The premise of the question is flawed. It occurs to me that
1. The two things are not the same things, so comparing them is apples and oranges
2. Something is only cheaper than another thing if both things do what you want
I suggest you first decide which thing you want to do. Do you want to create real photographs or computer-generated ink drawings? Only if you consider the two things equivalent--and many do--can you compare their costs directly.
Please, not ANOTHER digital-vs-analog pissing contest.
My only point is that the status quo won't stand. A handful of new films, yes; but also a big cull of E6 emulsions, b&w papers, C-41 materials, lost pro labs(decimation of reasonably good cheap 35mm dev/print services, too), scarce E6 processing and higher prices/reduced availability for what's left.
Color, yes, I wonder how much longer it will be viable in a traditional home/hobby darkroom. C41 for a while no doubt, E6...well, dunno. We still have some great E6 films (with E100G and Provia 400 I could be set) but the selection is definitely limited and narrowing.
But with black and white...honestly I believe I have more and sometimes better choices now than I did when I was last printing in 1998-99. Some are gone, sure, but there's a really big selection of papers and a more than adequate selection of film. I miss Agfapan 100, but while I really liked the film it's not like there was anything I'd photograph with it that I can't do really just as well with FP4+, TMX, Delta 100, Acros...
I think black and white, my main love in the traditional darkroom, will have a long future.
I already mourn the loss of type R paper and the pricing of Ilfochrome into the stratosphere though.
I agree: "C41 for a while no doubt, E6...well, dunno. "
I would like to see C41 and black & white home processing continue. And I think that black & white traditional darkroom will have a long life.
E6 seemed to start a downslide before digital came on the market. Was it because Kodak et al saw it as a cheap one shot processing with no continued commerical follow on for each roll, and therefore started raising the film and processing prices to high levels? I do not know.
I used to shoot a lot of slides when I travelled, but when the children came I reluctantly switched to color prints for ease of duplication. Somehow, showing slides fell out of favor and became a source of humor and ridicule. Was that it? I still appreciate the dynamics and impact of slides, but it does not meet my needs now.
And yes, I have processed slides at home with E4.
Steve
Let me elaborate a little on my analog cost figures. I bought an entire bathroom setup that will do 8x10 for 35mm and 6x6, color or B&W for $80. $500 for a Mamiya C33 with 4 lenses and padded, sledgehammer-proof case. Another $75 for filters for both the MF and 35mm. Darkroom lessons this fall will cost $285.
New PC and monitor, printer, photoshop, calibration software and hardware, full-frame digital camera plus new lenses - I figured $4000. My guy at the camera shop, who knows more about photography than just about anybody else I know, told me it would be more like $8000.
I will be buying my wife a new digital camera this weekend, so no, this isn't a digital/analog pissing contest. It is a realistic accounting of the facts I found in my search. For a low volume hobbyist like me and, it appears, like the OP the balance is clearly on the side of film.
Let me elaborate a little on my analog cost figures. I bought an entire bathroom setup that will do 8x10 for 35mm and 6x6, color or B&W for $80. $500 for a Mamiya C33 with 4 lenses and padded, sledgehammer-proof case. Another $75 for filters for both the MF and 35mm. Darkroom lessons this fall will cost $285.
New PC and monitor, printer, photoshop, calibration software and hardware, full-frame digital camera plus new lenses - I figured $4000. My guy at the camera shop, who knows more about photography than just about anybody else I know, told me it would be more like $8000.
I will be buying my wife a new digital camera this weekend, so no, this isn't a digital/analog pissing contest. It is a realistic accounting of the facts I found in my search. For a low volume hobbyist like me and, it appears, like the OP the balance is clearly on the side of film.
And I can now find an image in no time, vs hunting through tons on envelopes.
I have a filing system which allows me to locate prints and negatives quickly and it does not require a computer to use it. I can still pull photographs and slides from the early 1960's on in a very short time.
Others have posted their filing systems on APUG, and many of those are even faster and better than mine. Now if you toss the envelopes in a drawer or box without have a decent filing systems, when then yes you will have to "[hunt] through tons on envelopes".
Steve
I have a filing system which allows me to locate prints and negatives quickly and it does not require a computer to use it. I can still pull photographs and slides from the early 1960's on in a very short time.
Others have posted their filing systems on APUG, and many of those are even faster and better than mine. Now if you toss the envelopes in a drawer or box without have a decent filing systems, when then yes you will have to "[hunt] through tons on envelopes".
Steve
My negatives are filed autobiographically.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?