The Coffee House

[Gary A.]

You need to start developing at home.

agreed. Reason i stopped shooting film in the first place is it was costing me too much $$$$$. This time around i would like to find avenues to cut costs so i can afford to keep shooting it. It would be cheaper to go buy a d810 than consistently shoot film.

In the long run, depending how how much you shoot ... digital is cheaper, cleaner, faster and for the less skilled/inspired better. I think film is turning from an anachronism into something of an elitist cult. (Not that I have anything against anachronisms or elitist cults ... just sayin'.)

 

[limr]

Or at least digitize part of the process and get a scanner instead of paying for scans and prints. Most of the prints will be a waste anyway.

 

[bribrius]

You need to start developing at home.

agreed. Reason i stopped shooting film in the first place is it was costing me too much $$$$$. This time around i would like to find avenues to cut costs so i can afford to keep shooting it. It would be cheaper to go buy a d810 than consistently shoot film.

In the long run, depending how how much you shoot ... digital is cheaper, cleaner, faster and for the less skilled/inspired better. I think film is turning from an anachronism into something of an elitist cult. (Not that I have anything against anachronisms or elitist cults ... just sayin'.)

i like the look of it and using a 35 year old camera. Even the way the light is in them is different. I compare a simple digital image of my son next to a window with the light shining through to a similar film image. I see a difference. The digital might be more clear and crisp, but it doesn't look the same aesthetically. It looks digital.

 

[vintagesnaps]

That's what a lot of people like, the different look or quality.

Try another lab, I've sent out to the The Darkroom in San Clemente, it's $11 a roll I think for developing, and maybe a basic scan (more for higher res scans, prints, etc.). Or there's Dwayne's or Blue Moon etc. (Hasn't anybody stickied a list of labs?? I know this has come up before.)

Film's not messy if you send it out! lol Neither is digital necessarily faster, not with the amount of time some people seem to spend post processing... I think I could get more done in a darkroom in a couple of hours than some people do on the computer.

It depends on what you're doing, obviously shooting film isn't for everyone.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Leonore they're showing To Kill a Mockingbird this weekend on Turner Classic, weren't you just talking about reading the book?

What record player did you get? I need one, still have my old stereo but it was fritzing out years ago (which is why it's in the basement). Still have on old 8 track player down there too, but it can stay there. lol

 

[bribrius]

Or at least digitize part of the process and get a scanner instead of paying for scans and prints. Most of the prints will be a waste anyway.

Kind of the point. You mess up you eat it. That is what separates the ten thousand shutter digital shooters with the film shooters. There is no delete. Pay more attention next time. I lost five in these ones just on missed focus (split prism low light slamming manual shutters = bad combination). Will only improve though. My keeper rate was higher on film than digital. Perhaps my standards are lower. If it is in focus, decently framed and exposure fairly close i am content. I am looking at scanners though..

 

[minicoop1985]

I'm a huge film fan. Haven't had the ability to shoot what I want to with color film lately (hell, any film), so I still have a roll of Ektar in the Blad, but probably am not going to shoot it for a while yet.

 

[limr]

Or at least digitize part of the process and get a scanner instead of paying for scans and prints. Most of the prints will be a waste anyway.

Kind of the point. You mess up you eat it. That is what separates the ten thousand shutter digital shooters with the film shooters. There is no delete. Pay more attention next time. I lost five in these ones just on missed focus (split prism low light slamming manual shutters = bad combination). Will only improve though. My keeper rate was higher on film than digital. Perhaps my standards are lower. If it is in focus, decently framed and exposure fairly close i am content. I am looking at scanners though..

I don't mean just the frames, but the actual prints. You're paying for 24 or 36 prints in addition to scanning, and most of those prints will be trashed, so why bother paying for any prints? Just get a scanner, ask for develop only and scan the pictures yourself, and from those scans, if you want to print, you pay only for the ones you feel are good enough to print.

 

[beachrat]

Oh, I can get all of the music digitally if I wanted, and it wouldn't cost much.

I love how accessible music is these days, and how much of it I can carry around with me on my cell phone or stream on any computer with my Pandora account.

But...it's just different. Playing these records tonight has made me realize that listening to music just isn't as much of an occasion as it used to be. It was a thing to do, not just to have music in the background or to drown out the sounds on the bus or whatever. We used to set aside time to just listen to music and talk about it, look at all the liner notes and artwork. We couldn't listen whenever we wanted to, so when we did get to hear the albums on the record player, we paid attention and really listened. It felt more special somehow.

At least that was my experience with music while I was growing up.

Oh God do I miss sitting around a turntable with a few friends and actually LISTENING to music.
It all seems to be in the background these days because it's so easy to access, and requires no effort.
I'm also pretty sure that if I opened up my last 2 copies of Eat A Peach,Waiting For Columbus,or The Allman Brothers Live At Fillmore East,there'd be some evidence of some cleaning and straining. Man do I miss those days.

 

[bribrius]

Or at least digitize part of the process and get a scanner instead of paying for scans and prints. Most of the prints will be a waste anyway.

Kind of the point. You mess up you eat it. That is what separates the ten thousand shutter digital shooters with the film shooters. There is no delete. Pay more attention next time. I lost five in these ones just on missed focus (split prism low light slamming manual shutters = bad combination). Will only improve though. My keeper rate was higher on film than digital. Perhaps my standards are lower. If it is in focus, decently framed and exposure fairly close i am content. I am looking at scanners though..

I don't mean just the frames, but the actual prints. You're paying for 24 or 36 prints in addition to scanning, and most of those prints will be trashed, so why bother paying for any prints? Just get a scanner, ask for develop only and scan the pictures yourself, and from those scans, if you want to print, you pay only for the ones you feel are good enough to print.

I dunno, i always printed everything i shot up until digital. When i scanned off negatives it was for reprints. Never had a disk. And well, they won't all be trashed. I actually just asked the wife to pick up a new tote just to throw photos and negatives in. Get some more family photo albums going too. I will end up doing what you suggest. You are right. Logically, i don't need prints of everything i shoot. And can save a lot of money by not printing everything. If i don't plan on printing it, why not just shoot digital though?

 

[limr]

I dunno, i always printed everything i shot up until digital. When i scanned off negatives it was for reprints. Never had a disk. And well, they won't all be trashed. I actually just asked the wife to pick up a new tote just to throw photos and negatives in. Get some more family photo albums going too. I will end up doing what you suggest. You are right. Logically, i don't need prints of everything i shoot. And can save a lot of money by not printing everything. If i don't plan on printing it, why not just shoot digital though?

Yeah, back when film was the only game in town, the point was to get the prints. How else would we see the pictures, unless we had our own darkrooms. These days, though, scans are more practical.

As for why shoot film if it will be digitized anyway? If the final image is the only thing you care about, and if you don't find any differences in the quality/feel of the image that are important to you, then sure, just shoot digital to begin with. If the process is important to you for whatever reason, or if you prefer the look of film, then that's the reason to shoot it.

 

[bribrius]

I dunno, i always printed everything i shot up until digital. When i scanned off negatives it was for reprints. Never had a disk. And well, they won't all be trashed. I actually just asked the wife to pick up a new tote just to throw photos and negatives in. Get some more family photo albums going too. I will end up doing what you suggest. You are right. Logically, i don't need prints of everything i shoot. And can save a lot of money by not printing everything. If i don't plan on printing it, why not just shoot digital though?

Yeah, back when film was the only game in town, the point was to get the prints. How else would we see the pictures, unless we had our own darkrooms. These days, though, scans are more practical.

As for why shoot film if it will be digitized anyway? If the final image is the only thing you care about, and if you don't find any differences in the quality/feel of the image that are important to you, then sure, just shoot digital to begin with. If the process is important to you for whatever reason, or if you prefer the look of film, then that's the reason to shoot it.

i think i might just like having the actual photo in my hand. Little more substance than a digital file on a computer screen. Like i said, i agree with you though, and will probably end up going more that route. Out of all the photos i took last year, only maybe 300 went to print. The rest is all just digital files on a screen. They aren't real photos. They don't really exist. That bothers me.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Little Feat! Now I gotta get that CD! And I'm getting a new record player. And maybe a typewriter. Or get the Tom Hanks app he was talking about on Letterman. lol Nah, an app wouldn't do it.

I usually get 4x6s if I get prints but The Darkroom just prints from scans so I'm going to look into other options especially for B&W, maybe the Ilford lab they share space with. But I don't always, especially doing experimental stuff, I'll get a CD and wait and see what I got.

 

[bribrius]

Little Feat! Now I gotta get that CD! And I'm getting a new record player. And maybe a typewriter. Or get the Tom Hanks app he was talking about on Letterman. lol Nah, an app wouldn't do it.

I usually get 4x6s if I get prints but The Darkroom just prints from scans so I'm going to look into other options especially for B&W, maybe the Ilford lab they share space with. But I don't always, especially doing experimental stuff, I'll get a CD and wait and see what I got.

another question...Does it matter if they are printing off the scan or the negative? How much. I am pretty sure all these from mpix they printed off the scans. I find it hard to believe they are printing off the negatives. Really no idea maybe i should call and ask them.

 

[snowbear]

A good 4" to 5" on the roadway so I got to play with the 4wd a little bit. The biggest problem is the how quickly the windows fog up.

The trip downtown was pretty uneventful. We got there at 10:09, got out at 10:26, the office closed at 11:00. For those not in the area, the Feds and most local governments closed today.