I was never a darkroom guy.. though I did spend some hours there learning the craft.
What I miss about film was getting the prints from a shoot back from the lab.. laying them all out and slowly reviewing them all side by side and removing the ones that didn't fit till there were only the select few.
In 2002, I did 48 shoots and actually scanned 138 photos to share.
I started shooting film again recently. Like everything photography, I just enjoy the process of it all. I enjoy the simplicity of film in that I don't worry about any post processing. I shoot, and enjoy. That's it.
What I miss about film is the quality of the images. Digital is great but when it comes to the image, film is better. Depth, contrast and color is always better in film.
me voy wrote: What I miss about film is the quality of the images. Digital is great but when it comes to the image, film is better. Depth, contrast and color is always better in film.
Pretty much all that has been said in addition to fewer concerns regarding "escorts" or models "flaking" because communication was done mostly by phone and in person.
I love the feel of a classic 35 mm film shutter being squeezed at the right moment. It's like driving a classic car for me!
Oh .. and let's not forget being able to charge a "film fee" without anyone questioning the purpose of it.
Kent Art Photography wrote: Where the only places you could get models were agencies or telephone kiosks.
Not me! I'm bold! It was common for me to approach young women in shopping malls and hand out my card. But then I was a young man too! Plus I would run casting call advertisements in newspapers. I also shot for magazines too. Does anyone remember newspapers and magazines? Seems everything is published online now.
Not me! I'm bold! I would run casting call advertisements in newspapers. I also shot for magazines too. Does anyone remember newspapers and magazines? Seems everything is published online now.
This is true. I remember putting an advert in a magazine which catered for the London black community, and I got hundreds of replies. The majority of the pics were wedding group photos, either "I'm third from the left - please can I have the photo back," or crudely torn strips from group photos, because fewer people, especially poorer people, had cameras back then.
I miss the creqtice process in developing black and white film and makeing prints with an enlarger and doing all sorts of fun stuff with filters and creating artistic images with double exposiers and creating a unique pring that is original and only one. With photo shop you lose the creative aspect I miaa being in the dark room and before you know it its time to close shop because you have just spent all day and nite being a photogrspher.
Not much is missed because I still have all that gear should I want to go out and shoot film. I just don't get the urge to do so, so that says volumes as to making the right choice and moving forward.
Funny thing is I saw this (digital) coming back in the VERY early '80's and knew that Nikon wouldn't hose its customers like Canon ended up doing so all my Nikon lenses from way back then still work with my dSLRs now.
I shot tons of film and don't miss any part of it...period! Digital gives me way more freedom to easily correct mistakes. As for the smell of the dark room and your hands in chemicals you can damage your lungs and comprise your immune system. NO thanks!
Herman van Gestel wrote: I miss the excitement and anticipation of getting the images back from the lab....the adrenaline, the risk and the excitement...
the instant gratification of digital is extremely meagre, and volatile
That's my favorite part as well. I have a friend who processes my film, he has seven rolls of 120 that I shot on Saturday and in my mind they're all keepers, until I get them back.
Variety. It's not about Nikon or canon but about hassy mamiya bronica etc. etc. it's interesting because its not cookie cutter photography and really experimental on the physical level
I miss the calibre of people that used to be drawn to the profession when it was far more difficult. It is no longer an intellectual pursuit, it seems instead to be merely far more awful work, produced more quickly than ever before
People who's main accomplishment is getting an in focus image from an auto focus camera spouting off about what great "artist" they are, and inquiring about how to get their work into museums.
The alchemy of the of Darkroom. I miss the mystery and the magic of the darkroom.
Watching a print appear in developer had a kinda magic that an inkjet printer does not.
In terms of the market to day the single biggest thing that drove pricing down was the loss of mystery and the magic of the darkroom.
One thing for sure, the digital camera wars have changed the game a lot. I still have a Pentax PZ-1p that I like to drag out from time to time. I think I bought that body in 2000. Since then I have bought and sold 8 digital cameras.
One thing about film, the only dust spots were the ones on your lens. Unlike digital where suddenly there is a spot on the sensor that wasn't there just minutes before.
Don't miss anything in fact I'm just about to order another six 4x5 holders for my Crown Graphic so I'll be able to use 24 sheet per shoot instead of just 12.
Just sold most of my medium format film gear so lots of $$ available to buy B&W 4x5 film and chemicals
Mcary wrote: Don't miss anything in fact I'm just about to order another six 4x5 holders for my Crown Graphic so I'll be able to use 24 sheet per shoot instead of just 12.
Just sold most of my medium format film gear so lots of $$ available to buy B&W 4x5 film and chemicals
David M Russell wrote: A $900 camera body that would last 10 years.
A higher skill level threshold for entry into this business.
Crafting a perfect print.
Darkroom music.
hmmm so true
I shot transparency. Looking at chromes was like looking at stained glass windows of color and light. Viewing aesthetically and technically well crafted images was always a joy on the light table with a great loupe.
I miss seeing the B&W image appear in the developer too..
I've saved my best loupes.
When this digital madness trend ends, we'll come back to our senses and shoot film again! I'll be ready
The darkroom music was fun.
What I don't miss is the toxic environment.. lol
Not to thread jack..but did anyone see this little item?
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,231
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
David M Russell wrote: A higher skill level threshold for entry into this business.
You might mean this already, but I suggest you really mean:
"A higher *technical* skill level threshold for entry into this business."
Photography to me is about the technical and the creative and both have a "skill" level attached to them.
There were plenty of very very poor quality film photographers who just knew how to expose an image. That was pretty much it. Content didn't seem to matter much at all.
Now there are many photographers who don't have to worry about the technical stuff as much who are producing work which way outstrips the quality produced by many of the film guys who were only able to expose an image and that was it.
Film in itself didn't produce better photographers - just people who were more knowledgeable in the technical side of photography.
Of course there were many, many amazing film photographers too who moved photography on in massive leaps and bounds and set the ground rules for what photography is today. They were as skilled in both the technical and creative sides...
JimBobLc
Posts: 192
Martinsburg, West Virginia, US
I miss the very expensive slide film and development costs. The horror of looking through the loupe and seeing it's not in sharp focus after all that money. Of course back then, everyone had to do it, so it was an even playing field for people who were up to it, and not just any joker with a camera could do it. Today, I think it would be impossible for me to do slides and compete with digital cameras, since slides are much more expensive, labor intensive, and the public just can't tell the difference of the final product. For experimenting with lighting and composition, you couldn't afford to burn up a few hundred frames to try out new stuff. Seemed like every frame needed to count.
David M Russell wrote: A $900 camera body that would last 10 years.
A higher skill level threshold for entry into this business.
Crafting a perfect print.
Darkroom music.
A$900 camera body that lasts 10 years that nothing, How about a $350 camera body with lens that lasts 59 years and will most likely last for another 50+ years.
JimBobLc
Posts: 192
Martinsburg, West Virginia, US
I also remember the sublime joy of getting perfect shots that work for a two-page title spread in a magazine, center of focus appropriately placed so type setters can have attention-getting image and title then fairly open page for text etc. Not like you could photoshop the slide. Had to be perfect. There was a discipline to it.
shooting B&W with contrast filters, slopping around in the darkroom with a double malt scotch and watching the silver gelatin process in front of my eyes. can't forget the smells of the darkroom.
JimBobLc
Posts: 192
Martinsburg, West Virginia, US
Yes. It HAD to be perfect, sharp focus, and/or brilliant composition and/or exclusive content. But I think anyone who was raised on such hardy fair still have an advantage today over younger people who have been spoon fed everything.
Patrick Walberg wrote: Does anyone remember ... magazines? Seems everything is published online now.
David Stith wrote: One thing for sure, the digital camera wars have changed the game a lot. I still have a Pentax PZ-1p that I like to drag out from time to time. I think I bought that body in 2000. Since then I have bought and sold 8 digital cameras.
One thing about film, the only dust spots were the ones on your lens. Unlike digital where suddenly there is a spot on the sensor that wasn't there just minutes before.
I too miss the anticipation of getting prints.
The biggest concern was scratching the film when it moved across the transport. There was a whole process I went through cleaning the camera that included cleaning out the shutter area too.
We could get specks on the final image. Normally it'd happen in the printing process.
I remember reading an article about someone's camera that had an ANT infestation.. believe it or not.. Their negs had ant silhouettes on them...very strange..
Raised on the original Asahi Pentax Spotmatics, moved up to Nikon FMs and FM2s, then Mamiya RB67s, Bronica SQ, Mamiya C330F, Mamiya M645, and also YashicaMat 124G. 4 x 5 Calumet Cambo. Loved every one and shot professionally with them all. Still have the Nikons, Yashica Mat, and 4 x 5. Darkroom has Super Chromega D5 XL, with all the toys Omega made for it. Only use the darkroom now to load film holders but spent many happy hours in there, listening to tapes while printing both color and B&W under a Thomas Sodium Vapor Safelight that made the room like daylight during B&W printing. Broke my heart to sell my RBs and Bronica, but had no need for them anymore. Shoot nearly 100% digital, but it ain't the same.
| 
| 
| edu