# Digital and/or Film



## jbylake (Sep 27, 2009)

Just curious, no matter what your level of experience is:

Just trying to get some kind of idea of how many people shoot what.  

Thanks for participating.


----------



## compur (Sep 28, 2009)

I shoot what.


----------



## Actor (Sep 28, 2009)

I'd have to say none of the above.  You didn't include "I shoot film, and digital rarely."

It's hard to compare the two.  When shooting digital I can click away to my heart's content.  I can shoot 700+ frames and it doesn't cost me anything.  When I get home I can dump them to my computer.  I can delete the one's that I later decide are not worth keeping.

With film it's different.  I pay for each frame whether it turns out or not.  I exercise more discretion when deciding to press the shutter.  I have to pay for processing, even if I'm only paying for the chemistry to process it myself.

So if your metric is the number of frames I shoot, then I shoot more digital.  But if you're asking which camera I grab as I go out the door (just so I'll have a camera in case a great shot comes up), I almost always grab the film camera.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Sep 28, 2009)

I started out as a digital photographer, and occasionally would shoot film. Then I started taking classes that required me to shoot film, and I got into really playing with it and stretching it's boundaries. I recently bought a Mamiya RB67 and am in the process of selling my dSLR. No matter how good the dSLR, I still think film looks better in nearly every way.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 28, 2009)

Actor said:


> I'd have to say none of the above.  You didn't include "I shoot film, and digital rarely."



I probably would have chosen this option had it been there. I primarily shoot medium and large format film (I do use some 35mm, but only for stereo slides) - I use only film  for serious photography - but I do have a digital camera that we use for snaps, casual vacation pics, to document home improvements and whatnot.

- Randy


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 28, 2009)

I've had my share of film cameras over the years, but once digital came out I've never gone back... that is until recently.

After my purchase of the Nikon D90 I started getting more into photography, as expected. I started reading more and getting involved in forums and found talking about film, which got me curious.

So I bought a Nikon N75, worked incredibly well and was really fun to use. But... it's expensive. The film and processing really add up. Oddly enough, in some ways this is what I was hoping for. The main reason I got the N75 was to see if it would slow me down and make me be more selective on my shots as well as concentrating on my composition more. With digital you can just pop off 50 shots in no time with virtually no ill effects, with film you'll go through 2 rolls doing this.

I voted digital only since I consider 'rarely' too often


----------



## jbylake (Sep 28, 2009)

Actor said:


> I'd have to say none of the above. You didn't include "I shoot film, and digital rarely."
> 
> It's hard to compare the two. When shooting digital I can click away to my heart's content. I can shoot 700+ frames and it doesn't cost me anything. When I get home I can dump them to my computer. I can delete the one's that I later decide are not worth keeping.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I goofed.  I meant to include I shoot mostly film, and digital rarely.
And I didn't think through the question to take into consideration how many times you push the button.  What I was really trying to say, is, If heading out the door, and you only take one camera, which would you grab more often.  Or which you would prefer to shoot more often, digital or film.  Thanks for pointing that out.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## terri (Sep 28, 2009)

Hmmm, another film/digital poll.    :meh:  

So far, so good - but I'm just popping in here to say that the second the tone goes flat in this thread, it will vanish.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

Shot 35mm for about 20 years, then started using digital.  As my digital cameras got better, I eased away from film and shot almost all digital for several years. Last year I started feeling a tug that's pulled me back to film again, but this time medium format, which I always wanted to do, but thought it would be too expensive to get into.

I've now decided to quit sending out and paying for lab processing, and I should be hanging my first negatives to dry sometime this week, and I'm really excited about that!  :thumbup:

So, at the moment, I shoot digital, and shoot film rarely, but enjoying both.


----------



## compur (Sep 28, 2009)

I shoot digital cameras with my Winchester.


----------



## bhop (Sep 28, 2009)

Actor said:


> I'd have to say none of the above.  You didn't include "I shoot film, and digital rarely."



Same here. I generally only shoot digital if i'm shooting for someone else, or if I just need a quick shot for some reason, like ebay, forums, etc.


----------



## Dwig (Sep 28, 2009)

My response is based on the assumption that the question applies to what I do now and not what I've done in the past.


----------



## Battou (Sep 28, 2009)

I shoot film some 98% of the time I shoot digital 1% of the time.



Don't ask where that other 1% goes.


----------



## sean4223 (Sep 29, 2009)

I use a Nikon D80 and a medium format toy camera, Diana lomo. I prefer the Diana for compositional values; prime lens with a screwed up viewfinder. You have to spend atleast 5-10 mins trying to think out a decent composition. With only 12 shots per roll, it makes you think twice before dragging the shutter. I use the Diana for strengthening my fundamentals and increasing my creativity, which helps me with my digital shooting where I try to recreate the same kind of discipline and creativity.


----------



## terri (Sep 29, 2009)

compur said:


> I shoot digital cameras with my Winchester.




:salute:


----------



## jbylake (Sep 29, 2009)

terri said:


> Hmmm, another film/digital poll. :meh:
> 
> So far, so good - but I'm just popping in here to say that the second the tone goes flat in this thread, it will vanish.


 
That's o.k., wasn't trying to set the world ablaze.  And I'm glad the responses didn't turn into a "what's better - digital or film".  I was just kind of curious, and I really have to say that I'm totally suprised by the responses.

I actually thought "digital only" would be way out in front.  The mix of responses really amazes me.

Thanks, for your reply,

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## terri (Sep 29, 2009)

^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem. 

You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum.      But - please don't.

You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.


----------



## jbylake (Sep 29, 2009)

compur said:


> I shoot digital cameras with my Winchester.


 
 There's always one in every crowd....


----------



## jbylake (Sep 29, 2009)

terri said:


> ^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.
> 
> You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum.  But - please don't.
> 
> You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.


 
Oh, I agree. And like I said, it was purely out of curiosity. And no, I'll not repost anywhere.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## Nosedive4130 (Sep 29, 2009)

Hello, I am new to relatively new to photography and shoot film only.

I would still like to get into Digital, but I feel that shooting film only will help me to concentrate my efforts into a much better understanding of photography in whole.  

What is funny though, is that in selecting my gear, I am setting myself up for digital in the future (ie: compatible lenses).  I also find myself always searching vigorously for more information about how I can convert my film to digital cheaply.

Even though I would like to convert to digital, it seems that the kind of shots that I like taking revolve more around film.


----------



## Battou (Sep 29, 2009)

terri said:


> ^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.
> 
> You would probably see a difference in replies if you posted the same poll in the digital forum.      But - please don't.
> 
> You will find, of course, that what really matters (and it's all that matters) is what type camera best suits your own style of photography.



Hey terri, since you're here could you add an option to the poll: "I shoot film, and shoot digital rarely."


----------



## phocus78 (Sep 29, 2009)

Both


----------



## jbylake (Sep 30, 2009)

Battou said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ I can appreciate the curiosity. No problem.
> ...


 At this point, I guess it's really a moot point.  As Terri said, had I posted this in the digital section, the outcome would be totally different.  That's why I posted in the film section.  I knew many digital shooters also shoot film, but I really wanted to see what people who visit the film section are up to.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## cooltouch (Sep 30, 2009)

Nosedive4130 said:


> Hello, I am new to relatively new to photography and shoot film only.
> 
> I would still like to get into Digital, but I feel that shooting film only will help me to concentrate my efforts into a much better understanding of photography in whole.
> 
> ...



It seems to me you're being quite pragmatic with your approach -- nothing wrong with that.  

About converting film to digital cheaply, well it depends on what you mean by cheap.  If you shoot in more than one format size, or think you will in the future, I'd recommend you pick up a good scanner, and my choice would be an Epson.  Used or new, there are a number of different models that do a good job.  Maybe not as good as a dedicated scanner like a Nikon Coolscan but they do a decent job, and aren't nearly as expensive.  And then there's the software.  Most folks use PhotoShop, it seems, but many folks (like me) can't or won't afford it.  There are good alternatives, however: Paint Shop Pro, PS Elements, and even Gimp (which is free).  But you'll want to have some sort of image editing software so you can perform at least basic image editing tasks.

Sorry if all this is old news for you.  I don't know how far you are already into this, so I'm covering the basics, since that's always the best place to begin.

I believe there is a good reason why photography classes still require the use of film cameras that can be used in manual mode.  It teaches the student to slow down and think.  About exposure.  About composition.  About the light and the shadows it creates, etc., etc.  Ironically, digital's biggest benefit is also its biggest problem, as I see it: the ease with which images are captured.  Instant review of photos, which are regarded as being essentially without cost, enables the photographer to blaze away in the hopes of getting a few keepers.  I realized the futility of this many years ago when I bought my first motor drive.  Of course, the first thing I did was load the camera up with a 36 exposure roll of slide film and set the motor drive to Continuous.  Went out looking for action, and found it at a go-cart track.  I blazed away at those go-carts and was astounded at how quickly I burned through a roll of film.  I recall thinking how such a habit could get really expensive.  And when I got the slides back, I also recall being quite disappointed by the results.  Out of that entire 36-exposure roll, I had maybe one keeper.  So my theory of blazing away with the hopes of capturing the moment fizzled almost as soon as it began.  Ever since then, when using a motorized camera, I almost never shoot more than one frame at a time.  I would rather watch for that moment and capture it the instant it happens.

This habit has extended over to digital with me.  Sure, I'll review a photo for focus or exposure and take another if need be, but I don't fire away, hoping that at least one photo works.


----------



## jbylake (Sep 30, 2009)

cooltouch said:


> Nosedive4130 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello, I am new to relatively new to photography and shoot film only.
> ...


 Yep, I agree with most everything you've said.  I have an Optitek scanner, so I'm not truly "analog" anymore.

But.....I'd really not turn this into a Digital Vs. Analog thread.  I think one of the mod's has already spoken to this.  
Basically, I just wondered how many in the "Film" forum shoot which camera the most.....
It has already been brought up, that if I'd would have posted this in the "digital" forum the outcome of the poll, would be totally different.  I agree, I mean it's just common sense.  However, I am really suprised at the outcome, so far.
I'm a film guy myself, but digital, really is the future, and somewhat of the past of photography.  (I'd say the last to die will be the medium and large format).
Anyway, thanks for your insight and reply, but this is basically a "yes or no" type question.

Thanks much,

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 30, 2009)

I don't shoot much 35 film, mainly digital.
Medium format I probably shoot 2/3 digital and 1/3 film.
Large format I shoot all film of course. I do shoot a lot of 4x5 for products and architecture, you just can't beat 4x5 for architecture.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Oct 1, 2009)

cooltouch said:


> I believe there is a good reason why photography classes still require the use of film cameras that can be used in manual mode.  It teaches the student to slow down and think.  About exposure.  About composition.  About the light and the shadows it creates, etc., etc.



That is indeed why we use film cameras to teach students in basic photo classes. I have found that students tend to move ahead well before they should when the ability to do so exists. Mandating the use of equipment that physically prevents them from doing that (at least for class work) which allows them the opportunity to, if they choose to open their minds enough, learn concepts that transcend  mediums and apply to any camera, film or digital.

- Randy


----------



## Randall Ellis (Oct 1, 2009)

jbylake said:


> I'm a film guy myself, but digital, really is the future, and somewhat of the past of photography.  (I'd say the last to die will be the medium and large format)



Perhaps, at least to a certain extent, but it is unlikely  that film will ever fully 'die' any more than glass plates, platinum printing, or even daguerreotypes, the first (well, one of two 'first') photographic methods, all of which are all still in use today. As each new technology arrives, it will usurp the position of 'the Future of...' and the previous technology will become a niche market - it's the way of technology in general, be it photography, video (I just bought a DVD player and now they tell me it's outdated?!?), cars, phones, or even toilets (have you seen the Envirolet composting toilet? A very cool idea!) For the mad scientist types (yours truly included) nothing is ever really dead. I use digital and film both as I don't believe that any one tool (any tool, not just cameras) is always the _best _choice for _all _situations. It is up to each of us to choose the right tool for our own needs, and to let others do the same free of ridicule if our decisions are not the same...

- Randy


----------



## jbylake (Oct 1, 2009)

Randall Ellis said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a film guy myself, but digital, really is the future, and somewhat of the past of photography. (I'd say the last to die will be the medium and large format)
> ...


 
I hope you're right, and film lives on..but the market will determine that.  I no longer have acsess to a darkroom, so I have to rely on either getting slides, or neg's processed.  Then, scan them to digital...

I guess only time will tell...but you've got to take into consideration, the modern times.  Some of the younger folks here have probably never used a film camera, unless it's one of those throw away's, in an "emergency", forgot the camera, what ever..some of them may take photo classes, either in college or high school, and get a taste for film, but for many, and their numbers increase daily, as we age, they will never shoot a film camera in their lives..

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## Randall Ellis (Oct 1, 2009)

Have faith, friend   Unless Jesse Tuck is kicking around somewhere under an assumed name there aren't too many people alive today who were doing daguerreotype, tintype, or even platinum printing when those were the hot new idea, but they are still very much alive...

Film is dead! Long live film!

- Randy


----------



## Craig J (Oct 2, 2009)

I go on kicks that last a month of so with film and then go back to digital again. I also carry an inexpensive film camera (N75) and a cheap lens everywhere I go just in case something pops up. I take better care of my digital stuff and better lenses.

Craig


----------



## Battou (Oct 3, 2009)

jbylake said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...



Not to sound like a complete jack ass but given that I fall into that category I do not believe it's a moot point. 

Where there is one there is always another. I garentee there is more than one person who shoots film and shoots digital rarely.


----------



## terri (Oct 4, 2009)

Actually Battou, I fall into that category myself, so I appreciate your point.

However, I think what the OP was trying to say is that he already got what he wanted out of his poll...in this particular forum (Film).    If he wanted to really pursue it, he'd put up something similar in the Digital forum and compare results.     But...I begged him not to, so it's basically over.    I think that's what he meant by "it's a moot point". No offense intended to any member of _any_ category!


----------



## jbylake (Oct 4, 2009)

Battou said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > Battou said:
> ...


I don't think you're an A$$....I think terri hit the nail on the head. It wasn't really about digital or film, but more or less trying to see what the film thread people were up too. That's all. When I said "moot", that wasn't directed at anyones opinion, It just basically meant that I could see the trend, for film people. Please don't take offense. Your opinions are as important as anyone else's. Just that this thread shows the trend, not what I expected, for film people. Other than that I'd say it's pretty much a dead thread and poll. It's all good.
J.:mrgreen:


----------



## jbylake (Oct 7, 2009)

Well, it's over.  I've got to say that I'm quite suprised.  I thought that although this is a film forum, that the response would be overwhelmingly "digital and rarely film.  Although the percentages don't particuarly show a significant difference, the number of votes do.  I'm suprised at how many shoot film, either mostly, or always.  Even in a film thread.  Cool, and thanks for all for participating.   I was only curious, and as I think I explained throughout the thread, it wasn't a Digital Vs. Thread Heavy Weight fight, but just checking out how the film thread visitors were doing.

Thanks again,

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## apertureman (Oct 20, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> After my purchase of the Nikon D90 I started getting more into photography, as expected. I started reading more and getting involved in forums and found talking about film, which got me curious.
> 
> So I bought a Nikon N75, worked incredibly well and was really fun to use. But... it's expensive. The film and processing really add up.



Well, I have to say that it's expensive either way you go: digital or film. Argue with me if you want, but read carefully as I illustrate a scenario:

1. You buy a pretty good DSLR, like Nikon D90 for about $1000 bucks. Chances are, you will keep shooting with that for a while..... that is until a newer, better, higher resolution DSLR comes out, which would cost you another couple of thousand bucks.

2. If you buy a film SLR with the similar capabilities as D90, say F100, $700. By capabilities I mean frames per second, 1/3 f-stop and shutter speed adjustments, etc. I bet you can use that camera for many, many years, because if you want something better, just wait to see what Kodak, Fuji and the like come out with next. Because your final image quality depends largely on the film you use.

I've been shooting with my Nikon FM10 manual film SLR for almost a year and so far only spent $300 or so on film and processing. Granted, I don't waste my shots, I am very careful and deliberate when making a decision to release the shutter, but that pushes me to be a better photographer.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 20, 2009)

apertureman said:


> I've been shooting with my Nikon FM10 manual film SLR for almost a year


Not to be a nudge, but in your other thread/post today, you wrote:


apertureman said:


> I have been long desiring to pursue photography as a hobby and just got a Nikon FM10 film SLR on eBay to start me off.



Ummm...?  Which is it?



apertureman said:


> ...and so far only spent $300 or so on film and processing.


But in your other thread/post today, you wrote:



apertureman said:


> I do not have my own darkroom yet, and I don't know where to find a pro lab in my town, so what would you guys suggest for a lab? Is there a place I could send my exposed film to and then get the negs, slides, and even CD with digitized images back?
> 
> I have a pretty good one in my town, but in the last few years they have been increasingly catering to consumers and digital, and have completely discontinued their pro film sales.


Something's not jiving here between your two threads / posts.


----------



## Actor (Oct 20, 2009)

apertureman said:


> 2. If you buy a film SLR with the similar capabilities as D90, say F100, $700. By capabilities I mean frames per second, 1/3 f-stop and shutter speed adjustments, etc. I bet you can use that camera for many, many years, because if you want something better, just wait to see what Kodak, Fuji and the like come out with next. Because your final image quality depends largely on the film you use.


Nobody makes film SLRs these days.  "Kodak, Fuji and the like" are not going to come out with any new film camera, ever again.  If your buy a film SLR today it's going to be a used camera unless you find a new film SLR on some dealer's shelf that he has not sold yet.  My Pentax has "all the capabilities as D90" and cost $400 fifteen years ago.  Today it goes on eBay for $50 or less, which usually includes the lens.

That's the good news/bad news of the rise of digital.  The good news is that you can get great film cameras for next to nothing.  The bad news is that the great film camera you paid $400 for 15 years ago is worth next to nothing.


----------



## skieur (Oct 20, 2009)

I think that one element that gets into the mix is the person's comfort level with computers and working with graphic images.  Those that are comfortable in this area found the transition to digital easier and were able to produce better results faster using postprocessing than those without computer knowledge/skills in the area of images.

skieur


----------



## den9 (Oct 20, 2009)

it might help if you posted this in a general forum, since strictly digital shooters probably wont visit this section


----------



## jbylake (Oct 22, 2009)

den9 said:


> it might help if you posted this in a general forum, since strictly digital shooters probably wont visit this section


I think I mentioned earlier in this post that I was looking at what people who visit the film section are up too....that's why it wasn't posted in the digital only sections, or general sections.

J. :mrgreen:


----------



## apertureman (Oct 23, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Not to be a nudge, but in your other thread/post today, you wrote... Ummm...? Which is it?



It's the first one, sorry. I bought my FM10 last October on eBay, but didn't start using it until January of this year.



Buckster said:


> "...and so far only spent $300 or so on film and processing..." But in your other thread/post today, you wrote: "I do not have my own darkroom yet, and I don't know where to find a pro lab in my town, so what would you guys suggest for a lab? Is there a place I could send my exposed film to and then get the negs, slides, and even CD with digitized images back? I have a pretty good one in my town, but in the last few years they have been increasingly catering to consumers and digital, and have completely discontinued their pro film sales." Something's not jiving here between your two threads / posts.



That is true. I *do not have my own darkroom* and a *PRO LAB* in my town, at least I couldn't find it. The one I use to process my film at is a consumer photo center.

Since we're back on the thread that I posted about the processing labs, could you suggest a pro lab where I could send my film to?

Thank you.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 23, 2009)

Actor said:


> "Kodak, Fuji and the like" are not going to come out with any new film camera, ever again.



I didn't say they were ever coming out with another camera. I was talking about their *films*.



Actor said:


> Today it goes on eBay for $50 or less, which usually includes the lens.



That only reinforces my point. It's also expensive to go digital, because even pro-sumer digs cost way more than next to nothing. However, if Kodak ever comes out with a finest grain *film* yet on the market, you don't need to upgrade your equipment. But if Canon makes a camera that has 5 megapixels more than its predecessor, you have to buy a whole new camera if you want to reap the rewards.

Oh... and one last newslash: Nikon still makes their FM10's and F6's, you can buy them new at a retail price! That would be stupid, of course, but that's beside the point.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 23, 2009)

skieur said:


> I think that one element that gets into the mix is the person's comfort level with computers and working with graphic images.  Those that are comfortable in this area found the transition to digital easier and were able to produce better results faster using postprocessing than those without computer knowledge/skills in the area of images.
> 
> skieur



That's not necessarily the case. I am a graphic designer and very comfortable working with different operating systems and various applications on those systems. I am quite at home with computers, but somehow, it just takes the fun out of photography for me if I'd ever gone all digital.

There is not much anticipation to find out how your pictures turned out. You don't necessarily have to see how film "sees" because digital sensor has a whole different dynamic range. It's just more interesting for me what you can do and achieve with film. Digital is just plain predictable. It doesn't sharpen my photography skills the way film does.

So, unless we're talking about Medium and Large Format systems, I think it's more a preference and convenience issue, rather than quality nowadays. Digital is catching up in a certain sense and taking over the market, but it will never be the same as film.


----------



## Actor (Oct 24, 2009)

apertureman said:


> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > "Kodak, Fuji and the like" are not going to come out with any new film camera, ever again.
> ...


Ok.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  But with Kodak frequently discontinuing emulsions, Kodachrome being the latest victim, I doubt there will be many coming out parties in the future, Ektar 100 notwithstanding.





> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > Today it goes on eBay for $50 or less, which usually includes the lens.
> ...


They'd have to temp me with a two stop improvement.  I would not trade a 6 Megapixel for a 12.  I'd wait for a 24 at least.





> Oh... and one last newslash: Nikon still makes their FM10's and F6's, you can buy them new at a retail price! That would be stupid, of course, but that's beside the point.


You're right.  Freestyle still has the FM10 and maybe the F6 in their catalog.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 25, 2009)

Actor said:


> Kodak frequently discontinuing emulsions, Kodachrome being the latest victim, I doubt there will be many coming out parties in the future, Ektar 100 notwithstanding.



I did not know they discontinued Kodachrome. Sad. There is still enough in the warehouses to last a few years in that case, but few years is not the same as many years. Sad.



Actor said:


> They'd have to temp me with a two stop improvement.  I would not trade a 6 Megapixel for a 12.  I'd wait for a 24 at least.



Good point. You're a smart buyer. Since we talk about digital as well, do you know what the exposure latitude is for a digital sensor? Or does that depend on the brand?



Actor said:


> You're right.  Freestyle still has the FM10 and maybe the F6 in their catalog.



I am quite satisfied with my FM10 for now, at this point I don't care about a better film SLR (or more automatic for that matter, FM10 is not bad, just all manual), but I love the manual - gives me total control (and responsibility) for my shots. My plan of attack is getting a medium format system and a dig. SLR (semi-pro), I'll be happy with those for at least the next 5 years.


----------



## Actor (Oct 26, 2009)

apertureman said:


> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > Kodak frequently discontinuing emulsions, Kodachrome being the latest victim, I doubt there will be many coming out parties in the future, Ektar 100 notwithstanding.
> ...


Surprised you missed it.  It's the year's biggest news in photography.



> There is still enough in the warehouses to last a few years in that case, but few years is not the same as many years. Sad.


I can't find any at all except on eBay where they want outrageous prices.  It appears that Dwayne's Photo in Parson's, Kansas is the only lab on the entire planet that is still processing it.  Developing it is a 14 step process that I've never heard of anyone doing in their own darkroom.  In any event Kodak has already discontinued it and will discontinue the chemistry next year.  Dwayne's has announced that they will process the last batch on 31 December 2010.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Oct 26, 2009)

Been shooting for 40 years, seems like I was one of the last to come into the Digital Age, and I came kicking and screaming.

I used so much Tri X in my time that I may have been what caused them to run low and develop digital technology...lol

Absolutely loved to shoot b/w available light, using filters creatively, then doing tricks in darkroom.  Also shot a lot of slide film over the years.  Never liked the costs of C-41 processing much, so I avoided it unless I was getting paid (like for motorsports, which I did a lot of, and was published more than once).

Kinda miss using my old Mat-124 and doing studio work.

But now that I am into digital, I won't ever go back.  I don't even like the PP much, prefer to take shots I can just load to the PC and print.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 26, 2009)

Actor said:


> Surprised you missed it. It's the year's biggest news in photography.



I was not following photo news this year much, just started getting into photography seriously in the recent months. I'm a noob here 



Actor said:


> I can't find any at all except on eBay where they want outrageous prices.  It appears that Dwayne's Photo in Parson's, Kansas is the only lab on the entire planet that is still processing it.  Developing it is a 14 step process that I've never heard of anyone doing in their own darkroom.  In any event Kodak has already discontinued it and will discontinue the chemistry next year.  Dwayne's has announced that they will process the last batch on 31 December 2010.



I was speaking about all pro film in general, should have been more clear on that. I read about 2 years back that Fuji discontinued their Velvia 50, but I can still find it on Freestylephoto.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 26, 2009)

PatrickHMS said:


> But now that I am into digital, I won't ever go back.  I don't even like the PP much, prefer to take shots I can just load to the PC and print.



Can you please elaborate a bit more on some of the main reasons you jumped over to all digital?

What are the main differences (from your experience) between film and digital in terms of exposure, color, and dynamic range?


----------

