mjc925 Loc: SF Bay Area

Nostalgic look back on one of my first photo shoots working with a nude. Shot on Agfa APX25 film on a Canon 5 circa 1996. Fun to look back. Was so much different in the film days where you could not just fire off 1000 images during a shoot but each shot cost money and you had to make them count. I much prefer digital, but in hindsight, glad I learned on film, just not sure exactly why.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Very nice.

toxdoc42

Lovely image. The silver based images always had the capability of conveying so many values of tone, that I don't think digital has achieved yet. Also silver prints never faded. I have some printed by NY's Modernage Labs, that look new 60 years later.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

That’s beautiful.

PaulG Loc: Western Australia

I think it's the whole personal involvement with film, especially if you developed and printed your own film/images: the whiff of chemicals, sloshing of water, red safe light . . . Digital is great because you can be extravagant. And the digital darkroom has so much more scope. The "good old days" are hard to beat though. Nice shot, by the way

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Very nice!!!
I too learned with film and prefer Digital for the same reasons.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

AaaaHa, looking at her right upper arm it appears she as did I, had a scar causing smallpox vaccination. They ended Smallpox inoculations in the 1980's when this historic deadly disease was declared as eliminated worldwide.

mjc925 You did well ... A beautiful lady, the photo's shading and detail are wonderfully executed.

Film had its virtues, but developing the film and printing at home was a smelly task; we did it proudly. At age 12, my darkroom was in a small closet and my prints were small contact prints from 120 film. At 12, no nudes!

History lesson for the day beyond photography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine

Indeed, having been in the film era, the cost of a shoot of wildflowers cost me dearly, and then came digital when memory could contain 1200 and be reformatted. Named the "Compact Flash" the early big card was neither compact not a flash in speed. The capacity was small and the price was high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_card

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Really nice.

I, too, am happy to have started with film.

DukeTarHeel Loc: NC's "Research Triangle"

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

I believe film and pre-computer software made many better photographers. Truly had to understand the relationship of shutter, aperature, DOF, ASA, etc. but also pay closer attention to the subjects, backgrounds, etc... realizing the cost of film & processing of that 12-24-36 exposure roll. Would never want to go back but DSLR has made me a sloppier photographer, knowing I have "insurance" with multi exposures and PP to back me up.

BTW nostalgic shooting for me was late 1960s thru early 1980s. Great tones in photos.

Jwshelton Loc: Denver,CO

Well executed.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I am not sure I agree that old film photographers are better at their profession than younguns who have never held a roll of film. A parallel would be saying that old folks who learned how to drive a horse-drawn carriage are better drivers than folks who only drove gasoline-powered vehicles.

In the latter case the objective of getting from A to B is the same, and the means of conveyance is irrelevant if you remove factors like speed, comfort, etc. In the case of photography the objective is to capture a moment in time, and the means of doing that is irrelevant if you remove factors like the process of converting light into pixels on a screen or on prints.

I would much rather drive in a warm comfortable vehicle, and I prefer capturing images with digital sensors and computer processing. The training and skills to use light, DOF, shutter speed, posing, composition, etc, are the same in both cases.

WirtzWorld Loc: SE WI

My turn, I guess.

I really like your photo mjc. It’s so well lit and subtly contrasted. And a pretty good scan, too. I does bring me to mind of those old days that a lot of us loved.

I built darkrooms in every hovel, hut or house I lived in since 1978. Before that, Walgreens. But I loved the time spent in the dark. Just me and a small, but nice, little radio and the nicest smells I can conjure still. It was like magic to watch an image appear before your eyes under a 15 watt safelight. In time, I learned how the relationship between exposures and development worked, and after a while even how a few degrees cooler or warmer would affect my result. What an exciting time. Someone gave me a developing machine, but I never used it, preferring to get my hands wet. But the cost…ya. If I had half of the money I spent on that shit, I’d get a hasselblad with a digital back and a dozen lenses.

I think film photographers learned the fundamentals of this art form, such as lighting and posing and processing and get it right or waste huge amounts of time and money. I like digital photography because it’s easy to always get something usable, unless you do an entire shoot with your af turned off. ( I did that, once!). I was now going to say that classically trained photographers pay more attention to details, but see previous sentence.

Anyway, it’s been nice knowing both disciplines, but the transition digital was a bit harder for me than it was for youngsters who never shot a neg in their lives. These kids have the luxury of entering the field having mostly to concentrate on their composition without the distracting things that we had to be aware of. There are some real star photographers out there who are 25 - 40 years old. It’s a brave new world.

Consider all of the changes in your life if your 50 or older. Cars now go 200,000 miles regularly, tvs we’re sometimes the heaviest item you owned, and digital cameras, among many others. Good that we are so adaptable, eh.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Lovely and artistic work.
--Bob

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

You are comparing apples to oranges, no relationship. My point was I believe serious film photograhers grew up with a better "understanding" of the basics of taking a photo (not necessarily better photos) vs someone who just points their cell phone and pushes a button, shoots with their DSLR in auto-mode, or fixes everything in PP. No different with computers... starting with DOS, 640k memory, etc makes me understand a computer's operation better than someone who just pushes or clicks an icon today.