No Love affair with Digital (Thread moved)

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Many people think that digital is a big time and money saver. I think this is wrong. I work with both film and digital professionally so here is my opinion.

Digital you shoot more photos, often too much, requiring lots of hard drive space and more time editing. If you want to make ink jet prints, you will soon go down the rabbit hole of profiling and constantly rolling with and refilling clogged printers. This gets VERY expensive.

Scan and print negatives? Scanning takes a long time, requires a lot of Photoshop work to clean up, and then you have the hassles of the printers. I can walk into a darkroom and step out 30 minutes later with a silver print.

Again, I have done both extensively. Digital is definitely not the time/money saver many people imagine.

 

[Ariston]

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 I buy film either in bulk or in "just about to go out of date" condition, generally at under ten bucks a roll, sometimes under five.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

I bought a 100 foot roll of film for $40 near the beginning of the year and still haven't finished it. The computer guy wanted many times that much to recover my photos on a hard drive that failed along with its paired backup. This is, of course, a special instance of high digital costs that does not apply to everyone.

Many people think that digital is a big time and money saver. I think this is wrong. I work with both film and digital professionally so here is my opinion.

Digital you shoot more photos, often too much, requiring lots of hard drive space and more time editing. If you want to make ink jet prints, you will soon go down the rabbit hole of profiling and constantly rolling with and refilling clogged printers. This gets VERY expensive.

Scan and print negatives? Scanning takes a long time, requires a lot of Photoshop work to clean up, and then you have the hassles of the printers. I can walk into a darkroom and step out 30 minutes later with a silver print.

Again, I have done both extensively. Digital is definitely not the time/money saver many people imagine.

I think this is forgotten A LOT! Time is money (big time)! When I was rattling off photos, hundreds at a time, it took so long to cull through them. I think the digital photographer who can show restraint fares much better in this regard than I ever did! I have never been a professional photographer, and I HATED sifting through all my lousy "spray and pray" shots. That was all my own fault, of course! Going back to film has taught me a lot; much of what I've learned can be used even when shooting digital.

 

[Alan Gales]

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!

Whenever people tell me that digital is cheap, I ask them to buy me a Phase One back.

 

[wyofilm]

The computer guy wanted many times that much to recover my photos on a hard drive that failed along with its paired backup. This is, of course, a special instance of high digital costs that does not apply to everyone.

If it hasn't happened yet, it will happen. Other problems are compatibility problems, companies abandoning software (yes, I'm talking to you Apple), and the eternally frustrating automatic updates.

 

[guangong]

I avoid the zillion digital pics by shooting digital the same way I shoot film. I use digital capture and digital video for certain projects, but there are pitfalls when using digital. Batteries dying at the wrong moment. Electronic failures without warning. While using her Nikon digital, my wife suddenly got message on camera screen “Meter inoperative. Must be serviced by Nikon service”. A defective SD card only shows itself when trying to retrieve pictures.
I use digital when going abroad only because film can sometimes be a hassle with security.
With film, I can use the computer in my head, which is not battery dependent. Any botching of film I am fully capable of doing myself, without digital assistance.
I have been using computers since shortly after Sputnik. That computer occupied a good sized room and ran on vacuum tubes. One hot August day, the professor in charge not only turned the lights out for the room, but also the air conditioner...the IBM people were there for months with alligator clips. You smart phone is probably more capable.
There is also the problem of permanence. I have files (and digital pictures don’t exist as pictures in a concrete sense, but only as files) on tape and those big floppies with no simple way to retrieve them. CDs that you burn yourself are not permanent. Commercial CD music CDs or DVDs are etched, the ones you burn yourself use a dye that is venerable to fungus.
Besides, sitting at a computer is just not that much fun...especially if in addition to sitting at a computer doing work.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Many people think that digital is a big time and money saver. I think this is wrong. I work with both film and digital professionally so here is my opinion.

Digital you shoot more photos, often too much, requiring lots of hard drive space and more time editing. If you want to make ink jet prints, you will soon go down the rabbit hole of profiling and constantly rolling with and refilling clogged printers. This gets VERY expensive.

Scan and print negatives? Scanning takes a long time, requires a lot of Photoshop work to clean up, and then you have the hassles of the printers. I can walk into a darkroom and step out 30 minutes later with a silver print.

Again, I have done both extensively. Digital is definitely not the time/money saver many people imagine.

Once photo is computerized it could be printed way faster than your 30 minutes. You'll need 30 minutes every time you'll need another copy. Isn't it?
I print inkjet and darkroom, also scan. If you charge two hundred backs per silver print then film might be not as expensive as digital, inkjet.
The digital is clean winner, it is proven by many, no most switched from film to digital, on time, expenses and as result in convenience for many of us.

And somehow I and many don't shot more photos on digital. Even if we have to we look and delete something we don't need. No big deal.

All I need to do to prevent my inkjet from clogs is to print a little print once every three days. And use trusted (but not expensive) inks provider.
My best shop for prints from scans is using one printer other years. To cover schools and else prints.

You might be on our own calculations; but here is no Apug anymore, only film forum become nor sustainable.
And don’t tell regular mom with dslr how film is less expensive. We have ditched film for family photos once decent digital cameras became available, to skip paying money for so called professionals.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sounds like you are my father age. He was in the team which took Sputnik on the orbit. But they didn’t used computers.
At the end of his long career in rocket science his recalculated by computers and his knowledge modified turbines went to the space in rockets engines.
But he is just not computer savvy now.
Nor darkroom is fan for me anymore.
We purchased made in Japan Canon DSLR with quality memory card. In 2009.
As of now after 100K pictures taken with it for many days and different users for different reasons it still works on original battery. And even if something brakes in it here is Canon in next by city. Low repair costs and fast service. Choose wisely

I avoid the zillion digital pics by shooting digital the same way I shoot film. I use digital capture and digital video for certain projects, but there are pitfalls when using digital. Batteries dying at the wrong moment. Electronic failures without warning. While using her Nikon digital, my wife suddenly got message on camera screen “Meter inoperative. Must be serviced by Nikon service”. A defective SD card only shows itself when trying to retrieve pictures.
I use digital when going abroad only because film can sometimes be a hassle with security.
With film, I can use the computer in my head, which is not battery dependent. Any botching of film I am fully capable of doing myself, without digital assistance.
I have been using computers since shortly after Sputnik. That computer occupied a good sized room and ran on vacuum tubes. One hot August day, the professor in charge not only turned the lights out for the room, but also the air conditioner...the IBM people were there for months with alligator clips. You smart phone is probably more capable.
There is also the problem of permanence. I have files (and digital pictures don’t exist as pictures in a concrete sense, but only as files) on tape and those big floppies with no simple way to retrieve them. CDs that you burn yourself are not permanent. Commercial CD music CDs or DVDs are etched, the ones you burn yourself use a dye that is venerable to fungus.
Besides, sitting at a computer is just not that much fun...especially if in addition to sitting at a computer doing work.

 

[removed account4]

not sure why people make some sort of religion out of making photographs. thing to do is do what you like, and like what you are doing
and realize what someone else does and likes is just a personal preference. plenty of reasons to use either mode .. and sometimes both can be
a royal PITA and a lot of fun..

 

[Luckless]

Many people think that digital is a big time and money saver. I think this is wrong. I work with both film and digital professionally so here is my opinion.

Digital you shoot more photos, often too much, requiring lots of hard drive space and more time editing. If you want to make ink jet prints, you will soon go down the rabbit hole of profiling and constantly rolling with and refilling clogged printers. This gets VERY expensive.

Scan and print negatives? Scanning takes a long time, requires a lot of Photoshop work to clean up, and then you have the hassles of the printers. I can walk into a darkroom and step out 30 minutes later with a silver print.

Again, I have done both extensively. Digital is definitely not the time/money saver many people imagine.

Time issues really comes down to how effectively one can setup their workflow, and how much time is saved or lost in film vs digital is going to be highly dependent on who is doing it, what exactly they're doing, and what they've so far invested in their processing and workflow.

My fully analog film and paper workflow is woefully slow -
Clean out the bathroom,
pull film gear out of its storage cabinet,
mix chemistry,
load development tanks,
measure out chemistry,
stand there developing,
hang film to dry,
pack film gear away,
put bathroom back together so my girlfriend doesn't get mad at me,
sort negatives into storage sleeves and do catalog entries,
clean out the bathroom again,
pull film gear out of its storage cabinet again,
set up extra gear for printing,
mix and measure chemistry as needed,
test print, try to decide if I'm happy with it,
fiddle with more test prints [maybe have to pack up and call it a day before I have a print I'm happy with...]


Digital workflow:
connect all memory cards, write project's global keywords, select base preset, and begin import,
Go make tea,
Come back, and begin culling and flagging.
Run through flagged images and apply ratings.
From top rated images, crop and quickly clean up as needed.
[Run through project and make call on involved images - Re-rate as needed for project's needs]
Finalize selections, and send to printer's...

My photo workstation also gets reused for other things in my life: Work, gaming, just watching videos, etc. If you don't use it for anything but photography, then a decent workstation that allows quick culling and editing is an awkwardly high cost, but it becomes far more justifiable if you can spread that cost over more of your overall life. Not sure what I could do to get double duty out of my darkroom film setup... [I still haven't picked up an enlarger, but I would hope I don't end up hanging clothes on it or something. May I could use it and explore semi-conductor fabrication?...]

I've not only managed to cull and sort thousands of images from a tournament in less time than I would often require to make a half dozen pure darkroom prints, but I've even put written and put together basic commemorative photo books for my team. [However I will admit to the ease of outsourcing final printing being a bit of a cheat... But being able to do that with confidence, and not risk an original negative being lost, is kind of a sweet perk of digital.]

Different mindsets, different goals, and a host of other things are going to impact one's cost. There is no one-size-fits-all rule here.

For me, digital comes out as cheaper for both time and money, and yet it is the option I pick the least often...

 

[logan2z]

Besides, sitting at a computer is just not that much fun...especially if in addition to sitting at a computer doing work.

That's essentially why I abandoned digital photography. As a software engineer by day, I spend many hours in front of the computer. That's the last thing I feel like doing more of in my leisure time. The film workflow is much more enjoyable to me. I also prefer the look of analog prints and the process of making those prints in the darkroom so it's a win-win for me.

 

[Alan Gales]

not sure why people make some sort of religion out of making photographs. thing to do is do what you like, and like what you are doing
and realize what someone else does and likes is just a personal preference. plenty of reasons to use either mode .. and sometimes both can be
a royal PITA and a lot of fun..

Amen, brother. Can we get a hallelujah?

 

[Paul Howell]

In my case I've had most of my film gear for many years. I still have my first 35mm a Retina IIIC big, I got it 53 years ago, Spotmatic and lens, I've had my enlarger for close to 30 years. I have LF, MF and 35mm gear, although lost my Nikon gear when I forced to put it in check luggage after 911 I've replace it with Minolta. To replace all my gear with digital, need to upgrade my Sony gear to A9II, add a few more lens, get a Pentax 645 digital system, upgrade my computer, my current PC is a bottom feeder, buy plug in Apps, get 2 new 11X17 printers, one for color one with black and white ink kit. I do shoot digital, Sony, Sigma, and Pentax, but my preference is for film. I enjoy mixing chemistry, experimenting with different developer and film combo. I like printing, after a 1/2 Century in the dark room I do print faster than I can manipulate an image. And I tend to overshoot Digital, when shooting film maybe 2 rolls of 35m a roll or 2 of MF, 10 to 12 sheets of 4X5, 200 to 300 hundred digital images that need to sorted and edited.

In terms of quality, digital full frame and medium digital is now as good a 35mm and close to MF, still a ways to go to match 4X5, maybe a new 60MP sensor will give 4X5 a run for the money. Then beyond resolution and dynamic range there is what I can only call the look to a print made from film as opposed from a digital file.

But, if I was 40 years younger and going back into photojournalism, it would all digital

 

[Sean]

AI is likely taking over digital workflow with applications like this: https://skylum.com/luminar-4
The days of digital guys tweaking endless parameters and making presets etc are probably coming to a close. I think the future of digital photography will be more along the lines of:
-you go on site, shoot images
-get home and login
-images are there waiting for you
-select an image and the AI knows your preferences and style so offers you dozens of variations to choose from, you select your favorite, and then a couple seconds of final adjustments with some sliders
-post to Instagram
-the AI detects what photos are liked most on your social feeds and adjusts your preferences accordingly
-you sit back, watching the likes explode and revel in the dopamine flowing (ok, being a little silly there)

I do wonder how much longer before almost any effort is seen as a crushing annoyance. How far will it go? A drone follows you around snapping pics, the AI processes them and submits to your social feed, another AI ads a witty image description. Where is all of it heading?

 

[wyofilm]

I just saw a youtube video on luminar. Detects skies, faces, etc., selectively brightens or darkens or slims or adds muscles.

I'm sure it won't be long before some luminar-like program will add your image to any of the lovely scenes out there. Instant selfie without leaving the sofa. Something like, "Hey Siri, make a selfie of me in front the St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. And while your at it make me look younger, slimmer, and smarter, too."

 

[removed account4]

its all gonna end up like the talking heads song seen not seen
you're gonna have to be brave to live in the new world, imagined selfies
from a society posting selfies from a bunker

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What do you guys do with all the prints you produce, digital or analog?

 

[logan2z]

What do you guys do with all the prints you produce, digital or analog?

I don't find the time to make nearly as many prints as I'd like, but most of the ones I have made are in a print storage box. I pull them out from time to time to look at them and I've shown some at critique sessions. A handful are framed and hanging in my home. I think I have enough for my first solo exhibition when the MoMa comes calling

 

[Alan9940]

What do you guys do with all the prints you produce, digital or analog?

My story is pretty much the same as logan2z, except I have a long Ikea aluminum thing where I can hang work prints and live with 'em to see if they hold up over time.

 

[GLS]

AI is likely taking over digital workflow with applications like this: https://skylum.com/luminar-4

This site reads almost like parody. The tragedy is it's not.

 

[etn]

I avoid the zillion digital pics by shooting digital the same way I shoot film. I use digital capture and digital video for certain projects, but there are pitfalls when using digital. Batteries dying at the wrong moment. Electronic failures without warning. While using her Nikon digital, my wife suddenly got message on camera screen “Meter inoperative. Must be serviced by Nikon service”. A defective SD card only shows itself when trying to retrieve pictures.
I use digital when going abroad only because film can sometimes be a hassle with security.
With film, I can use the computer in my head, which is not battery dependent. Any botching of film I am fully capable of doing myself, without digital assistance.
I have been using computers since shortly after Sputnik. That computer occupied a good sized room and ran on vacuum tubes. One hot August day, the professor in charge not only turned the lights out for the room, but also the air conditioner...the IBM people were there for months with alligator clips. You smart phone is probably more capable.
There is also the problem of permanence. I have files (and digital pictures don’t exist as pictures in a concrete sense, but only as files) on tape and those big floppies with no simple way to retrieve them. CDs that you burn yourself are not permanent. Commercial CD music CDs or DVDs are etched, the ones you burn yourself use a dye that is venerable to fungus.
Besides, sitting at a computer is just not that much fun...especially if in addition to sitting at a computer doing work.

Many points to reflect upon here!
There are obviously many pitfalls using film too... running out of film being the #1! Hasselblad jamming (never happened to me, knock on wood), wrongly loading a roll - such as forgetting to align the arrows - (happens to me more often than I like to admit), etc. Not defending digital, but I think nothing is black or white - each has its own pros and cons.
I fully agree that sitting at a computer is no fun (I already do it 10 hours a day Monday to Friday, it's enough!) I realized that when I shoot digital, I typically load the pictures on my computer, watch them once, then forget them. I however regularly watch film pictures I took (even scanned versions on my computer, go figure)

 

[Tom Kershaw]

This site reads almost like parody. The tragedy is it's not.

Agreed. I'm not sure what some of those examples have to do with photography. Also suspicious how these AI "enhancements" are marketed as technically better by default. I realise there is a case for compositing work and manipulation, I dislike the assumption that I should want that to be involved in that all the time.

 

[Ces1um]

Film...Digital... They're just methods to get to an end result which is the photo. I like to select which to bring depending on how I'm going to be shooting that day or if I'm specifically after a certain look. If I'm in deep forest cover but also out in bright light, then digital in my mind is the way to go. The ability to adjust your iso on the fly is a real game changer. If I want an old lo-fi look then I'll grab an old film camera (like my brownie hawkeye) rather than spending hours on the computer trying to turn a sharp photo into something looking lo-fi. If I'm out in the biting cold, a mechanical 35mm camera would be my tool of choice. No batteries to die, no leds to fade out. Basically pick the right tool for the job.

 

[guangong]

The whole process, from choosing composition, setting exposure and clicking shutter to final print, is a craft. Some people enjoy it, some people don’t. Not good or bad, just different. I have a friend who enjoys making wooded pieces with complex inlaid patterns. I get mine from IKEA. We don’t process film to save money, but because we enjoy it. Get some of my best ideas watching the timer.
Using Photoshop can be quite useful. Use it myself for certain projects and use it judiciously. But many computer geeks over work their digital prints.
All is choice. In the end, you should enjoy what you are doing. If you enjoy digital capture over photography, go for it. However, for some purposes, such as family photos, don’t be under the illusion that you are going to leave behind a shoebox of CDs for your grandchildren to view old family pictures.
And there are situations where digital is a wise economical and practical choice. My friend photographs birds and other small critters. None of them sit still very long and there are a lot of wasted shots. Couldn’t afford to do it using color film. How the early nature photographers did it using Graflex Super D 45 reflex cameras is beyond me.

 

[perkeleellinen]

No love affair with sitting in front of a computer, that's how I'll put it. I'm a very occasional scanner for Instagram but prefer to use an ipad to photograph a print for that.

Regarding convenience - I think shooting and projecting slides is the most convenient of all: no computer or enlarger / chemistry needed. When I lived abroad with no darkroom access it was projection that I chose over photoshop.

 

[StepheKoontz]

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.

I found the same and will go one step further, the prints I get from B&W film in my B&W darkroom have a look that I don't believe at least I can get from digital printing, and I'm just now going back to film/DR from shooting digital/LR only for over a decade.

I also find more joy shooting with late 1950's/early 1960's vintage mechanical film cameras, I know that's simply a personal thing.