josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Of course one could hide from their spouse for hours at a time in their darkroom.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Josquin, my lab is set up for both wet and dry photography. Though, I don't print as much anymore. Most of my film photography today is from scanned negatives.

To address your comment, I hide from the entire world in my lab for, probably, more hours than I should.

If people ask me if I live in a house, it's more like I have a lab with living quarters attached.
--Bob

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Believe me. These guys complaining about paying for software aren’t young! I’m not young but 95% of what I used to do on the computer I know do on my phone or iPad. And I do occasionally use LR on my phone for a quick simple edit. While it’s true about many young people not using computers as much, (meaning desktops or laptops because smartphones are really pretty powerful computers), there is an increasing trend for content creators moving from cellphones to mirrorless cameras as they want to advance their capabilities.

delder Loc: Maryland

I came up doing Available Light Photography. Budget kept me to B&W, speed kept me to Pushing Tri-X. Color snapshot work I sent out for Drugstore Processing.

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

You present some interesting thoughts and facts. I must agree that film is not really dead. I would shoot film if I could have my film developed and scanned to a disc or flash drive for a reasonable cost and within reasonable proximity to me. Today I was reviewing several different sources for film developing and scanning to disc or flash drive. All were, to me, rather expensive. The price of film is also quite high.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

Yes, and getting higher all the time. And I don't think it's going to come down anytime soon so you might want to stock up while you can. It won't be too long until you'll be thinking today's prices look pretty reasonable.

tcthome Loc: NJ

[quote=BartHx]Even amortized over a reasonable expected life span, what is the cost of the computer(s), editing software, digital photo printer(s), etc. for digital photography? Nobody seems to take those expenses into account when comparing film costs to digital. If we take those costs into account I would expect the difference between Bob's B&W numbers and digital numbers would be considerably less. I have been processing and printing B&W for well over 60 years and silver prints are permanent. I also occasionally print from family negatives that are well over 100 years old and experiencing no degradation -- yes, the nitrates do need to be stored and handled carefully but so do a lot of things. What is the life span of digital media and will anyone be able to read those files in 100 years? As Bob points ]

tcthome Loc: NJ

[ What is the life span of digital media and will anyone be able to read those files in 100 years? As Bob points ][/quote]

Needed to be considered is upgrades if needed. Computers, software,monitors. Replacement camera bodies, memory cards, extra batteries. Lenses & now switching to mirrorless. I still own (& imagine it still works) a Canon AE-1 P & 2 lenses. Put a new battery in it about 6 months ago. Light meter still works. beeper for self-timer still works but sound is low for the battery test but still loud for the self-timer. I know for a fact I would press the shutter a tenth or less of what I do with digital. I had an enlarger & did a few rolls of B&W. No dodging & burning. In today's world, would love to see someone do some of that & more complex task from film. I imagine today the print or negative is scanned & done on the computer?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

stanikon, I've said to others, maybe you too, the 'best' place to use the FD lenses is not a manual focus film body. Rather, get an FD adapter to your preferred mirrorless mount and use them on your digital mirrorless camera. I had a lower end T50 from 1984 that too went around the world, with just the kit 50mm f/1.8 and a third-party 70-200mm zoom. Nowadays, those lenses are long gone, replaced with higher-end FD models and longer focal lengths. But, the manual focus skills are still needed to get them to focus, where the EVF focus aids and stabilization make the lenses 'better' than they ever performed on film bodies.

leenso52

more power to you!! People often speak without knowing what they are speaking about especially to be critical of someone else.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I’m not sure it’s important but there is a cost (value) for your time, film or digital, if the final product is to be sold. You do nice work.

les spencer

Been there. Done that. Move on.....

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

On the contrary, I do burning and dodging along with all of the other skills I used when printing in the darkroom. Yes, I scan more of my negatives than printing. But, as I noted, I still have all of the same darkroom techniques available to me in Ps. In fact, I can do some things in Ps that were extremely difficult or impossible to do in a conventional darkroom. I guess that's part of the blessing of being able to go both ways.
--Bob


Needed to be considered is upgrades if needed. Computers, software,monitors. Replacement camera bodies, memory cards, extra batteries. Lenses & now switching to mirrorless. I still own (& imagine it still works) a Canon AE-1 P & 2 lenses. Put a new battery in it about 6 months ago. Light meter still works. beeper for self-timer still works but sound is low for the battery test but still loud for the self-timer. I know for a fact I would press the shutter a tenth or less of what I do with digital. I had an enlarger & did a few rolls of B&W. No dodging & burning. In today's world, would love to see someone do some of that & more complex task from film. I imagine today the print or negative is scanned & done on the computer?[/quote]

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

I'm on your side Bob; I've been shooting film since the 60s, still have and use my darkroom! I've never given a thought to how much it costs as to the enjoyment I have cooking my own film!! Thanks for bringing this subject up for our film geeks!!

Dick

awesome14 Loc: UK

Riddle me this, if you had a choice between the best film camera or the best digital camera, which would you choose, and why? I content digital is simply better than film, otherwise everyone would use film. There are many people still shooting film, but not in comparison to the number using digital. There are also people who still use VHS tapes and vinyl records, claiming they're superior.

But that's just wrong! I asked my uncle one time why he uses film. He told me one day he sat down, and based on a cost/benefit analysis, determined film was the way to go. I contended that perhaps the analysis was not complete, because he knew next to nothing about digital!

He flew off the handle and said, "Are 'you' trying to tell me what 'I' need? How would you know what 'I' need? Just keep your opinions to yourself!"

So I said, "I apologize if I offended you. But your defensive posturing tells me you know you made the wrong decision. If you thought you were correct, it wouldn't matter what I think, because I'd be incorrect. But as it is, the slightest question triggers a full onslaught of efforts to silence the truth."

He said, "I knew you were bad from the day you were born. Just get away from me, or shut up!"

I said, "It's OK to admit a mistake. In fact, that's the only way to correct them. If we simply go on justifying ourselves, we continue the same incorrect behavior, which robs us of what we could have had if only to admit our error."

He said, "What's this we, our s**t! Speak for yourself! You always were a little slow; not the sharpest tack in the box!"

I said, "Then what does that make 'you'?"

My dear uncle stomped off mumbling something about d**n kids nowadays! So, I learned. They wise value reproof. But fools spurn it. Not directly related to anything, but food for thought nonetheless.