Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1994
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.
...... 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. |
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.
