While everyone seems to be moving forward to digital, I'm going backwards. I've accumulated no less than five complete darkrooms from photographers who are making the transition to digital and have been giving all of their toys away. Some more stuff showed up yesterday:

- Seal Inc. 16x20 dry mounting press
- Arkay's Loadmaster Print Washer, model 1620-A (almost in mint condition)
- Arkay's Photo Drier - Print Drier, model A-25 (mint condition)

Needless to say, yesterday was a good day for me. :-)

It was digital technology that made me go nuts over photography, but the more I play with film -- especially B&W -- the more I love it. Go figure.

Anyone else around here feel the same way?

Did you notice the echoes of your keyboard banging around these empty halls here in "The Wet Darkroom"? Glad to know someone other than me pops in here from time to time. A wet darkroom person is like the Maytag repairman on LL.

I got my first "serious" digital camera in 2004 and was heading to an all-digital future. Sold the Beseler 45MXT, put the 4x5 Sinar in mothballs and prepared to sell my Nikon film gear. Then on a lark I bought a Contax 645 and rediscovered medium format. THose gorgeous negatives and slides....There is a "something" to film--maybe it's only foolish nostalgia--that I don't get from digital. I am also an inveterate tinkerer, and the alchemy of B&W processing always presents something new to try.

That said, if I could afford a Phase P45 or P25 or even find a decent DCS Pro 645 C for the right price, I'd go MF digital just to avoid the hassle factor of processing, cataloging, and storing film. Maybe I should have sunk the contax cash into a D2X with all the trimmings....(If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, it'd be Christmas every day....) But there is something, also, about that Contax that I dearly love. It fits my hand like it was molded for it, and all the controls are just where they are supposed to be. And did I mention those fabulous images?

THis is entirely un-rational, but it seems "wrong" to me to have to toss the entire camera whenever you upgrade a digital SLR. With the Contax, you keep the same camera and lenses and can shoot digital or film. Makes no sense, "feels" right. I might also be rationalizing my now-considerable investment in Contax gear.

I'm going home today to mix up some PC-TEA to try out on my B&W film; I have a few Christmas rolls to process. The grandparents get mad because they only get to see my kids in beautiful black and white.

Let's see if we can't get this forum humming again. Check out my website (see signature) for some of the B&W work.

I don't see why creating art has to be an entirely rational undertaking. Surely there's some room allowed for emotion in the creative process? I've always thought that the best camera is the one that inspires you to get out and make images.

Have you seen Wanda Scott's work?

http://www.wandascott.com/

Absolutely outstanding, and all of it done using pinhole cameras. Some of the cameras were consructed from throwaway items. I make a point of visiting Wanda's site whenever I start feeling sorry for myself because I can't afford another L-Series lens.



I'll try, but I have to admit to being a relative newbie at processing. I've reached the point where I can process and print, but anything beyond that (dodging, burning, contrast masks, etc.) is beyond me right now.

I've also noticed that posts in this forum are pretty rare.

My darkroom is down to a sink that holds my JOBO CPP-2 for developing film from my Mamiya 645 AFD. Nothing like a 645 chrome on a light table.

I know the feeling. I built up a 7 lens Hasselblad system that I always wanted and had several years use making big chromes and negs. I processed all my work on a Jobo ATL-2 automated processor including E-6. Then one day I added a Canon D1s II to my Canon arsenal and suddenly the Blad became a nice paper weight. At almost the same time the Jobo died from years of use and is too costly to repair.

One absolute from my perspective, the results from scanning on a Coolscan 9000 and printing on a 7600, (soon to be a 7800), blow away any color I was able to conventionally print in the wet darkroom. I have been quite happy with the B&W output too. I would never go back to wet printing but I still like scanning film and printing it on the Epson. I also really like my Canon Ds II and the incredible output it can do. Sometimes the digital output dose give funny artifacts, (types of noise), but I can usually get rid of it with noise reduction or selective noise reduction without introducing a plastic feel. I love the dynamic range of the Canon compared to chromes but not to negs.

In practical terms, for reasons of image quality, exposure check, speed over scanning, etc, the digital has been a quantum leap. In terms of feel and nostalgia, I still like to get out the Blad.

I hope that a full frame affordable digital back for the blad may come at some point so I can continue to enjoy medium format in the years to come--it has a certain feel.

I wouldn't call it going backwards. I'd call it maturing!

This really should not be surprising. There are elements and qualities of film that cannot be reproduced with digital. Wait until you try platinum, cyanotype, albumen, etc... printing. Better yet, wait 'till you get a 4x5.

I have a D2X and it has rarely seen the light of day. I was going to get a Hassey H2 as well, but I think I'll get a 4x5 instead. And another lens for my Hassey. And maybe another toy camera. And...there are so many possibilities with film.

Goto www.APUG.org to meet thousands of film enthusiasts.

Regards, Art.

Well, this site is owned and operated by a widely known anti-film guy.

regards, Art.

You honestly think so? I've never gotten that impression from reading Mr. Reichmann's writing. YES, his personal preference is digital for the creative control and turnaround it gives him, and YES, he is quite honest when he assesses the limitations of both film and digital, but I don't see this as making him anti-film. He is also quite fair about giving film lovers a chance to say their own piece, too.

He strikes me as an artist who is more concerned with the message than with the medium it is communicated through.



Got myself a Shen Hoa 4x5 field camera. Haven't been doing a lot with it yet, I'm afraid. I guess I need to get off my butt, huh?



I've become enamored with pinhole photography as of late. I guess I need to put some of my recent work into my portfolio.



I will, and thank you! :-)

Anti-film guy?

Humm. I've been called many things, but never that.

I no longer shoot much film – but being anti-film? Of course not. I shoot film when and where film will do a better job, and digital when and where its advantages are manifest. Who wouldn't?

And, since I've been shooting film for more than 50 years, most of these professionally, I figure that I've shot something over a half million frames of film. The only thing that I'm "anti" is the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I've spent on film stock and processing over that period.

I love the web. So much insightful commentary.

Michael

I've bought two new cameras this year -- a Canon 350D (my first excursion into digital), and a Wista DX (wooden 5x4 camera).

I like the 350D, and have made some fine images with it. However, for me, the Wista has won hands down in terms of sheer fun. I've built up a set of 5 lenses for it (a bit O.T.T., but they were ALL bargains! Honestly!). I've started processing B&W at home again, after a gap of more than a decade. Takes me back to my youth, and I find myself having more fun with my hobby/obsession than I have in a long time.

I accept that digital capture is the mainstream future -- but film, in 35mm, 120 and 5x4, is going to be with us (if we want it) for a long time yet. May no longer be the professional's choice - but since I do photography for the love of it, I'll choose the tools I like -- and I *like* film.

Film shooters are no different than people who ride horses. There's nothing wrong with riding a horse to get somewhere instead of hopping in a Honda Civic, but few rational people would argue that equestrian transportation is faster, more efficient, and cheaper than the Civic, all things considered. There are some film buffs who would do well to keep that in mind.

Interesting. This is the exact argument, albeit with a different 'focus', to outsource North American jobs to India and China. Anyway, I wasn't looking for a fight, but I've lurked long enough to know what buttons to push and which ones will respond...

Happy New Year, Art.

Interesting analogy! I live in the middle of cattle country here in Alberta, and the fact remains that there are certain jobs out here that more easily done with a horse. You can try and work cattle riding a quad or a dirt bike, but nothing beats using a horse for efficiency (with a well trained hound, of course).

We have people out here who can still rope and ride with the best of them even though their skills are not so much in demand as they would have been one hundred years ago. Still, they're keeping part of our heritage alive and passing it along to the next generation. That's important too.

I'll grant you that herding cattle with a well-trained horse works better than an ATV, especially in rough country where wheeled vehicles are likely to get stuck. A good horse can apply its intelligence to the task, which is something a vehicle cannot do. When making my analogy, I was thinking more along the lines of general travel, say taking the family to visit relatives for the holidays, going to work, etc.

I have no issue with someone who shoots film for historical reasons, or because they like the smell of developer, or prefer working with an optical enlarger, or anything along those lines. The people I take issue with are the ones that tell me that if I don't use film to shoot the 75 college students waiting in line to have their yearbook photos taken, that I'm short-changing my customers with regard to the quality of the final product and the timeliness of delivery. Those folks are not very well grounded in reality, IMHSHO.

I have no issue with someone who shoots digital for efficiency reasons, or because they like spraying and praying, or prefer working with a computer for hours on end, or anything along those lines. The people I take issue with are the ones that tell me that if I don't use digital to shoot what I like to shoot, that I'm a luddite, a technophobe, wasting my money, or tangentially a whole host of other condescending remarks. Those folks are not very well grounded in reality, IMHSHO.

Regards, Art.

I just love hearing how archival the digital stuff is. That is until it accidently gets wet.

I too am tired of the same old rhetoric that I get "giclee'd" with everytime I mention I shoot film.

Oh well, at least my prints will be around in 100 years.

I'm sorry – but when did this become a DPReview forum?

Let's keep a somewhat more mature level of discourse, please.

One and only warning.

Michael

Well . I am not a professional .. (for that I mean .. that I don't know how to use my camera 100% )

And that's one reason I like digital .. I can play with settings and experiment till I capture something good.

But one thing that I don't like about digital is that when I capture a nice picture and what a make a big print I am not able to (have the 10D) .

And in order to make them I would have to spend good money on equipment .

I think part of the reason that I'm falling in love with film is that the journey (making the image) is as enjoyable for me as arriving at the destination (the final image). I find that using film slows me down and makes me appreciate each discrete step in the image making process that much more. I'm hoping that my adventures in my new darkroom will only add to my enjoyment of each image I create.



I make no claims of superiority when it comes to film versus digital. The plain truth is that I don't care. I certainly wouldn't be playing with Holgas, Lubitels, Kievs, and pinhole cameras if LPM was my primary consideration.

I use film and I use digital and I'm equally proud of my work with both. I guess I've just developed a fascination with film and darkrooms in the way that some people have a thing for classic vehicles. I was hoping to connect with others who feel the same way. Starting a film vs. digital debate was certainly not my intention.

I never meant to imply that you were one of the people I was referring to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with riding horses just because you like to. Nor is there anything wrong with shooting film for the same reason.

Amen Digiteyesed. There are no film or digital buffs, as some would label so hastily, just photography buffs. You're just starting on a great discovery, so I wish you all the best.

Regards, Art.

Sorry, I guess I should been more careful with my phrasing. I never saw you as attacking my choice of film and I'm sorry if I seem to have singled you out in my reply -- I just wanted to clarify where I stand on the whole film/digital thing. :-)

Well.. I learned in a wet room and I truely miss the smells and the different papers etc. While I love digital, it's very "sterile" in the tactile department.

When it came time to teach my then 13 year old how to shoot real pictures, I loaded her up with my old CanonAE1 and B/W film. She took the film and into the blackbag we went with the reels and tanks. I bought a used enlarger and we went through how to develop negatives and print contact sheets. The look on her face when the blank paper started to fill in was priceless.

Even though she is digital now too, she talks fondly about learning how to develop film and make real prints.

I think it is as much as touching our roots as it is anything else.

MikeS

>It was digital technology that made me go nuts over photography, but the more I play
>with film -- especially B&W -- the more I love it. Go figure.

If you haven't already, order some Ilford Pan-F 50 -- beautiful film! The images captured have a rich, silky quality to them that I find extraordinary. I shot Kodak for years, but I really prefer the Ilford films below ISO 400. Now I am trying to hunt down an Efke distributor in France...

If you want to really get the sense of B&W, step up to larger formats i.e. 4.5x6 or better yet 6x7. Light years from 35mm.

4x5 is another huge step up from there.

I'm getting a .... never mind, thinking about it.

I am missing my darkroom. I just sold my home and moving to a smaller downsized townhouse. Kids are all gone. Guess what goes... groan. Like the end of an era. I don't use it much, but don't like the idea I can't.


bob

I like to think of shooting with my RB67 as "stopping to smell the roses". My mind slows down and things are done in a more relaxed manner.

Enjoy shooting film and I look forward to seeing the results of your journey.

Rich

I do understand your hesitation on posting on darkrooms. I get the feeling this is an "anti-film" site. Especially with the articles like "Clumps and Chumps." (Pretty derogotory title as well.) No offence to Micheal. He obviously has found some magic in digital photography, and that is fine. He can also do what he likes on his own site. Of course, with folks bashing themselves over the head to "prove" the "superiority" of their way of taking pictures, you can only expect each side to be defensive. But I don't think Luminous Landscapes forum is the place to come for information on film technology (just look at the cob webs in the Wet Darkroom forum), but it is a great source of information for digital.

I use both film and digital. Nothing wrong with either. It is a matter of what compromises you are willing to put up with - neither is a panacea.

I enjoy darkroom work, both color and black and white. I run my own darkroom at home. It certainly is not a step backwards and it can be lots of fun if you enjoy the work. I particularly like printing.

I respectfully disagree on this point. Since this is Michael's site and he's a confirmed digeratus, it's not surprising that LL focuses on digital photography. He has his opinions about the relative technical standing of either medium, upon which reasonable people can disagree. That said, there's a lot here that is helpful and interesting even to those of us who straddle both worlds, or <gasp> shoot film only. I have never felt that this site is anti-film, just pro-digital and live-and-let-live. As for Clumps and Chumps, I took it as a snarky quip, and find it insufficient to prompt panty-wadding.

However, I did mean to ask about the silver-halide-sniffing dogs at the Toronto Brickworks photo shoot....I thought Canadians were supposed to be polite! They'll never guess where I keep the Plus-X hidden.

Why couldn't I just stay out of here.

I really miss my darkroom.

Oh and I'm one of the oddballs that still has room for both. Work is digital, 100% but when I shoot for me, it's film. Why? Because the journey is often more important than the destination.

I, too, am going back to the future. For me, it is not about capture, it is about the print. While I love my color printing on Matte paper, I really enjoy the traditional BW silver/selenium toned print. Now, BW is a recent endeavor for me. I have two Wynn Bullock prints from the Brooks Jensen digital reproduction/silver prints and they are my benchmarks. I recently viewed an Uelsman exhibit and was blown away by what he had done in the darkroom. I am going to convert a 2200 to Peizography with QTR, but I am pretty sure that I will move to a darkroom. Heck, darkrooms can be had for free! I guess I am a little weary of the "technology chase." My one-year-old 7600 is now inferior to the K3 inks and their BW capabilities with IP6.0 (another $1,500, not counting the maintenance contract). I can make nice BW prints with QTR on the 7600 and Moab Entrada, but it is not the look I am going for artistically. Yes, for color-inkjet/mat is wonderful and very appealing to me. I am not sure about BW. I value greatly the opinion of Joseph Holmes and he does write very favorably about the x800 series..more about its color potential, but still praises BW. But is this the trend, trade up every two years for a new improved inkjet? I am very concerned that it can become that way and I simply don't have the time or financial resources to engage in that pursuit. The time I spend reading the internet about "what I am missing" with the latest technologies I could spend in the darkroom creating prints. As I reflect on the photographers who's work I enjoy the most, it is the traditional darkroom artists that capture my mind and heart. Just another photographer captured initially by digital and going backwards in time...for what its worth.

Sometimes I enjoy the process of shooting film with my Wista DX - it's a much slower process, involves use of grads & filters, waiting for the results and lugging around a not insignificant amount of camera gear. However, as someone who doesn't do this for a living, it's a pleasant way of enjoying and improving my camera craft. I leave the colour chemical processing to others and I'm happy to pick up the finished slides.

For the other 99% of my photography, I enjoy the convenience and instant feedback of shooting digitally with the D2X and 645M or taking grab shots with the P&S. The results are at least as good and many more shots make their way to final print. However, I always carry the film outfit in the car and dual shoot when those special opportunities present themselves. (I think of my 4x4 as the camera bag )

I think Jonathan's analogy here of horse vs. car/truck is spot on. In my case I'd probably also compare shooting film vs. digital to sailing with a sailboat vs. a motor cruiser, etc.

As regards Michael as anti-film: when did that happen? Anyone who has followed LL over the years would see that there's been a transition from all film through the adoption of ever better digital technologies and techniques but I've never seen anything to suggest an anti-film bias. A pro-digital bias sure, but never an anti-film one (and they are definitely different things!).

It's a tough one. I loved getting back into the B&W darkroom over the last year, got me away from the computer I also work on and mixing with new people - but then I scratched several key frames in an unfamiliar negative carrier (it's not my darkroom) and got very annoyed that I hadn't used digital. More than anything for me the alure of film is using a manual rangefinder with a single prime lens that is so different from the digital sports work I'd been doing, no batteries or lenses to lug around, little chance of being mugged for a $200 second hand camera, no choice but to take care over every shot. As many people have said, once you get away from purely professional considerations, it's horses for courses (at the risk of bringing horses into the debate again).

One point of very slight issue, digital is not quite as cheap as it first seemed, at least for me. I've had a microdrive pack up on me ($150 cost), a card reader fail ($30), I've had to add 120GB of hardfile to my PC ($80) plus a DVD recorder for back up ($70+a lot of media) and all my original 4 rechargeable canon battery packs are not holding their charge at all well after 2 years ($100+? to replace) plus the depreciation on the camera is pretty rapid. Now for my 10,000+ frames of sports the digital is CHEAP, but not free.

Appreciate most of you are professionals working to a different beat, but that's my perspective.

Cheap, heck no, not cheap. I recently looked back at my hobby expense over the last 5 years of going digital. Started with a D30 and many dslrs since and currently a D200 kit and lens, totalled out to over $30k. This being a paultry sum compared to many others in these forums I know. For me a hobbyist it is still a considerable amount. But it allows me to get quality that my Hasselblad and LF gear and many hours in the darkroom achieved only after much work. Don't get me started on getting a second perfect print after the first one, 12 hours later or 48hrs. But, and it is a big but, what else would I be doing.....hehe. Now I am totally smitten with digital darkroom and for me, health issues, stopped me from enjoying what was 35 yrs of wet darkroom fun. I would not, could not go back. That is to say to the darkroom, but film is another issue, and you certainly can still obtain some of the beauty of film even by scanning it and printing with my 7600. The consistency issue that occurred with the wet darkroom is now solved, file saved, backed up repeatedly, different format and media thanks to both dvds and LaCie External Hard drives in both my home and office. Security that never existed alone in the film and wet darkroom environment, now practically assured. Is digital perfect or the only object, NO, but nothing is, but with health issues, 50+ year old eyes, AF is certainly appreciated and the fun is back...now where is that spare 50 grand for the H2D and 39 MP back, lenses.....oh my poor back..well the wallet will be lighter, that will help.

Hey! My first post! The past four years has seen me pouring time and finance into re-learning photography. "All is digital now, I'll never use my trusty Bronica ETRS or Nikon FE again" I believed.
A growing family had taken up the space formerly occupied by my darkroom while the benefits of Photoshop were being enjoyed by the children as well as myself.

But...a friend who is newly enthused by photography offered to house and use my darkroom gear in return for my having access to it (unless I wished to sell it to him of course). Suddenly the possibilities re-awakened all sorts of emotions in me. Once more I'll be able to experience the magic of a print appearing in the dev tray, the aroma of Stop Bath and being involved in a process the workings of which I can actually comprehend! This most wonderful of hobbies is blessed with great traditions and an exciting future. I have resolved to partake of both.

Now where did I put that Lightroom tutorial disc?

Yeah, I've sometimes thought of putting a tray of stop bath next to my monitor, just to have the smell of a real darkroom. Now, if only someone would come up with a Photoshop plugin that would first show your image as a blank, white screen until you jiggle the monitor back and forth ("agitate" it), whereupon the image would very gradually emerge, being fully "developed" in about 90 seconds . . .

Eric

You would need a LIQUID chrystal display.

Ouch!

Yup. And I've often wondered how long I need to wash my LCD after making a print in PS if I want my prints to be archival.

I wonder what happens if Windows crashes at that time?...

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry for digging up the post a little... but I am somewhat in the same boat. I shoot a lot of digital as a part-time working pro. I recently got back into film a slight bit and decided to go with a MF camera to play around and slow down. This post isnt meant to bring up old arguments, or tell people how to think or what to shoot. Its meant to say that while I love shooting digital, there is just something that brings out the kid in me when it comes to shooting larger than 35mm frame film. Medium format was just the way of enabling those kid-like feelings, and anticipation. For those that down-talk film, I am sorry you feel that way.

My own comments weren't meant to denigrate film or film users but rather to admit, with some chagrin, that I, too, have "gone over to the dark side" of digital. It is fun, and it lets me do things I never could with film. But film definitely let me do things I could never do with digital. I still have a Mamiya 6 which I expect to get back to any day now. And I have a terrific darkroom, which has been gathering dust for the past couple of years, while I play this new game of digital.

Many years ago I found film developing to be the most boring part of photography, but in recent years I have come to appreciate the quiet times in total dark, swishing neagtives in a tray or tilting a developing tank periodically. That gave me time for serious meditation, and I don't get that with Photoshop.

Digital and film to me are two different, but related, media. I hope and expect they will both have long and healthy futures.

Eric

I too am returning to the "wet darkroom" for printing B&W. I like digital for some work and use it often for newspaper photos. But I always liked the B&W print and 20 years ago worked in B&W almost exclusively. The subtle, hands-on control of the print itself is what I think I enjoy most. I haven't got it together yet (probably in about hree months), but I have found so far around $1500 of equipment on ebay for around $300. I am pretty much re-creating my old darkroom with Kindermann cans and a 23CIIXL enlarger, etc. I am psyched and a little unbelieving that i am doing this at my age, but hey, I need someting to keep me off the streets when I soon retire. (:->

I have jumped to digital and have no regrets contax with digital back.

But I learned with a large format camera and I still yearn to do some of the things that gave me so much pleasure in photography way back when. Like smelling the fixer and other chemicals and spending all that time in the dark.

I had a dark room built in our new house all equiped to process b&w medium to large format.

Reality I only did it once and quickly was reminded how tedius and time consuming etc. that it was. I haven't used the darkroom in five years or so but I still have it klinging on to the hope that I might want to return to it at some point.

The bottom line is I mostly enjoy getting the shot and at this point, for me at least, digital does it best.

is there a difference is the light response curve for digital and film? I find it extremely easy to blow out the hilites or the dark areas of a contrasty photo with digital and I don't remember having these same problems with film.

I too sometimes consider retrying film; positive (slide) film because it's easier to scan and the Ektachrome always looked great.

I never felt quite at ease with digital until I bought a film scanner and EOS 3 to complement my digital bodies. Now I can decide to shoot film if I feel like it, and I like the feeling. It's best to have both, I don't think digital should completely replace film. For instance, it's extremely expensive to have digital bodies as backup, while it's quite affordable to have film as backup to digital. Also, with film I don't have to carry an expensive scanner with me and risk damage in problematic environments (salt water spray etc.). I can use a cheap $50 body (EOS 650) for risky stuff while the expensive scanner is safe on my desk (where it's less likely to be stolen, too). That said, I still use my 5d for more than 90% of everything, because it's sharper, clearer and there aren't any film and processing costs involved. It's good to know that I have, what, five different slide emulsions in the fridge and I can take them out for a shoot any time I feel like it, but it doesn't happen all that often.

Yes, it's a difficult theme to follow without going all partisan.

But, for what it's worth, my opinion sides with those who believe in the double (photographic!) standard. I too have one of each: Nikons both, an F3 and also a D200. I think that the film one uses the 24mm lens very well as a wide and the digital body uses the same optic very well too as a medium wide (circa 35mm) and thus, in a simple trick of the formats, we get the best of both worlds: wide angle on film and the rest on digital. The other lenses in the arsenal (only two more - I learned that lesson many years ago) are coped with well by either body.

Film or digital, then, as medium rather than as hardware: for black/white prints I find b/w film scanned gives very convincing results much as one would expect from film printed in the wet; from colour transparency scanned I seem to get darker skies than would be expected; from digital capture converted via Channel Mixer to b/w I get fairly similar results. Scanning old Kodachrome model shots makes for very nice skin in b/w prints whilst doing so from Ektachrome seems to be just as nice for skin and less dramatic on the skies.

Turning to the matter of colour prints, it has been years since I made colour prints professionally as most of my work was transparency; making colour prints now from scanned transparency or digital is so much easier and better-controlled than I found possible using wet chemistry. Colour direct from NEFs look so much 'nicer' to me (I'm speaking here of non-model shots because I haven't used digital for people pics) and I have to be very careful not to try and fix what ain't broke with unnecessary messing with what the camera has already given me. That, I think, says something pretty good for the D200.

Whether working in a darkroom is a pleasure depends on the individual. I used one every working day from '60 to '81 and the oft-quoted delight of seeing a print come up in the dish is a magic moment long spent! It doesn't strike you that way when you do it every day; it just means you have to protect your fingernails with clear varnish (I wouldn't advise coloured for obvious reasons - but then again, different strokes etc.) to stop them going brown if not falling off altogether - I never met a pro printer used tongs - and clearing the mess after the job's done is just one more chore which digital avoids.

So to sum up, perhaps we might think of film capture as the best way, for now, if we want to get the maximum out of very wide angle lenses with digital capture having the advantage in other respects. I have to say, using the Matrix Metering in the D200 has opened my eyes to just how accurately such devices can work! I find the Minolta Flashmeter does less and less...

And no, I haven't found our host anti-film at all; why should he be? Nobody is forcing him either way - he's just in the position to please himself what he uses.

On the other matter about the sound of echoes in this part of the forum - perhaps that's because there really isn't that much to say about wet printing; once you know how to do it, you have only to practise and practise yet again - it doesn't change much and there is no expensive technology to buy and master and to compare. In that sense, it is the purer artform. Yes, you can complicate it if you like by going into exotic chemicals beyond silver but you still have to apply a lot of self-delusion if you want to believe that anything can give the tones that a well-glazed fibre print can. White smooth glossy. D163.

Ciao - Rob C

hi Rob and all.

I was planning to upgrade to the 5D from my 350D once the new 5D is released sometime this year, but I've had second thoughts.

most of photography is bird and animal photography. the 1.6x factor of the 350D is definitely useful, more of a requirement than a convenience. hence, I finally realised that the 400D would be a better upgrade for me than the 350D.

I have an EOS 5 gathering dust but in perfect condition. I have often been frustrated with the inability of the 350D to shoot wide shots and have decided to use the EOS 5 for wide shots instead, using slide film instead of negative film to avoid the colour conversion issues.

I have owned the Nikon 4000ED for a few years and have both the film roll and 50-slide adapters. I have also owned and used SilverFast Ai for the same amount of time so scanning the slides will be a piece of cake ;-)

as you said; the best of both worlds. I don't shoot a lot of wide shots and it would be difficult (impossible?) to justify spending so much money of the 5D if I didn't use it much. the EOS 5 will do fine!

regards,
Gregory

Well, since I just registered today, I'll put my first two-cent's worth in. I am a film photographer because I shoot almost exclusively large format and the nature of my work and the amount of work I do makes film a better choice for me. Frankly, I get a bit tired of some comments made by both film and digital advocates. I think digital is great but film suits my shooting better. But that's just me.

Sometimes I think that some digital advocates are not thinking things through when they claim that digital is cheaper. Sure, it can be, but that depends on the nature of one's work. With film, you could shoot with the same camera for decades because the biggest advancements came with new films. With digital, the advancements come with the equipment itself so, instead of simply switching films, you have to buy new equipment to keep on top. Also, with digital, there is a constant back-tracking as you have to keep up on the latest software, etc. As a matter of fact, when I think of how much money I would have to spend to fully transition to serious digital photography and printing... well, I hate to even think about it. By the time I mastered all the software, my equipment would probably be obsolete. In a very real sense, digital can require a much greater investment in time. And people call that less expensive?! And then the equipment becomes outdated so fast! On the other hand, my 8x10" camera is about 50 years old and I really haven't had to buy any major new equipment for many years. Try that with digital!

I have two large format enlargers. One is a current model 45V-XL and the other is an Omega D2 that is probably 40 or 50 years old and I use that one for almost all of my printing. Imagine using a 50 year-old printer (if there were such a thing!). My point is that with film, the equipment you invest in can be used for many many years. On the other hand, I will probably switch to digital printing for b&w at some point in the future and I don't plan to do any wet color printing in the future. Until a few years ago, I could justify darkroom color prints for permanence reasons but digital has overcome that problem. Digital printing for color definitely seems to be the way to go and some even claim that the same is true for b&w but I have not personally seen digital b&w prints that I prefer over darkroom prints.... yet. And the advantages of digital printing are wonderful. No doubt about it.

Don't get me wrong.... I think digital is great and, if it fit my style of work, that is the way I would go. The only digital camera I shoot with is my wife's little compact camera and I have a ball using it. There is no question that it is far more convenient for routine snapshots. A pro-level digital camera would be OK for serious work. But, for me, a digital SLR is no substitute for large format. Not even close! But, again, that's just me.

For someone shooting lots of small format work, digital is, in my opinion, definitely the way to go. But for someone like me who shoots very little small format work, it is difficult to justify the large investment necessary for a top-notch digital SLR system that would hardly used and which will probably be out-of-date before many images are made with it. Add to that all the software, the long learning curves, calibration, etc. That's not a recipe for cheaper and more convenient photography for my type of photography.

So, I really don't understand how anyone can say that digital or film is better. To me, each is better for different applications and for different shooting styles. I happen to love the LF process and I still like darkroom work. In fact, I am expanding my darkroom right now. I have almost 40 years of experience with traditional photography and it suits me. With film, the learning process constantly builds on itself with little or no back-tracking. I don't have to spend so much time learning the lastest software. And anyone who thinks that the digital process is simple is in dreamland. Professional level work requires a huge investment in time and money.

Hey! There is room for all of us!

If and when digital backs for my 4x5" and 8x10" cameras become viable and affordable options at a reasonable price for a field photographer like myself, I would definitely consider going pure digital but, till then, I'm still a film guy. On the other hand, I do scan film and fumble around in Photoshop. (I have to get around to actually learn what I am doing in PS, though.)

I have no strong feelings either way about digital vs. film but I have noticed that it is generally the digital advocates who seem to get on the analog photographer's case rather than the other way around lately. I simply can't understand that. At the beginning of the transition to digital, I noticed comments being made by film snobs but now most of the negative comments seem to come from digital snobs including, most irritatingly, very young photographers who clearly never exposed film in their life and often don't know what they are doing photographically. For some of them, photography simply means playing with fancy new high-tech toys. I even had a young digital photographer ask me why in the world anyone would shoot b&w! When they saw one of my prints, she insisted that it couldn't have been shot on b&w film because it had a slight color (tone) to it and it was too sharp! They virtually called me a liar when I explained that fine b&w prints are rarely pure b&w and that big negatives mean sharp prints. It's difficult to talk with someone who is so ignorant, especially when it is clear that they think they are somehow superior because they have a fancy new digital camera and my camera is made of of wood, leather, and brass. (None of this applies to anyone on this board, though, because I think I can assume that everyone here is a serious and knowledgeable photographer regardless of what tools they choose to use.)

One other thing.... I am a bit confused by the comment made by Mike, the man who runs this forum, I assume, giving a last warning for people to act in a mature manner. I may have missed something but I didn't notice any rude or immature posts here at all. As a new member, I hope these forums aren't run as if by the Gestapo, although I also know that forums can get out of hand and I certainly don't like to see that. A good moderator does have to keep things in line. But this is the very first thread that I have read so I apologize to Mike if I got the wrong impression.

Anyway, what a wonderful site! I'm so glad that someone told me about it. I also just learned about APUG and what a great site that is for those of us who live in the past!

Zone lll

Welcome aboard - if it's correct for a fellow guest to assume the host's mantle!

The problems you have pointed out that do exist within digital are truly horific if you come fom a solid film-based background. I spent most of my pro life working with film - cutting it down to the minimum number of types that would do what I had to do with it. As you rightly say, equipment, if of pro quality, would be there for a lifetime and investment in Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad et al. would make sense. Today, with most of my pro life well behind me, I am trying to get it together with digital photography as a means to making a new life for myself out of art photography, something which was too esoteric an idea when commercial concerns were paramount.

Yet there are dreadful financial obstacles lying in the path of such a venture. Were one not aware of what film used to do for one every day, then fine, any old digital camera would do, expectations being dumbed down by the stuff that gets shown around the place (I await the defence experts coming in on this one...) but once you know how b/w can or should look, there is a tough time ahead if you want to do it on your desktop, which is, after all, the main reason for trying to get back into production!

Money money money. It all boils down to the same damn thing: if you want to make a small fortune in photography then best to start with a large one.

But that's the big difference between the pro and ams: for the latter it doesn't really have to make much financial sense at all - it's just about how much you can spend getting your kicks.

I'm delighted that so many out there can afford to invest pocket money into MF digital capture - I just wish I could look at the thing through similar eyes but I can't; it all has to make sense at the bottom line and I envy those without the need for one.

You see, there it is again - we are in a film section and there might be the expectation of much chat about film itself, but I think we have already illustrated the fact, in this current thread, that there isn't really a lot to say about film photography - you just do it to the best of your ability with very basic tools; there isn't the scope for lengthy debate about all the competing brands of software that are meant to get you from points A to B. So the echoes in the vaults are perhaps understandable after all!

Ciao - Rob C

I am currently shooting about half my commercial work in large format film and the rest with a DSLR. All my personal b&w work is LF film. I shoot the DSLR because of client needs. I personally have no need of it except to take snapshots of my grandchild.

There is something very satisfying about working within a long established tradition and LF film supplies that. Were the difference not obvious to collectors and museums, the difference would still matter to me in that sense of continuity and comraderie. This is a very personal standard by which I do not judge other peoples work.

There is little discussion here because this is a digital based site. Goto http://www.APUG.org and you'll have 20,000 film users with lots to say.

Regards, Art.