Digital or Velvia?
 

Alex 1994 and I started a little discussion on another thread which threatened to hijack that thread so here is a new thread for the discussion. Alex wrote: "The joys of digital? What joys? Substandard resolving power, saturation, dynamic range and storage in a medium that will soon enough become obsolete?"

Any comments folks? I have plenty of thoughts but what do others think?

I must also bring Kodak Ektar into the fray, this is the finest grained colour print film there is and the most Velvia-like C41 film. I have yet to try it.

It's a fact of life, with the ever changing technologies any media will become obsolete in the course of time. When they stop producing film stock in 5, 10, 20 or 100 years time will it not become obsolete ? Change and obsolescence has kept industry working to put food on mankind's table.

Music recording is a classic example of the different media formats used throughout its history. With its own set of debates on the merits and demerits of each format.

Should we all still hanker for the personal service of telephone operators making our call connections or be grateful to Mr Strowger an undertaker for his invention in 1890 that has led to direct dial to anywhere in the world.

Film has some advantages over digital and digital has some advantages over film. Swings and roundabouts.

Perhaps we should start yet another thread to debate whether film and its processing is more toxic than semiconductor sensor manufacturing.

On trawling the web there appears to be a number of flawed tests/examples on the film vs digital debate. None of them conclusive enough to say there is an outright winner especially when you take full frame sensors into account. On Birdforum Nigel Blake produced a link to an informative article on photon collection relative to pixel size and its impact on image quality.

Now that the pixel war is just about over maybe the emphasis will be put on improving dynamic range. Much of films dynamic range is due to the flattened toe and shoulder in the response curve. These areas will have a much reduced contrast. In fact on recent DSLR models there has been a trend to provide options that flatten contrast in the highlights to reduce burnout.

At the end of the day it is all about tone mapping to whatever output media your using. Film or sensor, neither use a transfer function that is true to life. For very high dynamic range scenes massive tone compression has to take place to fit the image onto the limited contrast ratio of output media currently in use.

Doesn't matter in the least to me. All I care about is the pictures. It matter not which sensor technology was used. Stop arguing about trivia and concentrate on the results.

If you want to use film, then use film. If you want to use digital then use digital. Is one any better than the other? Swings and roundabouts as Rob says.

I thought this sort of debate had died years ago.

Couldn't agree more Duncan, It's the picture that counts. Everything in between is just a means to that end.

My thoughts exactly.

Through one means or another, advances in camera technology has gone along way to improve image quality and the capture of difficult subject matter. A point made very clear by David Attenborough when he compares his wildlife filming attempts in the 1950's to current footage. Will we marvel at the advances made in the next 50 years ?

Pen and ink, water colour, oil paint, digital, film. Use what ever you think works best for the picture.

I suppose Alex would argue that his beloved Velvia makes the picture that counts better in some way though obviously I disagree. I feel that digital makes it easier to capture the shot you want in the way you want it and make sure you have got it before moving on. Changing ISO on the hoof, shooting in RAW so all the parameters can be changed later to give many options. I could go on but you all know the list as well as I do. Enjoy your Velvia Alex, I have not touched my film cameras for years. I have several thousand of slides and colour negative the older ones of which, about 50 years old and some older, have slowly deteriorated by fading and some getting mould on them despite as careful storing as I can manage.

From my point of view the wonders of Velvia 50 are pretty academic. Velvia 50 would never cut the mustard when I am shooting at ISO400 and upwards 99% of the time.

Let me put something to rest: Yes, it is all about the pictures. That doesn't stop us discussing the tech behind them--so long as we still care less about the tech than about the images. Musicians know their craft is all about the music, but they'll happily discuss instruments and methods of recording (e.g. digital keyboards vs. real pianos).

So, film will never be obsolete as a storage medium. This is because developed film can be scanned easily using whatever scanning technology we have available (and we'll always have scanners). Glass plates from centuries ago can still be viewed today. Prints, slides and negatives will be scannable in centuries time, ready to be viewed on a computer screen.

Digital, by contrast, is tied by two things: file formats and digital storage media. Hard drives continue to crash on a fairly regular basis, so the best option is a DVD, a format that in itself may become obsolete and still isn't as reliable as a negative/transparency.

Secondly, file formats: these come and go all the time. RAW will be replaced sometime in the not-so-distant future, when someone comes up with something better. In the race to stay on the cutting edge, companies will drop RAW support on their hardware. Result: you have to convert all your images into the new format, or bin them.

And at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. It's all about the piccies!!

Alex,

I am up for discussion in between stops in the workshop. Plenty of time to think on boring milling jobs.

Just a quick one from a read through of this thread.

RAW ..... this is not a file format as such. Each manufacturer has a file format that is associated with the file that stores info from the sensor direct with NO in camera processing. As long as there is digital capture there will be demand for this. Adobe came up with DNG ( I think I am right ) as a format that they hoped would become a standard but that has not happened yet. I use Nikon and that is written in NEF format. No real worries about that being replaced into the future as I am sure my NX software will still run. However all my best stuff is saved after editing as Tiff format. Now I am certain that has been around as a format for years ( Rob will know ) and will continue into the future due to the number of photographers that have librarys of stuff in that format.

Don

A bit of jumping between the two threads as I try to get a handle on this.

Resolution ........ Be it digital or film this is highly dependant on the quality of the lens. So if the lens is less than top notch it matter not a jot what the resolving power of the medium is. This also applies when we wet print ( enlarger lens ) or scan a negative or transparency ( scanner lens ).

The next problem with film in terms of resolving power is that the best are also the slowest. When I was on Tech Pan ( 12 ASA ) or Fuji Velvia ( 50 ASA ) the camera was mounted on a heavy tripod to make use of that resolving power. So for a lot of people talking about these low ISO's is not living the the world they photograph.

How is the image to be viewed. This is the biggest question. Printed to say 10 x 8 then I doubt you would notice any difference. Print to 20 x 16 then things will start to show. The first ones being technique and the quality of the lens used.

So for any real discussion, Alex, I think you need to give some guidance on .... print size and optics quality. Also are we in medium format or 35mm territory. A bit of a non starter it if its 35mm, as in that format my D2X will give Tech Pan a run for its money so I have no worries about stacking it up against 35mm Velvia.

Don

Don,

You are right about Adobe making the DNG file (2006). This means it is just 4 years old, so we're not thinking about dicontinuation quite yet. Give it a few decades and it will be replaced, or someone will invent a format that is so good that all the camera makers will use it (currently every manufacturer has their own RAW format--annoying because you need proprietary software to process it).

Kodachrome was around as a format for decades--loads of photogs used it. It has now been discontinued in favour of Ektar. However, the digital world moves much faster, so I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-20 years time we have a whole new format and all that entails: converting with proprietary software, reburning discs, re-archiving etc.

Regarding resolution, as you say it depends on a whole lot of factors. Certainly the difference is pretty minimal, as you said. Saturation, dynamic range (how they handle very bright areas for instance) may leave the better films like Velvia 50 with a slight edge, but again it depends on a whole load of things.

The biggest advantage comes in logistics, reliability and equipment:

--Like I said before developed film is very durable and can be viewed anytime with the latest scanners.
--No time spent messing around the computer (I'm on it long enough as it is)
--Lovely, cheap manual cameras an optics (personal preference, but I love how an old camera gives you access to important things quickly without piling on unnecessary features that will just distract me).

Ken Rockwell has a great article on the subject: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

Lots there Alex :)

My most unreliable camera was a Nikon FE2 in the cold. My friends was an Olympus OM10. In each case it was battery probs. Well batteries have improved tremendously since the 80's but never the less old film cameras were not without problems. My most reliable old cameras had mechanical shutters and all the gear train that goes with that so servicing was important.
But cameras apart and we are onto the form of image capture.

Digital does require processing on a computer but having had my own darkroom for the best part of 20 years then in my experience there is no comparison in how to get to a processed image.

Darkroom :
Lets start with a roll of B&W as thats the easiest.
Film development no probs but 120 is more difficult to load ... and yes I have dropped a roll on the floor at this stage.
Mix up dev, stop, and fix then rinse and dry measures. This even if you only want one print.
Printing is a joy but a bit costly if you do a sheet as a printing map for dodging and burning. Sometimes I have gone through half a dozen sheets 12 x 16 to get what I want. Then when done its all about washing up.
Colour :
Unless you have a processor this is when you enter a different world. Water baths for temp control of chemicals. Time taken for your eyes to aclimatise to a sodium safe-light ( yep seriously dim ).

No way can digital processing be considered hard after that.

Scanners - Well thats where money comes into it. No point in using hi-res film, best optics and a budget scanner.

Of course both processing and scanning can be left to an outside processor but machine prints means everything has to be spot on. I have looked at film processing and scanning in a previous thread and its expensive and the scanned super res file is less than a D2X Tiff, so unless you do it yourself on a top scanner or pay for that then you are not getting all that the film will give.

Cheap cameras yes. There can be a great deal of enjoyment from owning and using one. But once again unless the optics are top drawer then looking at film resolution numbers in isolation is not giving the whole story. A bit like having a super-car on the UK roads. Super-car = the film. The speed limit = lens resolution. The car might be capable of 180mph but its limited to the 70mph speed limit.

KR link. Well he is a fav of mine when I want a laugh but I will go through it in the spirit of this thread.

Back tomorrow. :)

Don

You know, I've never actually needed to develop any film myself. I haven't been in the hobby all that long but I always pass it over to a lab, it's expensive but convenient. If you specify 'no mods' you get pretty damn good results for 0 time and effort.

Scanner--you don't need one to appreciate pictures. For showing to people I stick prints in an album, far faster than digitising, sorting etc. I only scan when I want it to be on this site, and that's a very small percentage.

Good quality optics are sometimes so cheap it's almost stealing. As a case in point: the old manual focus Nikon lenses along with the Zuiko line for OM series. Both cost on average a fraction of the price of, say, a Canon EF-S lens while giving great results (not to mention the large apertures that give consumer zooms a run for their money).

KR proves that an old Kodak Retina IIIc with Velvia 50 and professional lab scanning is sharper than a Canon 5D!!

I just love these discussions. Basically, for me, digital photography is so far superior to film that any lesser image quality is so minor a consideration as to be non-existent.

I thought I would give the KR link a second look. Another example of a seriously flawed comparison.

Alex where does KR "PROVE" that the Kodak scan result is better than the 5D ?

At the beginning he makes a statement that a film scan from a Rebel looks better than a 5D. He provided no evidence to support the statement or outline of the test conditions. If the film scans are at 5039 pixels x 3339 pixels he should really compare it against a 5D Mk2.

Further down the page is a comparison between the Kodak and a Nikon D3.

To start with do we know what processing has been applied to the professional scans. i.e sharpening, levels etc.

Next it does strike me that there is a marked difference in the lighting conditions between the two shots when you look at the tree shadows.

Thirdly the Kodak is using a prime lens and the Nikon a zoom lens, applying a completely different transfer function to the image before it hits the film or sensor. The lens and lens setting should be transferred between the two bodies so that the lens transfer function is identical in each case.

The Nikon image has been re-sampled to enlarge it by 18% so that it matches the scanned film image size. This will have an effect on the Nikon image quality. One could ask why did he not down size the scanned image to match the Nikon image ?

Lastly there is no information on the Nikon D3 image pre-sets with regards to noise reduction, sharpening, contrast etc. Was Raw or Jpeg used ? The image does look as if some heavy noise reduction has been applied.

The trouble with these sorts of comparisons is that the images can always be tweaked in such a way to support your arguments. If the comparison was under controlled conditions by the likes of Photozone I would have more confidence about the reported outcome.

If your not doing your own darkroom processing or electronic editing what is the difference between taking a roll of film or memory card to the photo lab ?


Yes, great if your subject matter is not that demanding i.e static subjects.
Try manual focusing on fast moving subjects at close range with a depth of field of only a few inches. The glass component is only a fraction of the story with modern lens. You get what you pay for.

As has been pointed out, there really isn't any proof in the article to back up his statement... given some of the nonsense that he writes on his site I couldn't beleive a word of it with out evidence.

As for digital vs film - for me film is simply too costly to deal with, in fact it's over three years since I took a shot on film. Digital does all I need it to, it's easy to use for a days shooting, I have control over the processing and the image/print quality is good enough for my needs.

The others know far more about the technical stuff than I do but there are some points here. 1) Some glass plates can be viewed today in carefully controlled conditions so deterioration is not speeded up, but many have been lost. Prints fade as do slides and negatives which also go mouldy. In other words film is far from permanent and there is only one exact copy which is the original, if that is damaged that is that. Digital files can be cloned and exact copies kept in a variety of places even miles apart.
Film can be scanned but quality is lost and file formats will no doubt change but they can be converted at a click of a mouse. It would takes goodness knows how many weeks of work to scan all my past slides and negatives, backing up my 35,000 digital images takes a couple of hours during which I do not even have to be there.
I doubt many if indeed any use DVD to back up photos these days. Hard drives do die, in fact a couple of mine just have. No problem, I have backups and everything is restored in a couple of hours including cataloguing. Then new technology comes out like solid state drives which will be more reliable and the cost will come down.
You argue that film will still be scannable in centuries time which is doubtful as the film will probably be dust by then or damaged but even if possible it is hardly an argument, you are just saying film is better than digital because it can be turned into digital, even if it means loss of quality, which it does.
One last point, we are all agreed that the final piccie is what counts but you also admit you have never worked in the wet darkroom and printed your photos under an enlarger. That means that you have handed over your picture to someone else to do at least half the process of producing the picture you want and he puts your film in an automated machine. If you are truly going to get the most out of your photography then you need to have control of the whole process from start to finish. Use film by all means and enjoy it but set up your own darkroom, us oldies have done it and enjoyed it but my old Durst stands rather forlorn in a corner because digital is far easier, gives more control, and is repeatable without the risk of destroying the original which can all too easily happen when developing the negative or slide. Darkroom work is fun but can be very frustrating and expensive when chasing a colour cast because the temperature is not quite right or constant. When you are in control of everything from start to finish you feel far more of a real photographer whether you use digital or film.

Good enough resolving power.

Below is a typical action shot I took the other day. No special lab conditions just a tripod used to steady the camera. Shot @ ISO500 1/200 sec f6.3 300mm. I focused on the most static part of the body as the head was swinging in all directions to survey the scene and check me over. The depth of field was about 0.7" ( I would of normally shoot at f8 in brighter light ) so the eye area is not as detailed as I would of hoped for. But non the less you can see the humble 10Mp sensor of the Canon 40D has picked plenty of detail.

The image is a 100% crop and the full frame version is in the insert.

I've been shooting digital for the past 6 years and in general the results have been far superior to my film work.

Agree with you Rob, when I have used a high end scanner to scan a few of my old slides or negatives I have been shocked at how poor they look compared to using something like the 40D, even when the same lenses were used (they are compatible with and used on both my film and digital cameras).

Alex,
If your standard ex lab machine prints are 6x4, 7x5 or 8x6 then they really tell you next to nothing nothing about the film or camera lens's ability to record fine detail. Almost any 35mm camera with any lens, even the most budget jobs can easily be printed to that size. You may spot if a a really rubbish lens used but thats about it. From 35mm you need to get to at least 12x16 from full frame 35mm before things really start to show.

As far as this thread goes then it is fair enough for you to use film and have lab prints as you do, but from that standpoint as you are not seeing everything that film will deliver, and you cannot realistically get involved in film v digital never mind going as far as film even Velvia is superior to digital. Yeah I read KR, and its another one of his 'stoke a contraversy' to generate more hits articles. Sometimes that guy just spouts rubbish.

Your link to KR suggests that it is being used as some sort of justification for using film. This is not necessary. If you want to use film thats fine, whatever medium suits you.

If you want to discuss or argue the case for film then you really do need to experience digital imaging from a DSLR ( for its sensor size ). Only then can you really understand both sides of the fence and give reasoned opinions. If you have a friend with one, see if you can get a couple of full frame 16 bitTiffs made from RAW files.

All this is a bit reminiscent of the days when it was all film. ie the arguement then was that 35mm is a miniature format and you need to get into medium format if you are anyway serious. Larger neg requires less magnification at the enlarging stage. Then into medium format this continued into 6x4.5 v 6x6 v 6x7 v 6x9 debate. Then 5x4 will blow all that away, and while we are on large fomat 10x8 well now you are talking. And all that before talking about various film emulsions and developing brews.:eek:

Now we have digital, we are in the world of Canon v Nikon v Pentax v Sony et al, to which you have added v film. :rolleyes:
Those that moved from film to digital did so as a conscious decision, and are well aware of the positives and negatives if they feel there are any.
The only thing I really miss from my Bronica 6x6 is the large viewfinder. Massive by comparison with my D2X. Processing Cibachromes in a length of plastic drain pipe is certainly something I would not want to go back to.

My view is ...................its Simples ...... research the gear then just use whatever suits your individual budget, style and photographic requirements best.

The old mine is better than yours bragging rights over kit is generally short lived unless you have very deep pockets so why bother. In the end its the pics and your enjoyment of the hobby that really count. If you have the cash and can afford the latest and greatest and it increases your enjoyment, then no probs here unless you then tell me my kit is rubbish, in which case we will then enter the convince me with pics not words territory.

Don

Well said Mike.
The biggest plus of digital is the ease of processing your own images once you have a glimmer of understanding of how the imaging program works. So long since I had a machine print done but I do recall how impressed I was with my first darkroom print when I compared it with the lab job.

I gave up colour neg due to the fact that each time I went to print I had to recalbrate the enlarger as the paper had changed. Shed loads of wasted paper, lost time and sheer frustration. Then again I could not afford a pukka colour analyser. Hence going to Cibachrome from slide for colour. Ciba paper was very stable and the colour wheel settings were accurately printed on each pack.

The next big issue was multiple prints from a single tranny. For work I could do two at a time in my bit of drain, but after each it had to be washed and thoroughly dried before the next. A straight run of 30 6x4's could take nearly 6 hours from initial chemical mix to final wash and tidy up.

Even some B&W that I recieved requests for were a bit of a nightmare to replicate due to the amount of dodging and burning required to near match the origional. Computer linked printing is so easy as its just a case of printing the processed and saved copy.

Makes you wonder if photography would have been so widely taken up if there was no commercial processing available back in the day.

Don

Woah, quite an onslaught here. I'll try my best to address your points one by one.

1: The KR link. Yes, I think old Ken was being a little sensationalist here. Let's remind ourselves of what he was comparing: a 1950s era 'people's camera' with the creme de la creme of modern digital SLRs, just 3 years old and the top of the Nikon range when it was released. Surely there shouldn't be any comparison in any situation? The lighting doesn't look that different to me. While the Nikon image may have been tampered with a little, the cameras are so different in price that the result still astounds me.

2: Manual focus lenses: yes, for moving subject's they're not brilliant. However, you can still pick up an AF SLR with AF lens for very little money. I keep an EOS 30 for this purpose, total setup could be had for less than 150 pounds, it has an AF that is plenty fast enough for children and animals.

3: Cost. This issue may differ for many, but when I use a digital camera on a shoot I find myself making, say, 120 images. That's about 3-4 times more than I would make with a 35mm film camera. However, the number of photos I really like and put in an album is about the same (3 or 4 at the very very best). So, with digital I end up with more junk. However, taking all these picture is great for learning, but as for the end result, more isn't necessarily merrier.

4: Printing and developing at home as opposed to a lab. Yes, I agree that if I did the pics myself I would learn more and get a result I like more. However, issues of time and space prevent this from happening :(. Due to the fact all my cameras have meters that produce accurate, pleasing exposures pretty much every time, I'm content with giving the negs to a lab and specifying 'NO MODS' so it isn't tampered with.

By contrast, waiting for 100 pictures to transfer over USB to the computer, getting rid of the really crap ones, then going through fiddling with sharpness, saturation, contrast etc. I guess I'm just quite simple when it comes to these things, matter of personal preference.

As Don says, personal preference and budget prompts a final decision. I love the fact I can get a well-built, quality SLR with 3 sharp, fast lenses for under £200 (that's before we get to the even bigger bargains to be had in the compacts and rangefinder categories!) when a dSLR with one zoom lens starts at about 300 pounds and to me is a photographic tool that is far more annoying, complex and unpleasant to use. I crave simplicity and value for money, and I get more simplicity with shooting film and getting a lab to develop it for me. Of course, others will have other requirements, which is why no format can be declared 'better' than the other, since they are totally different.

What I find very strange is that KR Nikon D3 example images

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/example-images.htm

are orders of magnitude better than the example on the film vs Nikon D3 link.

Especially when you consider the example used was fairly large (10% of the whole frame). I hate to think what the whole image looked like.

As you say Alex you are happy picking up bargains from a bygone era. Which is fine we have no problem with that. We all have to live on a budget in my case £64 per week due to current financial climate. Whatever gives you pleasure is the whole point of having a hobby. But please don't refer to members as "troll" if they don't always agree with your point of view. Just because you don't like something you don't have to keep knocking it.

No 3- You only get 3 or 4 shots you want to keep? Fine, with digital you only select those 3 or 4 to have printed instead of several rolls of film you do not want to keep.
No 4 - You get pleasing results most of the time because they are taken in average conditions. The labs do tamper with them, crop to fit the paper with no input from you then run everything through an automatic process which averages everything not taking the subject in to account at all. If B&W then the prints will most likely be shades of grey with no deep blacks or good whites. Colour corresponding problems. No creativity or control at all just Mr average whether it fits or not. You have lost half the photographic process.
Which brings us to your next point: You can't wait for 100 shots to download via USB (10 minutes at most) but can manage the time to go down town to a post box or shop to get your film developed???? Getting rid of crap ones is the same for both media in essence - look at the shots then click delete or toss in waste paper bin so no logic there. Next bit you are not comparing like with like. The digital equivalent is to print with out doing those "fiddly bits", in fact to do this you do not even have to download them on to the computer but put them straight through a printer. Many people do this at places like Boots or Jessops or where ever or on their own printer Mr average results again. Doing the "fiddly bits" is the digital equivalent of home processing. Ten minutes at most for a good quality print from a straight forward shot on the computer compared to several hours of work probably spread over a couple of days with the wet process to attain similar control. I know, I used to do it. No wonder you don't have time to do your own processing if you can't manage a few minutes on a computer. I would not do it either these days.
So there is a choice:
a) Do what you do now, enjoy shooting film but acknowledge you are losing a lot of control and creativity and your shots will not have the best brought out of them due to automatic processing.
b) Do what you do now but take full control and be prepared to put in the considerable effort and time required.
c) A mixture of the above, doing your own printing of your very best shots but most done the automatic way. Some control is lost here as you have no control over the developer used but it is a good compromise for film users.
d) Go digital which gives full control over the whole process in a much shorter time as and when you can fit in a few minutes. Despite what KR says digital comfortably matches the quality of film.
I won't add any more now as the old fingers are aching. :)

Alex, please advise, how does your camera's meter get such accurate results of subjects that are a long way from 18% grey?

All I'm saying is that I've never had an exposure which was so off it made me go 'urgh'.


As regards developing, it is not necessary to be in control of the process from start to finish (though it definitely helps.) Black and white photos certainly suffer a lot from being developed at a lab. However, saying there's no creativity at all when a lab does your prints is a little exaggerated--after all, Cartier-Bresson famously showed no interest in anything that happened after he had rewound the film. He just reviewed contact sheets and let others do the printing. For 'straight' photography, when not trying to achieve a particular artistic effect, developing at a decent lab is just fine. Convenience wins for me: I can just drop the film in the mail or even at Asda when on other, unrelated business.

If I remember correctly Alex - not quite right - yes he left developing and printing to a team, but he would look at the finished prints and only Sign them if he was happy with the result. All the misses he had destroyed. Not quite the same as looking at a set of contact prints.

Cartier-Bresson's obituary in the Telegraph tells us this:

'Cartier-Bresson rigidly applied three rules to his work. He never contrived a photograph, used no artificial light and never retouched the results'.

The print he selected wouldn't have been manipulated anyway.

I did not say there is no creativity in handing on to a lab because you obviously choose lens, frame the subject, choose speed and aperture within the confines of those available at your ISO for the film in use, any filters you decide to use and of course when to press the button but you do preclude a whole host of other creative possibilities by using a Lab.
CB did not use a Lab but as Andy says used a team to hand print what was made available and of course he had the final say on what was released.
Duncan as you well know all Alex is doing getting wonderful exposures is shooting average tones and where they are not average relying on the exposure latitude to rescue things. Loses quality of course but is quick and easy and none demanding. As Alex says "Convenience wins for me" Never mind the quality feel the width.

Of course, should I want to achieve a particular artistic effect, I can always get the particular film frame scanned at a lab at 3k x 2k pixels or even 5k x 3.4k pixels (approximately) and edit them with all the convenience of Photoshop.

Lovely, Digital to the rescue eh!!!!! :D
And the convenience of Photoshop!!!!!!! :D
But I thought you said?????? :confused::p

To some extent yes--PS is far quicker and easier than a darkroom. However, I have yet to look at a photo developed at a lab and think 'that needs a makeover'.

Then I think you are too easily satisfied and need to be more critical to help develop your photography.

That's a fair point. I am usually critical of my own work, and various family members never refrain from giving their opinions over my work (once I had someone look over a roll and say that it was all **** apart from 1 photo). However I also believe that the vast majority of the creativity in the photographic process takes place when looking in the viewfinder, not afterwards. I'm sure many PS aficionados will disagree though.

I agree that "what takes place when looking in the view finder" is vital and indeed one of digitals downsides is the temptation to "rescue" a shot which is poor in the first place which is a big mistake. That is however more of an indictment of the photographer than the digital process itself.
Given a good shot in camera I want to maximise the potential and make the shot purely my work from start to finish. No excuse when it fails so I can learn and move on, real satisfaction when it works. You want the same thing when you choose focal length, shutter speed, aperture, whether or not to use filters and which ones and even the film you choose. I just want to do that and then take things further so I can draw out every last bit of how I want it to look and make it all my own work. I am not a PS aficionado (Elements in my case) and do not do any of the fancy stuff but only the equivalent of what I used to do in the dark room,crop, control contrast, burn, dodge and that sort of thing. I only do it to the few shots worth doing, the equivalent to your 3 or 4 shots a roll. That is not time consuming and any way I enjoy it, watching a picture "come alive" as I work on it. I just feel you could get so much more out of your photography if you took full control, it is very fulfilling to know the shot is unique and all my own work. Full creativity and digital just makes it so much easier to accomplish.