Digital has a steep learning curve, but once you've familiar with Photoshop, you can take your photography to a new level.I decided 6months ago that I needed to make the move from Rolleiflex shooting to digital for reasons of convenience, cost and curiosity. After reading all the reviews and handling a lot of new cameras I find that its shameful that my beautiful Rolleiflex 3,5f may be placed in retirement. However, I have found nothing to replace it - nothing can!
Rather t its not much different than a DR other than there are no fumes to clutter your mind.
I think that the experience between the darkroom and computer are very different, in both positive and negative ways. Brooks Jensen has written about how he could find the time to spend with his family AND work in the darkroom. So the digital experience allowed him to continue with photography. The digital darkroom lets people quit in the middle of editing their photo, do something else (like read a bedtime story to your child), and then come back and work on the image. That’s much harder in the wet darkroom. In other posts I believe I’ve read that Ralph had some physical problems that forced his transition to digital. So it sounds like digital allowed him to continue with photography, and from the post above it sounds like he’s embraced it.
And forgoing a physical darkroom, and the complications that entails, is huge. Had I not settled down I would have had to stick with digital because I would have needed the flexibility.
But in the end, you’re still sitting at your computer, and I’ve never felt time stop when I’m on the computer. I have in the wet darkroom. I was printing for hours yesterday and didn’t know how much time had passed and didn’t care. That’s an experience that I love, and one of the things I value about making art. I liken it to the moment in The Fast and the Furious where Dom talks about forgetting everything else in the world for those few moments when he’s racing. Perhaps others have that experience of getting lost in the process of the digital darkroom and I just haven’t met them yet.
Your suggestion of using a phone camera is a great one.
Cheers, James
Hello Ralph,Digital has a steep learning curve, but once you've familiar with Photoshop, you can take your photography to a new level.
Hello Ralph,
Digital technology in any field of activitiy, has been invented to do three main jobs:
1. Time; digital anything consumes much less time.
Also; digital anything is not manpower demanding.
2. Cost; digital anything is less cost.
3. Easiness, digital anything is not operator dependent in its main, major and important part.
Why when it came to digital photo imaging, it need steep learning curve!?
Digital photography is just a section from digital technology that has been used in manufacturing, communications, commerce, agriculture, etc ...
People who used to take photos since year 1900 to 2000, has been doubled or maybe tripled in just a few years after 2000 !
During 2017 only, total number of photos taken, were more than the number of photos taken during the preceding 100 years !
It's awesome technology and should appreciate its owner friendliness.
I wonder if you are including the man hours, cost, and complexity of developing and updating software like Lightroom and Photoshop. Adobe is a BIG company. You can't have the digital technology without all the time, cost, and effort involved in the software development.Hello Ralph,
Digital technology in any field of activitiy, has been invented to do three main jobs:
1. Time; digital anything consumes much less time.
Also; digital anything is not manpower demanding.
2. Cost; digital anything is less cost.
3. Easiness, digital anything is not operator dependent in its main, major and important part.
Why when it came to digital photo imaging, it need steep learning curve!?
Digital photography is just a section from digital technology that has been used in manufacturing, communications, commerce, agriculture, etc ...
People who used to take photos since year 1900 to 2000, has been doubled or maybe tripled in just a few years after 2000 !
During 2017 only, total number of photos taken, were more than the number of photos taken during the preceding 100 years !
It's awesome technology and should appreciate its owner friendliness.
I wonder if you are including the man hours, cost, and complexity of developing and updating software like Lightroom and Photoshop. Adobe is a BIG company. You can't have the digital technology without all the time, cost, and effort involved in the software development.
Even on the consumer end those points are debatable. I don't think anyone ever had to pay for a subscription to their enlarger, and computers aren't cheap.
Ne neither. I use both. Sometimes I go all analog. Sometimes I go all digital. Sometimes I do a hybrid. Sometimes I start off with a digital "negative" and make a contact print on emulsion coated paper. Sometimes I start off with film, scan it, and make an inkjet print. It's all just tools. Each has it's own sets of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not romantically or financially involved with either technology. I feel no loyalty to any of it. To me, I just use whatever I think will work best for what I'm trying to do. They're tools to me. Nothing more. You grab a hammer if you to nail something or a screwdriver if you need to screw something. You don't try to turn a screw with the claw of a hammer simply because you like hammers better.Like many others, I've gone to a hybrid model. I do have digital SLR gear, but I've started shooting my old analog gear enough that I now want to go back to processing my own film and scanning the resulting negatives into Lightroom / Photoshop. While even the best ink-based prints don't seem to have quite the same depth as old silver based enlargements, I think the results are generally satisfactory and much less expensive. I've made some pretty decent photos with both film and digital systems, and I honestly don't quite understand the religious fervor that this kind of discussion often brings out in people.
Andy
I think you missed one of my posts above. I use both for different purposes. I am definitely not religious about it. At this moment I own at least four digital cameras.Lets see.
My recent digital camera and two lenses, plus adapter for more lenses costed me at least twice less as used Flex.
Film cost - zero.
If you want latest and greatest Adobe is still way less as for film and processing (even DIY).
But here is standalone versions sold legally. Under 200$. And where are alternatives to Adobe as well. Some are free.
And... here as SOOC images. Believe it or not, but with digital you could have printable files straight from camera.
No enlarger with digital, either. My permanent inks are cheap and so is printer. It works. It is simple.
Darkroom paper price, honestly once I'm out of old paper, I can't even afford it. It is five times more expensive than same size, weight inkjet paper.
And with film and darkroom it is way too much longer than with digital.
As for computer? Why it has to be special computer? It is doable on advanced laptop or regular desktop with cheap dedicated video card.
Are you saying you have no computers?
And... my knees are not OK, currently. I simply can't stand this long in the darkroom, nor I could stay (currently) this late to have something printed.
Yesterday (10 YO PC, same age LR), cheap inkjet printer. It took me twenty minutes to load photos, sort them out and print just one on 4x6. How sufficient is darkroom printing for just one 4x6. Or ten of the same at 8x10?
Sorry, but it is typical digital vs film typical talk. Some people knows both sides, but some are more kind of religious.
Ne neither. I use both. Sometimes I go all analog. Sometimes I go all digital. Sometimes I do a hybrid. Sometimes I start off with a digital "negative" and make a contact print on emulsion coated paper. Sometimes I start off with film, scan it, and make an inkjet print. It's all just tools. Each has it's own sets of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not romantically or financially involved with either technology. I feel no loyalty to any of it. To me, I just use whatever I think will work best for what I'm trying to do. They're tools to me. Nothing more. You grab a hammer if you to nail something or a screwdriver if you need to screw something. You don't try to turn a screw with the claw of a hammer simply because you like hammers better.
Hello TMcG1959,I decided 6months ago that I needed to make the move from Rolleiflex shooting to digital for reasons of convenience, cost and curiosity. After reading all the reviews and handling a lot of new cameras I find that its shameful that my beautiful Rolleiflex 3,5f may be placed in retirement. However, I have found nothing to replace it - nothing can!
Like many I work sometimes in a hybrid way. Unfortunately, this has just increased my costs! All of the digital costs, which is not insignificant along with analogue costs, which is very much not insignificant. Well, since I don't get paid for any of it, I don't have to track my costs.
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?