DSLR Digital Photography Vs. SLR Film Photography

Wilt wrote in post #9089507
But then again, people listen to the MP3 P.O.S. decimated quality music rather than the CD quality, too. So if they settle for second best in music, it is no surprise that second best is good enough for graphic arts, too.

Nope, I'm not accepting that "false choice" fallacy you're presenting here that anything other than slide projection is a choice equal in inferiority to MP3 music. I was a high-end B&W printmaker in the 70s and I participate in print competitions today, so I will not accept the implication that fine printmaking is an inferior art to slide projection.

breal101 wrote in post #9090654
That's true, there is nothing inherent about digital that forces one to shoot from the hip as the LF guys use to call 35mm shooting. The photographer has a choice, as a former LF and MF shooter I still shoot much the same way as I did then, but with the option of shooting from the hip if I choose to. Sure, an 8x10 transparency looks magnificent on a light table but shooting 8x10 is like wrestling a gorilla in comparison to shooting a digital camera.

Indeed. Photography is all about making intelligent compromises.

Wilt wrote in post #9089507
But then again, people listen to the MP3 P.O.S. decimated quality music rather than the CD quality, too. So if they settle for second best in music, it is no surprise that second best is good enough for graphic arts, too.

People will always trade convenience for a little loss in quality...and believe me to regular folks, the loss in quality is a little. If you are an audiophile then perhaps it's more than that. I used to own a home music studio with pretty high end gear and MP3's never, ever bothered me in terms of quality. I've got thousands of tunes in my iPhone. I'd need an assistant to carry the CD's.

Sorry...convenience will always win in my book.

As a medium end audiophile and pixel peeper, film is awesome and so is vinyl, and I still use both. However, high quality digital is still fantastic, so I don't mind.

What I liked about film was the skill in ensuring that any effect such as panning, selective focussing, multiple exposures and filter effects were done in camera . Rejecting those that failed to make the grade was a lot easier. For example keepers had to at least be in focus, correctly exposed and have no colour casts. I remember the days of adding tin foil to crop slides for camera club competitions and glass slide mounts. Most amateurs usually had their Christmas shots developed at Easter and if you shot more than 10 rolls of film a year, you were a semi - pro. Nowadays, crop sensor users have never had it so good with a 200 F2.8 becoming a 300mm equivalent in FF. Images are machine gunned off in the vain hope that quantity equals quality and photo editing software offers so many choices that sometimes making your final keepers selection can be so difficult. And the final kick in the teeth is displaying images taken with everything done in camera only to have them casually dismissed as being "photoshopped"

well i started shooting digital and about 8 months ago i took a photo class at my local CC, ive been a film obsessor since. i am currently in N.C. on thanksgiving vacation and i brought with me my 40d, eos rebel t2, and eos 1n, with 8 rolls of film. ive shot 4 shots total with my 40d and gone through 3 rolls of film (tri-x 400 @ 200, tmax 100, and tech pan @ 25) so for me film is more gratifying and i enjoy the process more.

It's sad, but my 40D has spoiled me. One of these days, I'll buy a film camera (just look at my sig ) and start shooting some film again. I remember one-roll-a-weeks in college, and I eventually realized how much patience is important when making photographs. The workflow is nicer with digital, but it doesn't replace the romance of film.

I couldn't go back to shooting 35mm or even medium format but I would love to shoot 4x5 again just for nostalgic reasons..

Each sheet of film is precisely exposed where the shadows and highlights are metered to calculate the exact brightness range (dynamic range for the new chums).. Then each sheet is processed individually precisely to meet the brightness range..

The B/W negative is assessed for extra treatment like dodging and burning in.. Exposure is calculated via a test strip then printed on 20 x 24 inch matte fibre based paper..

This is a very exacting science..

yogestee hit the nail on the head, with film it demands loads of discipline and exact precision. there are so many steps that can go wrong that its stressful and rewarding at the same time. ahh test strips and then seeing that image appear in the developer tray.

SkipD wrote in post #9088182
If you're interested in a complete darkroom setup (stainless tanks, enlarger, all the tools you'd need), PM me. I could use the storage space for something else.

Thanks for the offer - I truly do - but I have a small apartment and am not willing to spend money on a darkroom yet. It won't be for a few years with my current plans to be able to have a room for a darkroom, so maybe then, and hopefully I can still buy the chemicals.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9096180
Thanks for the offer - I truly do - but I have a small apartment and am not willing to spend money on a darkroom yet. It won't be for a few years with my current plans to be able to have a room for a darkroom, so maybe then, and hopefully I can still buy the chemicals.

I used to use my setup in a small apartment bathroom, believe it or not. The enlarger is a fairly small one - a Durst 600 - that disassembles easily for storage.

There are (or at least were) a lot of darkroom duffers who turned out loads of flat, fuzzy garbage--just because it came from film doesn't mean it's good. It's easier to turn out a technically adequate print today than it was in the 1900s, but that's just letting machines do what machines can do and elevating the art of what only the human mind can still do.

Why should a portrait painter compound his own paints when machine in the Grumbacher factory can do it even better and more precisely batch-to-batch? Being freed from toil a machine can do perfectly frees the painter to elevate his own art in ways no machine can yet fathom. The machine now can turn out a sharp, well-exposed image... leaving us humans to pay attention to the clarity of concept, the use of color and form, and other artistic considerations.

The fact is photography has always had a technological base misleads. We're only talking about degrees of technology, so anyone using a camera may as well admit he's already drunk the Kool-Aid. A photographer who has the belief that technology is a bad thing should turn to painting. Or perhaps charcoal drawing.

SkipD wrote in post #9096496
I used to use my setup in a small apartment bathroom, believe it or not. The enlarger is a fairly small one - a Durst 600 - that disassembles easily for storage.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Maybe in a few months.

RDKirk wrote in post #9096778
Being freed from toil a machine can do perfectly frees the painter to elevate his own art in ways no machine can yet fathom. ...A photographer who has the belief that technology is a bad thing should turn to painting. Or perhaps charcoal drawing.

I certainly do not advocate using only the old technology. I am merely a proponent of the value of learning the historical basis from which modern digital photography exists, and recognizing there is value to be had from that technology even today, and not mere raising one's nose dismissively at the older technology as simply 'ancient history' without continued value. There is quality to be had from larger format film, that no digital technology today could replicate to the same level. Similarly digital can do things that no consumer film can do, like a quality shot at ISO3200 and higher.

Actually, it just takes a tremendous amount of money to equal the quality of large format film digitally, but it's been possible and has been done for a couple of decades now. It's just a matter of money.

In terms of hobby and personal preference, one can, of course, do whatever one wants. That's why there are more individuals who own horses in the US now than there were 120 years ago when the horse was the primary engine of both personal and commercial transportation.

The point I'm making is that there is neither artistic nor moral superiority to chemistry over electronics in terms of the art of photography. We were just as geeky about the chemistry of photography technology 40 years ago as we are about the electronics of it today. Back then, the mantra was "better living through chemistry" (you can't say that today with a straight face). Today it's all about electronics. But it's all still technology.