Why did you choose film?

[terri]

Reading this makes me feel a bit nostalgic and a bit sad .... I gave all my darkroom stuff to the local school a couple years ago, after moving to a part of the country (long before that) where noone has a basement for Pete's sake ........ Also, when I had my own fairly loaded basement darkroom I was a bachelor with the time and means to fully indulge myself - life has changed in many ways, which I don't otherwise regret.

No, I shall be strong and stride forth bravely into the crisp, slightly chill and thin air that characterizes the Digital Age, without noticing when a gentle whiff of thio passes on the breeze. How I loved the smell of the place downstairs, but then I am an organic chemist/biochemist by training .........

*sigh*

Charles.

Just to clarify, my darkroom is a converted upstairs bedroom, with no running water. I have a solid desk I drilled holes into for the enlarger, and set up a couple of folding tables for my trays, paper cutter, and put up cheap shelves for my other supplies. I use a large plastic storage bin as a water holding bath; at the end of a printing session I carry the prints downstairs and use my print washer in the kitchen sink. Two small wall-mounted safelights hang over the table for my trays; my larger safelights hang from small chains looped from small wooden towel racks I mounted up by the ceiling. I have taped large black pastic garbage bags a few layers thick over my windows. It's a funny-looking place, all right, and I'm deliriously happy in there. :mrgreen:

Digital just ain't where soul is, baby.

 

[Alpha]

Why did you choose film?

I didn't. It chose me.

 

[terri]

I didn't. It chose me.

See, I knew someone was going to eventually say that. Looks like you win the turkey, Max.

aside: Send me a bottle of Chave, will ya?

 

[montresor]

I just like it. Every photographer I've admired over the years has used some kind of film. Digital is for the generations that come after, not for me. My own age notwithstanding, I stand with the old timers on this one.

 

[nealjpage]

I'm convinced that there are distinct personality types that are lead inevitably to film or digital.

I agree!:thumbup:

 

[blackdoglab]

Now all i have to do is conduct a survey and create a quiz from it. I'd like to do the same with cameras as well.

 

[Chronicle]

Chemical photographers can make fun of digital photographers while telling the truth. Digital photographers have to lie. Just own it.

Aside from these commentsd, I really have to agree with everyone else on this.

 

[nealjpage]

atavistic

Word of the day calender?

 

[Alex_B]

Chemical photographers can make fun of digital photographers while telling the truth. Digital photographers have to lie. Just own it.

I know both sides (shooting slide film and digital), and I do not understand that sentence at all. Sorry mate.

 

[Garbz]

Even though I shoot predominantly digital nowadays, there's just some things that call out for film. Maybe a lovely little high-grain Kodak T-Max B&W portrait, or an infrared portrait with HIE, or some saturated Velvia colours. I have yet to find digital match the ... filmness (ok what was I thinking that is a bad descriptive word) of film.

 

[montresor]

Word of the day calender?

I think he means to use the word "avaricious." "Atavistic" refers to the quality of being a throwback to an earlier time.

 

[dinodan]

I was reading my new copy of "Sound & Vision" (audio video magazine) in which there is a feature article on turntables. Remember vinyl LPs? In answer to the question "Why does vinyl endure?", one reader wrote the following, which I found interesting in light of the somewhat analogous film vs. digital question.

"In a word: analog. Records produce sound the way we hear it: as a wave. Digital music chops that wave up into tiny bits and tries to reproduce it. No matter how tiny the bit, you can never reproduce the wave perfectly. I think that's why people experience a certain 'warmth' or 'depth' on vinyl, which provides a better listening experience."

One of the following was shot on film. The other is digital. (They were taken on different days, and technically, they're both digital now.) In case you're wondering, these are lotus plants.

 

[Garbz]

No matter how tiny the bit, you can never reproduce the wave perfectly. I think that's why people experience a certain 'warmth' or 'depth' on vinyl, which provides a better listening experience."

Of course the magazine will say that otherwise they alienate half of their clients. The fact is if you think of the tiniest nuance you could hear (a tiny blip at 20khz for someone who is young and still have perfect hearing) the Nyquest Theorm shows that providing you sample it at more than double the frequency of the tiniest detail (highest required frequency to be reproduced), then it can be reproduced perfectly. CDs actually meet this requirement, but not the dynamic range problem which is met by DVD-A or SACD anyway. The fact is the difference between formats comes from the way which each medium is mastered. In my experience some sound better on CD/DVD-A some better on vinyl.

It's interesting how this principle applies to photography as well. There's no point carrying a large format view camera if you will be taking a snapshot in the dark without a tripod or flash

I actually only ran across a comparison between the Canon 1Ds MkII and 35mm film and 120 film yesterday (interestingly enough while looking for some specific info on Holgas). Detail wise digital had surpassed the 35mm format within the boundaries of the test, no question there, but for the 120film even though it did win in detail, the colour reproduction and shadow detail were the real selling points, that extra 1 or 2 stops of dynamic range.

 

[Alpha]

I use vinyl because I scratch. I use film because I like silver prints and ciba. Enough said.