Photography Cafe
June 24, 2018, 5:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
Have you seen the POTW?
"juvenile Anna's Hummingbirds"
by droll13
http://www.photography-cafe.com/forum/index.php?topic=26952.0
Have a look and leave your comment!
(Click on the photo)
 
  Home   Forum   Gallery Help Arcade Cafe Book Nook Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do U miss film? or still use it!  (Read 26514 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« on: October 8, 2013, 5:23 PM »

When digital first came out, got to be honest I really was not impressed, I had a film lab at the time, and we had little to zero equipment or knowledge to produce prints from these 'memory cards'... In fact it took quite a while for the backup gear and equipment to support this new fangled digital lark... for the first few months we used PC's and Macs and standard printers to produce the images.... It was probably a 6 months after that digital compatible machinery was available to produce images quickly and cheaper.....
All that now seems a life time ago - But the question was 'do I miss film' In truth, only as a fond memory now, would I go back to film, In truth - no way.....
Now digital, is faster, cheaper, easier and yes with the higher ratio dpi cameras, and yes PS, the quality is now IMHO way better than film could every be.....
Wonder what the next step will be?Huh
But over to U - do U miss film?Huh
Logged
Zoot
Top Gun
*
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: England
Allow Photo Edit?: Yes
Posts: 28,606



Awards
« Reply #1 on: October 8, 2013, 5:46 PM »

I don't miss film much, although it took a long time to even try a digital camera.  Once I did, I was impressed, but also found that it made me lazy - now I could take a dozen shots of the same thing at no cost, and not have to worry about running out of film, although most of my posts are single shots.  I miss film in some ways, but I don't miss the time that I used to spend in the darkroom!  My first digital camera was a Sanyo Digicam, which was about 1/2 a megapixel, but the quality was superb!
Logged

If you think you are too old to Rock 'n' Roll - you are!
All sax is good sax...
Photography requires vision

KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #2 on: October 8, 2013, 6:25 PM »

I know what u mean Zoot, like u I don't miss the hrs D&P with B&W, yes it was rewarding, but hard work.... If memory serves the guys at the local rag were using Nikon D1 cameras, really expensive at the time, but only 6mpi, and very heavy LOL, I was still supplying images on film via my dynax 7000i, and yes with better results. oh how time has changed and digital now, being so good..... But yes - very true, with film (because of the expense) - more careful, and less exposures, and yes getting it right in camera....
Logged
BigAl
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 18,450


Mr. Outspoken


Awards
« Reply #3 on: October 9, 2013, 3:10 AM »

The only thing I miss about the days of film-only was the way that it sorted out the good and bad photographers.
These days there are a lot of people that take hundreds of photos and 'get lucky' with one. But that one shot could make the person look better than he/she really was.

Digital has addressed all the shortcomings of the past and there is now no reason whatsoever to choose film.
Logged

Photographers should never fall out over a small TIFF.
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #4 on: October 9, 2013, 6:49 AM »

The only thing I miss about the days of film-only was the way that it sorted out the good and bad photographers.
These days there are a lot of people that take hundreds of photos and 'get lucky' with one. But that one shot could make the person look better than he/she really was.

Digital has addressed all the shortcomings of the past and there is now no reason whatsoever to choose film.

Never a truer word said Alan.... Its no secret I did Motor bike enduro work, taking a least 10x36 images ( OK now u would take 3 or 4 times that) and each image was money, so U made sure U got the shot and got it right, if I spoilt more than 2 or 3 images I had a bad day... Its not bragging its the way it was - bad shots lost u money - so U got it right, in camera....!
Logged
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #5 on: October 9, 2013, 11:32 AM »

The funny thing was - it was digital that was the death of independent togs on the circuit. Digital photographers came in with vans full of gear, digital camera's, printers, screens and scanners, and could produce the photos at the venue... I was still on film, at that time could not afford digital, and the change over costs, and was supplying prints the next day or day after.... Supply and demand - - I could not supply, then and there - they could!....
The funny thing is now, I do everything digital, as most of us do, and forget what a pain the change over was at the time.....
Is digital better - Now - without a doubt - yes.... at that time No - film was!
And yes I spoil more shots now LOL.....
Logged
Seven_Wishes
Guest
« Reply #6 on: October 9, 2013, 3:15 PM »

The only thing I miss about the days of film-only was the way that it sorted out the good and bad photographers.
No there is no difference ... film or digital, it makes no difference ... "no that is wrong" ... digital makes people believe they are something they are are not ... a bad photographic image is a bad photographic image ... the only real difference, you get more chances to make a bad image with digital. The principles of photography are the same whether digital or film photography. If you have no understanding of the core principles, it doesn't matter whether you shoot digital or film ... the analogy of sooner or later you will get a good shot is applicable to both mediums. You cannot use cost as an example because the initial outlay to buy in to digital far outweighs film today and whether you would get an equally as good image in the consumer, or indeed prosumer level cameras compared to film is very debatable.
"it sorted out the good and bad photographers???"
Digital has addressed all the shortcomings of the past and there is now no reason whatsoever to choose film.
What are these shortcomings ... better tonality, better dynamic range without manipulation ... if anything, digital photography has shown the shortcomings and could quite easily be seen as having a detrimental effect by giving a belief that anyone can become a professional photographer, or take a half decent photograph. Back in the day when film was prevalent how often did you here "good photograph, you must have a really good camera??" Not to often!
It’s a discussion with no real right or wrong answer; it’s like comparing vinyl to a cd or MP3.
The funny thing was - it was digital that was the death of independent togs on the circuit.

No it wasn’t, a lot of working photographers were and still are freelance and are on some sort of retainer, most embraced the whole concept of digital … time is money and being able to upload to anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds brought its own benefits. 

Both mediums have there pros and cons ... but if anyone is serious about learning photography, there is no better way than starting with film ... or with digital and limiting yourself to 36 shots at one ISO.


Logged
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #7 on: October 9, 2013, 5:09 PM »


The funny thing was - it was digital that was the death of independent togs on the circuit.

No it wasn't, a lot of working photographers were and still are freelance and are on some sort of retainer, most embraced the whole concept of digital … time is money and being able to upload to anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds brought its own benefits. 

Both mediums have there pros and cons ... but if anyone is serious about learning photography, there is no better way than starting with film ... or with digital and limiting yourself to 36 shots at one ISO.

[/quote]

Sorry Ed - didn't know you were a sports photographer at that time, or even an enduro photographer - or U were even there!
It was in that field (and that field only) I could not compete, by the time I got my digital camera equipment, that opportunity had gone - It wasn't that I didn't embrace the technology, I was running a business, so u prioritize, and get the right gear when u can! - and as for a retainer - don't make me laugh - wasn't working for Harrods!
Logged
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #8 on: October 9, 2013, 6:14 PM »

You cannot use cost as an example because the initial outlay to buy in to digital far outweighs film today and whether you would get an equally as good image in the consumer, or indeed prosumer level cameras compared to film is very debatable.
"it sorted out the good and bad photographers???"

Quote seven_wishes

Totally disagree, memory cards and gear was very expensive when it first came out, and few outlets to process from cards at that time....
Yes Now, once all purchased, the cost to a photographer is minimal..
Whereas with film U purchase film and pay for processing - so long term digital is defiantly cheaper.....
So yes cost is/was the main factor at that time...
Film and prints from film - then - were far better than digital..... now digital imagery is far better than it was. Is it better than film to print? on that the jury is still out...... But its close.....
Logged
Zoot
Top Gun
*
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: England
Allow Photo Edit?: Yes
Posts: 28,606



Awards
« Reply #9 on: October 9, 2013, 6:22 PM »

The cost of printing depends largely on the printer that you buy.  Some are ink-guzzlers, others are substantially more economical.  Quality of print also depends on the quality of the printer.
Logged

If you think you are too old to Rock 'n' Roll - you are!
All sax is good sax...
Photography requires vision

BigAl
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 18,450


Mr. Outspoken


Awards
« Reply #10 on: October 9, 2013, 6:32 PM »

... the only real difference, you get more chances to make a bad image with digital.

Yes, but (equally) you get more chances to make a good image with digital.


... the analogy of sooner or later you will get a good shot is applicable to both mediums.

Except that few people had the money to take enough film shots to reach that sooner or later.


Digital has addressed all the shortcomings of the past and there is now no reason whatsoever to choose film.
What are these shortcomings ...

The main shortcomings of early digital were resolution and dynamic range.
The first digital cameras could not distinguish between two very similar colours so blue skies could end up with rectangles of colour. The square pixels could actually be seen when the images were blown up large.
Those issues took a while to address but, these days, even a reasonably priced digital camera matches film quality to all but those with a highly scrutinous eye.
Logged

Photographers should never fall out over a small TIFF.
Seven_Wishes
Guest
« Reply #11 on: October 9, 2013, 9:33 PM »

“Sorry Ed - didn't know you were a sports photographer at that time, or even an enduro photographer - or U were even there!”
Indeed I wasn’t there, wherever there is, or was and I’d never have guessed that you were either … what that has got to do with anything and having any knowledge on a subject is a little bewildering … I can do sarcasm with the best of them Kev … don’t go assuming I’ll roll over on my back at your own perception of grandeur.
Logged
BigAl
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 18,450


Mr. Outspoken


Awards
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2013, 3:21 AM »

I'm sure that Ed meant a 'place' in time rather than a physical location. That time was the difficult period when some film photographers were pushed out of the market by the immediacy of digital. High Street studios did not suffer this effect because people were willing to wait for their baby pictures and family photos.

Yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in that reply, but the point was valid. Can we not let this descend into a bitch-fight.
Logged

Photographers should never fall out over a small TIFF.
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2013, 6:59 AM »

I'm sure that Ed meant a 'place' in time rather than a physical location. That time was the difficult period when some film photographers were pushed out of the market by the immediacy of digital. High Street studios did not suffer this effect because people were willing to wait for their baby pictures and family photos.

Yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in that reply, but the point was valid. Can we not let this descend into a bitch-fight.

Fair point Alan, and your comments noted m8 thank-you
But just to clarify a point my so called 'own perception of grandeur' is in truth out of order - Back in the 70's (I am sure its been similar at other times) If you could not take photographs to a high standard - u were out, no excuses no way back in.. so U were judged by your piers and a high standard of work.... no Internet no web, no tweet no flickr ... but by reputation, that was not grandeur it was quality of work at the time....
Logged
scoundrel1728
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United States
Posts: 4,876



Awards
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2013, 1:58 AM »

When digital first came out, got to be honest I really was not impressed, I had a film lab at the time, and we had little to zero equipment or knowledge to produce prints from these 'memory cards'... In fact it took quite a while for the backup gear and equipment to support this new fangled digital lark... for the first few months we used PC's and Macs and standard printers to produce the images.... It was probably a 6 months after that digital compatible machinery was available to produce images quickly and cheaper.....
All that now seems a life time ago - But the question was 'do I miss film' In truth, only as a fond memory now, would I go back to film, In truth - no way.....
Now digital, is faster, cheaper, easier and yes with the higher ratio dpi cameras, and yes PS, the quality is now IMHO way better than film could every be.....
Wonder what the next step will be?Huh
But over to U - do U miss film?Huh
-

In short, no.  I don't really miss film.

I was what is now known as a geek from way back.  In fact, it was partly the mysterious (at the time) numbers on my father's twin-lens reflex and my curiosity about what they meant that got me interested in photography in the first place,  This isn't entirely true; my brother had a box camera from the 1950s that my father also used to have.  My father insisted that the camera had nothing wrong with it; but in fact the camera had lost its lens somewhere along the way, as such cameras were likely to do.  As a consequence, when my brother , and somewhat later, I, finally got around to running some film through it, the negatives came out so blurred that they were unrecognizable and the store did not even charge either of us for developing the film.  My mother introduced me to the Tower, I suppose, to mitigate my disappointment.

Shortly after being introduced to the TLR, I ran across an article in the set of encyclopedias on photography, that we had just bought late in 1963, including a description of a bare-bones temporary darkroom using soup bowls as developing trays.  It looked simple enough.  A while later, my father brought home a developing kit.  By that time, I was hooked on photography.  I read about everything I could get my hands on in photography.  I had a birthday coming up in late 1964, at which time I requested a camera of my own - the TLR had a balky shutter, which I repaired with a rubber band around the viewing lens and cocking mechanism, periodically renewed - with the stipulation that it have adjustable shutter speed, aperture, and focus, and be strictly manual and NOT have an auto exposure feature.  I also requested and received an external light meter.  Of course, contact prints of individual 35 mm negatives was an unsatisfactory way to show them, so my father got me an enlarger after a couple of months.  After this, it would be several years before I would visit the drugstore to have my film developed and printed, though I visited rather often to buy film.  Once my father introduced me to 100-foot rolls of the stuff and made a stick of the right length for a 36-exposure roll (with a notch in it so I could make a 20-exposure roll if I wanted) I purchased individual rolls of film only occasionally, when I wanted to experiment with something other than the usual Tri-X.  I did buy a 100-foot roll of Plus-X once, but the inability to use it without auxiliary mechanical support indoors limited my photo capability so that I never bought 100-foot rolls of anything but Tri-X thereafter.

For me, the fun part of developing and printing my own pictures was the ability to control the process and watching the print "come up" in the developer.  I never got tired of that.  There was also a kind of geeky "cool" about developing your own pictures that I also liked, and if you did enough of your own darkroom work, the operating costs of my photography were significantly lower than having it done.  Considering that, aside from the occasional piece of capital equipment in the beginning, I was now financing this hobby on my allowance at the time, this consideration also figured heavily in my decision to continue to operate a darkroom.  This also figured in my strong preference for shooting in available light rather than using flashbulbs, but that is another story.

My first darkroom was a sectioned-off piece of the basement that included a basin with running water and a chest-type deep freeze that served nicely as a table for cutting my enlarging paper.  For much of my darkroom career, I was able to save some water by using a cleaned-up enema bucket as a washer for spools of film and small wallet-sized prints.  The hole in the bottom connected to the plastic hose worked very well to drain the hypo-laden water from the bottom of the bucket.  The bucket also served to mix quart-sized batches of stock solution.

A few years, the family relocated.  The place we moved from was the last time my home darkroom had running water.  Thereafter, I had to use a five-gallon bucket to hold my wet prints until the darkroom session was over, when I washed the whole batch.  This was also the biggest space I was allotted for darkroom work.  The next two houses we moved to were rentals, so we could put up no permanent structures.  In the first, I had the whole garage as my darkroom, but that was with the cars inside.  In the second, we covered the windows of the garage with black polyethylene plastic and the darkroom walls were likewise curtains of polyethylene plastic, the seams pinned together with spring-type wooden clothes pins.  When not in use, the curtains representing the side walls were pushed back against the garage door walls.  The front wall was collapsed back against the rear wall, I don't remember by what mechanism.  My fourth and final darkroom was built into the corner of the garage so I had two walls already.  The third wall and ceiling were of plywood, but no special provisions for ventilation or temperature control were provided.  The fourth wall was two polyethylene curtains.  The lack of ventilation or environmental control sometimes became uncomfortable in the summer, when outside temperatures regularly exceeded 30 deg C and several times a season pushed beyond 38 degrees (100 deg F).  By the time the family moved from that location, my interest in photography had gone dormant This was precipitated partly because of the crude conditions under which I had to work.  By this time, I was well into college and had other interests and obligations competing with photography for my time and money.

One of those other interests was computers.  This was in the early-to-mid 1970s by this time, when scientific calculators and microcomputers as we now know them were just beginning to be introduced.  This was still several years before the IBM PC; we are talking about S-100 machines here.  Even the Apple ][, TRS-80 (which I took delivery on in early 1978) and Commodore PET were still a few years in the future.  Although digitally produced images and digital processing were still largely in the laboratory, I nevertheless had already heard of them mainly through my college courses and was already awaiting the arrival of digital photography.  Unfortunately, the address spaces of computers available to me had address spaces in the 64 kilobyte range.  Even the campus' main computer, a CDC 3150 that was considered a "medium-sized" computer at the time, had only 32K words of RAM, each word of which could be divided into four 6-bit bytes.  We also had a connection to twin CDC 3300 computers through 110-baud teletype terminals and, later, 300-baud "dumb" CRTs.  Fine but slow for text; not so good for line graphics, let alone photographic images.

By the time that digital photography was available to commercial photographers via scanning backs to large-format cameras, I was more than ready for the idea.  In the mid-1990s, I had already purchased a computer system capable of scanning, processing, and printing a reasonably good 8 x 10 inch color picture.  This was also about the time my interest in photography started to come out of hibernation and was looking for a replacement for that old Kodak Retinette 1A from my childhood, whose shutter had become unreliable.  I looked at some entry-level film photography SLR gear, knowing that it would be less expensive to buy, but I didn't like what I saw, particularly its lack of sturdiness.  I therefore watched the offerings in digital photography with interest, waiting with some impatience for something to come within my price-performance range.

After researching my proposed purchase to death, I finally ordered a Nikon Coolpix 950 and took delivery on it in June 1999.  Although the camera, rechargeable batteries, charger, and a few months later, a 32-MB CompactFlash card cost me over a thousand scarce dollars, I had figured that the break-even point for that purchase would pay for itself in reduced film and printing expenses after 2-3000 exposures.  I was expecting that point to occur several years after purchase and was surprised to discover that I would reach that point about the time the 1-year warranty ran out.  My wife thought I was crazy for going digital until a few years later, where I bought a one-time-use camera for shooting underwater.  With the cost of the camera, film, and processing, the tab came to about one dollar per exposure, whether the shots were actually worth printing or not.  That made a believer out of her too.
Logged

The power of coercion stops at the ability and the willingness of the coerced to take the penalty for disobedience. The power of love has no such limit.
BigAl
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 18,450


Mr. Outspoken


Awards
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2013, 5:09 AM »


I was what is now known as a geek from way back. 


I always think of geek as a derogatory term. I grew up with photography in much the same way as you and also was into computing when the idea of digital photography was still on the drawing board. But I would refer to myself as being passionate about the hobby rather than a 'geek'.

Now that I can afford all the equipment I ever need, my passion for photography is nowhere near as strong. I guess that is because it is so open to everyone.
Logged

Photographers should never fall out over a small TIFF.
scoundrel1728
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United States
Posts: 4,876



Awards
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2013, 10:56 AM »

I always think of geek as a derogatory term. I grew up with photography in much the same way as you and also was into computing when the idea of digital photography was still on the drawing board. But I would refer to myself as being passionate about the hobby rather than a 'geek'.

I suppose that around here, it isn't as derogatory as in your part of the world.  Although not all that common, I have heard of others who have referred to themselves as geeks or nerds, I suppose along the lines of the annual charity football match between the Sacramento (California) Police and the Sacramento County Sheriffs being called the Pig Bowl.  Besides, I had pretty much given up on following the crowd as a route to acceptance by the time I took up photography.

Now that I can afford all the equipment I ever need, my passion for photography is nowhere near as strong. I guess that is because it is so open to everyone.

Perhaps, but part of what caused my interest in photography to wane was being unable to pay the toll for routine color photography and for a camera with interchangeable lenses.  By the time I could afford these things, it was too late.
Logged

The power of coercion stops at the ability and the willingness of the coerced to take the penalty for disobedience. The power of love has no such limit.
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2013, 11:14 AM »


I was what is now known as a geek from way back. 


I always think of geek as a derogatory term. I grew up with photography in much the same way as you and also was into computing when the idea of digital photography was still on the drawing board. But I would refer to myself as being passionate about the hobby rather than a 'geek'.

Now that I can afford all the equipment I ever need, my passion for photography is nowhere near as strong. I guess that is because it is so open to everyone.

I'm kinda in the same boat as you guys, while others were playing football at school I was in the lab, playing with chemistry, and developing B&W film, (so yep - school swat), My physics teacher was very into photography (I didn't know till later he was pro photographer, before he became a teacher) his passion for the art was infectious. and with me, from then on the same.
Like with Alan now I can afford better gear, but I'm happy with what I have, my problem now is me (I have health issues now which prevent at times my bending, walking and getting up Embarrassed).. That being said, while I don't take as many shots as I did, still love it when I do!
Logged
scoundrel1728
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United States
Posts: 4,876



Awards
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2013, 9:54 PM »

I really would like to go on a photo walk soon, but am having trouble fitting it into my schedule these days.  One of those competing activities is going to the gym three days a week so I can bend, get up, and walk better, and lose some girth too.  For me, the regimen is doing what it is supposed to for now.

By the way, a national computer and home entertainment installation and repair service goes by the name of Geek Squad.
Logged

The power of coercion stops at the ability and the willingness of the coerced to take the penalty for disobedience. The power of love has no such limit.
KevB
Global Moderator
*****
Album
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,012


Awards
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2013, 5:33 PM »

Just been on mine m8 - a weekend with the seals LOL - OK so they are not free, and in the wild, but they are recovering to be released, so all good in the end.... Hope u get on your photo-walk soon bud!...... Trust me, I do know that feeling of not getting around to well.......... Not good...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!