No Love affair with Digital (Thread moved)

[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!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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!

Digital has a steep learning curve, but once you've familiar with Photoshop, you can take your photography to a new level.

 

[James Bleifus]

I’ve been bouncing between digital and analog during my travels this past year. My head wanted digital because of its ease and my heart wanted analog for every other reason. Finally, my mentor offered the perfect answer: you have to find pleasure in the process. I found no joy in digital, and I hate the cameras. Others love digital, and that’s fine.

I’m busy building out my Mamiya kit so that I know I have enough good gear to last the rest of my life and travels.

 

[removed account4]

Rather than be drastic why not get a used clunker (or use your phone ) to fiddle around with, and use it as a companion for a while. get LR and get your bearings. its not much different than a DR other than there are no fumes to clutter your mind. people going from digi to film say the same sorts of thing that you have said going from film to digi, things take time to get used to and as long as you open yourself up it, you might find you don't mind the cameras or the process.

 

[James Bleifus]

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

 

[TMcG1959]

Some very nice comments. I was on the verge of buying either the Canon 800D or Sony RX100 V but I get just as much fun snapping from the camera on my Galaxy J6 that I couldn't bring myself to do it. I think I will go shooting with the 3,5f Rolleiflex and bring the camera phone along for the ride.

 

[removed account4]

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

hi james
i know where you are coming from. i guess my being held hostage for nearly 20 years and not having the luxory of making silver prints every day has made me realize that at least for me the DR and LR are close enough to be kissing cousins. you're right they are different, but i'd rather embrace their similarities because if you can adjust the contrast and do a little burning and dodging that is usually all that's needed with a photograph anyways. im not going to get into the whole debate whether a digital image is really a photograph since the index chain is broken and it isn't a direct result of a chemical reaction because to me at least none of that really matters, its about making stuff and as you so eloquently said being lost in the process.
you probably would realize how much i disliked and resented the whole numeric thing before my ordeal, but now .. whatever.. 6 of one a baker's dozen of the other and all that.
have fun with your phone it might work as a bridge between you and your rollei.

john
ps making a 8x10 PT print from a telephone file is the cat's meow !

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Film vs digital, eye!
If you take one roll and expose it once in a while you don’t need digital. If you need more than this, digital is convenient.

 

[campy51]

Lately I have been shooting more black and white film only because I can't seem to get the same look with my digital. I know it's probably my lack of processing skills but I think film has a different look when scanned and printed.

 

[Ariston]

I read this somewhere:

No one ever said, “I wish I could get that digital look in my photos!”

But seriously, I use both. One for work and chasing kids, and one for fun. John’s suggestion of using a phone is good. Or you can get a professional quality used digital camera for cheap, as long as you don’t need to be able to print on the side of buildings, or have WiFi built-in that can communicate with the ISS. I found my D300 for less than $50, and it’s better than I am.

 

[kminov]

Digital looks flat to me. Only use my v30 for quick snapshots, find it more than enough.

 

[alentine]

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.

 

[macfred]

I have a D2 and a worn-out D200 - the lady of the house owns a D300 - I used mine for an ebay selling at last ...

 

[wyofilm]

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 would disagree with much above, but I point you to your signature quote by AA for one major pitfall to many things digital.

 

[Ariston]

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.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've found that film and digital each have their advantages and disadvantages. Each have their own learning curve. Some prefer one over the other for various reasons or situations. I enjoy both.

As always, shoot what you like.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

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.

 

[Alan9940]

I used mostly digital for 10 years, but returned to film because I prefer the look of printed film images and the entire process of crafting them (I work mostly in the wet darkroom.) I still use digital for "happy snaps", but that's about it. I always chuckle to myself when I read or see videos where the folks are expounding the virtues of digital because it doesn't cost anything. Hmm, what about those thousands of $$$ I spent on digital hardware, computer hardware, software, printers, calibration devices, etc, etc? Funny how my 40 year old Beseler 4x5 enlarger still makes beautiful prints today!

 

[AndyH]

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

 

[jim10219]

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

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.

 

[Ariston]

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.

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.

I simply disagree that digital is always cheaper. It may be for some, maybe not for others.

The nice thing is that everyone can choose for himself, regardless!

 

[cdowell]

I remember the days when this conversation would have been a fire starter. Now, nice and polite. That's progress. My ideal workflow when is film negative and digital scan into Photoshop. I love film cameras and the fun of waiting to see what you got on your negatives (always so hopeful...).

Those who say darkroom prints are better than Epson prints never saw MY darkroom prints. Printing is a field of fine art that requires real dedication to master.

I went to a show at the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke years ago where they had scanned old Walker Evans negatives and made prints the size of Texas. There was lots of interesting stuff in the previously unseen (or under seen) shadow areas. It was kind of a revelation.

But on the other hand, I can remember wanting to crawl into the charcoal grain of 16x20s hand-printed by Eugene Smith. Amazing. So if I could print like Smith (not to mention shoot like Smith) I'd definitely do that. Also saw AA prints at the NC Museum of Art in 2001 or so. They were pretty good, too...

 

[wyofilm]

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 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.

 

[alentine]

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!

Hello TMcG1959,
Made the decision long time ago.
Tried to take digital experience to its limits for a year or two.
But, at the end, could not honestly feel that I'm the only player behind my photos.
Something that is not visualization based, related or applied, in the computer, makes all actions related to photos on behalf of me, in easy and fast way. Just could not feel it's me, if I wish to continue honest at least with my self.
Some people who earn money from digital on daily bases, know that very well, and use photography(not digital photography) to make their own art on film.
I think being honest with self may lead to the same result as yours, or at least calling it digital like painters do when computer generated, with full respect to all forms of arts and practice.
As a daily job or for assignments, nothing like digital. It's far superior in every way. Horses for courses.
Of course, everybody is free to make his own choices, and every choice has its cons and pros.
Thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[AndyH]

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.

I do think it's possible to control those costs. I buy film either in bulk or in "just about to go out of date" condition, generally at under ten bucks a roll, sometimes under five. My digital setup is complete; I'm not going to spend any money on bodies or lenses unless something breaks or there is a HUGE upgrade in capabilities. The film chemistry isn't too expensive, again bulk purchasing and eBay are your friends. The only capital I have to invest in is a decent scanner, and they're pretty cheap right now.

I can do small prints at home on my HP, or at WalMart for that matter, but for larger wall prints, I'm going to be going to either Costco or a local or online shop because I don't do that many and the capital investment required is large. So I'm not really complaining - I think I can keep this expense more or less under control after I get a decent scanner.

Andy