Adam Maas wrote:
Bob Shell wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:27 AM, frank theriault wrote:
However, every time I say how I'm more than satisfied with film, that
I like the results it produces, and that I like the process (at least
my involvement in the process - or lack of involvement as the case may
be), someone jumps in to tell me how much better digital is, and what
a luddite I am and how can I say that film is better than digital?
It's meaningless to say one is better than the other without
including the all important "for what?".
I'm working on a book project right now that will ultimately have
four hundred or more photos. I can't imagine the darkroom hours it
would take to do that with film. Well actually I can imagine it,
since I did books with lots of photos back in those days, but I
measured the time to do a book in years back then. Today publishers
want books done in months. Since the maximum repro size of any one
photo will be 4 X 6 at 300 dpi, any digital SLR would be far more
than adequate. So for this project I don't think there can be any
argument at all that digital is better.
Bob
Bob,
Once again, it depends on the subject matter. Any old Digital SLR
might not have the dynamic range of C-41, or produce the 'look' of
old-fashioned B&W film.
And with the advent of film scanners, the darkroom hours can be safely
ignored if you so choose, just scan and then it's just like using
digital output. The advantage for you on the book project is after the
capture stage. Digital post-production is far more time efficient than
darkroom work. Digital capture is somewhat more time efficient, but
not all that significantly for RAW if you've got a good workflow down
(I lose about 1/2 hour a roll by shooting film over digital).
Personally, I shoot film, print digitally, because I can't get the
look I like shooting digitally or printing in a darkroom and I enjoy
the process more. Might be lack of skill (I'm barely competent in the
darkroom), might be just that certain mediums are more suited to
producing certain results.
-Adam
I haven't been following this thread from the start, so this may be
superfluous. Have we all forgotten the chemical stink? The sloppy dishes
of developer, stop bath and fixer and the rest for colour? Never mind
how careful you are there is always spillage -- especially with a dish
20" x 24" big. The acetic acid stop bath used for B&W is nasty, the
developer and other chemicals (for colour) are carcinogenic. The
combination with stale air is almost narcotic. The dim yellow light, or
more often no light at all? Emerging after hours in this stinking
chemical dungeon into the daylight where you are forced to wear dark
glasses or see nothing. Gloves with holes that leak. Tongs that don't
grip the paper properly? Stains on your jeans, shirt, shoes, flesh.
Washing, drying or glazing? Prints that stick to the glazing sheets? Or
those that go brown on the drum because it gets far too hot when the
thermostat fails. The dust on the glass carriers in the enlarger. The
heat from the lamps. Trying to focus accurately when the light is not
bright enough because the negative is thick? Finally pouring all the
solutions back into bottles or down the drain. Cleaning the bench
vacuuming the floor trying to get rid of dust. We didn't all have fine
air-filtered and conditioned darkrooms with film drying cabinets. Or
automatic exposure controlled colour enlargers and C-41 developing
machines. Spotting prints? What a relief to no longer have to mess with
all this. This is all out of order but you'll get what I mean.
Don
--
Dr E D F Williams
www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/
personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/
41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
