When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

**Drew Wiley** · 29-Jul-2011, 12:33

I get off the freeway after work. Go in the dkrm and clean a LF neg, focus etc. Mix up
the RA4 and get the water tempering box going. Wheel my drum processor outside and
hook it up to the drain. Expose a test strip. Dry it. Print the full 20x24. Sound like a hassle? I'm done in time for the evening news. Why would I want to spend way more
time and money to scan and print the damn thing digitally? You call that progress?

**Matus Kalisky** · 29-Jul-2011, 12:41

I am shooting 4x5" just because I enjoy the process. And I would only give it up if the time, finances or availability of film and chemicals would get short. Time is a bit of issue recently, but I have hopes for improvements in the future. And I would like to try some darkroom printing other than just contact prints at some point.

**Marko** · 29-Jul-2011, 19:47

What's "evening news"?

**Adamphotoman** · 1-Aug-2011, 06:29

I spent 30 years making my living in the darkroom. My dark area was 500 Sq feet. I think that there is a place for both. However, I stopped the darkroom work about 6 years ago when I bought the scanning back.I still get to work 4X5 but not the larger gear.
Grant

**luis a de santos** · 1-Aug-2011, 11:46

So what is the point on this question?

**Corran** · 1-Aug-2011, 12:12

My first real camera was a DSLR. I got interested in film so I got an old 35mm...then a Pentax 67, and finally 4x5.

I don't think I'd shoot film except that it offers some things that I can't get with my D700. One thing is lots of resolution. Also, real b&w is different than digital, and the "look" of film is subtley different (as is the DOF). It is also a different experience. Anything I do that is "paid" work is almost universally on digital. Shooting on film is usually an "extra" or "bonus," it's never requested. But I am not a big-time pro.

I don't buy the analogy about analog music tech. What I really am is a recording engineer, not a photographer. I had a love affair with tape and other analog gear but these days NONE of that is used. Tubes (toobz) are just a different kind of amplification, I prefer not to bother. I don't touch tape. The audio fidelity loss with some of these devices are in my opinion detrimental. And frankly, "preferring" old analog audio gear is a placebo affect, nothing more. If anything the "distortion" is not enough to notice or if it is it is an effect used just like reverb or chorus.

Every "digital" system still uses analog components. A microphone is an analog device, period. The difference in photography is that the "end product" (the photo) can still be easily taken on an analog medium, and is presented in an analog way (the print). In comparison, audio nowadays is almost universally consumed digitally (rare vinyl pressings not withstanding, and I guarantee it was still edited digitally).

**Robert Hughes** · 3-Aug-2011, 07:12

Originally Posted by Corran

I don't buy the analogy about analog music tech....rare vinyl pressings not withstanding, and I guarantee it was still edited digitally.

Horses for courses, as they say... my last vinyl project (last year) was analog everything except for the digital reverbs.

**Corran** · 3-Aug-2011, 07:32

I'm not sure how you are proving a point when you still used some digital reverb. I mean, even if it wasn't a lot, you've still ended up using digital in some way.

Your "vinyl project," was this a major release?

**Caivman** · 3-Aug-2011, 08:12

When digital 4x5 backs get cheaper.

Then i'll give up my film.

**Lynn Jones** · 3-Aug-2011, 12:44

Never completely, although I'm about 95% digital now(especially since I teach photography which has been 100 % digi for the last 6 or so years), however, it is almost impossible not to use the view camera for landscape and architecture.

Lynn