Why did you move from film to digital?

Paul Verizzo · Mar 8, 2019

Easy. "Free film." And instant gratification. All else is commentary.

That this thread filled six pages in a few weeks shows how volatile the very idea can still be. I got my first digicam, a used 2.2mp Olympus in 2000. Almost no one had seen one, and everyone was just blown away by the instant pics to look at. Memory, USED, cost me about $1 a megapixel. That's mega, not giga.

A number of cameras along the way, but about 2011, I went back to film for fun. I bought a nice Pentax DSLR over three years ago. Haven't used it in two. That 20mp phone camera does the trick almost all of the time, easier, handier, and more "auto" than the Pentax.

Down Under · Mar 19, 2019

Paul Verizzo said:
That this thread filled six pages in a few weeks shows how volatile the very idea can still be. I got my first digicam, a used 2.2mp Olympus in 2000. Almost no one had seen one, and everyone was just blown away by the instant pics to look at. Memory, USED, cost me about $1 a megapixel. That's mega, not giga.

Well said! This from someone who still uses a Nikon D90 (pre-Jurassic period) and two D700s (late Edwardian era) but still trots out a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord, a Contax G1 and one of several Nikkormats for occasional film shoots, I could not do other than agree more.

As many have said, it's not so much the technology but the awareness, creativity and intelligence of the photographer who is using it. I am convinced that, if the Leica had never been invented, Henri Cartier-Bresson would surely have created equally iconic images with a Box Brownie.

jtk · Mar 20, 2019

jnantz said:
I didn't say that they were tricky to make..
I said: my uncle made them;
I said they they took time to make ( time consuming ); and were complicated
( separation negatives matrix film &c ); I never said they were tricky.
I also said that people with experience making them do not corroborate your facts.

jtk · Mar 20, 2019

Just wondering....I've watched a now-defunct, but long-lived dye transfer lab making prints for advertising agencies...has anybody else here watched the process in person?

I know a couple of us have done pin registration work of various kinds as well as color separations ...but what about dye transfer?

removed account4 · Mar 20, 2019

yes a simple process, simple and easy and takes no time at all !

Down Under · Mar 21, 2019

A little nourishment for thought here. A little dated, intelligently written, very logical.

http://www.overgaard.dk/100000-exposures-later-I-a-film-shooter-in-a-digital-age.html

Check out this gentleman's web site, ideal for Leicaphiles!

jtk · Mar 21, 2019

jnantz said:
yes a simple process, simple and easy and takes no time at all !

Thanks for the Youtubes.

However, I did ask if anybody here had actually watched the process. I had that opportunity.

I've seen many dye tranfer prints...they were rarely better than Ektacolor, done properly (tho almost always better than Ciba).

Like many other crafts, dye transfer wasn't difficult once people learned the process. That's why it used to be so common in photo studios all across the country. Kodak wasn't in that business to make fine art supplies.

Making one print took more time than today's common processes but dye transfer was relatively easy for people who were mentored and equipped to do it properly. And...once they were able to make one dye transfer print to their taste, they could use the same craft to gang print thousands of school portraits.

removed account4 · Mar 22, 2019

Thanks for the Youtubes.

Did you watch them?

IDK about your claims still easy and economical makes absolutely no sense...
If you looked at the Cramer video about 1 minute in he laughs at the claim that it is economical and easy, and reitterated that it was a complicated and time consuming process, and suggested that people who want to do it should have their heads examined towards the end of the video...
perhaps in a factory setting with a massive staff making separation negatives, highlight and contrast masks and matrix sheets all day long, it is simple, economical and not time consuming.

RPC · Mar 22, 2019

jtk said:
I've seen many dye tranfer prints...they were rarely better than Ektacolor, done properly (tho almost always better than Ciba).

Then why would anyone chose them?

Photographers, being business people, would opt for the cheapest possible way. No photographer in his right mind would have chosen dye transfer for school pictures, since color negative-to-print paper would have been so much easier and cheaper, and good quality. It was the standard way, suited to high volume, unlike dye transfer. A typical school has hundreds of students, each with numerous prints of different sizes, completely unfeasible for dye transfer.

faberryman · Mar 22, 2019

I still have my school portraits. They were black and white in the late 1950s through the mid 1960s.The school package included 6-8 wallet photos, two 5x7s, and an 8x10 group photo of the class. The idea that photographers were making color dye transfer wallet prints and 5x7s during this time defies credulity. Really, dye transfer wallet prints for 600 kids in an elementary school? My color school photos beginning in the mid to late 1960s were definitely not dye transfer.

jtk · Mar 22, 2019

jtk said:
Thanks for the Youtubes.

However, I did ask if anybody here had actually watched the process. I had that opportunity.

I've seen many dye tranfer prints...they were rarely better than Ektacolor, done properly (tho almost always better than Ciba).

Like many other crafts, dye transfer wasn't difficult once people learned the process. That's why it used to be so common in photo studios all across the country. Kodak wasn't in that business to make fine art supplies.

Making one print took more time than today's common processes but dye transfer was relatively easy for people who were mentored and equipped to do it properly. And...once they were able to make one dye transfer print to their taste, they could use the same craft to gang print thousands of school portraits.

Apparently nobody here has actually done or watched the process and is aware of gang printing...

...or even aware of Technicolor, which was also dye transfer: thousands of dye transfer prints in every projection reel in every significant town.

Dye transfer was big business for Kodak until it came up with a process that was better and easier than Anscocolor. Ansco was crap, but it was beloved for its cheapness. .

removed account4 · Mar 22, 2019

jtk said:
Apparently nobody here has actually done or watched the process and is aware of gang printing...

...or even aware of Technicolor, which was also dye transfer: thousands of dye transfer prints in every projection reel in every significant town.

Dye transfer was big business for Kodak until it came up with a process that was better and easier than Anscocolor. Ansco was crap, but it was beloved for its cheapness. .

you crack me up, and forgive me for sounding harsh but ... im not sure if you actually believe the stuff you post or you are just posting it to troll everyone who responds to the things you post ...

there is a difference between "mom and pop stores" which you claimed were doing dye transfer on a regular basis
and a factory that did it all day long. and a difference between at least 6 hour set up and economical and easy.

im wondering if you will soon post a link to a website "to refute everything the videos, my uncle and people who know what they are talking about say"
and the website reiterates what others have been posting in this thread all along.... ( like in the bill brandt thread )...

jtk · Aug 18, 2019

Hope your uncle is doing well.

Ariston · Aug 18, 2019

A better question might be, when did I leave digital to go to film. Since diving back into film, my DSLRs have become extremely neglected. I use them so rarely, when I need to chase kids around, or for utilitarian purposes like eBay pics. I get so much more satisfaction and sense of PERMANENCE from film. But I am not anti-digital.

BMbikerider · Aug 18, 2019

Back in 2002 I bought my 1st digital camera (D100) after moving house and had to sell off my darkroom equipment before I actually moved. It seemed to be a wise move but that only lasted a short while and I started to get my equipment back together to print both B&W and colour I have swapped back and forward over the years but still retained my darkroom and film cameras. I am fortunate to be able to afford some quite top end equipment in both film and digital so I can have the best of both worlds. They are all from the same manufacturer so I don't have to duplicate lenses.

I use the digital side mainly to make projected digital images, simply because I have never actually been satisfied with inkjet printing and that is a way to view my photographs. I also have to use digital at work because the management always 'want it photographed yesterday'. If you get my meaning?

The film side of things is when I want to make pictures that I can hang on my house walls and when I use film I take my time about it and think before I trip the shutter. For me I get far more satisfaction from something that I have had to work to make rather than simply pressing the shutter release and letting a microchip do the work for me. So long as film and the way to process and print it remains available, I doubt if I will ever give up my darkroom.

Arklatexian · Aug 18, 2019

RPC said:
Then why would anyone chose them?

Photographers, being business people, would opt for the cheapest possible way. No photographer in his right mind would have chosen dye transfer for school pictures, since color negative-to-print paper would have been so much easier and cheaper, and good quality. It was the standard way, suited to high volume, unlike dye transfer. A typical school has hundreds of students, each with numerous prints of different sizes, completely unfeasible for dye transfer.

I'll tell you why I chose them over 50 years ago. At the time they were the best color prints that could be made from 4x5 color transparencies so I had one 11 x 14 each from two 4x5 Ektachromes. They were just what I wanted. Not long ago, I came across both prints. They look just as good as they did when I got them back from the lab that made them. None of the color-negative processes that I tried since then lasted more than a few years. Because of how long my die transfers have lasted, I would recommend that process today if it were still available. They have outlasted later color prints by decades!.....Regards!

Arklatexian · Aug 18, 2019

Arklatexian said:
I'll tell you why I chose them over 50 years ago. At the time they were the best color prints that could be made from 4x5 color transparencies so I had one 11 x 14 each from two 4x5 Ektachromes. They were just what I wanted. Not long ago, I came across both prints. They look just as good as they did when I got them back from the lab that made them. None of the color-negative processes that I tried since then lasted more than a few years. Because of how long my die transfers have lasted, I would recommend that process today if it were still available. They have outlasted later color prints by decades!.....Regards!

George Mann · Aug 19, 2019

dmr said:
Also, I think we're to the point that the image quality of the cameras I have rivals that of 35mm film.

Not even close!

George Mann · Aug 19, 2019

jvo said:
what's a scanner?

One of those digital monstrosities that they ruined photography with.

donkee · Aug 19, 2019

I use digital if I need something right away, for testing a lighting setup, or taking a photo of a new item I have added to my camera collection, projector collection, or darkroom and things like that. The vast majority of my camera work is on film since I spend a lot of time on the computer for work. I don't want to live on this thing like a lot of people do. I also barely use my "smart phone", only for calls and text messages and not much of that either. I enjoy working in the darkroom processing film and printing. Working on digital images on my computer gives me no joy whatsoever. The only things I do like on computers are cruising a couple forums and finding things that I need for a decent price.

jtk · Aug 19, 2019

Very few darkroom photographers have ever made a color negative print that rivaled what a good professional lab could have made...but many do excellent work today with inkjet pigment printers that cost far less than well set-up darkrooms (perhaps $1000...eg Canon Pro 10).

jtk · Aug 19, 2019

jtk said:
Very few darkroom photographers have ever made a color negative print that rivaled what a good professional lab could have made...but many do excellent work today with inkjet pigment printers that cost far less than well set-up darkrooms (perhaps $1000...eg Canon Pro 10).

...and yes, there is a learning curve, which is the reason so many surrender (and in truth, hardly ever made good darkroom color prints).

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2019

jtk said:
Hope your uncle is doing well.

???????

RPC · Aug 19, 2019

Arklatexian said:
I'll tell you why I chose them over 50 years ago. At the time they were the best color prints that could be made from 4x5 color transparencies so I had one 11 x 14 each from two 4x5 Ektachromes. They were just what I wanted. Not long ago, I came across both prints. They look just as good as they did when I got them back from the lab that made them. None of the color-negative processes that I tried since then lasted more than a few years. Because of how long my die transfers have lasted, I would recommend that process today if it were still available. They have outlasted later color prints by decades!.....Regards!

The discussion was not about using dye transfer per se, which can be very high quality, but using it to produce high volume school pictures which would have been totally impractical due to the complexity and expense of it, and would never have been chosen by a photographer for that purpose.

RPC · Aug 19, 2019

jtk said:
Very few darkroom photographers have ever made a color negative print that rivaled what a good professional lab could have made...but many do excellent work today with inkjet pigment printers that cost far less than well set-up darkrooms (perhaps $1000...eg Canon Pro 10).

So you have seen all the color prints darkroom workers have ever made? No. There is no reason home darkroom worker can't make as good a print as a lab. In fact, many make their own for better control to produce better prints than they would get from a lab. That is why I chose to make my own. Inkjet may give fast prints but is no better quality and Ink is quite expensive.

Why did you move from film to digital?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency