I dumped digital and now I'm all film, it's stressful (rant)

[Andrey]

I'm just typing this out into a readable essay to understand why I did what I did.

Let's start at the start.

I'm walking out from best buy with a canon's digital point and shoot with manual controls for 800 bucks. It took me just 10 days longer than return period to realize that I didn't need it. I tried getting half of it back by selling it, but no luck.

I want a DSLR, because I want to change lenses and control depth of field. Digital is cheap, because you don't waste film and convenient, because I have no patience and want to see the picture instantly.

The friendly folks at the digital forums convince me that a number of things are needed for my cheap hobby: proprietary zooms, more cards, fast primes, dedicated flashes, even more cards, a backup body, good monitor, photoshop, color calibration, more cards, new body, larger harddrive for RAW files, a backup harddrive... the list is endless.

I didn't enjoy it a bit. Post processing takes longer than wet printing and I get no tangible prints.

My photo bag is huge and I feel like a mule carrying it.

The turning point was me standing in the used section of a photo store looking throught some old glass. 8 bucks give me a half working zeiss ikon uncoupled RF, the longer shutter speeds stick and it lasts me one roll, but that's enough to get me hooked. That and unlimited chemicals at the university photo club.

I discover joys of darkroom meditation.

Then a whole world of old ugly (at the time) manual focus cameras opens up. The viewfinders larger than life, x-sync with all shutter speeds, easy focus in low light!

So I'm 100% analog right now. I dumped my digital system with all the L glass in the last month and ordered a Fed 2 with the radioactive industar.

This is what I have left:
Sekonic L508
Olympus 35 RC
Olumpus stylus epic (Mju II)
Two Yashica TLRs
One vivitar 285

Canon Ae-1 with 28, 50 and 135mm lenses

I almost sold off the FD system as well, but came along a cheap working body and decided to give it another go. Maybe I'll have better luck with my 4th FD body, we'll see.

Selling digital was scary, but I don't miss it.

BTW: If anybody wants a sigma 70-200 f/2.8 in canon mount...

 

[phenix]

I do color in digital, and B/W in analog, and found that I love more B/W because of its higher creativity level. With the film, paper, chemicals, and the darkroom I can establish a “partnership” relation (I feel good using them), which I cannot do with the computer.

Although, I’m a newcomer in B/W but not in film – until recently I was shooting only color film and had it processed by minilabs. Because I didn’t want to sell my film outfit when digital came in, I looked for a new use for it, and so I discovered the analog B/W. Now I can say for sure that B/W film I feel it, while D-color I just do it (nothing exciting, and that’s why I do it more seldom). Fortunately, I discovered B/W film and darkroom before digital, if not I would have missed this chance.

Now I have no regrets, on the contrary: I even think I’ll go analog for good (but I’ll still keep a cheap digital to use it like a Polaroid, to study the composition).

 

[David William White]

Likewise: Between 2001 and 2006 I probably spent about a thousand dollars on various second-hand film cameras, a tripod, and a second-hand strobe. My TLR was my main camera. Then I dropped $1700 for a Nikon DSLR. Gave it six months, but just couldn't make it happen -- no keepers, no prints worth framing. In 'auto' mode, focus was always hunting. Switching to manual didn't work because the viewfinders are too small and no split-screen micro-prism. Dumped it for less than half of what I payed for it. Took that and and bought a second-hand 4x5 and now everything is cool again.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The turning point was me standing in the used section of a photo store looking throught some old glass. 8 bucks give me a half working zeiss ikon uncoupled RF, the longer shutter speeds stick and it lasts me one roll, but that's enough to get me hooked.

Boy, do you realize that this old camera saved its last gasp just long enough to save another errant soul? It's moving, in a way!

Joking aside, I hope you're making the most of your newfound analog life, and make yourself at home on APUG.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... a half working zeiss ikon uncoupled RF, the longer shutter speeds stick and it lasts me one roll

Don't throw that classic out. The shutters in old Zeiss cameras respond well to a soak in lighter fluid, usually good as new again.

 

[middy]

I got out easy by trading my Nikon D50 straight up for a guitar worth $700 new.

The guitar is holding its value much better.

 

[arigram]

Shhhhhh... take a deep breath and lay back on the couch.
The world of analog is of deep reflection.
You lose yourself through the finder and there is no instant feedback to break your focus.
Then you lose yourself contemplating the image on the physical negative.
You lose yourself when printing in the dark.
And finally, when you are holding the print...

There is weight to an analog photographer's bag.
There are million of things to add to the equipment list when you use film.
But the weight disappears when you lose yourself in the process.

Ease your mind, take it slow, go in deep.
Its like a sexual experience and a religious meditation in one...

 

[bobwysiwyg]

arigram,

Well put. Started out with film and moved to digital (sort of a tech. background so it seemed natural). I still have my Nikon D100, now obsolete of course, but still useful in some situations. However, during my dalliance with digital, I always had this feeling something was missing. You nailed it on the head. Sounds almost masochistic, but I enjoy the challenge of looking at a scene, forming an image in my mind's eye and trying to achieve that throughout the process even if I couldn't see the results for days.. not always successful mind you, but...

 

[Andrey]

Don't throw that classic out. The shutters in old Zeiss cameras respond well to a soak in lighter fluid, usually good as new again.

I tried fixing it myself, that didn't go well at all.

If I see another one, I'll remember that.

 

[Paul Howell]

From a cost stand point I dont see how digital can claim to cost less than Analog. I still have my first camers I got in high school in 1965, a Speed Graphic, and a Kodak Retina IIIC Big, both still work and take good photos, I have my first SLR a Spotmatic from 1966, I would still have my Nikon F3 if had been ripped off at LAX in 2001. My D3 is 35 years old, and I got it used. My newist camera is a SA 9 paid about $400 in 2003.

Digital SD 10, need to replace with a SD 14, my SD 10 it will sell for about $300, the SD 14 is about $1400, I also need a new wide for the SD 10, around $400, need new upgrades for my computer + software, and then a new scanner. And I have ready gotten rumors about a SD 15 due out next year. Not to mention a new printer.

Totaling the cost of equipment, time and materials I figure a 8X10 digital print runs me about $4.50 in house, on R4 from a lab $8.00 to $9.00 black and white or color an analog color 8X10, in house R 4 $1.75. black and white $1.25.

 

[phenix]

In the darkroom I feel like a magician, while in front of the computer I feel like a hacker (or almost).

 

[ntenny]

In the darkroom I feel like a magician, while in front of the computer I feel like a hacker (or almost).

Very well put. That's just how I feel (and why I keep doing both).

-NT

 

[Nigel]

The OP highlights what I see as part of the decline of civilization - people are not numerate. The d*g*t*l proponents claim that taking pictures is free because there is no film. It is what might be called a false economy (as the OP found out). The difference, from an economic point of view, is the trading of fixed costs for variable costs.

 

[David William White]

Lighter fluid on sticky leaf shutters....

I tried fixing it myself, that didn't go well at all.

If I see another one, I'll remember that.

Lighter fluid evaporates, but leaves a residue. Carb cleaner (now called throttle body cleaner) is a much cleaner solvent and I've used it on two gummed up leaf shutters with spectacular results. A little off topic, but I thought I'd mention it.

 

[snegron]

The OP highlights what I see as part of the decline of civilization - people are not numerate. The d*g*t*l proponents claim that taking pictures is free because there is no film. It is what might be called a false economy (as the OP found out). The difference, from an economic point of view, is the trading of fixed costs for variable costs.

Interestingly not so in my particular case. I still use a pair of "old" Nikon D1X's and they produce good images. A little PS work takes them to a much higher level. I have gotten my mony's worth with those two D1X's. The savings I achieve are when I show my clients all the proofs on my laptop and they select the images they want for their final wedding album. No printing costs for proofs. Even if I provide them with a disk full of low resolution JPEG's, it only costs about $1.00 in material costs. When I used to shoot medium format film for weddings I would spend about $12.00 for processing and proofs for each 120 size roll of film producing 15 images with my 645. In order to show my clients two hundred proofs it used to cost me about $150.00 right off the bat! Add that to the cost of printing about 20 or 25 8"x10"'s for the final album, and the cost of a quality album with sleeves, I was looking at about $400.00 in materials alone! If you factor in the higher prices charged now for digital albums and the lower costs for materials, digital does make you more profit and the equipment pays for itself after a couple of weddings (provided you buy good DSLR's and not smaller consumer models). If film were more profitable than digital, there wouldn't be so many pros that have gone digital!

However...................I really enjoy shooting film for my personal stuff. If I plan to hang it on my wall at home I will shoot it with film. Film is fun. It produces high quality images. It is a satisfying experience to use old cameras. I don't mind lugging around my seven pound Mamiya RB67 with CDS prism on a tripod (yes, I still have a few Mamiya 645's, but I enjoy using "the beast" so much more) to get shots that inspire me. I shoot film because I like to shoot film. For me, digital is for work, film is for my inspiration and personal enjoyment. Digital pays my bills, film feeds my mojo.

 

[Andrey]

This is the kind of advice that made me get digital in the first place.

It sounds really nice - I can flood the world with images and it wouldn't cost me a penny. Save for depreciation of multithousand dollar equipment.

Interestingly not so in my particular case. I still use a pair of "old" Nikon D1X's and they produce good images. A little PS work takes them to a much higher level. I have gotten my mony's worth with those two D1X's. The savings I achieve are when I show my clients all the proofs on my laptop and they select the images they want for their final wedding album. No printing costs for proofs. Even if I provide them with a disk full of low resolution JPEG's, it only costs about $1.00 in material costs. When I used to shoot medium format film for weddings I would spend about $12.00 for processing and proofs for each 120 size roll of film producing 15 images with my 645. In order to show my clients two hundred proofs it used to cost me about $150.00 right off the bat! Add that to the cost of printing about 20 or 25 8"x10"'s for the final album, and the cost of a quality album with sleeves, I was looking at about $400.00 in materials alone! If you factor in the higher prices charged now for digital albums and the lower costs for materials, digital does make you more profit and the equipment pays for itself after a couple of weddings (provided you buy good DSLR's and not smaller consumer models). If film were more profitable than digital, there wouldn't be so many pros that have gone digital!

 

[walter23]

Just wait till you try large format.

 

[snegron]

:rolleyes:

This is the kind of advice that made me get digital in the first place.

It sounds really nice - I can flood the world with images and it wouldn't cost me a penny. Save for depreciation of multithousand dollar equipment.

Pick your poison, either spend thousands on "depreciation" of multithousand dollar equipment, or spend thousands on film devoloping processing.

p.s. It's a good thing that film equipment never depreciates! Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, look how much medium format and pro 35mm film equipment has dropped (common word for "depreciated") in the past 5 years! :rolleyes:

The same theory applies to any medium you choose. If your style is "spray and pray" (meaning shooting countless thousands of images and hope to get a few keepers from the bunch), you can do this with digital, 35mm, and even with 120 film (providing you master the art of loading film inserts and have a dozen or so ready). Just because you don't have to print out every image you shoot with digitial doesbn't mean that you won't spend the time in Photoshop converting or selecting the images you plan to use.

I'll break it down even further: With my D200 I get 60 images on a 1gb card shooting in uncompressed RAW (or NEF as Nikon calls it). I load these images onto my computer and view them all at the same time in what looks like a contact sheet (thumbnails). I see one that I like, I print it, no waste. I format the card and use it all over again.

With film I would have had to get the roll processed and printed as either a contact print or as individual prints (proofs). That roll of film that was developed is lost for eternity during processing. It can't be reused. So, a roll of film (aproximately $4.00), developing the negative (about $4.00), and printing either a proof page ($7.00) or prints (about .35 each) will end up costing me about $15.00 per roll (including film, processing, and final proof). AND my film equipment depreciates at the same rate everytime I shoot a roll of film with it as does with a DSLR.

In addition, when the lab develops my negatives they print them "as is" or as I shot them straight out of the camera. If I underexposed it will show in the prints. When I do the whole digital PS work myself, I have control (not some kid in a lab) over the images that I get for proofs.

Final verdict is that digital currently makes much more sense for business because you do save a ton of money in developing processing and you have much moree control throughout the entire stage from snapping the picture to delivering the final print.

I don't want to get flamed for starting a digital vs, film debate. That is not the message behind my response. Both mediums have their assets and weaknesses. We need to accept the fact that both mediums are not going away, one is not 100% better than the other, and there are pros who use both mediums successfully.

I really think that the whole "digigital bashing" attitude here stinks sometimes. On many other forums people have learned to co-exist with both film and digital without the bashing or snobbery. If we wish to keep film alive we need to be more accepting of people who use both digital and film, especially be a bit nicer to younger folks who have only known digital but are willing to experiment with film.

 

[DanielOB]

Andrey
"The friendly folks at the digital forums convince me that a number of things are needed for my cheap hobby:
more cards,
dedicated flashes,
even more cards,
a backup body,
good monitor,
photoshop,
color calibration,
more cards,
new body,
larger harddrive for RAW files,
a backup harddrive...
the list is endless."

eeeeee jof, my stomack is shaking. No one single point for photography

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

ps.
Andrew
"It sounds really nice - I can flood the world with images..."

oops. One friend of mine went on vacation and returned with around 5000 images. Not having time to review every one he just simple damped all.

This is by the way good advice to you: if you can make one good picture a day you have more chance to flood the world with images.

 

[Andrey]

Pick your poison, either spend thousands on "depreciation" of multithousand dollar equipment, or spend thousands on film devoloping processing.

p.s. It's a good thing that film equipment never depreciates! Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, look how much medium format and pro 35mm film equipment has dropped (common word for "depreciated") in the past 5 years! :rolleyes:

How much do you think a hassy will depreciate if I pick it up for 800 bucks?

How much will my yashica depreciate? I got it for free.
Canonet I got for 20 bucks
Stylus epic I got for 30 bucks
For 150 bucks I picked up a 28, 50 and 135mm in canon FD
Or my FED2, delivered for 40 bucks from europe

The second I walked out with a DSLR out of the store, I lost more to depreciation than my whole film eqipment was worth.

If you pick and choose, film can be very cheap.

I'll break it down even further: With my D200 I get 60 images on a 1gb card shooting in uncompressed RAW (or NEF as Nikon calls it). I load these images onto my computer and view them all at the same time in what looks like a contact sheet (thumbnails). I see one that I like, I print it, no waste. I format the card and use it all over again.

Do you backup your images? Do you have a second HDD? Those things cost money.

With film I would have had to get the roll processed and printed as either a contact print or as individual prints (proofs). That roll of film that was developed is lost for eternity during processing. It can't be reused. So, a roll of film (aproximately $4.00), developing the negative (about $4.00), and printing either a proof page ($7.00) or prints (about .35 each) will end up costing me about $15.00 per roll (including film, processing, and final proof). AND my film equipment depreciates at the same rate everytime I shoot a roll of film with it as does with a DSLR.

I buy 100 feet of roll film for 23 bucks and process myself. There's also kodak gold to be printed at costco - four bucks with prints.

In addition, when the lab develops my negatives they print them "as is" or as I shot them straight out of the camera. If I underexposed it will show in the prints. When I do the whole digital PS work myself, I have control (not some kid in a lab) over the images that I get for proofs.

I don't underexpose.

Final verdict is that digital currently makes much more sense for business because you do save a ton of money in developing processing and you have much moree control throughout the entire stage from snapping the picture to delivering the final print.

You don't have more control, because you don't have as much dynamic range as with digital.

And I don't want to do it for BUSINESS. I do it for myself.

I don't want to get flamed for starting a digital vs, film debate. That is not the message behind my response. Both mediums have their assets and weaknesses. We need to accept the fact that both mediums are not going away, one is not 100% better than the other, and there are pros who use both mediums successfully.

I really think that the whole "digigital bashing" attitude here stinks sometimes. On many other forums people have learned to co-exist with both film and digital without the bashing or snobbery. If we wish to keep film alive we need to be more accepting of people who use both digital and film, especially be a bit nicer to younger folks who have only known digital but are willing to experiment with film.

My point was that I tried both, and for me film is much less expensive and more enjoyable.

In terms of the attitude, you get ANTI-film guys with their rebels as only camera screaming that digital is all that. They never tried anything else and there's at least one moron per thread on digital boards that'll ask: "what's film? What's that? Never heard of it"

 

[snegron]

Andrey,

How much did those used cameras cost when new? You purchased used film cameras that had depreciated at the same rate any digital product would have! If you don't believe me, go out and buy a brand new Hassleblad (I think they are only producing the autofocus models now) with 80mm standard lens, prism finder, and 120/220 back. It will set you back at least $7000.00 or $8000.00. Try selling that same outfit next year and see how much it will have depreciated. Whenever you buy anything new, it will depreciate whether it be film equipment, digital equipment, etc. Why not buy a used DSLR? You can get a great deal on D1X's right now and it is a fantastic camera.

As for backing up my equipment, all I do is back everything up on a few DVD's and store them in different locations. No problems so far. Takes up less space than the boxes of negatives and slides I had!

For clients I only deliver the best possible quality. COSTCO is great for personal stuff and fun shooting, but I would always use pro labs to ensure consistant quality. Also, when I shot film for clients I used 120 film which had to get developed in pro labs.

For wedding photography it is almost next to impossible not to underexpose indoor shots, especially since the lighting inside churches and reception areas is bad. Yes, I could mount several strobes with umbrellas to light everything up, but that would be impractical. I would have to either make sure that the bride and groom always stay within my lighting setup or I would have to move all my strobes to wherever they go. Again, very impractical. Advantage with shooting RAW with a D1X and Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 AF-S lens is that I can underexpose a couple of stops and bring them back up in PS without significant image quality loss. This little "trick" can't be successfully accomplished with every DSLR, but that is one of the reasons the D!X is more expensive than most prosumer models. I can fix or enhance any image I take with my DSLR's much more so than any lab can do with film. Have you ever gotten any underexposed prints from film back from the lab? Good luck trying to get them fixed!

I too have tried both and I still use both. Only that digital is my moneymaker while film is what I do for fun. I refuse to take an extreme attitude and dump all of my digital equipment or all of my film equipment just because I have to choose sides. As far as the "attitude" goes, I do see more of elitest responses with people who use only film eqipment. It seems that many are always looking down at digital users because digital is "not real photography" or "digital cameras are plastic toys" (my D1X's are solid metal by the way). I say we need to get over it already and be happy that we live in an era when both mediums are available.

 

[Removed Account]

The friendly folks at the digital forums convince me that a number of things are needed for my cheap hobby: proprietary zooms, more cards, fast primes, dedicated flashes, even more cards, a backup body, good monitor, photoshop, color calibration, more cards, new body, larger harddrive for RAW files, a backup harddrive... the list is endless.

I think I've done a damn good job of convincing myself, let alone the work others have done, but since coming back to film from digital I have:

Bought a 4x5 camera
Learned I want more extension so I bought another one
Bought a slight wide angle
Needed a longer lens for portrait and still life, so bought one
Bought a bigger enlarger
Timer for said enlarger
Gralab clock
Densitometer
4x5 hangers and tanks (albeit Rubbermaid type)
8x10 hangers and tanks (just in case) with 4-up 4x5 hangers for large batches
2 different film developers
Two paper developers
Various papers
Van Dyke chemicals I have yet to use
Film holders
Oodles of film
Easel
Trays in 8x10 and 11x14 sizes (4 each size)
Sepia toner
A durst MF enlarger and boxes of stuff to pick through, most of which I will sell
Currently in the process of moving to 5x7 for larger contact prints and have the Arentz book on Pt/Pd coming on Tuesday.

I know an even larger camera will come when I can afford lenses and film for it. And God forbid I decide to do colour, then I'll need a JOBO, colour densitometer, colour analyzer, dichroic enlarger, tri-colour light meter, lens filters. Oh, I forgot I need a contact printing frame for my Van Dyke and Pt/Pd... at least a UV bulb if I don't spring for a whole exposure unit. I was also thinking about wet-plate so there's a workshop, plate holders, silver bath, developer and fixer trays, lots o' bottles, ether, collodion, silver nitrate, various bromide, chloride, and iodide salts, lavender varnish.........

*runs from the men in white coats*

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Justin, I noticed your signature line....

 

[gregrudd]

Andrey,

As for backing up my equipment, all I do is back everything up on a few DVD's and store them in different locations. No problems so far. Takes up less space than the boxes of negatives and slides I had!

I would not call a burnt DVD an archival format!! I can assure you that my employer still backs up all its archive records to film. Hell manufacturers state that burnt DVD's are only good for about 10-15 years. What will happen if your wedding customer wants a reprint in 20-30 years time? Then you are running the real risk that either the file format or disk format can no longer be read. Sorry, I the informed consumer don't want to take that risk for your convenience today. And that's why I want my wedding in a few months time to be done on film. I always like the argument that digi photographers put up that their work is worth $$$ and then I ask what are you backing your photo's up to with the response oh just a CD/DVD and my reply back is so by backing your data up to an unstable media you have just valued your work at the price of a blank cd/dvd which when I last looked was around $A 0.25-2.50 for CD/DVD. Unfortunately when people seem to shoot digi the ideas of data security and value of that data which are key concepts in enterprise computing, seem to go out the window.

 

[mark]

Bought a 4x5 camera
Learned I want more extension so I bought another one
Bought a slight wide angle
Needed a longer lens for portrait and still life, so bought one
Bought a bigger enlarger
Timer for said enlarger
Gralab clock
Densitometer
4x5 hangers and tanks (albeit Rubbermaid type)
8x10 hangers and tanks (just in case) with 4-up 4x5 hangers for large batches
2 different film developers
Two paper developers
Various papers
Van Dyke chemicals I have yet to use
Film holders
Oodles of film
Easel
Trays in 8x10 and 11x14 sizes (4 each size)
Sepia toner
A durst MF enlarger and boxes of stuff to pick through, most of which I will sell
Currently in the process of moving to 5x7 for larger contact prints and have the Arentz book on Pt/Pd coming on Tuesday.

You say this like it is a bad thing.