Well instead of wringing our hands over the demise of film can you please tell me why and where film is better than digital?
Well instead of wringing our hands over the demise of film can you please tell me why and where film is better than digital?
This is a horse that has truely been flogged beyond more than genetic recognition. A search of the archives will show quite clearly what people think. Here more than other places there are process snobs on both sides. Use what you like and what works for you.
By the way I have no desire to work in digital in BW, so i am not avoiding the question. To me it is sterile and devoid of the sense of accomplish I get with what I do use. On the other hand I do my color work in color because, for me it real easy to get a fine print as long as I start with a fine neg or transparency. Others see the world differently. Good for them.
Irrelevant, at least to me. I can't afford to go digital, am stuck with film. Its that or painting, and I'm an even worse draftsman than I am a photographer.
Others' tastes or budgets may differ from mine.
When I get back from photographing I will tell you.
Molecules or electrons, you pick your tools. It's the final results that matter.
They're just different, each with its own strengths and limitations. Pick your poison.
I just recently went back to doing more 35mm work. Even though I think the quality I get from my Canon 1Ds by far surpasses 35mm, I still recently bought a used Nikon F5 on Ebay as well as grabbing 100 feet each of Porta 160, Fuji Astia F, Ilford Pan F, and Ilford HP5. There is still something fun for me to shoot 35mm. The fact that it is inferior to my high end digital gear is no more relevant to me than the fact the my LF gear is superior to my 1Ds. They are different tools that I use for different reasons.
It's the final results that matter.
Its the destination, not the journey.
I am finding myself doing more 4x5 work. There is just something about an image that screams "View camera used!" Don't get me wrong, I like them both, just for me I think I get generally better images with the 4x5.
Though *if* I could afford direct digital capture for then 4x5, I would probably be using it instead of film
What difference does it make? When digital can capture the equivelant resolution of what a sheet of 8x20 B&W film contains at a price point under $500, let me know. The current price of admission seems absolutely absurd to me considering the equipment is worth 30-50% less per year.
Until then, I am giddy at the prospects of allocating my LF dollars to the T Max 400 and Ilford ULF sheet film purchase - Yahoooooo!!!!
Bookmarks