Ah dangerous assumptions there Chris!
In fact I have learnt what I needed to know and have been practising
photography as an amateur and then as a fairly succesful teacher at a
U.K. school for some years.
When the image result is critical - no second chances - then digital is
for me unequivocally the better.
I did and still do have faith in my abilities but it's the processing
labs I don't totally trust! And the amount of time to produce basic
prints in my darkroom (still got it ) is no attraction.
Meanwhile I have no need to produce mural prints - A3 is the biggest I
have ever needed. Beyond that I'd send it to a lab.
There is no argument between us. What you choose to do is right for you
and wrong for me. What I choose to do is right for me and wrong for you.
But it is interesting that the vast majority of photographers have gone
digital. There has to be some valid reasons for that choice: they're not
exactly lemmings.
Incidentally, ref batteries. You can avoid that little issue by planning
ahead a little bit! I've equally had dud colour film and that you don't
know until you've processed it.
I know, I know, you can get dud cards too...
Howard
Chris Telesca - TelephotoNC wrote:
What happened to learning the technical side well enough that you
could have faith in your own abilities?
I have shot digital, and one thing that gets me is how everyone seems
to "chimp" to see how the image turned out. I have to laugh at times
when I see photographers who used to shoot a polaroid or two to check
lighting and then shoot tons of film without worry now "chimp"
practically every shot. You can check the rewind knob to see that
the film is advancing, and you can use a light meter to check the light.
My uncle was a photographer during WWII, and then a graphic artist in
the years after the War. When he died in 2004, I found the photos he
had stored in his belongings. Yes, some of them had faced, and a few
had gotten damp and stuck together. It's nice to have them, even
though I know I won't be printing every shot he took.
For me to be able to print better from digital than I did with film
and paper in B&W would still cost me more. My fist enlarger cost me
under $100, and it came with trays and a safelight. Over the years I
doubt I spent more than $200 on better trays, timers, safelights and
an enlarging lens. I picked up my first used large-format enlarger
used in 1980 and it was older than I was. To be able to make 20x24
digital prints in my own home that are better than the B&W prints I
can produce in house means in addition to the digital camera and
computer I'd have to have a mural printer and do all sorts of
expensive calibration.
I used to print color in my home and I used two-step chemistry for
prints from negatives, and Ciba for prints from slides. Due to the
fumes I wouldn't print them in house again. But I can get prints made
at a lab and for all but prints for clients the average lab prints are
good enough.
It's a question of quality and standards. I also don't like being at
the mercy of a battery-operated camera that will crap out on me due to
bad batteries. With my old Nikon film camera the only thing I need
batteries for is the flash and meter. And I can get batteries for
them anywhere and they last a lot longer than batteries for the camera.
Chris Telesca
