wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
To my eyes. Nothing more specific.Define better...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Film and film cameras are so awesome if you have time and money to waste.
I did it from 2012 to 2022 with few rolls developed and some frames printed under enlarger ... per week.
It was easy job, easy life time. I have purchased, fixed, sold dozens of film cameras of all formats.
Right now my life is much more busier, dare I say, interesting and challenging to keep waste it on film.
My 12YO daughter switched to Canon digital P&S after realizing how much instax film cost...
Sorry.
I did it from 2012 to 2022 with few rolls developed and some frames printed under enlarger ... per week.
It was easy job, easy life time. I have purchased, fixed, sold dozens of film cameras of all formats.
Right now my life is much more busier, dare I say, interesting and challenging to keep waste it on film.
My 12YO daughter switched to Canon digital P&S after realizing how much instax film cost...
Sorry.
joe bosak
Well-known
For me film has become too costly and too much hassle (whether turnaround times, faffing with chemicals or all the shennanigans with scanning or digitising by camera), relative to what I get with digital.
Sometimes I look at my digital photos and think "wow that looks like an old film photo", but I have never thought "I wish I'd used film" no matter how bad the photo came out - though I do sometimes wish I'd used a different (digital) camera, or that the (digital) camera I'd used wasn't so capricious/situational/whatever.
Sometimes I look at my digital photos and think "wow that looks like an old film photo", but I have never thought "I wish I'd used film" no matter how bad the photo came out - though I do sometimes wish I'd used a different (digital) camera, or that the (digital) camera I'd used wasn't so capricious/situational/whatever.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I dunno. I've been shooting and processing film since I was 8yo, that's 62 years now. The worst I can say is that it's a little tedious at times. Better or worst than digital capture? Irrelevant with any modern camera.
I like what film looks like, but I also like what digital capture looks like. I have good cameras in both domains so, eh? The real advantage to shooting with a digital camera, for the way and what I shoot, is how quickly I can turn a shoot into prints .... But I'm never in a rush and have no clients bangin' on the door any more, so I get to enjoy whatever process I pursue.
G
I like what film looks like, but I also like what digital capture looks like. I have good cameras in both domains so, eh? The real advantage to shooting with a digital camera, for the way and what I shoot, is how quickly I can turn a shoot into prints .... But I'm never in a rush and have no clients bangin' on the door any more, so I get to enjoy whatever process I pursue.
G
JohnGellings
Well-known
Fair enough...subjective.To my eyes. Nothing more specific.
AAlfano
Well-known
I love taking pictures with my film cameras; the tactile delight of loading and winding the film, the feel of a precise mechanical device in my hands doing exactly what I tell it to and nothing more, looking through an optical viewfinder. I love the look of my photos on black-and-white film. I can get black-and-white images I like with my digital camera or my phone, but they don't look like my film photos.
I'm mostly a black-and-white photographer. I like color photography, but I don't like my color photography. With color, I still greatly prefer shooting with my film cameras, but I don't like the results enough better than what I can get from digital to bother most of the time. If slide film wasn't so astronomically expensive, I might think differently.
The quantity of film that I shoot is small enough that the cost is tolerable. I have noticed that for me personally, I am okay with the cost of film until it goes over $10 per roll (35mm). If black-and-white film gets over that, I will probably rethink my position.
Realistically, I am never going to have time, space, or money to have a darkroom, so getting images from my film cameras is going to involve scanning at some point. I have found an inexpensive lab to have my film developed and scanned, and other than a few frames that have had obvious dust, I have been very happy with my results.
I always keep my negatives, but in terms of archiving my photos, I prefer digital hands down. Having my photos save on my personal hard drives (plural) plus backed up to three different cloud services makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Well, other than the fact that one of those services is Google, which is probably using my photos to train its AI. Don't have to worry about that with my negatives in the shoe boxes, at least!
I'm mostly a black-and-white photographer. I like color photography, but I don't like my color photography. With color, I still greatly prefer shooting with my film cameras, but I don't like the results enough better than what I can get from digital to bother most of the time. If slide film wasn't so astronomically expensive, I might think differently.
The quantity of film that I shoot is small enough that the cost is tolerable. I have noticed that for me personally, I am okay with the cost of film until it goes over $10 per roll (35mm). If black-and-white film gets over that, I will probably rethink my position.
Realistically, I am never going to have time, space, or money to have a darkroom, so getting images from my film cameras is going to involve scanning at some point. I have found an inexpensive lab to have my film developed and scanned, and other than a few frames that have had obvious dust, I have been very happy with my results.
I always keep my negatives, but in terms of archiving my photos, I prefer digital hands down. Having my photos save on my personal hard drives (plural) plus backed up to three different cloud services makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Well, other than the fact that one of those services is Google, which is probably using my photos to train its AI. Don't have to worry about that with my negatives in the shoe boxes, at least!
Dogman
Mentor
Dust spots on negatives. I really hate spotting.
hendry86
Newbie
Felt it's not versus. Seems like some other members have similar sentiments too.
It's all about what we want and like. Depends on the season in life we are in.
I went through a period of shooting film but the time and cost are harder and harder to justify, so I went on to shoot digital.
And recently got into the craze of digicams to capture those 90s digital vibe
happy that I was buying those unwanted digicams before the price hike!
It's all about what we want and like. Depends on the season in life we are in.
I went through a period of shooting film but the time and cost are harder and harder to justify, so I went on to shoot digital.
And recently got into the craze of digicams to capture those 90s digital vibe
JohnWolf
Well-known
I find removing dust spots on scans very enjoyable, while removing them on digital files annoys me. I can’t explain.Dust spots on negatives. I really hate spotting.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Spotting with Lightroom's tools makes it a pleasure.
G
G
Dogman
Mentor
Dust spotting with LR is quick and simple as long as there are only a few. Dust spotting from a negative is a PITA, whether with Spotone on a print or digitally. Removing sensor dust spots in images can be impossible without a LOT of tedious diddling and doodling around.
i repeat: I hate spotting.
Quick and simple (sometimes) but never a pleasure.
.............................
i repeat: I hate spotting.
Spotting with Lightroom's tools makes it a pleasure.
G
Quick and simple (sometimes) but never a pleasure.
.............................
agentlossing
Well-known
If there's extensive dust, for me it's a re-rinse and dry of the negative.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.