I am thinking of selling off the film gear. For good.

I started off shooting 35mm, and had fun but found I took WAY more pictures than I developed. I had a wedding plop into my lap, so I bought a used Nikon D1 and had a BLAST with it. On board black and white with slow asa is a lot of fun, and can look really good. Also when my friends and I would go skateboarding, being able to shoot at 16000 asa stops any movement in it's tracks and makes for GREAT action shots. But, I got bored and remembered that I love to do art, so I bought a medium format. I'll use my digital to get my composition right and make sure that my film shot will be perfect, and then I'll pull out the mamiya. Digital pictures look great, and they're fun to look at on a computer screen, but as far as making prints you're going to spend so much more on super professional equipment to get what you are already getting with film.

 

just my humble opinion.

Hey, nothing wrong with shooting both digital and film. When I'm shooting for myself, I still shoot it on film. Yesterday, I went out to test some Astia and Sensia (which I've only used occasionally) for color and contrast compared to my usual Velvia and Provia. Just for the heck of it, I decided to shoot the same thing with my DSLR since I had it in the bag.

 

Back at home, while the 4 rolls were happily sloshing around the Jobo, I brought up the digital pics on the screen to have a look around. Not bad. Well, when I pulled the Velvia, Astia, Sensia and Provia out of the film dryer and laid them on the lightbox, there was no comparison. The film shots were just more natural and pleasing and under a 10X loupe, contained more fine detail. I spent the better part of an hour going back and forth between the lightbox and monitor examining different areas of the images and in all cases preferred the film. The digital looked sharp on screen but it's all edge sharpness; fine detail (especially foliage and grass) was just mushy. I tried all manner of USM, but all I managed to accomplish was get more edge sharpness. I was able to tweak the digital to pretty well match the Sensia/Astia and Provia but no manner of massaging was gonna make it look like Velvia.

 

Of course, I'm still gonna shoot digital, but film is certainly not going anywhere with me (not that I ever thought it was). I can understand those that want to get away from the act of buying film and sending it to the lab, but luckily I bought a Jobo quite a few years ago when I got into LF so I have full control over my film workflow for start to finish. My 4x5 E6 cost is right around $0.40 per sheet and my turnaround is as fast as I feel like. Those that enjoy transparency films may wish to consider this as an option; it's really not that difficult.

 

Anyway, in 20 years if there's no more film, my little cherrywood and brass Tachihara will look quite lovely sitting up on a shelf in my office while my many digitals will be very slowly decomposing in a landfill somewhere.

I too agree with Marc. I'm a hybrid shooter myself, using a DSLR and a variety of film format, mostly 6x6. Getting the quality of 6x6 or larger using single shot digital is too expensive for amateurs like me. Digital is good for stuff typically needing several exposures, like difficult macro shots, rapid action shots and infrared. Often when I want a certain film look, I just use film. I'm an amateur and my digital skills are better than my analog skills, so people in a different position may have different preferences. I find this hybrid approach quite flexible.

For the consumer I don't think it really matters. There are times I would like a D-REB.

 

Since photography is a moonlighting business for me... the biggest factor with digital was time. I became pretty efficient but it still was a PITA. Add costs of software, CF cards, and things just didn't add up for me.

 

Been digitally free for about two months, and it's been a NICE change of pace.

 

The final straw was a wedding I did in Savannah. I shot five rolls of Delta 3200 (at ISO 800) and mailed them off and they came back better than anything I had produced digitally with or with Kubota actions.

 

I have access to a huge college darkroom, and a great lab to fall back on for weddings. Planning to carve a niche shooting mostly B+W portraits and weddings and pushing fiber prints.

 

I just dove back into Medium Format about 15 minutes ago and cherry picked a 501CM kit for $512.

RM has a good point!

"I have access to a huge college darkroom"

 

this is a key point. Without that, it is a true PITA to try film the traditional way. If I look at a really good example from my D200 and compare that with a great scan of a negative or a slide, there is a definite quality difference. The film is just better. WAY better. And bigger, too. Like 4 times bigger.

 

However, at print sizes within my range (13x19 as the largest I EVER print), there is NO benefit to film over 10-12+ megapixel digital when working a hybrid workflow. Printing tradiationally, sure, there is a strong tonal, textural benefit to film. But scanning and printing the modern way, well, sorry. At that size and below, digital is just as good.

 

This is what plagues me. I don't want a sub-FF sensor, but I know I don't need a FF. I'm not a pro. I don't shoot in rough conditions. I don't need 8fps. I just have illogical gearlust. This is the very thing that drives me to keep my RF645, 3.5f, scanner, etc. I've never once printed anything larger than 8x10, so why do I bother?

A major issue, currently, is credit card debt. I could recover a couple grand AND buy a Canon 40D...if I sold everything. But somehow, I doubt I'll ever talk myself into selling my most cherished toys.

George - you need to try some larger prints! I really like WHCC.com - they'll even give you 5 free 8x10's to check their colors against your monitor.

NO NO NO! You guys all have the wrong attitude here. SELL SELL SELL! I bid $50 for the lot.

 

YEAH, GO DIGITAL!

hahahaha paul RON, good call

I love these guys threatening to switch to digital as if it's going to hurt someone.

 

I guess the old masters threatened with, "I'm switching to water color instead of oil"... THERE, UP YOURS!

 

YEAH, GO DIGITAL! SELL SELL SELL!

Here's what I did. I'm a professional and have shot digital almost exclusively for the past

couple of years. After contemplating selling all my film cameras I decided to take my

Hasselblad 501cm for one last ride. I shot 2 rolls of Tri-x, had them processed and

scanned by a professional lab ($20 for film, processing and scanning). When I got the

scans back, it took me all of 5 minutes to swear to NEVER sell my beloved Hasselblad and

Carl Zeiss lenses. I am now hybrid, shooting a lot of digital and I love it. I am not a film

snob but I also shoot film for my personal fine art images. I did sell my 35mm film

cameras. Now I have a D2X for digital capture and my Hasselblad for film. It truely is the

best of both worlds. I no longer compare film and digital. They are both wonderful

mediums. That said, digital will never replace the unique "feel" of film. It is magic. If I were

you I would keep the Rollei FOR SURE and get rid of the rest for a nice digital. Good luck!

Let's cut to the chase ... it's because everyone is getting both lazy and impatient, mostly

impatient ... like a Chihuahua on crack.

 

They want their food zapped in a microwave, coffee shot directly into their cup, and their

pictures to pop up the second they shoot 'em, (Edward Land knew this very early on and

had the pictures literally shoot out the front of the SX-70).

 

Now we have a virtual tsunami of electronic images zipping through cable lines, or

through the air at any given minute. Look, look, look delete, delete, delete. pant, pant,

pant.

 

People actually argue over picture quality on the web. Hell, a cell phone shoots images

bigger than you can post on photo.net.

 

It's a headlong rush to get noticed if even for a nano-second. And the hard drives get

bigger and bigger to hold more and more pixels ... quintillions of them ...

burning brightly for the life-span of a mayfly, then onto oblivion never to be printed,

enjoyed for decades, mused over while savoring a Cognac.

 

Photography is now a social catalyst where everyone can come play and whine about

something, and pretend that where it's all going is good, and where it's been is bad ... so

hard ... so difficult ... so trying of men's souls.

 

I'm taking my glass of wine downstairs and sitting in front of a vintage Kertesz silver print

instead of this damned screen I'm chained to 10 hours a day ... and muse myself to

sleep ... perchance to dream.

"My favorite observation is how fast some people who go digital forget what the hell a good print looks like. It's like some sort of selective memory or amnesia"

 

The same people, including camera manufacturers, also very quickly forget what a good viewfinder looks like, and batteries that can last for months instead of hours.

 

I have bought more film cameras, and more film, since I got my first digital.

It kills me to see film scaned, regardless of how it's done, it's not the same as an analog print.

 

I'd have withdrawal symptoms if I didn't get my shotgun fix of stop bath fumes. I'd miss the smell of fixed in the morning.

 

The closest I've come to digital is at my doctor's office... caugh!

I started out like Kelly (above), first with digital, then backed into film.As a "gift" from a magazine publisher -- A thank-you for helping him set up his new Mac -- he got me photo credentials for the 2001 Indy 500; so, my first "real" camera was a $600 3 MP Kodak P&S.

 

But, for several years prior to that, I was also consulting for a commercial photo studio & graphics/DTP shop that shot 4x5 chromes, developed them in their Refrema dip & dunk, then drum scanned them. Despite being in this high-end shop, the photo "bug" didn't really bite me until May 2001.

 

But, a funny thing happened: Although I had been going to Indy as a fan for over 30 years, I never bothered to shoot it before from the grandstands, because of the fences. Getting the photo credentials changed both my perspective on open wheel racing .AND. photography; so, I leveraged the creds into a part-time job. Not wanting to spend the $3k for a dSLR, and with the magazine editor preferring film (which I developed for free in the big Refrema), I started to shoot 35mm chromes... And I was HOOKED on film!

 

Since thenI've added a Speed Graphic Pacemaker, a Crown Graphic, a complete Mamiya 645AFd set, a Horizon 202 swing-lens panorama, a couple Nikon bodies & a Fuji S2 Pro... And each camera has a specific area where it seems to work best, either producing the best image for a particular composition, or being able to "get that image NOW."

 

I generally detest cell phones; but when my 4 year old Nokia finally dies, my next one is going to have a camera in it, for quick "f/8 and be there" snapshots I would otherwise never get at all.

 

That, and getting my Jobo ATL-3 plumbed in & running again (I moved in with my fiancee in April, and my darkroom is in storage).

Background: I'm a computer consultant who runs his own servers at home..

 

I have 8 harddrives at home.

 

I bought a Nikon D70s 2 years ago the first day it came out.

 

2 years, and 60,000+ pics later.. Digital has given me the best pics of my life and the worst pics of my life. Because of the instant feedback, and histogram, my photography has become amazing. When I first started out; I thought, I have mad photoshop skillz, so I post processed. Then I found out, I couldn't keep up, so I gave up post processing.. and decided to get it right the first time (or in case of digital, the 2nd or 3rd). In fact, with digital, I can get it right "in-camera" about 99% of the time.. So the last pic I post-processed was about 30,000 pics ago..

 

I recently bought a used RB67.. because I can't stand the digital B&W's. And the Mamiya's were going for so cheap, it was a great deal!

 

So I'll be doing some portraits in B&W tomorrow.

 

I have friends that when digital came out, sold all their Hassy gear, and went digital.. My friend just told me he bought a bunch of Rollei gear again.. So don't sell right now, because the option of digital backs means later on, what you have in hand will become valuable again.

 

As for digital, I have over 80+ gig's of data, and it keeps growing.. And I only own a 6MP camera!! I can't image when I get something like 21MP, what's going to happen. Archiving and storing has become a problem now.. Just FYI..

"As for digital, I have over 80+ gig's of data, and it keeps growing.."

 

Just wait till you start scanning the 6x7's. When images weight in at 500MB each, you start becoming a bit more selective on what you keep.

For me, digital has been a blessing and a curse.

 

I marvel at some photoshop wizards, and shake my head at others who overcook.

 

Hopefully my 'Blad will arrive before the weekend. I have some pets, neighbors, and family portraits I want to photograph.

 

I'm getting back to a simpler way of life. The difference in cost is really negligible comparing film to high end digital.

 

Last week I signed up for a darkroom class at my local college. Two days a week for three hours, plus I'll spend another three after class. Have a great instructor! I like the solitude and the magic of film.

what's funny is that everyone is slowly getting over photography. Our art looks like it might become an art again soon. Hopefully. I've been talking to people who are down right more interested when I tell them I shoot film and I process at home. People who aren't photographers or in to photography more than a mild interest tell me how much better film looks than digital.

 

I dunno, I guess what I'm trying to say is that hopefully it comes full circle.

I have a D200. Like it. Shoot it alot. I will never sell off my film cameras. Yes, digital sounds so much fun and it can be .. but shooting a couple of weddings with my D200 taught me that post processing 1,000 shots is not what I call fun. I have a good lab in St. Louis, they treat my film right and dollar for dollar, considering time post processing and equipment costs .. digital is not in fact cheaper, and it is not in fact faster.

 

Consider this. You shoot 15 rolls of film at a wedding. You drop off your film and "bam" you've got it back it a few days .. or, you take as many photos as your digital media will hold .. and you spend all your free time in the next week post processing .. and I'm not into the photoshop tweaking and major workflows some photographers do, I simply take the best shot by proper exposure and composition that I can do .. apply a little sharpening and that's it. Wow digital is indeed fun .. but only when you've budgeted the post processing time .. have to agree I still look for film camera in the stores .. love medium format .. and I just got a Rollei 50-year old camera that takes wonderful 6x6 pictures .. talk about a retro-look, wow that is great .. so, in your arsenal of photo appliances I say stock at least one digital and force yourself to work some film into the mix .. I still see quality in film, especially medium format and at today's prices .. well it is a much better bargain than digital when one figures cost, time, and a very expensive and short obsolescene period .. I'm still figuring out my Nikon D200 and heck it will be replaced here shortly.

I won't sell my film cameras (3 RZ Pro II's and Sinar P), because I have a couple of clients

that still insist on film (plus I use a MF digital back!) - that means the Flextight stays too.

However after 25 years of shooting film professionally - 35mm through 8"x10" - I would

be really happy to have shot my last roll or sheet. I have had a 25 year career and a 35

year love affair with film, but I'm sorry to say that the tipping point has past for me and I

am happy to move on. As the music industry has moved to digital (albeit with a tiny niche

market in analogue devotees) so will (and has) the photography industry. I'm sure the

niche market will remain, and for a while large format B/W prints will still be the domain of

film shooters, but essentially the fat lady has finished tuning up and is already warbling

away.

 

It's not a matter of cost / profit or convenience - none of those are solid reasons to switch

if your business is based on quality - although there are certainly benefits there too. I find

that my work has benefited from digital imaging - both creatively and from an image

quality standpoint. This is borne out by the response of my clients and by the graphics

departments of the agencies that handle my work.

 

It's worth mentioning that all my film work was transparency (Velvia, Astia, Provia, EPP and

64TII) and that my output, while mostly magazine work (inc. a lot of double truck ads),

also includes extremely large prints for exhibitions.

 

I am not anti-film (still very affectionate really) and I'm sure that many people feel that it's

the way they want to express themselves creatively - more power to them. There is also

the Zen aspect of darkroom work that can't be replicated (at least not by me!) in front of a

computer screen. However, the desire to polarize the differences between film and digital

into some sort of Ford / Chevy, Windows / Macintosh nonsense is counter productive and

really says more about the poster than the state of either medium at its best.

When you start to count the cost of film it's maybe time to hang up your light meter for

good.

Digital is fabulously expensive if you get into it and you'll always want a bigger camera

with more bells.

 

On the other hand if you really fancy digital then commit wholeheartedly and sell up all the

analogue gear while others still want it.

 

I changed to digital and I am speaking from own expereince. It can be a very expensive

change indeed, but I won't go back to film now, not seriously, digital has proved to have

many advantages, but they don't necessarily outway the cost,

 

Big step, I'm glad I've made mine.