Somehow, I get the feeling that some, myself included in the past, didn't ever do the darkroom part. So they just shot the film and let the lab do the remaining part of the work flow. At my lab, that is still available in digital, if you want to pay for it. Basically I can take my jpgs in just like they were film and they will correct and print them, just like film. So for them, the full digital process is much more drudgery than the film process where they let the lab do much of the work.
I found the cost of shooting film starting to add up. As prices were and are still on the rise, it became too costly to shoot film to the level I wanted to shoot. For what I do, digital works much better for me, but can understand others preferring film. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, March 26, 2006, 5:00:51 AM, you wrote: AR> On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote: >> I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and >> versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up >> photography to be tied to a computer. You might >> be able to do much more with Photoshop than a >> traditional enlarger, but where is the >> satisfaction in that? >> >> Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a >> science. Working at a craft is infinitely more >> satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun. >> Working at science is just a chore. AR> Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science. AR> And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom -- AR> it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores from AR> the computer. One is not intrinsically less "work" than the other. AR> -Aaron
