|
|
Post by zx9 on Feb 20, 2023 14:01:42 GMT
I am sure you are spelling new darkroom wrongly. I wish! A little bit of careful design perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Feb 20, 2023 15:04:49 GMT
Well, the darkroom is planned for the old outdoor bog...
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Feb 20, 2023 16:06:19 GMT
The cost of reasonably decent film equipment is low compared with most new digital equipment but the cost of film and processing is frightening and is getting worse. The cost of old digital equipment can be very reasonable and the quality can be very good. Personally I would go with digital but that is just me. I've just calculated (albeit, a necessarily rather rough calculation) that for the amount of money that I have spent on digital cameras since they became readily available, I could have bought AND processed many hundreds of rolls of film, at current prices! And as you say, Steve, the cost of film cameras is quite low.
I doubt whether it's even possible to define a cost breakpoint between the two 'systems', but I don't think film photography can really be regarded as 'more expensive' than digital. It simply has a different way of costing us money..... a different 'expenditure profile', as it were. And since I use both, I get to spend twice as much!!    |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Feb 20, 2023 17:39:18 GMT
The cost of reasonably decent film equipment is low compared with most new digital equipment but the cost of film and processing is frightening and is getting worse. The cost of old digital equipment can be very reasonable and the quality can be very good. Personally I would go with digital but that is just me. I've just calculated (albeit, a necessarily rather rough calculation) that for the amount of money that I have spent on digital cameras since they became readily available, I could have bought AND processed many hundreds of rolls of film, at current prices! And as you say, Steve, the cost of film cameras is quite low.
I doubt whether it's even possible to define a cost breakpoint between the two 'systems', but I don't think film photography can really be regarded as 'more expensive' than digital. It simply has a different way of costing us money..... a different 'expenditure profile', as it were. And since I use both, I get to spend twice as much!! Let’s look at it a different way, if I had used film at the same rate as I have taken digital pictures I would need a space about the size of the smallest bedroom to store the boxes of sides, about 10’ by 6’. Assuming that I actually wanted to be able to access them, somewhat less if they were treated as bricks. My digital archive is just a pair of 3.5 inch external drives. Despite the cost of upgrades over the years digital is still more convenient, quicker, cleaner and more fun than film. Of course film has its moments but not having to carry, and load, spare film makes a huge difference. Having a battery that can keep going for a week is also much appreciated because the Nikon F5 can eat AAs almost as fast as it can get through film. The biggest advantage of digital, for me, beyond convenience is the speed of focusing. The D5 focuses much faster than its ancestor the F5. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Feb 20, 2023 20:55:11 GMT
Let’s look at it a different way, if I had used film at the same rate as I have taken digital pictures I would need a space about the size of the smallest bedroom to store the boxes of sides, about 10’ by 6’. Assuming that I actually wanted to be able to access them, somewhat less if they were treated as bricks. My digital archive is just a pair of 3.5 inch external drives. Despite the cost of upgrades over the years digital is still more convenient, quicker, cleaner and more fun than film. Of course film has its moments but not having to carry, and load, spare film makes a huge difference. Having a battery that can keep going for a week is also much appreciated because the Nikon F5 can eat AAs almost as fast as it can get through film. The biggest advantage of digital, for me, beyond convenience is the speed of focusing. The D5 focuses much faster than its ancestor the F5.
I can't disagree with this, Geoff, but you've strayed onto somewhat different ground. And, anyway..... would you have actually used film at the same rate as you use digital?
Perhaps you are unusually disciplined in this regard, but most people of my acquaintance say that they tend to take several frames with digital (just to "make sure"), whereas when using film, they might have taken just one or two frames. For myself, I endeavour to avoid such profligacy.  However, despite this, I must admit that it's not completely unknown. 
Anyway, my point in the above ramblings, is that the storage space calculation might require some tweaking to allow for such shooting habits.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Feb 21, 2023 8:13:44 GMT
Let’s look at it a different way, if I had used film at the same rate as I have taken digital pictures I would need a space about the size of the smallest bedroom to store the boxes of sides, about 10’ by 6’. Assuming that I actually wanted to be able to access them, somewhat less if they were treated as bricks. My digital archive is just a pair of 3.5 inch external drives. Despite the cost of upgrades over the years digital is still more convenient, quicker, cleaner and more fun than film. Of course film has its moments but not having to carry, and load, spare film makes a huge difference. Having a battery that can keep going for a week is also much appreciated because the Nikon F5 can eat AAs almost as fast as it can get through film. The biggest advantage of digital, for me, beyond convenience is the speed of focusing. The D5 focuses much faster than its ancestor the F5.
I can't disagree with this, Geoff, but you've strayed onto somewhat different ground. And, anyway..... would you have actually used film at the same rate as you use digital?
Perhaps you are unusually disciplined in this regard, but most people of my acquaintance say that they tend to take several frames with digital (just to "make sure"), whereas when using film, they might have taken just one or two frames. For myself, I endeavour to avoid such profligacy. However, despite this, I must admit that it's not completely unknown.
Anyway, my point in the above ramblings, is that the storage space calculation might require some tweaking to allow for such shooting habits.
A good point Peter, it is impossible to say whether I would have taken as many photographs on film as I did on digital. Realistically I would have taken fewer simply because of the need to load a new film every 36 exposures rather than replacing cards every 2,500. Irrespective of the actual numbers there would have been a serious storage problem. This would have been the result of either having a large number of boxes of slides or serious dissatisfaction with the results leading to storing my cameras and lenses, in cupboards rather than camera bags, I don’t have enough cupboards. As a subscriber I have little need to visit the website so I don’t know if there is anything relevant relating to film cameras since the F5 review some months back. That review consisted the AF of the camera to be fast. I disagreed, and said as much. If there were a Nikon film camera with the AF capability of the D5 I might be more willing to use film. I moved to AF because I couldn’t focus as accurately and quickly as I wanted to capture my chosen subjects. Realistically, using film would require me to also return to manual focusing. That would inevitably result in a change of subjects and the dissatisfaction mentioned above. I am not satisfied with 100% of my photographs but I get enough that excite me to keep me going. Without digital cameras I wouldn’t get out as much, my cameras, I still have two F5 bodies, would only come out for holidays and I would probably take up model railways. |
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Feb 21, 2023 9:46:38 GMT
As a subscriber I have little need to visit the website so I don’t know if there is anything relevant relating to film cameras since the F5 review some months back. That review consisted the AF of the camera to be fast. I disagreed, and said as much. If there were a Nikon film camera with the AF capability of the D5 I might be more willing to use film. I moved to AF because I couldn’t focus as accurately and quickly as I wanted to capture my chosen subjects. Realistically, using film would require me to also return to manual focusing. That would inevitably result in a change of subjects and the dissatisfaction mentioned above. I am not satisfied with 100% of my photographs but I get enough that excite me to keep me going. Without digital cameras I wouldn’t get out as much, my cameras, I still have two F5 bodies, would only come out for holidays and I would probably take up model railways. In another world where digital SLRs did not exist I suspect we would have the Nikon F5 mk1V and the EOS 1 mk10N or some such with lightning fast AF and lithium ion battery packs, no doubt film would be finer grain with wider latitude possibly allowing for a APSC pro format with 72 or 144 frames per quick load cartridge.
We live in this world and we get to use modern digital kit or for the experience that comes with it we can use older technology, a fortunate position to be in.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Feb 21, 2023 23:32:22 GMT
Er, the F6 was released about 19 years ago, so I'm not sure there would be variations on the F5...
|
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Feb 22, 2023 8:57:53 GMT
Er, the F6 was released about 19 years ago, so I'm not sure there would be variations on the F5... The Nikon F/8 and be there.  |
|
|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Feb 25, 2023 8:50:04 GMT
I agree the cost of digital is ridiculously expensive compared to film. Luckily buying secondhand mint boxed gear means you actually loose very little should you sell on later.
The biggest advantage for me is that I can delete images, choose any iso I like at will. Use the EVF or rear screen to check and confirm it’s the exposure I see in my minds eye. If experimenting with flash exposure it’s so easy to determine the look you’re after.
I remember all to well the terrible wastage film gave.
At college we were advised to rinse film when developing for 20mins in cold running water? - we have a oversize bath it takes roughly 10 mins to fill for comparison
Fibre based paper required 1hr rinse 😳
Many times it didn’t quite have the range of tones you wanted, so you did it again and again.
The wastage of clean drinking water was insane.
For these reasons alone I will never ever go back to film.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on Feb 25, 2023 8:58:56 GMT
I realize, of course, that no one ever took a decent - or even half decent - photograph until the advent of the mirrorless camera, but I guess that is a burden I shall have to carry... Of course as well as a new model comes out with higher pixel count or burst rate it renders the previous model a pile of useless badly performing junk and any pictures taken with it equally so. |
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Feb 28, 2023 12:33:30 GMT
I realize, of course, that no one ever took a decent - or even half decent - photograph until the advent of the mirrorless camera, but I guess that is a burden I shall have to carry... Of course as well as a new model comes out with higher pixel count or burst rate it renders the previous model a pile of useless badly performing junk and any pictures taken with it equally so. How true...  
The Castle Tower by Nigel Hayes, on Flickr From my old D30 - a mere 3.2Mp... |
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Feb 28, 2023 18:32:17 GMT
I agree the cost of digital is ridiculously expensive compared to film. Luckily buying secondhand mint boxed gear means you actually loose very little should you sell on later. The biggest advantage for me is that I can delete images, choose any iso I like at will. Use the EVF or rear screen to check and confirm it’s the exposure I see in my minds eye. If experimenting with flash exposure it’s so easy to determine the look you’re after. I remember all to well the terrible wastage film gave. At college we were advised to rinse film when developing for 20mins in cold running water? - we have a oversize bath it takes roughly 10 mins to fill for comparison Fibre based paper required 1hr rinse 😳 Many times it didn’t quite have the range of tones you wanted, so you did it again and again. The wastage of clean drinking water was insane. For these reasons alone I will never ever go back to film. That is no longer the Ilford recommended way of washing film, it should take five or six changes of water with inversions during washing so for a 300ml tank that would be less then two litres of water. In a similar way fibre and RC paper is washed by diffusion of fixer from the emulsion and paper base, regular changes of water are all it takes you don't need fast running water. |
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Feb 28, 2023 19:05:28 GMT
I agree the cost of digital is ridiculously expensive compared to film. Luckily buying secondhand mint boxed gear means you actually loose very little should you sell on later. The biggest advantage for me is that I can delete images, choose any iso I like at will. Use the EVF or rear screen to check and confirm it’s the exposure I see in my minds eye. If experimenting with flash exposure it’s so easy to determine the look you’re after. I remember all to well the terrible wastage film gave. At college we were advised to rinse film when developing for 20mins in cold running water? - we have a oversize bath it takes roughly 10 mins to fill for comparison Fibre based paper required 1hr rinse 😳 Many times it didn’t quite have the range of tones you wanted, so you did it again and again. The wastage of clean drinking water was insane. For these reasons alone I will never ever go back to film. That is no longer the Ilford recommended way of washing film, it should take five or six changes of water with inversions during washing so for a 300ml tank that would be less then two litres of water. In a similar way fibre and RC paper is washed by diffusion of fixer from the emulsion and paper base, regular changes of water are all it takes you don't need fast running water. Havinng tried it (thanks, Peterob... I think!), I can confirm that it works very well, and reduces scale marks too. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivor E Tower on Mar 13, 2023 20:36:32 GMT
I'm wondering how the magazine staff will engage with its subscribers and purchasers now that they don't have a forum. A few years back we would occasionally post "topics of interest" such as postal delays in receiving subscription copies etc and we'd usually get a response. This became somewhat random over the past couple of years but I seem to recall that we did get dropped titbits of information, such as the sale to Time Life then Kelsey, and Kelsey taking more of an interest in the magazine and its staff etc, but now  I'm not receiving my copy in the post on Saturdays any more, nor Mondays most weeks , so how do I reach out? Maybe I'll end up cancelling my subscription |
|
However, despite this, I must admit that it's not completely unknown. 
