Just wondering.

I made a living with film for 16yrs. I quit with the digital age. Sad.

I'm tempted to get into 4x5" and hand process.

A very similar story for me.  Landscape photography on 6 x 9 was my thing but  the digital wins hands down.  I tried a halfway house with scanned film and printing in Photoshop but found it impossible to buy in sufficiently high quality scans of the film. Also the cost of the (inadequate)  scans was just silly.

 

As Laird says the degree of manipulation and adjustability in the image and print making is joyous.  Deeply frustrating wet processes like lith printing can be painlessly simulated in PS.  I have always fancied getting back to some alternative processes but setting up a wet darkroom just isn't going to happen.

 

A slight word of warning is that Photoshop is deeply addictive .............

I've started building a darkroom in the shed but haven't had much time to work on it lately.

 

I think you should keep your hobbies private, lol

Ah yes, the fun with scans.  I recall one company that was recommended by a photo magazine that was so bad it was hilarious!  I guess they must have chucked my negs on the office carpet before scanning to achieve such levels of dirt and dust.

 

Another advantage of the digital age is the ability to print onto a vast range of beautiful fine art papers rather than being stuck with the very limited range of darkroom papers.  That said, printing images is I suppose becoming old school ............ 

 

 

Thanks for the perspectives. I guess i just miss the good ol days.

What I really miss is the whole process, My first camera was a Graphic Reflex Press 4x5. From there I moved to Sinar 4x5 View, and then to a Pentax 6x7. Finally getting into Mamiyas for portrait and group work. I have always loved large and med formats.

 

I also miss labwork. especially working in small darkrooms with pretty girls... (before I was married)

I would be very wary of showing an appreciation of older technology on this forum. Danger you could be called a Luddite or an old duffer.

Had to look up those terms.

Both are quite flattering.

Life can go in a strange way...

 

I'm from a bit younger generation who started with digital. Got bored at one point some few years ago, and ironically beating the same old drum "how good the digital" was and "how crappy the film" is, aka the endless film bashing by digital guys, me used to being one of them. Till I tried film myself one day out of awkward curiosity... And guess what - I was blown away how much more depth there was, how artistic and "real" my shots suddenly looked. Now after a couple of years almost 95% of my shots using film for my personal (art-) work, that 5% I make some extra income using digital to pay off all of my film needs (with very low standards the clients have these days). 

 

Shooting mostly 6x7, with two Pentax 67 bodies - the main one of them is as around old as myself and with me it has been in over 80 countries, 6 continents and endured some close to 300 000 kilometers of motorcycle vibrations, from -35C Himalayan to +45C Arab dessert, still runs like new! Also 6x6, a little 6x4.5 and occasionally I also shoot 5x7" (13x18cm large format) and lately I've had lots of fun with 35mm panoramic on old Soviet Horizon 202 I do my own scanning and use very little post processing, I also recently started to do my own darkroom B&W printing, mostly using alternative methods such as Lith-process - true and real hand made prints that as a ex-digital guy myself I've now started to apreciate as a real hands-on art form (vs digital prints I used to do).

 

Hard to put the reasons into words actually. It's not about quantity or quality you get enjoyments and rewards in life, I just love the film rendering, tonality, grain and love also how it visually differs from all the mostly sterile and lifeless digital I was getting too used to, always hunting for that "ideal" image and shooting way too many images from many angles and settings and never really thinking about doing just one single image and doing it really good. Film taught me how to do this. And later when I was into digital I've tried hard to "emulate" analog with advanced digital post-processing but never could get anywhere the real film. So I've ended up "if you want the film-look you just have to shoot film", the easiest way. That being said I wouldn't recommend film photography to everybody though, it's a lot more work and dedication and that's not for most people IMHO. So I'd only recommend it for those who look that speciefic "film" or "analogue" feel in their photography and willing to put in some more time and handwork (developing and scanning which I do myself).

 

Just some very random uncropped raw scans from my film work:

 

The Ride by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explore by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

if I could only fly... by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within Space by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Threesome by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beneath by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gamelan man by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

Dogwalk by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

Cheers,

Margus

Edited January 7, 201610 yr by tsiklonaut

Did photos a long time on 35mm with my OM-1 as it's so handy but all the objective's.

 

I began in 2004 with a F828 the digital age. Now I still using it and (of course) some other's which were added quickly too using now even my smart phone!

 

At first the processing was an issue, also digital b/w photos were not as qood in quality I also had issues with the chromatic aberrations with colour pictures and barrel distortion in general.

 

Now with Lightroom and Photoshop you can produce likewise good photos, the labwork is now just digital which is a gain in time and much less effort too.

 

So I' am not looking back again, still have my "analog" equipment it's collecting dust now.

Just got a Lumix FZ72, Unbelievably easy to use and capable for the price, even takes photos in Sepia. Having said that when on holiday my sister likes to carry an old 35mm film camera (in addition to her digital). Reason is she can leave it hung on her neck with lens cap off and take a photo without having to wait for the camera to turn on and focus. Means she gets photos she would miss with a digital.

Fantastic photos - the riders eye view one nearly made me grab the desk !

Saw where a company had come out with a 100,000 megapixil digital camera for $10,000.

Can that be compared to an asa/iso value?

Edited January 25, 201610 yr by slicktop

Thanks for that perspective.

After asking the question, I deducted that there was no answer due to film having limited area to place and arrange the Halides and the amount of light needed to activate. Obviously an digital medium is not restricted in that manner and can use the availible light at any speed to produce a fine image that can be further lightened or darkened electronically.

Back in the day I printed murials and remember how hard it was to even focus the image, much less getting color balance, when projected against a wall, I guess thats a thing of the past now.

I started with digital and now run mostly film for my own stuff. I can tell digital has EVERY advantage over film. Digital is all about specifications, mathematics, superficiality and numbers game: mighty sharp, loads of resolution, dynamic range etc. I run digital for making some additional income since public perception of the image "quality" is so twisted in the digital age and the "artistry" bar set so low that it's so easy to make an earning now. But ironically all my personal work, where I take things seriously from artist's point of view and don't think about money or income, is on film - don't get me wrong, with digital I get pitch perfect pictures, till I figure it's just "too perfect" for the lack of better world - too superficial, surgical/clinical, sterile and ultimately lifeless.

 

It's just the artistic rendering of the film that digital just can't touch no matter how radical post-processing I do and spend endless hours of editing my digital work. With film you need almost no post-processing, it's naturally organic looking with soul, life and art inserted, it is written in film's native "DNA". So while the digital may be superior in specifications I find lots of use in film even in 2016 and beyond. That's my personal opinion on the endless and totally pointless "film vs digital" arguments.

 

Just some random scans from my film frames:

 

 

Within a Dream... by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

Shades of Gray by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tunneled Reflections by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mt Pendil by Margus Sootla, on Flickr

 

 

Just me 2c.

 

Cheers,

Margus

Lovely work Margus 

 

Mike.