The film crowds are so uptight....they can strangle themselves...

st3mpy wrote in post #15153259
Just do it yourself! 50 bucks and a spare bathroom are all you need. I suggest you try b&W and a trial roll of color before you develop anything you actually want to keep.

I am still a digital guy. The negatives or slides have to be scanned. That's a whole new level of challenges. For scanners, I want something at least an Epson V700. Ideally, a Nikon scanner but we are already talking about in the $1k range.

Ideologues exist throughout the technological/artistic spectrum; being retentive or uptight about a particular tool or medium is not unique to film.

For example...

Gomar, as for what's the use of film, you can read my answer to this in the linked blog below.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15140553
The film crowds are so uptight....they can strangle themselves...

A crowd of film users strangling one another. I am envisioning it now. Heck, that would make for a very interesting photo opportunity!

Gomar wrote in post #15146703
Waste of money and time. I shoot hundreds of digital photos, maybe 1/4 are keepers. With film, I shot 1 roll per day.

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Tony-S wrote in post #15154541

Gomar wrote in post #15146703
...I shoot hundreds of digital photos, maybe 1/4 are keepers. With film, I shot 1 roll per day.

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Yes. I was about to make a similar comment.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15153639
I am still a digital guy. The negatives or slides have to be scanned. ...

I suppose "a digital guy" would need to scan them, but making prints was part of the whole chemical photography artistic cycle. Stopping short and scanning negatives? I don't get it.

Tony-S wrote in post #15154541
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Irony? It is very common growing/learning path, if using digital. I was about the same not so long time ago.

Tony-S wrote in post #15154541
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Because the amount of time and cost involve with the "film" process, photographer often take their time and make conscious effort to take the "right" photo. With digital film, for most, they just point and shoot dozen or hundreds of pix (because the cost is almost nothing) and hope that one turn out to be OK.

With photoshop, an average photographer can create something nice with an "OK" pix. Whereas, in film photography, either you get it or you don't; and if you were to create special effect in the developing lab, it takes a lot more time and money.

In this sense, the film crowd is more purist on photography....

gpswiz wrote in post #15155840
Because the amount of time and cost involve with the "film" process, photographer often take their time and make conscious effort to take the "right" photo. With digital film, for most, they just point and shoot dozen or hundreds of pix (because the cost is almost nothing) and hope that one turn out to be OK.

With photoshop, an average photographer can create something nice with an "OK" pix. Whereas, in film photography, either you get it or you don't; and if you were to create special effect in the developing lab, it takes a lot more time and money.

In this sense, the film crowd is more purist on photography....

I disagree. I never shoot and just hope. I plan and think. I make every attempt to get it right in the camera to minimize the time that I spend in post. Now when shooting sports that's a bit different. I never would have spent 10 rolls of film shooting my daughter in the color guard in marching band. But professional sports shooters had bulk film backs that could give you about 250 frames per roll so really that isn't much different either.

As for photoshop, I think you would be surprised at how much time professionals put into the dark room back in the film days. Photoshop greatly expands these capabilities, but the famous names never stopped at just the exposure. They all spent a large amount of time in the darkroom dodging, burning, pushing, developing, retouching, etc.

Photoshop makes this a lot easier and expands those capabilities to more people. But even now, people who take an "OK" shot can rarely make it a great shot in post.

I will admit that at times I have found myself just thinking "I'll fix it in post". For example, I had a perfect spot for a couples shot a while back but there was a darned telephone pole that was behind them that was visually awkward. I couldn't reposition the shot to get the pole out without screwing up many more elements in the shot. In the film days I would have likely skipped it. But I knew that I could remove it. I made sure the pole was not by their heads so I didn't have to worry about selecting around hair which is a pain. Then I shot it. It was a planned post operation. At no point did I "hope". I knew darned well exactly what I was getting.

As for the darkroom work costing more - do you know how much Photoshop CS6 costs?

gpswiz wrote in post #15155840
Because the amount of time and cost involve with the "film" process, photographer often take their time and make conscious effort to take the "right" photo. With digital film, for most, they just point and shoot dozen or hundreds of pix (because the cost is almost nothing) and hope that one turn out to be OK.

With photoshop, an average photographer can create something nice with an "OK" pix. Whereas, in film photography, either you get it or you don't; and if you were to create special effect in the developing lab, it takes a lot more time and money.

In this sense, the film crowd is more purist on photography....

I too disagree with this.

I spend the same amount of time setting up a shot with digital as I did with film, and use the same basic procedure, with the exception of using the histogram to ETTR instead of zonal placement.

I do use burst mode more often for moving subjects than I used to use motor-drive for film. This is to me a luxury in order to get different poses and facial expressions that when shooting film I often wouldn't afford myself, not only because of the cost, but also because of the time it took to rewind and change film rolls(a 36 exposure roll of film is gone quickly at 7FPS) which could break the rhythm and mood of a photo shoot.

Also I generally spend as much time in PP as I used to in the darkroom, but the lessened cost is also a nice bonus.

Who cares what road you take to get to the final destination...

Bryan

Gomar wrote in post #15146703
...I shoot hundreds of digital photos, maybe 1/4 are keepers...

kfreels wrote in post #15156081
I disagree. I never shoot and just hope. I plan and think. I make every attempt to get it right in the camera to minimize the time that I spend in post.....As for the darkroom work costing more - do you know how much Photoshop CS6 costs?

rrblint wrote in post #15157055
I too disagree with this.

I spend the same amount of time setting up a shot with digital as I did with film, and use the same basic procedure, with the exception of using the histogram to ETTR instead of zonal placement....

Apparently, the latter two people I quoted above have a different approach than the first person quoted. It was the first quote that was being responded to with the "click and hope" commentary.

As to the cost of CS6? Yeah, about the same as the cost of a good enlarger and set of lenses for it. It is the consumables that keep the darkroom costs going.

People tend to be highly motivated by cost. Therefore, even snapshooters took greater care with film and their shots than today's P&S people do. The same with many (but obviously not all) amateur photo enthusiasts. Even with planning, when you have the economic freedom to take 8, 10, 2 dozen, "variations" of your planned shot, you don't have the same pressure, and therefore exert the same effort, to make sure your one and only is the one and only you visualized.

It is worth noting that this is an economics thing, not an artistic thing. IOW, the more careful, planned approach with film was necessary due to cost, not due to any inherent virtue of film or film photographers.

JMO.

Why do you need enlager, if it is possible to scan? Anyway, I have the enlarger unit for free, because person who gave it to me was trying to sell it and nobody was interested in.
Scanner for 35mm film which supports 9600DPI costs 129$. 6X6 and 35mm scanner is 179$.
Film cameras and old MF lenses are something like ten if not more times cheaper compare to digital ones.
Bulk film is not expensive also.
The only one money-wise limitation is color film processing. It could be done at home for 30$ per 10-15 rolls.
So far for all my film gear listed in my sig I spend less what I paid for one 17_40L.

kf095 wrote in post #15158669
Why do you need enlager, if it is possible to scan? ...

Why do you want to do hybrid? What is the point of using film and then scanning? If one is going chemical, go chemical all the way, including darkroom work, manipulating the prints, etc. At this point, chemical imaging is an artistic choice. Using film and then scanning negative/transparencie​s seems so pointless to me. Just use a digital camera in the first place if you're going to do that. For all of the "richness" or other aesthetic arguments in favor of film, add chemical printing to that and it goes double. Not every image has to exist on facebook or flickr.

Just because your friend doesn't want an enlarger doesn't mean they are worthless or don't have a market. (Besides, you didn't say what model enlarger it was; even in the heyday of film, there were some cheap enlargers available.)Used Beseler 23CIII-XL.

RTPVid wrote in post #15158904
Why do you want to do hybrid? What is the point of using film and then scanning? If one is going chemical, go chemical all the way, including darkroom work, manipulating the prints, etc. At this point, chemical imaging is an artistic choice. Using film and then scanning negative/transparencie​s seems so pointless to me. Just use a digital camera in the first place if you're going to do that. For all of the "richness" or other aesthetic arguments in favor of film, add chemical printing to that and it goes double. Not every image has to exist on facebook or flickr.

Just because your friend doesn't want an enlarger doesn't mean they are worthless or don't have a market. (Besides, you didn't say what model enlarger it was; even in the heyday of film, there were some cheap enlargers available.)Used Beseler 23CIII-XL.

I scan; lots of folks scan, and I've got very good reasons why I do so. But as I always point out in similar discussions: I still have the negatives, so maybe one day I'll take some of my favorites into a darkroom.

This said, there are absolutely no rules on how or why someone wants to create a photo.

RTPVid wrote in post #15158904
Why do you want to do hybrid? What is the point of using film and then scanning?

For its superior dynamic range and exposure latitude. Only the Nikon D600 and D800 approach color negative film in that regard, and no digital camera is even close to what you can do with B&W film for DR, latitude and contrast expansion. Once it's on the film, you have it.