I think I'm staying with film
Feb 11, 2013 15:24:56 #
pj81156 wrote:
I'm not really looking for people to dissuade me, ... (show quote)
Pj, I would not dissuade anybody from anything unless I felt it was life threatening/altering. I personally feel film is better, but as many have said, film is just getting so limited in its handling as to not be worth it. In a certain county in Pennsylvania the horse and buggy are still king, as is probably film.
But most of the world is moving faster than that, and so it is with digital.
I am not shooting for the sheer joy of it, but to move myself into an income producing situation, and yes, film will play a roll in that, but for sure, digital will be the dominate player.
We will each have to cross that bridge for ourselves, and you, for you.
Good luck
Feb 11, 2013 15:28:55 #
So, I am also a painter who uses oils. Art is generally not immeadiate and does not have a deadline so who cares how fast you can get an image out. I also work as a photojournalist. I use and love digtial for its immeadiacy for that work. They both have their place, as do oils and acylics. Painters did not ditch one or the other, nor did they ditch painting as a whole when photography came around.
Feb 11, 2013 15:32:50 #
0627ramram32
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
I'm 81 now, and from the time I was growing up (using my dad's) until this last move I never had a house without a darkroom in it. And if I live to be 100 (har har) I'll never have another one. Imho, in any comparison between wet work and software, the darkroom loses out miserably. Just a few memories should suffice to make my point: mixing chemicals that spoiled if you didn't use 'em up quick; working in the dark; trying to remember the difference between dodging and burning Cibachrome and Kodak Opal; washing and drying vs printing; endlessly cleaning equipment and sink so dust spots wouldn't require hours of spotting; spending 10 or 15 bucks on chems and paper and STILL not getting the right contrast/exposure ... on and on I could go, but won't.
My advice is forget film and learn digital: your life will be simpler and your pictures will be better.
My advice is forget film and learn digital: your life will be simpler and your pictures will be better.
Feb 11, 2013 15:42:07 #
One of my film SLRs is "Match Needle." With it, I can play with shutter speed and f-stop and see what under- or overexposure would result. I don't see how to get this information on my DSLR, which is a Canon Rebel XTi.
The manual reads like Greek to me, anyway.
Am I missing something that is really in plain sight?
The manual reads like Greek to me, anyway.
Am I missing something that is really in plain sight?
Feb 11, 2013 15:43:10 #
pj81156 wrote:
I'm not really looking for people to dissuade me, ... (show quote)
sounds good to me, one nice thing, along with your prints, slides,and negatives you can get prints on a cd and enjoy the fun of p.p.
Feb 11, 2013 15:45:33 #
silver
Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
Hello
Hello, I also use a Nikon F5, great camera but the only bad thing is the battery usage. Shooting film is great, keep it up theres nothing wrong with that. I also do quite a bit of digital but I still love using my F5. Whatever makes you happy, do it.
pj81156 wrote:
I'm not really looking for people to dissuade me, ... (show quote)
Hello, I also use a Nikon F5, great camera but the only bad thing is the battery usage. Shooting film is great, keep it up theres nothing wrong with that. I also do quite a bit of digital but I still love using my F5. Whatever makes you happy, do it.
Feb 11, 2013 17:34:57 #
silver wrote:
Hello quote=pj81156 I'm not really looking for peo... (show quote)
Actually, one of the BEST things about the F5 is that its a Pro body that uses common AA batteries. I use rechargeables in mine so its not a real issue. But if you ever get caught out shooting somewhere and for some reason need batteries, you don't have to quit shooting as AA batteries are available literally anywhere!
Feb 11, 2013 19:03:04 #
Sgt. Maj. wrote:
9XI still use my Contax G2, Rolleflex, Minolta 9xi, and my Nikon F4. I soup my B&W film, hang them up to dry and scan them into my desktop Mac.
I began using film when I was 15, I'm going on 82, when my cousin gave me an Argus camera and taught me to develop film in Kodak's D76 developer.
I began using film when I was 15, I'm going on 82, when my cousin gave me an Argus camera and taught me to develop film in Kodak's D76 developer.
Sgt. you, like a couple other 'oldsters' have revived some good ol memories today! I had totally forgotten about D76. Another great developer and finer grain than the Dektol. I moved into several other great chemicals later but the Dektol and D76 were the 'front-runners' that I began with. Interesting to hear you are using the film angle, but scanning the negs into your computer. Best of both worlds! Keep shooting!
Feb 11, 2013 19:07:41 #
0627ramram32
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
Truly, I don't mean to be smart-alecky here, but ... D76 was for film and Dektol for paper.
Feb 11, 2013 19:23:17 #
0627ramram32 wrote:
Truly, I don't mean to be smart-alecky here, but ... D76 was for film and Dektol for paper.
Hi 0627, 'technically' you're correct, but Dektol was ALSO a great film developer, used 1:1. It's the first developer I began using in 1949 when the 'bug' bit me. Many years later, in 1978 I went to work for our local newspaper and guess what? THEY also used DEKTOL for developing their 4x5 Speed Graphic negatives! It was great and quick... only about 2-3 minutes at 78 degrees and you were done. Speed was their main concern, but oh yes, Dektol was also used widely for film as well as paper. Of course it was diluted more for paper.
Feb 11, 2013 20:38:27 #
Papa Joe wrote:
quote=0627ramram32 Truly, I don't mean to be smar... (show quote)
In a B&W photography class I took in the 70's we ran out of D76 and the instructor broke out the Dektol then too, it worked well and I still have some of the 35mm negatives I developed in it. But I did not know the dilution ratio he used at the time.
Feb 11, 2013 20:48:06 #
Papa Joe wrote:
Many years later, in 1978 I went to work for our local newspaper and guess what? THEY also used DEKTOL for developing their 4x5 Speed Graphic negatives!
Damn, that's old school!
Shooting 4x5 for the paper in the late 70's?
I kind of like the idea but would hate to shoot a college football game with one.
Feb 11, 2013 21:40:39 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Damn, that's old school!
Shooting 4x5 for the paper in the late 70's?
I kind of like the idea but would hate to shoot a college football game with one.
Papa Joe wrote:
Many years later, in 1978 I went to work for our local newspaper and guess what? THEY also used DEKTOL for developing their 4x5 Speed Graphic negatives!
Damn, that's old school!
Shooting 4x5 for the paper in the late 70's?
I kind of like the idea but would hate to shoot a college football game with one.
Hi Goofy,
Well, when that was all they had, you'd be surprised with the shots the sports guys came up with:o)
I was the one the old timers 'blamed', and the newbies thanked for getting the paper converted over to 35mm. I purchased a simple 'Konica' (fully automatic) 35mm camera and the Publisher was so impressed, he ordered six more and therein began our conversion from the old Speed Graphics to 35mm. You all are sure causing me to dredge-up some great old memories... keep it up!
Feb 11, 2013 22:01:10 #
I shot film for years. I even tried my hand at developing my own c41,E6 and B&W. The color and slide developing were more of a chore as to controlling temperature but the B&W seemd to be much more fun. I havent been in the darkroom for quite awhile but am planning to get back to it this year. I tried my hand at hand coloring the B&W and got some fantastik results. I develope,print and am able to scan for editing if needed. Film has to be sent out to be processed 99% of the time. Kodak did a great diservice to its customers by dropping thier film service.
Digital is cheaper and the learning side of it is quite interesting. I like utilizing both.
Digital is cheaper and the learning side of it is quite interesting. I like utilizing both.
Feb 11, 2013 23:56:11 #
I know where you're coming from. I was a photojournalist for two decades, using film. When you're covering fast-breaking events you don't have time to change WB, EV, shooting modes, AE modes, AF modes, etc. Good thing about digital, anyone can make a picture that is technically good; bad thing is everyone now thinks he/she is a photographer.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.