Developing your own film vs. ... [Archive]

Kevin M

08-29-2001, 08:18 PM

I have been out of the darkroom for about 5 years and I must say I dont miss it one bit. The novelty of sloshing about with chemicals in dim confined spaces kind of wears off after the first 10 years or so. I have found nothing that can be achieved chemically, both in colour and B+W, that cannot be achieved equally as well digitally, but with far greater speed and comfort. Assuming that one is not aiming for poster sized prints, a semi pro range digital camera, Photoshop and a good printer is all the equipment that is needed. Properly equiping a darkroom to produce the equivalent would cost considerably more not to mention the years of practice it takes to become proficient.

Considering the recent advances in digital, any newcomer to photography will probably employ their learning time better by taking the digital road.

Kevin

Rick R

08-30-2001, 01:13 PM

Ugh! Now for the purist's input...

First of all, the resolution of digital cameras and inkjet printers is far below that of regular camera equipment. For me it's a too great a difference, but other people obviously are looking for different things.

Second, the visual difference is readily apparent, even with expensive digital equipment.

Third, it seems to me that people who wouldn't dream of dropping their paints and pastels for a digital studio have no trouble with the idea of digital photography. Why is that?

Fourth, digital media is not archival. The print may be, but you won't have anything to make new prints from in 20 years, much less a 100.

I personally love working in the darkroom, and hate it when other people have anything to do with the developing or printing process.

All that being said, darkrooms are horribly inconvenient and noxious. Not to mention environmentally un-friendly.

I use a digital camera, it's fun, it's convenient. But it won't take the place of my "real" equipment any time soon.

Midwest Painter

08-30-2001, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Rick R
Ugh! Now for the purist's input...

First of all, the resolution of digital cameras and inkjet printers is far below that of regular camera equipment. For me it's a too great a difference, but other people obviously are looking for different things.

Second, the visual difference is readily apparent, even with expensive digital equipment.

Third, it seems to me that people who wouldn't dream of dropping their paints and pastels for a digital studio have no trouble with the idea of digital photography. Why is that?

Fourth, digital media is not archival. The print may be, but you won't have anything to make new prints from in 20 years, much less a 100.

I personally love working in the darkroom, and hate it when other people have anything to do with the developing or printing process.

All that being said, darkrooms are horribly inconvenient and noxious. Not to mention environmentally un-friendly.

I use a digital camera, it's fun, it's convenient. But it won't take the place of my "real" equipment any time soon.

Perhaps you should look at the new generation of digital cameras. If the field of digital photography keeps advancing as it is, soon 35mm film might go the way of the daguerrotype.

As far storing digital photographs, a CD is far more robust than a film negative. Also, digital imaging is now being used to restore old photographs.

But to each his/her own. This is just my opinion ...

Rick R

08-30-2001, 03:00 PM

No, that's not correct. CDRs are NOT archival. Depending on the manufacturer and the circumstances, they rate shelf life from 5 to 200 years.

However, the other problem is technology changes. How would you load that image you had on 5.25" floppy today, much less 20 years from now? Most CDR manufacturers predict you'll have to move you data to new media technology every 5 to 10 years.

I wish I could remember what the DPI difference between digital prints and negatives is off the top of my head, but I can't. I'll try and dig that up.

What is the top resolution that professional digital SLR-style cameras can output? 3000x2000 pixels? Not only would that file be unbelievably huge and unweildy (hundreds or MB? a gig?) but you still couldn't modify image size without some distortion.

That right there are two of THE biggest problems with digital photography, IMHO.

Oh, and having to struggle with the difference but relationship of pixel resolution and dots per inch. Ugh, I hate that one.

Midwest Painter

08-30-2001, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Rick R
No, that's not correct. CDRs are NOT archival. Depending on the manufacturer and the circumstances, they rate shelf life from 5 to 200 years.

However, the other problem is technology changes. How would you load that image you had on 5.25" floppy today, much less 20 years from now? Most CDR manufacturers predict you'll have to move you data to new media technology every 5 to 10 years.

I wish I could remember what the DPI difference between digital prints and negatives is off the top of my head, but I can't. I'll try and dig that up.

What is the top resolution that professional digital SLR-style cameras can output? 3000x2000 pixels? Not only would that file be unbelievably huge and unweildy (hundreds or MB? a gig?) but you still couldn't modify image size without some distortion.

That right there are two of THE biggest problems with digital photography, IMHO.

Oh, and having to struggle with the difference but relationship of pixel resolution and dots per inch. Ugh, I hate that one.

But as a purist, are you suggesting that a newbie invest in the tens of thousand of dollars it takes to buy a camera, build a darkroom, buy the equipment, learn the craft instead of doing everything digitally?

Rick R

08-30-2001, 04:31 PM

Did I say purist? Ugh, well that was a lie. ;) I do have a digital camera, a fast computer, a very nice scanner, a digitizer, a decent hi-res inkjet, and several programs such as Corel Photo-Paint v9.

I prefer normal cameras for some things. I believe they are usually better than digital cameras for fine art photography.

As far as the money goes, you can get a simple b&w darkroom setup for well under $1000. I'd call the camera a wash since digitals and 35mm cameras cover the same price range.

Computers, software programs, printers, digitizers, etc., certainly cost their fair share of money too. Some people (me for example) would probably have the computer equipment regardless so in that case it's cheaper to go digital, but hey, aren't artists meant to be poor and starving? :p

Mark4583

08-30-2001, 09:49 PM

Digital certainly has its advantages, Photography is a art form in its self, its much more than a point and shoot, look what I shot!
Im not gona cut down digital, I think its great, Ive used one a time or two but I prefere film for many of the reasons allready said, so Il just add one more.
Il take my medium format or better yet my large format camera, take a shot at the same subject you shoot and lets start enlarging the photo!
Digital is nice because its easey to learn how to use and you get instant results, thats nice but it still dosnt stand up to traditional photography.

spectru

08-30-2001, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by scottb
Do you see better results when you develop your own film, or is it relatively the same as doing it through say, a local film developer?

I shoot slides and have them processed by a Kodak lab. My local supermarket sends them out. Slides are WYSIWYG. I shoot Fujichrome which uses the E6 process. It is my understanding that one can develop E6 film in a home darkroom, but I don't know anyone who does this.

When I use my little point&shoot camera, I shoot print film. Any local automatic photolab can develop the film and make prints. A conscientious technicion running the computerized print machine can give acceptable prints of snapshots. (The vapid teenage clerk with the bad attitude who mishandles the negatives and gets dust specs on the prints is the print film shooter's worst enemy.) If I like a print, I scan the negative and manipulate it, if need be, in the digital darkroom. The print quality of an 8"x10" or smaller print from my photo-quality inkjet printer is as good as a print from my friendly neighborhood photoprocessor. The pictures are better because I control the color, contrast, and cropping. I could get good results from a custom lab, but at a much higher price.

I occasionally shoot black and white. My local supermarket sends the film to the Kodak lab. They develop the film and make attrocious prints. I use the prints much as one would use a contact sheet - to review the pictures and to select the 'keeper' negatives. I scan the negatives and make digital prints that are much better than anything I get from the lab.

I also have a digital point&shoot. The instant feedback and no processing expense are serious pluses for digital photogrpahy. The immediate feedback that you get with digital photography makes it seem to me that it would be an excellent way to learn photography, and more quickly than with film. If you shoot a lot of film, it can get expensive. I shoot about ten rolls of 36 slides a month at a cost for film and processing of about $11 a roll, about $0.30 per slide. At that rate, a digital camera would pay for itself pretty quickly.

Digital photography is not going to replace film anytime soon. though digital will make serious inroads in the consumer market. Your new film camera is not going to be obsolete in the next year or two, but your new digital camera almost certtainly will be.

To answer your question: If you shoot slides, send them out. If you shoot black and white, you'll probably be happier with the results if you print them yourself. If you intend to shoot for the web or for small prints, you may be happiest with a digital camera and a digital darkroom.

LornaM

08-31-2001, 03:06 AM

to this conversation i can only add the facts of my experience, and they are these. i got my first englarger at a garage sale for 25 dollars. i started out with d-76 which is so cheap and so lasting it needs not be commented on. my new enlarger was a bit more expensive but if i hadn´t move to germany i would still be using my old one.

the 35 mm i use is my om-1...purchased in 1979. my friend has been all over the world with me and has never given up... a lot of pictures would have never been taken had i been carrying rechargeable batteries with me everywhere i went. good heavens. talk about money going down the drain... in 1990 i was warned the light meter on my camera was going to go out and i´d better get it replaced. the thought of sending my camera away was too much and i decided to wait. it´s 2001 and everything works fine on a camera that has seen a lot of use, wear and tear, and all kinds of temperatures. i don´t imagine my digital camera with it´s popin-popout lense will ever begin to see that kind of longevity and it cost considerably more...

LornaM

08-31-2001, 03:59 AM

one of the beauties of the 35mm format is being able to work with available light. this statue was inside a tiny mauseleum with one window. i was looking in that window with my lense. my digital camera would have done one of two things. i would have used my flash, in which the resulting picture would have been flooded, losing the detail. or i would have used no flash in which this would have been a mass of dark pixels on the screen. i used 400 asa film under a canopy of trees, standing outside a tiny building, with no lighting at all. it isn´t a perfect image but i got it and for me that is the important thing. i scanned this and ran it through no filters. i´ve found my digital camera is wonderful on a bright sunny day...and the rest of the time it mass-pixels or floods. pity. i´ve lost some good shots.

Kevin M

08-31-2001, 07:51 AM

A few years ago, I was a bit sceptical about digital catching up to film in resolution etc. However, the big camera names like Nikon,Canon and Olympus etc are competing in a market battle which is driving new development in digital photography at a spectacular speed. The engineers at these companies are 'well aware' of the criticisms and comparisons that are levelled at digital and I notice that with each new model (now every 6 months or so) that these are systematically being eliminated one by one. One of these is resolution both real, and more importantly 'percieved'. Some of the newer (within the last year) prosumer cameras have ISO speeds as low as 50 which gives virtually noise free images that are almost indistinguishable from 35mm film.

When you consider that a few short years ago the power users idea of a blisteringly fast computer was a 386 with a 66mhz cpu and a whopping 2mb of ram - and that now - an 'entry level' machine for the kids to do there homework on is a Pentium III,1gb cpu and 128mb of ram, then speculating on the future of digital photography involves less guesswork. In evolutionary terms, the digicam probably hasnt reached the 386 level yet.

Midwest Painter

08-31-2001, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by LornaM
one of the beauties of the 35mm format is being able to work with available light. this statue was inside a tiny mauseleum with one window. i was looking in that window with my lense. my digital camera would have done one of two things. i would have used my flash, in which the resulting picture would have been flooded, losing the detail. or i would have used no flash in which this would have been a mass of dark pixels on the screen. i used 400 asa film under a canopy of trees, standing outside a tiny building, with no lighting at all. it isn´t a perfect image but i got it and for me that is the important thing. i scanned this and ran it through no filters. i´ve found my digital camera is wonderful on a bright sunny day...and the rest of the time it mass-pixels or floods. pity. i´ve lost some good shots.

Hi Lorna,

Digital cameras have come a long way. My new Oylmpus C-3040Z has an automatic and manual mode. In the manual mode I can select fime speed equivalents of ISO 100, 200, & 400. Shutter speeds can be selected from 1/800 sec to 16 sec. Aperture setting range from F1.8 to F10.0. I can take pictures at night without a flash - in color or black and white format with a 3.34 Mega pixel resolution.

LornaM

08-31-2001, 11:22 AM

i tend to stay out of games where money is the main requirement. every second of every day belongs to me, except when i have to wash dishes. i wouldn´t trade that for the greatest camera in the world...quite happy doing it all myself. the one thing, the main thing i have learned in my short time on wet canvas is that you can be an artist without knowing anything about drawing, perspective, form...or color. just follow the photo. now i seem to be learning you can be a photographer without knowing anything about light. brave new world ? art is meaning and meaning is art. that´s a lesson that doesn´t come with a price tag.

Mark4583

09-01-2001, 12:24 AM

I think doing your own lets you be more creative and you are able to do your shots the way you visualize them.
Most of the photographers that I know that have studios or do weddings or both just dont have the time to do there own, but given the chance they would enjoy being creative when they can.
I have a local lab do all of mine, I could never have enough time to do my own but once in a while il take and shoot a roll or two of 120 or 220 in Black and White and process it just to see what I can come up with.

Midwest Painter

09-01-2001, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by LornaM
i tend to stay out of games where money is the main requirement. every second of every day belongs to me, except when i have to wash dishes. i wouldn´t trade that for the greatest camera in the world...quite happy doing it all myself. the one thing, the main thing i have learned in my short time on wet canvas is that you can be an artist without knowing anything about drawing, perspective, form...or color. just follow the photo. now i seem to be learning you can be a photographer without knowing anything about light. brave new world ? art is meaning and meaning is art. that´s a lesson that doesn´t come with a price tag.

Hi Lorna,

I agree. That is one of the reasons I decided to go digital. It is far less expensive. The camera cost less than a comparable 35mm SLR, and I didn't have the expense of a darkroom. Not to mention I don't have the expense of buying film. :)

bloomphoto

09-03-2001, 08:52 PM

Hi scottb

AHHH the debate continues in digital versus film. Personally, I am a film user. I also shoot large and medium formats which digital has not caught up with yet. I am not saying that it won't, it just hasn't as of this time. I remember my husband's first 6100 powerMac which was 16Mb of RAM and a 300Mb hard drive. That was state of the art in 1994. Computers keep getting faster and more powerful, but you have to keep upgrading. I think the same is true for digital photography. I will never have to upgrade my 4x5 Wista view camera. Film will always be available. At least in my lifetime.

As for the difference between doing it yourself and having a lab do it, I think that depends on what you are shooting. B&W negs can be easily developed and all you need is a light tight room to load the film into a reel. You can develop it in the kitchen as long as you have the right developing tanks. As for printing the negs, you do need a darkroon set-up and all of the equipment you would ever need (and a lot you wouldn't) can be found on eBay or other online auction sites. If you don't want to make your own darkroom, you can always sign up for a course at your local community college, they almost always have a basic B&W course. Color and transparencies (slides) should be sent out just because it is a pain in the butt to develop the negs yourself. You have to keep the temperature of the chemicals +or- 0.5 degrees to keep the color correct. Too much of a hassle for me! Just be picky about the lab you use because if the machine is not kept clean, you will end up with nasty scratches that run the entire length of your negatives. If I ever shoot 35mm negs, I have a lab that I know cleans their machines every 2 hours or after 15 rolls of film sent through. I have never had one come back scratched. Ask the lab techs how often they clean the machines. If they can't or won't tell you, go somewhere else.

If all you are planning to do is point and shoot snapshot and small enlargements, digital may be right for you. Just plan on your camera being a "piece of junk" in a year or two. If you want the excitement of watching your images come to life and having full control of the outcome (I am a bit of a control freak), the darkroom is for you. As long as you don't mind the smell........I love it!

Becky

Midwest Painter

09-03-2001, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by bloomphoto
... If all you are planning to do is point and shoot snapshot and small enlargements, digital may be right for you. Just plan on your camera being a "piece of junk" in a year or two.

You may want to rethink this ...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/

This is a large file ...

http://img.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond1x_samples1/originals/010621-1152-30.jpg

bloomphoto

09-04-2001, 12:02 AM

I am not trying to say that digital is not improving. It will evolve significantly over the next several years. Let me see a review of the Nikon D1x in 2 years. Will it still be at the top of the market? I doubt it. There will be something better and more expensive and the D1x will be worth about 1/10th the price you will pay now. My point is that large format and medium format films offer exceptional detail and will continue to offer the same consistent results. If you enjoy upgrading your digital equipment (and can afford to), more power to you. I have no doubts that it will eventually catch up to the quality and detail large format offers now. Until then, I will continue to use my trusty old fashioned film.

PS Scans of my large format (4x5) transparencies at 500dpi are about the same size as the file contained in the last post. I also own a digital camera.

Midwest Painter

09-04-2001, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by bloomphoto
I am not trying to say that digital is not improving. It will evolve significantly over the next several years. Let me see a review of the Nikon D1x in 2 years. Will it still be at the top of the market? I doubt it. There will be something better and more expensive and the D1x will be worth about 1/10th the price you will pay now. My point is that large format and medium format films offer exceptional detail and will continue to offer the same consistent results. If you enjoy upgrading your digital equipment (and can afford to), more power to you. I have no doubts that it will eventually catch up to the quality and detail large format offers now. Until then, I will continue to use my trusty old fashioned film.

PS Scans of my large format (4x5) transparencies at 500dpi are about the same size as the file contained in the last post. I also own a digital camera.

Corect me if I am wrong but I thought the lens was the most important component for detail and depth of view. I am not knocking film cameras. But this thread was about whether or not to sart developing film - that is buy the darkroom equipmet, build the darkroom, learn the process and the chemicals, etc. If you consider the cost of this, with film, with mistakes, is digital a bad alternative at this point.

Ask yourself where will digital phography be in 5 years compared to film? The darkroom may just end up as a storage area.

bloomphoto

09-04-2001, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Midwest Painter

Corect me if I am wrong but I thought the lens was the most important component for detail and depth of view. I am not knocking film cameras. But this thread was about whether or not to sart developing film - that is buy the darkroom equipmet, build the darkroom, learn the process and the chemicals, etc. If you consider the cost of this, with film, with mistakes, is digital a bad alternative at this point.

Ask yourself where will digital phography be in 5 years compared to film? The darkroom may just end up as a storage area.

You are absolutly correct. The lens determines the quality of the image, however the medium on which one is recording the information is also extremely important. Currently you can simply record much more information on a large format sheet of film. Actually the initial question in this thread had nothing to do with digital, but whether or not one should develop his or her own film. I think we have gotten off the subject. I beleive that in the future (maybe a couple years, maybe more) digital will meet or even surpass the quality of film. Until that time, I think getting your hands dirty, so to speak, is a great way to really learn the process and discover the great things one can do in a darkroom. My darkroom equipment is already in storage (unfortunatly I don't have room for a complete darkroom), but I feel the experience I got doing the "wet work" enhanced my ability to compose images (I saw what I was cropping out of the original images) and more importantly, I also began to fully understand the importance of creating the "perfect negative" (which I have yet to make...). I beleive it was Ansel Adams that said "a monkey can make a perfect print from a perfect negative" (or something close to that). The importance of truly understanding exposure and contrast is something that is made easier if one sees the results of a bad negative, and this is coming from someone who has seen a LOT of bad negatives! :) Digital images are fairly easily manipulated and in my opinion this is making the exposure technique less important and I think that is sad. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that more people are getting creative in photography because of digital advances, but I am still a purist in that I think one learns better by making mistakes. I still have several to make and will likely never reach a level that I am satisfied with.

I will never knock digital cameras. They will likely someday become a part of my landscape equipment. My opinion still remains that medium and large format film is superior to digital in the present. When digital surpasses film, I will likely jump on the digital road, but I will still keep my Wista and my Mamiyas for old times sake!:) These are simply my opinions. Thank goodness we all have differing views. What a boring world we would live in if we all thought the same.....

Becky

xinit

09-04-2001, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Midwest Painter
I might ask, why bother? With the recent advances in Digital photography, why use film at all? Perhaps an investment in Adobe PhotoSuite is a better choice.

I'd ask 'why use a pencil to sketch with?'

A digital camera can't do everything, and there is something missing in the process. With film, there's an investment in the piece - with digital you know that you've blown a shot immediately and can re-shoot. Yes, that's a bonus in some circumstances, and is valuable.

Think of it as a pencil versus a tablet connected to your computer. They're both valuable tools, but they aren't the same tools.

Mark4583

09-04-2001, 05:49 PM

Basicly it just comes down to what you like, I myself like the medium and large format camera's for the same reasons allready said.
To me, when I put the time and thought into a photograph. and it may well take several shots to get the one I like but the end result is much more self gratifacation, I feel the same as doing your own prints.
This is a site for artist, would a artist be more satisfied by traceing someone else's drawings that take a matter of secounds or start from a blank piece of papper and put your own idea? it may take longer but arent you more satisfied?
If I waist 50 rolls of film and I get that one shot that moves me, its well worth it, and I also have the option of adding more in the dark room.

scottb

09-23-2001, 10:30 PM

Interesting thoughts, all - some good reading, it will take me a while to get through it all.

I noticed only one person has bothered to vote in the poll - any of you die-hard filmers wanna cast your vote for posterity? :)

Cheers.
Scott

bloomphoto

09-23-2001, 11:11 PM

Hey Scott

I tried, but alas, I am only a Jr. member so it didn't count. For the record, I would have voted for developing your own... :)

Becky

mli_wpg

09-24-2001, 02:07 PM

I am fairly new to slr photography. I have an 18-year old manual focus Pentax and it takes beautiful, sharp images. I am proud to say that I have had some experience developing my own black and white photos in the lab. The control you get is really good in that you can compensate for over or under-exposure during the developing or print-making process. When you send film to the lab, unless you specify, they will be processed a standard way. So an overexposed photo may appear just as that. WHereas in the lab, you have the ability to "push" or "pull" them film to your satisfaction.

However, I send my colour negatives to a lab, as I am unable to develop those myself. GOod luck.

May

Trimoon

05-29-2002, 11:54 PM

Go digital!

I now use a professional digital Camera (PowerPhase FX) PowerPhase FX employs a 10,500 x 12,600 pixel CCD chip that enables image captures of 380 MB (24 bit RGB uninterpolated) superior to 35/70 mm film. Price is high but by years end you can pick one up cheep.
Digital media is archival 200+ yrs.

Go digital

bricoleur

05-30-2002, 03:18 AM

I have to agree with the purists out there....getting your hands wet, is an important part of the process. Convert your bathroom, cheap and easy. Something about digital...quick, change it later on the computor.... perhaps we soon lose the reason why we shot the photo. Although l don't know alot about digital, perhaps l shouldn't judge this too quickly.:)

Kevin M

05-30-2002, 03:20 PM

There seems to be a firmly held conviction that digital takes short cuts and cheats at producing images whilst film is more difficult and time consuming and therefore more honest.
Any serious darkroom work involves manipulating chemical dilutions, temperature, development times, burning, dodging, cropping, spotting and often retouching. None of these are considered to be cheating, and if they were, the vast body of work from the photographic masters would be suspect. As someone who has spent thousands of hours in darkrooms the only difference I see with digital is that it is faster at just about everything and I dont get my hands wet. I have also not had to unlearn one single photographic (camera or darkroom) technique to grapple with the digital process.

Reservations about the quality of digital images and archival properties etc are being addressed by the industry at such a breakneck speed that they will be completely irrelevant very soon.

Kevin
http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/windjammer.htm

MissMouse

05-30-2002, 06:32 PM

Scott if it is just capturing the moment you want why film. Go digital man. Less mess no chemicals (nasty stuff)- no one opening the dark room door just at the wrong time. And lets not go into the risk of cancer from all that nasty stuff.

I use both and I will tell you my F1 is starting to gather dust. If you have a lot of money tied up in lenses you can buy a digital body to fit them. But you did say you were a beginner.

Most important advice I can give take lots and lots of pictures and have fun.

Anthony Carter

05-30-2002, 10:18 PM

If I were just starting out, I would try both film and digital. With the growing popularity of digital images, used dark room equipment is very affordable. The techniques learned in a darkroom will help develop your skills as a photographer. With the digital camera market changing faster than ever, finding a used digital or discontinued model at a good price is becoming easier. Photo quality printer prices are very affordable, and there is a growing selection of archival inks and papers. Chemical and digital reproduction of images are simply two different sets of tools available to bring your artistic vision to life.

Lee Gainer

05-31-2002, 10:56 AM

I used to be a purist. Technology has opened my mind though. Digital is getting better and better and cuts out the middle man, ie. the lame, no photo intelligence developer who can and has ruined my film. Developing film yourself gives you control over development (zone) and dust! I don't know how many rolls of film I have seen come back from a pro film shop that was either dusty or developed in the wrong solution! (Twice with the wrong chemicals, nothing like your slides run through C41 process to liven things up).

An amatuer can easily set up a B/W darkroom and develop and print their own stuff. It will cost you a little bit but the thrill of seeing the image appear on the paper while in the chemicals is pretty amazing. However, if you shoot color, forget it. Color is extremely sensitive and requires expensive equipment to get good, consistant results. The fly in the ointment for all this is that digital can do both with the same equipment for less money. You can do far more in Photoshop with dodging, burning, color enhancement, zone control, etc then you could do in the darkroom without pulling your hair out. (Traditional is alright if making one print per neg, but if making a series, good luck getting them all to come out similarly.) Digital will give you more options as well. The other fly is that as digital gets better, more folks will make the switch and traditional chemicals/silver/etc will become more expensive as less will be purchased. In fifty years, silver halide film (reg. film) will be PRICEY and hard to get! Digital also allows some degree of safety as you won't have gallons of chemicals to tempt little hands and no fumes for you!

Personally, I use a both a traditional 35mm SLR, a 2.25 format camera and a small digital. I also have a good flatbed scanner and Photoshop 6.0. All this combined creates my darkroom and endless possibilities for me. All my output is digital. I can print 10 year prints on my HP printer (purchased from Best Buy) and if I want large, 60+ year prints, I output to a lightjet printer in MI (I'm in VA) from digital files and have them shipped in. (I just sold my Beseler 23cIII, just too large and too much trouble, chemicals, etc.)

I hope this gives you a beter understanding of your options.

photographer45

05-31-2002, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Rick R

First of all, the resolution of digital cameras and inkjet printers is far below that of regular camera equipment. For me it's a too great a difference, but other people obviously are looking for different things.

Second, the visual difference is readily apparent, even with expensive digital equipment.

Third, it seems to me that people who wouldn't dream of dropping their paints and pastels for a digital studio have no trouble with the idea of digital photography. Why is that?

Fourth, digital media is not archival. The print may be, but you won't have anything to make new prints from in 20 years, much less a 100.

As a professional photographer working solely with digital equipment, I have to correct a few comments you've made.

Firstly, the visual difference is NOT apparent....not when the image has been made with a high quality digital camera (I'm using a D1) and a high quality digital minilab printer (not inkjet). In fact, I have a 16x20 on my studio wall of an outdoor shot in the fall with lots of leaves. A friend of mine who runs another studio and works with medium format admitted that the 16x20s she gets from her equipment are less sharp than mine.

Digital media IS archival. I burn all my images to CD, and every few years I redo the CDs, even though the current CDs are much better and less apt to 'erase' the data over time. I don't need to worry about dust scratching a negative, either.

bricoleur

05-31-2002, 06:22 PM

might as well compare the length of your lens..:p This thread is becoming as futile as the one next door between acrylic and oil purists... Doesn't really matter, just a tool like a paint brush... more important is the connection to your image.:)

geckonia

05-31-2002, 06:38 PM

LOL, let's keep it going then!

Q: Do you see better results when you develop your own film, or is it relatively the same as doing it through say, a local film developer?

A: I don't know. I've never developed my own film :eek: Gads!

Film vs Digital? I won't bother, we all know the answer to that one.

OK, gotta go. Martha's on her way over and today we're going to make our own fiber paper and seashell picture frames.

Seriously, bri....you're so right, it's in the picture, or the art, not in the tools and the method.

Dave Carter

06-02-2002, 01:44 PM

Photography for me started out as a suppliment to sketcing in the field. My first good camera was an old Rollicord that I found, then I traded some stuff to a friend for a Nikon F. Both of those cameras took excellent photos untill I banged them up and wore them out! Now my wife and I have a collection of cameras; Canon AE-1, two Pentax K-1000's, a Sears K-1000(Pentax)(all good cameras) and a few others that are non-functional. Oh yes, and we have a modest digital (Ricoh 4200).
The quality of professional processing has declined over the years to the point that if I did not have Photoshop I would have to give up on 35mm photography. So yes I would like to have a dark room (my wife disagrees, which means I'm out voted!), so I can do it myself just like I learned to paint, to use the PC and to use the 35mm and digital cameras. Nothing beats DIY!!!!!
Digital and 35mm go together, in my book, like different size brushes in my paintbox.

P.S. I posted before going back to cast my vote but it said I had already voted.....mmmmmmm....maybe I did.....or not?

Flehmen

06-02-2002, 03:37 PM

G'day,

Well, having just had a bunch of film ruined at a developer... (I was out of town and couldn't use my regular guys) I must say that if I had the cash in my pocket, I'd shell out for a good digital camera. Not the crap you can buy at "best value" or "Future shop" but a SLR style professional camera.

I have done my own B&W developing and found it to be time consuming and error prone. Plus you have to set aside some space for it....

To me the medium isn't the message. IT's the connection to the image that is important. *BUT* up until this point I've not found a digital camera I truely like and can give me the images I desire. (Although the ones out in this last year have made me re-think that a little.)

Flehmen