Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I asked this question in a thread about preference of darkroom vs digital processing and it was never answered. Several members cited the time it takes to make an image as part of their choice. This has long been a curiosity of mine.

"Why is immediacy needed? I love digital in this respect because as a photojournalist I need my images out quickly. If you do not have a client what is the rush? When I am making my art I have no need for it to be done quickly."

I think it is a fair question for people to ask themselves.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

So don't rush, if you like film and want to spend time in the darkroom it's your time. Personally I like the economics of digital which is far more of a factor than is time.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I know but I also enjoy the philosophy of image making. I believe that understanding the philosophy behind it is important.

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

I have both film and digital. If you are concerned with time, though, you sure can blow a lot of it in Photoshop...

Doyle Thomas Loc: Vancouver Washington ~ USA

it is indeed a fair question.

speed is not the only issue, there is also cost. even if you still have an active darkroom the cost of materials has become problematic.

time is the greatest asset we have and slowing down the process of making Art is not precluded by the use of digital tools. It does however remove the hand from the process.

printing to digital is nice but static (imho) and I have taken to developing(pun intended) my own alternative printing methods that bring the hand back into the process.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

In order to prevent this from turning into the classic dreaded digital vs film debate, I want to reiterate that this is all about the time you put into the creation of your image not which medium is better.

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

You probably failed to get much of an answer because, most likely, there are few people on UHH still processing film or making photographic prints. I am probably a rare bird in still maintaining my old multi-room photolab in a small building out behind the house. I spend from 8 to 12 hours a month there, not all in one chunk. Like most people of today, my photography usually is digital. Nevertheless, I keep a foot in both camps. I enjoy digital for its convenience, its immediacy and its ease of manipulation. Whenever I want superior image quality, however, I abandon digital, and 35mm film as well, and go to the Mamiya RB67 or the 4x5 Sinar, or more rarely my old 4x5 Speed Graphic. Frankly, there are times when I wish I still had the old 11x14 inch Deardorf, although I would cringe at the film cost - IF still available.

How much time someone spends processing digital images is strictly a matter of choice. I have some acquaintances who use images right out of the camera - and at least one who admits to spending 5 or 6 hours on one image in Photoshop. As for me. I would not spend five minutes with Photoshop, as I consider it to expensive, too complex and much too time-consuming. I use better methods. If I were a graphic-artist, I might feel differently.

In the end, you will spend as much time in the darkroom as you wish. and I will do the same.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

I totally agree with you.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

You mention time. Then you mention that you are interested in the philosophy of image making. The implication here is, if I got it right, that development of a "philosophy" requires time. That assumption, I believe, is flawed. While Rodin's Thinker seems to have lots of time on hand, thoughtful results can be achieved in a relative short time. Let's not forget that the flash of inspiration can occur in a fraction of a second.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Some people have become so accustomed to shooting 100+ images/hour that switching from digital to film photography is simply inconceivable.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I'm certainly not trying to tell you something you already know so you understand how the country works these days... anything that will go faster is better... instant gratification it's called and it's a plague... it's ubiquitous... it's part of the culture these days.

But then surely you must also understand that it's the electronics makers who've done this to us and our kids... all in the name of profit... sell more, make more. As Steve Jobs once put it he was going to make a product that everyone didn't know they couldn't live without.

No surprise really. Best of luck in 2014.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Cost versus ability and convenience.
I have a computer and printer at home and at work. I shoot pictures and can download at both venues instantly. One for home use one for commercial use in low res publicity and newsletters etc. I have learned how to use a digital camera and PSE a little bit over 4 years and so my 'success rate' is probably still one in ten under a hundred shots or 2-3 in ten at 100 + (cause I'm concentrating on one theme or vision) I haven't considered paying for printed images as I have no outlet nor do I consider my own home use as needing a high quality finish.

For me to learn how to use a darkroom and film is a step too far. I cannot justify the cost nor do I have the facility at home to build a darkroom. I know that there are advantages in using film just as I know that there are advantages in shooting full frame, however there are better reasons for putting food on the table regularly rather than pursuing a hobby in that direction.

Care - involvement - creation - art- time: are all a part of my photography at the moment. I do not need the kudos of using film to boost my sex appeal or standing (lack of). Too often the 'appeal' of Retro (BW or toy camera or Box Brownie or Poloroid) is a niche inhabited by critics and artist who believe outrage will suffice over skill. I like my art to be recogniseable and bricks on a floor to be a sign of rebuilding not as an art instalation.

Just my opinion, but one that rules my purse and directs my life

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The "ultimate darkroom" would include Dye Transfer Printing, but Kodak no longer produces the materials necessary for this creative printmaking.