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

The original comment was in reference to darkroom cost v photoshop cost, not the relative merits of darkroom v digital, so in that regard, lobbying for scanning is just arguing for argument sake, except now you've added the cost of a high quality scanner to the cost of photoshop in comparing digital PP v chemical PP.

But, some people just like to evangelize rather that say OT, I guess (present company included many times... so just an observation.)

On the topic of evangelizing, for the OP: why do you want to go into a relatively narrow, special-interest discussion group and stir the pot anyway?

RTPVid wrote in post #15159064
The original comment was in reference to darkroom cost v photoshop cost, not the relative merits of darkroom v digital, so in that regard, lobbying for scanning is just arguing for argument sake, except now you've added the cost of a high quality scanner to the cost of photoshop in comparing digital PP v chemical PP.

But if you want the maximum dynamic range or contrast from a scene, then film can be the only option, such as scenes with >12 EVs (unless you have a static subject, then you can bracket and do HDR - another expense of digital). Scanners are just another tool that some people buy because they make their photographic options better. I still shoot more digital than film, but for certain circumstances film is the superior choice.

The OP is rather ambiguous since it is not presented in context; thus, it is difficult to interpret.

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.

The enlager he gave to me is from Vivitar. Nothing fancy, I guess.
Where are active thread on dedicated to RF cameras forum about developing vs scanning. For many it makes no difference once it is on paper.

We both have very different approach for reason to use film.
I already explained here why I like to use film in addition to digital.
I'm not into billboard size printing, nor into magazine publishing either.
I see big difference between digital taken and film taken picture at computers screen and I like to use advantages of film and digital where I like to use it without gearhead approach for the best of the best then it is not really needed.

I went to Vancouver few weeks ago and took street, candid film and digital pictures after work. With cheap Rebel and old film RF. I need to walk after work to stay healthy and productive.
Later on I send the link to my photo album to the guy I was working with.
His response:
"I didn't know you are such a great photographer. I love the creative shots, especially those with people in them."

Here is the response from team leader of this project in Vancouver after he checked the same pictures:
" I really enjoyed going through all of them. I think you have a lot of talent and an honest eye!"

BTW, we are working in broadcast industry, where IQ is known to be somehow important.

Do I need super-duper enlarger and Hassy after it to get recognized among people I know and to be forgiven for not going to pub after work with them, but walking for hours along instead?
I don't think so. And I see big difference between digital and film pictures on Flickr and I like film ones more.

But, if you are person who takes pictures for living - I'm agree with you.
You need best film gear not to be the artist, but to be very competitive.

I think the important thing that is being missed here is that what a person wants out of photography is a purely personal matter and any person who says that there is some right or wrong way about it is clearly suffering from insecurity issues. There are people who will spend $20,000 and 6 months planning on a single shot. There are others who have no goal except to record the events in their daily lives for the sake of memories. Some of us want to produce portraits for paying customers, some want to produce images that inspire. Some want to use photography as a way to capture a critical emotion, feeling or event. And some just want to use photography as a base for some more elaborate piece of artwork.

For some of these things, digital is superior. For some, film is a better medium, and sometimes a hybrid approach is the best choice. It's all about what the individual wants to accomplish and to throw some blanket statement that says one is better than the other or that people who do one particular thing fit into some kind of box shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire field. If we were talking about painting we would be arguing over whether a person should paint in watercolors, oils, or using pastels. We would be debating over which types of canvass, painting on glass, wall murals, paper types and other such nonsense are the "best".

So sure, there are a lot of people who click and pray. And that is perfectly fine. Digital has lowered the threshold of skill required to get a decent photo. But it has also raised the bar for those of us who want to produce something really unique. And the abilities it has brought to those who really know their trade are much greater as well. I can do things now that I never could have done when I had my studio back in the 1990s. And the really great photographers that stand out can do even more than the best could have done back then. It has allowed all of us to improve.

The only negative impact I see, if it can be called "negative", is that lazy "professionals" who had themselves locked into routine and had no desire to grow their skills are now facing stiff competition from amateurs. Personally that doesn't bother me. It thrills me. It does because back in the 90s, I HAD to have a studio to justify the expense of the tools needed to get the shots I wanted. Now I have no such barrier. I can experiment to my heart's content without all that overhead expense and without having to sell my soul to justify buying it.

Which brings up one more thing. It just kills me how many people are sore about the competition in the business that digital has brought. The fact is, those people will do what they always did. They will create mediocre work and will eventually either fail and give up, or they will continue to improve their skills and get better. In the meantime, we should all be working to stay ahead of the curve, adding to our skillset and improving ourselves.

rrblint wrote in post #15142549
Said goodbye to film years ago and I don't plan to go back to it, but if someone wishes to shoot film, I wish them luck...To each his(or her) own.

I learned my "trade" by shooting film 30+ years ago, when that was the only game in town, so to speak. But honestly I love the ease and cost savings of shooting digital. Doubt if I'll ever go back.

PS - I do miss making my own B&W prints in a dark room though.

JPMosu wrote in post #15162546
I learned my "trade" by shooting film 30+ years ago, when that was the only game in town, so to speak. But honestly I love the ease and cost savings of shooting digital. Doubt if I'll ever go back.

PS - I do miss making my own B&W prints in a dark room though.

I agree completely, there was something very special and exciting about watching that print "magically" appear in the developer...Hmm, I may have to rethink this.

rrblint wrote in post #15162577
I agree completely, there was something very special and exciting about watching that print "magically" appear in the developer...Hmm, I may have to rethink this.

well, and the smell. I loved the smell. I know a lot of people didn't but I did.

kfreels wrote in post #15163218
well, and the smell. I loved the smell. I know a lot of people didn't but I did.

Yep...I used to say that if I ever went digital that I would set out a tray of fixer alongside my computer and turn on an OC safelight when doing PP, but I haven't followed through on that.

kfreels wrote in post #15163218
well, and the smell. I loved the smell. I know a lot of people didn't but I did.

+1!

The crowd I hate the most are the newbie "film" guys. You know, people who buy film cameras, posts in on their Facebook or blog just to make them look like they're real photographers.

Then you ask them a question about film and they;'' give you a blank stare.

KeyserSoze1 wrote in post #15175917
The crowd I hate the most are the newbie "film" guys. You know, people who buy film cameras, posts in on their Facebook or blog just to make them look like they're real photographers.

Then you ask them a question about film and they;'' give you a blank stare.

No, no, no....they aren't bad. The bad ones are the self proclaimed film purists fresh from the first or second year in college....just because they have attended a film class. They are raving film like the next best thing in life. Yet, they got nothing to show for other than some BW stuff from school projects. And their well despised digital works couldn't even make it through the Flickr crowd.

And eventually those guys move through that phase into the greater world of photography and that's what it's like to be a newbie and we all start there more or less.

jetcode wrote in post #15175795
That 5d cannot compete with a MF image and a quality scan. At all. Just look at the IQ. Film is like butter and digital is like margarine...

For me it is two very different formats for very different applications of photography.
I like small 35mm b/w film for the street and cheap MF for b/w portraits, because it looks unique compare to digital, including my 5Dc.
But MF and Macro, Sports and wildlife ... too pricey, if possible at all, to get comparable IQ to my digital Rebel with right lens on it...

I made a post about how much I appreciate digital over film some time back and was caught by surprise at the viciousness of the attacks on my thoughts and on me personally.