I can't agree more.
I am also getting back into film photography. It feels great because that is where my creativity lies. Digital is ok for those who want to shoot 100 pictures hoping to get one or two good ones. For me though, taking the time to set up the camera, composing the picture on a ground glass screen, using the zone system to determine exposure, etc. etc. has infinitely better results and is why I love photography so much.
There are a variety of reasons for me.
Simple camera work is probably the biggest thing for me.
My favorite films are 400 speed C-41 process films (color print and chromogenic B&W negatives). They have so much exposure latitude that I don't sweat about overexposure. This shot http://www.apug.org/forums/groups/5-...15-asis-2.html was done with am RB67 F4@400 Fuji npc160. About 3-stops overexposed compared to the sunny-F16 rule.
Mark, that photo is only viewable by members of that particular group.
I came back to analog photography from digital photography too. I fell into the digital trap too. Since starting digital photography and spending piles of money, I bought many digital camera and 4 Macintosh computers, 2 inkjet printers and various peripherals. Most of it is now E waste. It's not all bad. I built up enough skills to make a transition from being a commercial photographer to being a tech monkey at a university. The good thing is that I kept all my photo gear and my darkroom. I came back to analog photography with a fresh perspective. There's a new freedom in using my old camera and darkroom gear. There's no constant need to upgrade my gear doing analog photography. The only problem is that all the photo labs and camera stores that I patronized are mostly gone. It's very tough to get good color film processing. After shooting a roll of film, don't miss the instant gratification. I love the anticipation of processing my film and looking at fresh out of the fixer. There something real about this versus a bunch of glowing pixels off of a computer screen.
Back to the darkroom
I recently developed film for the first time in many years. I've been gathering equipment and finding my old kit for some time.
My first 2 cassettes were some Plux X of uncertain vintage. They'd been stored too warm, too long. A "reel" challenge to load on a Nikkor (sp?) stainless steel reel, the sort you load from the inside out. Yessss! The years in the attic had imparted a powerful curl!
But they let me get my chops back for loading the reels. D76 revealed faint images, enough to let me guess that the film might have been 20+ years old! I may scan them in and see if anything can be salvaged.
The next several cassettes were in-date and yielded good images. I'm trying to decide whether to scan them in to Elements 9 for cataloging and "contact" sheets, or to fire up the Paterson contact printer. My feeling us that Elements would let me tag them for easy access by subject and easily evaluate the sharpness for "real" printing in the darkroom. And save paper for enlarging.
For me, at least, black and white belongs "in the dark." I've never gotten a decent print either from digital or scanned negatives in BW from my Epson R1800. In the past I worked with a dear friend who was a wizard at color wet work, but I never got any good. So, I'll do color on the Epson and BW on the Beseler 23.
Originally Posted by guitstik
Hope this works.
it certainly can be long winded.
carbon ritual .....
1 day to make glop and pour 10 tissues
3 days drying time
1 day sensitiser drying time
1 day printing
1 day dry and print clearing
finally dry and sign print assuming you didnt come across any problems during the process
1 week to get from beginning to end, i must be mad lol
i can make a decent fibre print in half an hour
its a bit like playing on a pool table after slogging it out on a full size snooker table , easier thats for sure
so streamline your printing and you will have a great looking fibre print in less time than it takes to clean the head on your printer
'Digital photography' is real photography, and is the product of the photographer's skill and expression.
Originally Posted by seafoto
Well that's your definition and sure, there are a lot of people who think that way, but it's not seafoto's definition and it's okay to have different definitions.
Originally Posted by Athiril
do painters who use watercolors, acrylics, or oils argue like this? (This is not a rhetorical question; I have never had the nerve to ask any of my painter friends this question. I am afraid they would think I have been drinking my fixer.)
I like doing analog photography better than digital photography and I can better express my vision with film and darkroom prints. But I think it is silly to argue that digital photography is not photography. It is a different medium just as oil painting is different from watercolors, but it is photography.