New Tool or New Toy?
 

When it comes to photography, I am a film man. Film, and the cameras you load it into, taught me photography and continue teaching it to me. Like so many photographers, professional and amateur, I learned all about aperture, depth of field, exposure, shutter speed, focus, ISO, zone system on a 35mm film SLR with negative film. I continue to use such SLRs, along with compacts and rangefinders on various endeavours, always changing what rig I use depending on the assignment. To me, a rangefinder, an OM-1 or a Minox 35 are very different tools, each with characteristics that let them do some jobs better than others.

Photographers need a minimum of versatility; it is impractical to own and transport a dozen cameras, keeping each one loaded with the right sort of film etc. Keeping track of it all is a nightmare. Furthermore, each and every of my antique cameras is slow off its feet, requiring the user to input data like focus and aperture - shooting old style requires time and consideration, and every time a subject escaped me due to fiddling with the lightmeter or focussing manually, I felt frustrated.

I felt it was time for a change.

What I needed was single tool that would fulfill all my photography needs: something portable, fast, sharp, automatic, electronic and versatile. What I needed was a digital SLR.

Some eBaying later, I was the proud owned of a Canon EOS 30D body for the not-so-princely sum of £245 delivered to my door. To this I attached a Tamron 24-135mm zoom in 35mm equivalent: with the 1.6x crop factor this becomes a 35-210 or so. I also have a 50mm prime lens.

Shooting with a dSLR is very different to anything I have done before with cameras. It's certainly very fast - when you get it to do what you want. The plethora of buttons and wheels that are not assigned to do specific tasks it certainly very confusing at first, though I'm sure I'll get used to it.

2 days later I have already taken some 120 photos. Already I had discovered the machine-gun mentality of the digital shooter. It encourages the photographer into a mindset of plenty - shoot everything, bin what you don't like. I guess with film one does this as well, but digital pushes it to the extreme: 2 pictures out of my 120 were what I'd consider 'good'. The rest were good for the trashcan.

Shooting with a digital SLR gave me an inherent feeling that each frame was worthless - an ephemeral collection of ones and zeroes that cost nothing to make and nothing to get rid of, hence the giant volume of pictures I took. Did I take even the fraction of care that I would when shooting film? Did I hell - if I had, I would have ended up with more decent shots. The fact is that a dSLR makes it so easy to put it into auto mode and snap away blindly, thinking that because you have a big expensive camera the picture will automatically look good.

I decided to go togging in Reading today, with about 2 hours to burn in the town centre. I could have taken my digital SLR, coming off as an obnoxious yuppie machine-gunning away at the general populace. Instead I took my newly-restored Yashica Electro, loaded with a roll of FP4+ - quiet, subtle, manual and classy. I have yet to see the results - in fact I think the dSLR would have performed better in certain situations, giving sharper detail and more accurate focus, but then I'd have about 500 photos to sift through, mostly badly composed because I would have lazily used the zoom instead of my legs to get the subject exactly where I wanted it in the frame.

My conclusion, therefore, is that to me digital lends itself well to throwaway snapshots of things we don't care so much about and are happy to bin if we need to. This is certainly an area I need equipment for, so I won't chuck away my dSLR. Indeed, I'll use it well for the snapshots where perhaps a little more control and quality is needed than my IXUS compact. But for learning and practising photography, it's Ilford FP4, HP5 and Kodak Ektar all the way.

--Alex

You obviously know little about DSLR photography yet, it's only by perseverance and applying the same methodical approach you used with film that you will see results that are every bit as good as film if not better. I now consistantly turn out more and in most cases better pictures than I ever did with film. The cameras are so advanced now, my Nikon D300 and D200 give me results I could only dream about with film cameras, don't get me wrong, I still prefer the quality of Velvia 50 for landscapes, but for wildlife the D300 is in a different league. I'm easily able to use it at 800 ASA with no apparent loss of detail or sharpness, I sometimes have difficulty in telling the differnce between shots taken at 200 ASA and 800 ASA. The metering and autofocus is superb, it's so accurate and fast, if there's anything better then I don't know how you can tell. None of my film cameras, including Nikon FM2n, F90X, F100 etc were even close, they were very good but have been left behind trailing in the dust, I still have several of them but they very rarely see the light of day now. I used to wait for sometimes up to 3 weeks for Mr Kodac or Mr Fuji to get his finger out and send me my developed colour slides, usually by that time if you needed to reshoot a natural history subject it was too late. Not so with digital, I can assess what the image will look like on the camera viewing screen, take the shot, assess it again on the viewing screen and if necessary make any adjustments to composition, focussing, aperture ect. I can insert the compact flash card into the card reader on my computer, download the days images, assess them on my large computer screen and render the best RAW files into TIFFS for working on in Photoshop at my leisure. Compare that to film, after waiting an eternity for my slides to drop through the letter box, I assess the slides, pick out the best ones on the light box using an 8X loupe, I set up my slide scanner, scan in the best slides to the computer, (takes ages). Now we are at the point where film becomes digital!

nirofo.

Alex, there's absolutely nothing to stop you taking the time and effort you do with your film camera, whilst holding hte dSLR in your hands. The difference isn't with the tool, it's with the user.

As you've learned, taking sloppy shots and not thinking will give poor results. This applies regardless of the sensor/film technology in use.

As for being lazy and using the zoom instead of moving your feet, just try this:
Take a picture of a willing person or other object with the zoom at a medium setting.
Adjust the zoom to its max telephoto and move to recompose so the person/object is the same size in the frame.
Adjust the zoom to its widest angle and move to recompose the person/obbject so it is the same size in the frame.
Examine all three images. There is a world of difference between them, yet the main subject is the same size in each of the images.
What you need ot learn is that framing with the zoom and framing by moving your feet are two completely different techniques. Learn to use them both properly and you'll be a better photographer for it.

Excellent thread.....really enjoyed reading this.

I have no experience of using film whatsoever so can't comment on that. I do however use a dslr.

I cant remember the last time I used the auto feature. I will sometimes use the Pray mode if time is an issue.

Theres no reason like duncan said that you cant use the dslr like the film version. I always try to consider what im doing now before i press the shutter release button. Gone are the times when i would as you say machine gun off shots at almost anthing. My throw away rate is still pretty high but its starting to level out as I have started to think about what im doing.

Thats interesting what you say about the zoom duncan. And totally true, two different things.

These two images were taken at max zoom and min zoom, subject same size in frame.

...... ish ;)

Nice demonstration of what I was trying to explain Lee. Good to see people learning.

Thank you for your interesting responses.

I totally agree that I could and should apply the same meticulous attention to detail that I apply while looking through the viewfinder of my OM-1 to digital image capture. It will take quite some self-discipline but I like a challenge ;-)

If anything my foray into digital has, while revealing what excellent colour images it produces, intensified my interest for black & white film. While entering a sort of mono phase, I now have a new interest in the unique look and texture of mono films. Film and digital are clearly very different media that complement each other; I'm off to buy a developing tank and some D-76 ;-)

So Did I Alex, and I agree that those cameras taught you/me/us in a way that the modern dSLR does not... However I believe that was NOT because they were film cameras ... but because they were manual cameras. My first 35mm SLR was manual focus and manual exposure control - no auto or semi auto mode. The only help you got was split screen focusing & match needle metering. Film & processing were both expensive (to me anyway) so this all forced you to think about what you were doing - choose your shutter speed & aperture, think about you composition etc in a way that that a dSLR doesn't. That said my keep rate was still only 3~5/roll :( ... but again I agree still better that I achieve now.

However your post has made me think .... how about this for an idea ... go out with the camera set on manual exposure and take just one 256 memory card :eek: and see what you came back with.

BTW if your interest is B&W I can strongly recommend Silver Efex Pro which can simulate all your B&W film styles, paper types and toning techniques from your digital files ;). Not cheep but they offer a 15 day trial

Thats a really interesting idea and one i may try if only i had a 256 card or you could still even get hold of one of those...lol.

As you say the fact the camera is manual is the primary driving factor behind the extra care taken. However the fact it is film and the number of photos is limited (and that they cost money) also encourages me to think carefully about each frame. The difference is a bit like the difference between having a 4-hour long dinner at a fancy restaurant and dropping in for a burger at McDonalds.

Much as I believe Silver Efex Pro is a good piece of software I think the real deal is simply more convincing. Not to mention that 200 dollars buys me A LOT of film and chemicals... B&W developing is really cheap these days and a decent scanner can be had for 80 quid - all the convenience of digital with the experience and look of film!

Hi Gidders

It sounds to me like you are suffering from the same problem that alex has, you are treating your DSLR as a point and shoot camera and not respecting the potential quality you have in your hands. Nearly all modern DSLR cameras are more than capable of producing images that can easily exceed the quality you can get from film, but, there is a proviso, that is you will only obtain the quality results if you forget about point and shoot and treat your DSLR with the respect it deserves. Use a tripod whenever possible, check the focus is actually where you want it to be, many modern focussing systems are so fast that the camera can refocus where it thinks the focus point should be without you even realising it has done so, leaving your photo out of focus on the point intended. Don't leave the camera on program, use aperture and shutter priority, check the metering and adjust the aperture/speed to that which gives the result you want, not the cameras version, although in many cases it will be the same. Modern zooms are marvels, but you don't have to use the one that came with the camera, there are thousands of older manual lenses that can be had very cheaply on places like ebay, many can work very well on a DSLR, sometimes an adapter may be necessary. Obviously you may have to focus and set the aperture by hand, but the results can be stunning, I use several manual lenses on my Nikon DSLR's, a Tamron 90mm Macro, it's superb for flowers and insects, a very old Nikon 200mm Macro, once again it's superb, great for butterflies etc. I don't find the lack of autofocus a problem with these lenses, the type of close up photography I do doesn't call for it. Same can be said for landscapes, I have an old Tokina 17mm manual lens in excellent condition which I picked up on ebay for less than £30, it's approx a 25.5mm lens on my Nikons, excellent for landscapes and superb definition and contrast. A comparable Nikon 24mm costs about £300. Modern DSLR's are now so good just about anybody can go out and obtain photos that are to most people acceptable, not good enough for a photography enthusiast or serious amateur, easy to fall into the trap, not easy to get out of! Next time you go out take your tripod, force yourself to look for an image that requires some effort from you to obtain a good result, don't just aim the camera, don't just zoom into approx the right frame size, don't let the camera decide where it wants to focus, remember hyperfocal distance? Don't let the camera decide what apperture and shutter speed to use choose your own to give the depth of field you require, set the camera manually to the lowest possible ASA setting available for the subject in hand. If you've got one use a cable release, if you haven't got one go out and buy one immediately, they can be had on ebay from about £5. Treat your DSLR as if it were an old manual film camera where you had to do everthing yourself.

nirofo.

I learnt on manual only film cameras using a hand held meter. The difference in approach is all in your mind Alex. What has happened has revealed more about you than anything else. Put the Canon 30D in manual mode and decide how many shots you will allow yourself for any outing and stick to it. Self discipline, don't blame the tool because you took a machine gun approach when you could. It is not an inherent property of digital that shots can only be taken in machine gun mode it is merely an indication of your lack of discipline when the restraints are off. Now, when you have conquered that you can begin to explore the real properties and opportunities of digital SLR shooting. That I am still doing and thoroughly enjoying.

"I'm off to buy a developing tank and some D-76 ;-)"
Thats how I got into photography many years ago developing & printing B&W. For me the darkroom was better than takeing photos. (Dont tell anyone it still is)
Now digital PP offers so much more than I could ever have dreamed of & is cheaper.
OM-1 great camera loved the one I had wish still did but would never use it if i did.
So, get film and or digital darkroom and have fun. Try to get the best from both digital & film.
Learn from the photos that go into the bin. (not that i do)

Come on Clive - promise me you will buck up and try and be a bit more imaginative !!

Just come back to this idea (I've got two 256Mb cards as it happens and it does make you think more about your shots :)) but you can get them on ebay of a few quid <<<here>>>

I have just picked up on this thread and had a chuckle.

No need to buy a new card just set out with the equivalent number as a roll of film as your max available shots. 24 or 36.
Be honest with yourself and DO NOT CHIMP OR DELETE ANY FRAMES. This would put your mindset right back into the film days.

Zoom users could also pick up the challenge of limiting themselves to say two specific focal lengths as zooms were pretty poor back then, and most used primes or just the good old 50mm that came with the camera as that was all that could be afforded.

There you go Alex ....... no different to the film days of the 60's, 70's and 80's.;):):D

Don

I have read this thread with a great deal of interest. In earlier years my husband owned an SLR film camera and he and I spent many a happy hour developing and printing black and white photographs and developing slide film but I did not become involved in taking photos - after all it was an expensive hobby and we couldn't afford two cameras! I also worked in a specialist photo printers where my main work involved printing selective enlargements although I saw first hand the result of the "average" photographers output.

I have always been interested in computer technology and have owned digital cameras for many years, my first being a Kodak DC model in the mid 1990's. I bought my first digital SLR, a Canon 300D, but like many did not have a clue how to use it and practically glued the dial to P mode. I gradually learned how to use the camera through looking at books and trial and error but whilst I took a lot of reasonable snaps (and the rare good image) I was never going to be a good photographer. I needed something more - and found it by enrolling in a City & Guilds Level 1 photography course. For me it was an eye-opener. Suddenly AV and TV modes had a use - I even found that I was using the camera with that little dial set on Manual. I gained a Distinction for that first course which inspired me to go on to take Level 2. I'm still waiting for the results for the course but even if I only get a Pass I will be happy because whilst I will never be a great photographer I am certainly better than I ever was beforehand and now have an understanding of my camera. Whilst undoubtedly it is easy to fire off a series of 100 or more shots quickly and without giving thought to composition, light or subject and produce a series of "snaps" suitable only for the bin, using the camera properly can take these from a snap to a photo. No different to a film camera used properly but quicker as you can see the results immediately and re-take your image if it is not right. In the days of film how many good usable images would the average photographer have had from three rolls of 36?

Well over the holiday's I've been using both the OM-1 and the 30D. The latter is ideal for action and macro stuff (I have a particularly excellent set of butterfly photos) while the former was for everthing else, landscapes and architecture, not to mention the Minox loaded with colour film for general touristy stuff. The dSLR is way too heavy to carry around everywhere, I often found myself unwilling to lug it around in the heat.

I haven't yet developed any of my film shots, so I guess until then I can't make a final judgement over which medium gives me the best results. Overall the digi does have some big niggles (rubbish viewfinder in comparison to any old SLR, the size and weight, no subtlety, still don't like the way the manual controls are, need to mess around on the computer for hours afterwards) but also pros like fast AF, versatility and the fact you don't need to worry about the film being too warm, or too humid, or in any way damaged (such anxiety really grips me when I'm away from home togging).

Overall one medium doesn't hinder another, and it is my hope that as digital image capture becomes all the more sophisticated it will help delineate the niche that film has and thus bring more people back to this wonderful alternative way of taking pictures.

My keep rate on a roll of 36 is 2-4, so from 3 rolls I can expect to get back a good 9 back or if I'm luckier 4 or 5 ones that deserve to be framed on the wall. With digital the % of good shots is much lower but the volume means I get around the same amount.

Hi Alex,

Hope you enjoyed your holiday.

A couple of points from this post ....
I have no experience of the 30D but I cannot believe the viewfinder is that bad, particulary as you say the camera is excellent for macro where a poor finder would be a serious handicap. Ok I have not looked through a OM finder but I cannot imagine that it is that much better than my F3HP.

Can you define no subtlety or is that related to the camera being a bit larger than the OM-1.

The need to mess around on a computer for hours afterwards is the big surprise. I have done colour neg and transparency printing for years in a home darkroom and by comparison digital is a whole new world in terms of processing time. Of course if your negs are being outsourced for dev and print then you may well be feeling it. But unless you are having pro level printing done by a lab ( that includes dodge/burn as appropriate ) or in B&W paper grade to suite the subject, then it could never compare with what is achievable in a darkroom with a bit of process knowledge and expeience. All a bit like the difference between accepting straight out of camera images, and those that have been processed to maximise the potential of the subject.

While I know that you have a big thing for film, this bit I do not quite follow [ and it is my hope that as digital image capture becomes all the more sophisticated it will help delineate the niche that film has and thus bring more people back to this wonderful alternative way of taking pictures. ]

If this relates to the complexity of functions achievable then then even the most complex digital camera can be set to manual. Equally film and some film cameras, particularly large format jobs with front and rear swings, tilts and shifts can become a complex medium if thats what you want. So perhaps 'alternative way of taking pictures' needs greater definition.

Don

Being mean (moi?) I think Alex is just trying to justify his use and preference for film perhaps to try and persuade himself as much as anybody. If you prefer film Alex that is fine, no need to try and justify your preference.

Why not justify the preference? I'm saying why I like it, and I say that because I like it! Mike, you've got me wrong ;-). If I didn't like film I would have thrown out all that mechanical stuff the minute the EOS 30D rolled through.

When I say 'no subtlety' I am of course referring to the giant bulk of the 30D. It instantly makes you look like a pro and I find that makes people wary, whereas someone with an antique instantly comes across as a harmless amateur, even though it may be a very high quality camera like a Nikon F, Olympus OM, Pentax K or Leica.

The finder is probably the biggest beef I have on the 30D, for two reasons: 1. It's too small for my preference (the OM has a giant, very bright finder, I daresay larger than the one in your F3HP Don though probably not by a lot). The second complaint is that the camera settings that appear in the bottom of the finder when the shutter is half pressed (aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation) become invisible when in bright sunlight, to the point that I accidentally left it on +1 compensation and ended up with 20 crappy pictures (until I noticed in replay).

Now that I develop my film it takes me around half an hour from start to finish, and another 20 minutes for scanning. If you want to import some 100 odd photos, sift through, edit the good ones to perfection, it would take me well over an hour. Maybe it's just me.

Well, in answer to the question I asked in the title, the EOS 30D is certainly a tool and not a toy (though it is very easy to use it as such). However this still doesn't stop my love for film, especially B&W.

You're not exactly comparing like with like there though, are you?

Set up darkroom/get out changing bag etc., mix up chemicals, develop 100 photos (at least 3 reels of film), scan 100 negatives, sift through, edit the good scans to perfection, clean up chemicals, wash-up. If that takes you less than 2.5 hours, you're doing well.

Aha, in terms of pure volume digital wins. However, digital always brings more volume: for example, over the holidays, I shot 4 rolls of film, or 144 pictures. On the digital camera over the same period of time there are more than 800 photos, and I usually took the OM with me out and about rather than the digi. So it does indeed take me less time to process 4 rolls of film with the following process: prepare darkroom (wait for lights out, shut door), mix chemicals (dilute developer, the rest are ready to use, bring to temperature in the fridge), develop (8 mins for two rolls of film, so 16 for all my holiday pics, add ten minutes for loading). Really the most time consuming part is the scanning, but of course as that happens you can always be doing something else in the background. With the preview scan facility I only do the time-consuming fullres scans on the photos I want.

Now imagine loading 800 piccies off a CF card and running them through a RAW engine, editing, deleting the crappy ones...it is indeed more time consuming. Certainly worth it, but more time consuming.

Alex,
I think you are being a bit sketchy on the total film processing part and the time involved for B&W film.
Developer, Stop and Fixer all require dilution. Temperature stabilisation is not a big issue, but you must be working in a seriously hot environment if you have to put them in the fridge for that :eek:, as the normal temperature is 20 deg C.
Development time depending on film and developer choice can be anything between 5 and 20 minutes.
Stop: 30 secs
Fix: around 3 mins
Wash: 10 to 15 mins under a tap, but if you do that by tank refilling and inversions you would probably need 5 mins.
Drying time: Probably a couple of hours in a warm cupboard.
Wash and dry dev tanks and mixing vessels not long but it is something that has to be done.

By contrast digital images are downloaded to a computer in quick order. Anyone with a computer can do it, while not everyone nowadays would be prepared to go though the process to get to a negative.

I do not know how to put quotes in from other posts, but taking this one [ Overall one medium doesn't hinder another, and it is my hope that as digital image capture becomes all the more sophisticated it will help delineate the niche that film has and thus bring more people back to this wonderful alternative way of taking pictures. ]

Now we have a negative we have the choice of home printing for which we need all the kit ( enlarger etc ) or scan it as you do, then process the image on a computer.
At this stage it would be quite reasonable for anyone without darkroom facilities to ask the question " How much better is the scan from negative than a digital camera RAW file ?"

Do not get me wrong here I loved B&W printing, and regarded film development as a necessary chore, similarly all the washing up after a session. Nothing can beat watching an image appear on a sheet of paper in a dev tray. Jim and I had a chat about how cool it would be if there was a program that could simulate that with a digital image on a computer. Maybe there is one.

Once you start down the scanner route then you are digitising the image, and so the scanner as the digitising medium will have a huge impact on your results. Scanners cover a huge price range from simple flat bed type through to really pricey dedicated film scanners. That says that there is a wide range in the quality of the obtainable scan. I did have a play with Dave's Epson V300 and found that a straight photograph of the neg or slide done on a light table with my D2X was far superior to the best that the Epson could achieve. That exercise then begs the question in the 'lets use film context' how much would one have to pay for a scanner that would output say a 35mm frame to at least equal quality obtainable from a 12mp digital slr camera. Link to my thread here http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...ead.php?t=4972

Of course film does have its own look, and in the world of film, that look changes as format changes, so the larger the neg the smoother the tones. Distinctive look can also be applied to lenses which is why I prefer my old fixed focal Ais jobs to the modern zooms that Stevie uses, even though she gains by having autofocus.

If I had the cash to splash, and the inclination, then I might try film again but it would probably be 6x9 or 5x4 as those large negs really are fantastic. Then again I guess the other side of the coin might strike, as the cash involved in setting that lot up would put one in the realms of medium format digital. ;)

Don

:eek: :eek: 'Machine gun Kelly' with digital then Alex :D

Don

When you have developed the film and finally scanned them into the computer which must take quite some time (let's say the 2.5 hours already suggested as excellent) then you are finally at the same stage as the downloaded RAW files which would take just a few minutes to download, from then on the work flow for the film generated files and the digitally generated ones is essentially the same. Just as you would not manipulate every film image you would not process every digital file either but just select the best ones so again your 'logic' is rather illogical. As for machine gunning with digital it is certainly a temptation but that is, as has been said, down to your self discipline and not down to the medium. By the way film SLR cameras are not necessarily smaller than digital SLR's - my digital Canons are smaller than my EOS 3 and Fd mount cameras. The Olympus OM1 was exceptionally small for it's day compared to any other SLR available at the time, the exception rather than the rule.

OK I think I need to explain better what I meant with the phrase 'as digital image capture becomes all the more sophisticated it will help delineate the niche that film has and thus bring more people back to this wonderful alternative way of taking pictures.'

Often when one technology is superseded by another, the 'obsolete' technology still lives on as an alternative, recreational way of doing this. The most well-known example is for personal and small-scale commercial land transportation, where for centuries the norm was horse-drawn transport. Eventually the motor car was invented, and there was a brief period where they were in competition, motor cars being too slow, too expensive, too unreliable. As we know they improved and became the norm - once this happened, horses were used no longer for transport but for recreation. As cars became faster, bigger, more powerful than horses the niche of horse transport was delineated and people used them solely for that reason.

Perhaps a better example is sail vs. steam for shipping - sailboats, despite being inferior to steam and now of course internal combustion is still widely used, but sailing boats and ships remain popular.

With film and digital we're in that transitional stage (as when sail clippers competed with steamships over long-haul trade routes) where the newer medium does not have a decisive advantage over the other (large format film being still almost unbeatable in terms of resolution by digital means) but with time digital will reign supreme. In the meantime as digital gets better people will return to film in order to appreciate the difference.

Well I cannot disagree with what you say there Alex.

Funnily enough I have just been reading an article in last weeks Amateur Photographer on Sally Mann. She is using a wet-plate collodion process. Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collodion_process

So as long as there are films and chemicals around then there will always be those prepared to have a go at something a bit different from the norm.

Reminds me of my entry to 5x4 when I got a De-Vere for nothing. A bit tweeky about lashing out on sheet film and a load of double darkslides at that stage, I set of with some Polariod 54 or 55, an instant negative film, and then contact printed them on paper coated with liquid emulsion so something well different from my norm which was 35mm at the time.

Dave, Jim's dad, still uses film as he does all sorts of different processing effects which he loves, to achieve what would probably be impossible on digital. No real surprise then that Jim is also becoming film mad even though he has a D200.

Writing this also reminds me how I became fascinated with what was becoming achievable with the digital medium in 2002.

Back in the 1990's I was doing publicity photography for the company I worked for, so a secondary activity. Often I was doing a fair bit of of stuff on very tight timelines, and could be in the darkroom until 3 or 4 in the morning doing mailshot 6x4 Cibachrome prints. By 1997 I was looking at photography as just another job, and it lost its appeal as a hobby, and that is when I took up model engineering as a substitute. By 2001 our production engineers were using a digital compact and I was suitably impressed. I then switched from medium format and bought a D100, and at the same time our publicity department got desktop publishing. To all intents and purposes we now had a seriously compressed time line. Not instant, but by comparison with the old days, pretty quick imaging, publishing and distribution. No more burning the midnight oil in the darkroom.:)

The ability to easily experiment with areas of photography I had not really tried before then took a bit of a hold. So in the end it is digital imaging that brought me back into photography as a hobby. For myself digital has a way to go before it loses any of its shine, but I still appreciate that there are others that enjoy all of the other photographic mediums.

Don

I too have to agree with what you say in your last post Alex and am glad you enjoy it. If I ever do use film again it will be B&W from start to final print because I like the control that, theoretically at least, allows me to express my 'vision' of the world. I love the freedom of digital and although no doubt it has a long way to go I am happy with what it can achieve now. Oh and I do still very occasionally spin one of my old LP, EP or single records for old times sake (and to enjoy a little old analogue retro) although the 78's have long gone. :)

Where I live there are a few well heeled eccentrics who indulge in the nostalgia of running anything from a simple pony and trap to a 6 horse team and carriage. It is great to see them trotting down the country lanes enjoying themselves. Perfect if we all have all the time in the world to get nowhere slowly. Alex I don’t recall anybody knocking you for enjoying the pleasures of film but as a few have said before you do seem to have to justify this pleasure. Added to this I get the impression rightly or wrongly you like to take a pop at the advances in photographic technology.

I have never quite understood why you scan your negatives given your standpoint on digital. Is this an attempt to have one foot in each camp? I could understand it if you scanned the final non digital print to broadcast your efforts through the digital medium.

Analogue and digital each have a set of problems neither is perfect. Either way it is image processing of one sort or another.

Alas the horse and cart is not the right tool for the job in today’s fast moving environment and the weekend horse and cart enthusiasts jump into their cars during the week. I have to agree that some of the old ways are better and it is very short sighted to rush headlong toward unknown horizons.

You have to remember that many of us older folk cut our teeth on film processing and darkroom technique because there was no alternative. As much as we enjoyed it at the time few of us have a burning desire to return to those days. In my case I feel the advances in photographic technology have taken my photography to a new level compared to my film days. It would also be interesting to find out if the digital version is actually greener than film.

Without doubt development has produced better lens, faster focus systems and improved low light image quality to name a few technology improvements.

Yes use a vintage camera if you want to produce images faithful to that time frame. But why use an inferior optics if you don’t have to?

A good example is to compare wildlife media (film, magazines) from the 60’s & 70’s which was pretty dire to the current outstanding material.

An interesting point about you feeling self conscious when carrying a larger camera. I guess you are used to carrying compact size camera. I had concerns when using long lens and then white long lens. To be honest most folk don’t notice you. From my experience when talking to people in the area it is only the folk with 1D and 500mm F4 that get noticed. Strangely enough for me it is the guys with the old film camera that stand-out as most folk seem to have a dSLR, bridge, digital compact or camera phone.

I must say that this has had me wondering too, you are not a true film buff unless you go the whole hog and print in the dark room as well. The film development is largely mechanical, at this point in time the main choice is in the film you used to take the shots and then which developer you choose. The rest is mechanical. The real magic and buzz of film was in the printing where there is enormous skill required to truly master the process and then finally watching the image form before your eyes. Elation or despair! As Rob says you have your feet in both camps at the same time and not truly doing either properly.

Up till now I had difficulty finding a darkroom in my local area (Reading and Berks.) and I do not have space in my house to set up an enlarger, so the scanner is simply to proof the negatives, see what they look like. However now I have now found a club with a darkroom in Newbury, a half-hour drive away, and the chairman will be running a B&W darkroom course (including printing). So come September I'll go down and start printing my favourite negs (now that I know which ones they are thanks to my cheap scanner :-) )

Well that is good news, you will I am sure enjoy the printing immensely and begin to learn the real joys and frustrations of film. Most enthusiasts in the past did not have the facilities to set up a proper darkroom either but compromised by making temporary ones say under the stairs or in my case in the attic. Running up and down a step ladder with jugs of hot and cold water to get the temperature right and no mains light or heating all went to make a printing session a real event. Dust control was a nightmare and the biggest disappointment was always seeing the prints next day, when they had dried, in normal daylight for the first time when they never looked quite so good. Experiment with hand tinting too, great fun. I am going all nostalgic now but I would not go back to it despite that.

In the early days it was a case of waiting for after sunset to setup the darkroom in the kitchen for a few hours printing. Earlier in the day I would Load the film into the tank under a thick duvet and have it processed ready for the evening.

Towards the end I had semi permanent dark room is a space not much bigger than a broom cupboard.

The nice thing about the summer months is the water comes out of the tap at 20°C (68°F) no messing around with dish heaters.

I was very lucky in my film days, the camera clubs I belonged to had their own, permanent darkrooms and my house had a four room cellar - so one room - 12 ft by 10 ft with an 8 ft high ceiling, with plumbed in running hot and cold water and a radiator became my luxury darkroom. Built in Safelights; two enlarger benches - one for colour and one for B&W - Lightproof screening and doors, drying cabinet over the radiator, stud panel on one wall for projecting 6 ft plus enlargements, Built in storage for all the tanks, trays and chemicals, old fridge for storing film and plates. PLUS the all important BREWING area. Sadly all of this was trashed and stolen in my burglary (Along with my Nikon collection - F2As, EL, F Photomic and over a dozen prime lenses from 16 mm to my pride and joy of the time - Nikkor 600mm f/5.6 EDIF and two Rolleiflex TLR's) in the mid eighties which knocked the stuffing out of me and drove me to taking snaps for the next fifteen years. For me, film was great fun, and I'm sure it still would be if I decided to paddle in the soups again, but digital is an equal pleasure, but more up to date medium. I still have my negative and slide collection from those days but am too busy to set about scanning it.
Alex, I hope you have fun when you finally get round to some real printing and one thing I would agree with is that enlarging negatives does make you very discerning about your keepers.

:eek: :eek: :eek:
Good grief Andy. Were you doing billboards, or Andy Warhol grain like golf ball's style.

Don

You're a bit stingy on the film Alex, I never used to go away with less than 50 rolls of Fuji Velvia and or Sensia 36exp slide film. When I eventually received my slides back from the processors, (up to 3 weeks in the Summer) I used to spend literally hours going through them on the light box, if I was lucky I would end up selecting perhaps one or two very good to excellent slides per film and a few useable spares just in case. These I would meticulously clean and scan into my computer using a Nikon Coolscan, if the scans were good then I would save them to my hard drive for working on later in Photoshop, having first given each slide a unique name and reference number. I might make several attempts at scanning a particular slide just to get the best possible image from it, sometimes they just wouldn't scan successfully and I would abandon them for possible use in slide talks. After all this the slides would be filed in a 24 slide hanging file in my filing cabinet and lastly my database would be updated with the latest additions. I mentioned earlier I spent hours, I should have said it could take several days to do it all properly, bear in mind I still haven't done any work on them in Photoshop yet.

By comparison I find working with RAW digital files a doodle, plug my CF card into my card reader, upload the images to the computer, 10 minutes max. Open my image viewer software on the computer, have all my latest RAW files right there in front of me as thumbnails, click on one that I like the look of to see it full screen. If I like the image I call up photoshop via the viewer program and do what needs to be done to it there and then, if satisfied I give it a unique name and reference number and save it to my hard drive. I LIKE IT!

nirofo.

Never did Billboards Don, but did do some giant formula Ford and Go-Cart photo's for a local garage, together with some Head and Shoulders Hair Style shots for a couple of local Hairdressers, both in colour and B&W. Home made print tanks were sections of 6 inch drain pipes, cut to size and capped placed on some steadily turning rollers,geared down and turned by an electric motor. Very Heath Robinson - but worked. Problem was that sometimes exposures of paper ( used enlarger horizontally and projected onto wall) could be 40 minutes plus - That was in the days when I did things just to see if I could :)

That brings back memories as for years (until digital) I did my darkroom work in a 6ft x 2ft 10in downstairs toilet that still had to be used for a toilet (where there is a will there is a way), and I produced many exhibition winning prints from this tiny space. :)

Saying that it was photoshop and a high quality film scanner (Nikon Coolscan V now gathering dust) that got me out of it long before my first digital scanner.

I'm sure you will enjoy having the use of a good darkroom.