phyprof

All true. But for me it is worth the effort. I have four camera bodies. Two are the Nikon FA and FE. Both small lightweight bodies. Then I have Nikon F90x and N90s which are the same body, just one is the European designation. They are larger, but I can have four different film types loaded at one time.

Something I like to do when I am in town with some time to kill is take one body, one lens, and one roll of 36 exposures (sometimes two rolls) and do a walkabout. The lens I use for this is a fixed focal length (manual focus and aperture) lens. I choose between 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200 mm. You do get to know your lens. It is a hoot. Just don't be in a rush.

phyprof

I attended a landscape photography workshop back in the film days and the workshop leader, a working professional, said "If you get one keeper from a roll of 36 that is great. If you get two keepers from one roll of 36 you are lying".

True also in the digital age I believe.

btbg

My first car was a 1953 GMC pickup that was so rusted out that you could see through the floorboards. It had been painted with a paint brush. Total cost $250. My first camera was an old Kodak box camera. $8.

What do they both have in common today? They are both considered collectors items, but neither is worth enough to be a classic.

Why would I want to go back to the stone age? Digital is faster, more flexible, example changing ISO on consecutive shots. Film when it went from bright sunlight to dark, you either had to waste part of a roll or not shoot.

Digital is easier to process, and I can shoot for color and black and white at the same time.

My lenses are bigger now, but that's because I have a 70-200 2;8 and a 150-600. Before I had a 300 f4. My choice to have the bigger lenses. And as others have said, I don't see as well as I once did and autofocus sure makes some shots easier.

Do I like film? Yes. Did I like working in the darkroom? Yes. Can post processing on a computer sometimes be tedious? Yes, but no more smell of chemicals. No more working in a hot pitch black room, instead I can post process and watch sports on TV, or whatever else I want to do.

No way I would go back.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

That's how I feel.

And yes, I KNOW I can "just turn off the LCD" and it's the same...but it's not.

No amount of tweaking a slider in Photoshop can replace the darkroom experience...all that goes into making the shot, developing the film to get the best negative and then performing the piece from that score. (printing the image from the negative.)

Not for me, anyway.

phyprof

There is a monthly magazine that I get from old Bligty, "Black+White Photography. There are folks using techniques from the beginning of photography. And guess what? There is a market for these images, many are one of a kind. There is a look to these images that cannot be reproduced on the computer, such as the platinum prints of Sebastiao Salgado, or the polaroids of Serge Picard.

There is a place for both digital and analog. It need not be a one or the other. Both can work alongside of each other. The both have their strengths and weaknesses.

DRG777 Loc: Metro Detroit

I shot with a Konica film camera for decades. I would never go back. I don't want the expense. I do want to see immediately if I like the last shot and exposure. I still slow down the process by shooting (mostly landscapes) on a tripod. I also much like digital editing to make the shots better. No more film for me.

phyprof

Ooh rah!

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

Yes, those were the days. When I first started with photography in 1970 I had a hard case on my shoulder that contained a camera, three lenses, some spare film and a cable release. All together it weighted less than five pounds. Today five pounds routinely hangs around my neck and I still have more to carry in addition to that. The simplicity of the cameras was nice too. I quickly learned to use my left hand for aperture, zoom and focus, my right hand held the camera and worked the shutter. Today there is an overwhelming array of buttons on the cameras I have and if that's not enough there are endless pages of menu too.

When I went digital I had to learn a new language. I discovered as well that things I spent years learning how to do in the camera could now be done with the click of a mouse. I discovered the capital costs of photography leapt upwards but the operating costs dropped quickly. For operating I do need software, Photoshop mostly, I do need a computer and I need lots of disk space. In the film days there was no software, just a light box to sort the slides and then a box to store them in. The difference is dramatic, today I take a lot more pictures because I don't have to count exposures and save up to process them. My two week travel budget used to be $350 for film, today it's zero dollars.

Would I go back? I'm not sure. In the film days I did pay a fortune for film and I had to wait a week to get my Kodachrome back from the lab. That was kind of aggravating particularly since by then I no longer remembered what I had done to achive the images I got. That wasn't so nice. Then I had to learn how to work several controls in split seconds to capture an insect before it flew away. But I did learn and as a result got a lot of bug images. And of course I didn't wreck my back carrying twenty pounds or more gear. In fact my standard camera kit weighs forty pounds.

In the digital world I am confronted by a bewildering array of options. ISO used to be the film I selected, not simply a dial or menu page to set. White balance was a filter you screwed on the front of your lens whereas today you can set that accurately in the camera. Focus is instant and ongoing, it was no longer something to worry about. Apertures were still a dial but now in the camera not in the lens. And of course today I get instant results that I can do over if necessary, well ... most of the time at least.

But despite all that amazing change, one thing that kind of gets to me is that when the battery dies all that expensive technology is totally useless, nothing but a pile of junk. In the film days there was a battery too but its purpose was only to work the meter and if that battery failed you could still estimate the exposure or use a selenium light meter and continue taking pictures since the shutter was mechanical too. Today too I come home with a thousand images that I now have to edit for hours. In the past sorting slides was just a lazy afternoon.

Bottom line? I don't know. I think fondly of the past even though it had its costs and challenges. I admit too that I love some of the benefits of today. I think each age has its strengths and weaknesses. If film were cheaper, much cheaper, I'd probably still use my film gear but at the same time I'd continue to use my digital gear too.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

When introduced in 1976 the Canon AE-1, arguably one of the most successful SLR cameras of all time, was criticized for this very reason. It required a functioning battery to fire the shutter. It came with a spare battery holder on the camera strap, but in sub zero weather that may not have not been sufficient. Fortunately, the batteries were very small and there were plenty of places where one could keep a battery or two secreted about your person to keep it warm and functional without much discomfort!

therwol Loc: USA

What do you do with all of this film that you shoot? Just curious. If you're just scanning it like many people these days, you're wasting time and money. A first generation image out of a camera sensor with the quality we now have will have more and better information than a second generation scan of film. These are reasons why I gave up film completely. I gave away my Nikkormat FT3. I gave away my Nikon FA. I kept my Nikon FTn for sentimental reasons (gift brand new from my father in 1969), but I'll never use it again.

I am stuck with perhaps thousands of rolls of film accumulated over decades of time. The idea of scanning it all is overwhelming, and I need to do it to be able to distribute the same pictures to all of my children. I bought a Canon flatbed, film capable scanner 3 years ago, and it is still in the box. I was born at the wrong time :-)

phyprof

I was fortunate to teach at a college that had a wonderful darkroom I bought my supplies and had access to lots of good equipment. Since retiring I scan my negatives but I have found a photographer that will rent darkroom space. Back in the saddle again. 😄

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

In my case I've got thousands of slides. To deal with that I have a Nikon 35mm scanner that has a handy accessory, a slide feeding mechanism. I can load up fifty slides and then just go away and do something else while the scanner does its work. That makes it a lot simpler and faster to do an awesome amount of scanning. The scanner operates in 4800 pixels per inch.

When my mother died I had another problem, a few thousand prints and negatives of different sizes. When she and my father were taking pictures they were using medium format films since there was no 35 mm. Those negatives represent about forty years of photography. So the negatives don't fit my 35mm Nikon scanner. So I got the classy Epson flat bed. Not only does that one do photographs, it supports many different negative formats too. Most of my stuff is some strange roll size, then there are 620 negatives and negatives from an instamatic camera and I have 4"x5" negatives too as well as a few glass plates in medium format. Thankfully all these can also be scanned at 4800 pixels per inch the only problem is that they can't be done automatically, I have to load them individually and then scan which is a pain in the butt. Such is the cost of the ever changing technology.

therwol Loc: USA

I have all of the equipment to be "back in the saddle again" sitting in my garage, Omega D2 enlarger with condensers/lenses for 35mm and 4 x5, the two formats I used back in the day. I have the tanks, trays and other equipment to make it work. I think my son in law will end up using it if he gets a larger place to live with room for a darkroom. I have nothing against darkroom work, but I've personally moved past black and white. Looking back on the many photos I took in college in black and white, they aren't so much an artistic expression as they are something that dates the photos and makes them look dated. (though I've very lucky to have them) This is just my personal feeling. I know that many still enjoy doing darkroom work. Besides, I'm so enthralled with the Nikon D810 that I bought that I feel like a kid at Christmas every day that I take the camera out. This is what keeps my interest going at a high level.

phyprof

It is all about what motivates us to go out and enjoy photography. It has nothing to do with equipment. I am envious of your D 810.

I still use a D 700 but I really like this camera. It was a retirement gift from my wife and daughter.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Shutter replacements were also a common thing (although to a lesser extend) in the good old film days. When I came home from shooting a sports event or something like that, it was not much different than these days, I still came home with about 4 to 500 shots (only those were on film). Well I do admit, they are times these days when I come home with a couple thousand ( I did not do that then)!