or N90s. I develop myself and scan for prints. Some times the old way is fun.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

i don't see the problem, we talk of shooting a hundred or more photos in a day.so save film for a day when you will use a whole roll. there are plenty of other reasons to prefer digital over film.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I knew a press photographer whose paper made the total switch about 1994. I’d already hung up my guns for various (sad) reasons but we were just chatting when he said, “If you ever try digital, you will never look back.” I never forgot it. It was 2007 before I acquired my first, a pack-of-cards Nikon L12, and I was SO hooked! :D

• Can make one image or one thousand
• ESSENTIALLY FREE
• Not sure? Take another. Take 50. (yes, Spray’n’Pray—so what?) :twisted:
• Instant replay
• Histogram
• If you blow your exposure and don’t notice, you weren’t paying attention
• Wide latitude (provided you don’t overexpose)
• ISO from 100 to Ridiculous
• Shoot 10 pictures at 10 different ISOs
• Go from bright sun to coal mine to bright sun
• Shoot color
• Shoot black and white
• Shoot sepia
• Shoot cyan
• Shoot color again
• ALL ON THE SAME “ROLL”

I haven’t even thought of everything, but that’s enough. I loved film, esp. black and white. I DO miss the tangy aroma of hypo (I spent more than half my life in darkrooms) but what digital lets me do, and do in the digital darkroom…? “If you ever try digital, you will never look back.” :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I have a Nikkormat sitting in my closet with a quarter-exposed roll of film in it. I can't find anything to use the rest of the roll shooting. And my fingers don't turn yellow in Lightroom.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

I miss those ol' smelly darkrooms, too. was complex, but often a lot of fun to develop one's own film, especially developing Ekatchrome using E-6 kits.

But Chuck 893 is so right with his description of the versatility of digital photography, and especially the expense angle. Not long after I'd purchased my first digital camera, which was far enough back that film was still widely used by the masses, I went to Wally World and made note of some prices - for film and for standard processing. Then I sat down and did some math and discovered that after I'd had the camera for about five months, the cost savings in not buying film and processing had already surpassed what I'd paid for the camera - and that was just counting the images I'd kept.

On my honeymoon - eight days last May in Pigeon Forge and Chattanooga, TN. - I racked up in the vicinity of 1200 shots. You do the math and see how many 36 exposure rolls of exposed film I'd have brought back.

Time has passed and I'd guess this isn't a truly valid comparison anymore, but Chuck 893's other points are quite valid.

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

Yeah, I love the capability of shooting 'endless film'... I used to go to a lot of airshows, and with a display by the Red Arrows or suchlike, I could get through about 15 rolls of film - but missed a lot due to the down time of actually changing rolls!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I never had that problem (the camera sitting around with an unfinished roll). Usually three rolls of film were gone in a couple of hours.

billjohdoittoday Loc: Arkansas

I'm not absolutely convinced that's a positive. Lot's of new cameras and new features I can lust for; far fewer, though, that I can afford. It seems that every time I'm tempted to consider a new camera, I'm seduced instead by another lens for my current camera. :-D Eight lenses, now, for my micro-four-thirds cameras -- and still more on my eternal-want-list.

BHollen Loc: King of Prussia, Pa.

This may sound strange, but the only thing I miss about film photography is the smell of film when opening a can of Kodak Kodachrome film.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Yeah, there's that. But that ain't all I miss about Kodachrome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSXKjHDKkY&feature=player_embedded

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Ops hit wrong key

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

I too love the versitility of the digital age. And do not want to go back. But I keep wondering have we really become better photographers because we can control and change so many of the settings on our cameras.People keep saying that they now take many more shots than they ever could with film and that results in a greater number of keepers. But seldom does anyone say that the quality of their best pictures today far exceeds that of their best in the film age. IMHO it is PP that has been the real game changer in photography and that is where a majority of the magic really occurs. I, personally, love the fact that I can make so many changes/corrections after the photo has been taken. Which in turn has resulted in a greater number and/or percentage of keepers. But have I become a better photographer, not really.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Charles, I firmly believe that we have become better photographers thanks to advances in technology. You said, "…seldom does anyone say that the quality of their best pictures today far exceeds that of their best in the film age." I don't know if I dare say "far exceeds" (I still like to think I was pretty good in my day), but, just for one example, one of the key things I forgot on my list was white balance, especially in mixed light. (And yeah, okay, Photoshop!) One of the things that most made me cringe and sweat was a color job in mixed light, pretty much any indoor job that I for whatever reason couldn't light. Before big speedlights photographers mostly had to use tungsten to light big interiors, but the problems came with the daylight coming in the windows. We used tungsten-balance film, which shifted very blue anywhere daylight got in. Some would resort to shooting the scene entirely at night. Others, very high-end workers, actually got assistants to gel all the windows with amber gels, Wratten 81 or 85, so that they could even shoot toward the windows and get a normal-looking balance! :!: If you had to shoot with fluorescent (ohh nooo Mr. Bill! :shock: ) you had to [1] figure out what the tubes were—cool white, warm white, daylight, or typically all three—then [2] put the appropriate magenta filter on the camera, which was never right but close enough.

One of my earliest paying assignments was to make a 4x5 Ektachrome for high resolution reproduction of a bright red sports car in front of a well-known local restaurant. At night. :shock: The scenario was the handsome driver assisting the gorgeous blonde out of the stunning gull-wing door car. I was underequipped. All the flash I had at the time was a single potato-masher Honeywell strobe. I had no color temperature meter because at the time they did not exist. The light sources in the area included a big mercury-vapor street light, incandescent floods on the front of the restaurant, and fluorescents under the canopy. It was a bloody lighting nightmare. I can't recall how I did it. I did it. Was it good? It was okay. I kept the client for 20 years. But it was a nightmare.

Today a point-and-shoot on auto white balance together with a little skill in Photoshop—noooo sweat. :mrgreen: Would I have killed for digital? Welllllll…

I think every advance in pretty much any technology makes us better, or at least better equipped to get better. Not long ago Bob Malarz did a post including this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOTCqwwynuE You need a little over 5 minutes to see exactly how Civil War photographers made their images. And they GOT them. But would they have killed for dry plates? How about a hand-held camera? ISO 400? So on, so forth, yada yada. I will shut up and go away now. :XD: :thumbup: