I am in total sympathy with Dan - but my reasons are basically convenience. No darkroom - too time consuming (especially being retired and widowed) followed by hours trying to spot marks. No concerns about expense - being retired I could pursue a swallowtail butterfly eventually successfully even though it needed a long sequence of continuous exposures. Film - being retired I can't afford that either!
But neither is better, as an amateur, I just prefer digital. I can do it all at home. Correct my stupid mistakes, tweak colours to my colour-blind satisfaction, etc etc. And at minimal cost. I have no panics to be the latest and bestest gear. My D300S works just fine, as does my Lumix FZ1000....
On 14 June 2015 at 14:34, Dan Mitchell <danmdan3842@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have happily, and long since, given up film.
Saves money - film and printing are getting so expensive.
And no more stains in the bath from having nowhere else to wash 20 x 16 prints.
I can concentrate on getting the image now, more than ever before.
Happy days, guys !
> On 14 Jun 2015, at 12:00, photoforum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 19:41:59 +0800
> From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Jan wrote
>>
>
> Digital - yeah.. I liked film. I could take my time with film and I found a
> great satisfaction working with the confounded stuff. Digital however
> promised an 'ease and convenience' that has resulted in vastly more effort -
> and yet, I find it near impossible to return to film. I do not understand
> digital the same way, it does not always behave -
