In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet
darkroom years ago.

You needed better ventilation!

while that certainly helps, there's still an 'aroma'.

I find the smell of RA-4 chemicals to be kind of a fruit smell. I don't
notice a smell from C-41 except very faintly from the developer.

very faintly means it's still there.

did you ever do cibachrome? that stuff was nasty.

I enjoy the whole wet system process.

that's fine, except that your knowledge of digital is at best deeply
flawed, and in most cases, downright wrong, thereby voiding any
comparison and preventing any form of enjoyment of digital.

You have no idea of my knowledge of digital photography, so your
assumption is, once again, wrong.

i'm only going by what you've posted.

feel free to demonstrate your extensive knowledge of digital
photography.

so far, you haven't.

The fact that the techniques available to modify the image are limited:
density, color balance, and cropping; so I have to get the image right
at the point of exposure.

for film, that's true.

for digital, that's very, very wrong.

far more can be adjusted after the fact than with film, including white
balance and in some cases, focus and depth of field.

To me, that's a bug, not a feature.

how is having more options a bug?

your claim was that the techniques available for digital are more
limited than film, forcing you to get it right in camera, which is flat
out wrong.

the *opposite* is true, that film is more limited, which means with
film, you have to get it right in camera far more often than with
digital.

there is also no requirement to use all of the adjustment options, but
it sure is nice to have them available.

plus, if you make a mistake with digital, there's undo, making it very
easy to experiment and learn new techniques.

To me, that's a bug, not a feature.

how is that a bug?

learning photography, whether it's inside or outside a darkroom, is
*much* easier and more effective with digital for many reasons, undo
being just one.

in a wet darkroom, there is no undo. you have to start over, which can
quickly become very expensive and very time consuming.

To me, that's a bug, not a feature.

you must have unlimited time and money.

As for the expense, I buy wholesale from a minilab supplier. I just got
done printing my vacation photos as 10"x14" (I bought a 300'x10" roll of
Kodak Edge paper) at a cost of about $0.40 each, including chemicals.
How does that compare to an inkjet print?

the part you're missing is that you will need to print the same photo
multiple times to get exactly what you want, or if you make a mistake.

that means the cost of one photo is a *lot* more than 40c, not to
mention the time it takes to do it.

how many prints would you need and how long would it take for you to
come anywhere close to these?
http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2010/03/...es-of-selectiv
e-color-photography/

and that's just one example.

with digital, adjustments can be made for no cost entirely on a
computer until you get exactly what you want, with only *one* print
needed.

As for time, I'm retired now- turned 62 in March- so I've got plenty of
time.

then you have plenty of time to learn about digital. it's not too late
to make the switch.

tl;dr - digital is *much* more capable.

To me, that's a bug, not a feature.

how is more capable a bug?

very odd.

The ruggedness of the image: I've had too many hard drive/optical disk
failures, and a modicum of care suffices for a film negative.

buy better hardware and make better backups.

I don't care how good your hardware is. A lightning strike can take it
out. Or a manufacturing flaw can cause it to have a shortened life.

so what?

it doesn't matter if that or anything else unexpected happens because
there are multiple copies in multiple locations. that's the whole point
of having backups.

meanwhile, a fire, perhaps one ignited by the lightning strike you
fear, can destroy *all* of your negatives, slides and prints in a flash
(no pun intended) and that's assuming mold hasn't done so already.

do you keep your photos in a climate controlled environment?

unlike film, a duplicate of a digital image is 100% identical to the
original, can be made instantly and as many times desired, then stored
in multiple geographically diverse locations, all done entirely
automatically, which basically guarantees that nothing will ever be
lost short of the planet being destroyed, which if that were to happen,
the loss of the images won't matter anymore.

That's very nice.

yes, it is.

How many diverse geographical locations do you
personally automatically use?

much more than you do for film and there's no need to travel to do so
either.

do you make *any* copies of film images? and if you do, how many copies
and are they stored somewhere *other* than where the originals are?

it's not possible to make a backup of film. a duplicate of a film image
is always a second generation copy, which incurs some loss, plus it
takes time and money to do, so it's rarely (if ever) done. film also
requires special storage to prevent damage or loss due to mold, dirt,
fire, flood, etc.

Finally, I like to have the print in my hands and not on a screen. I've
had people (not "real photographers") ask me why my photos look better
than the stuff they see online. I tell them it's because they can
"connect" with my photographs without a screen.

there are these things called printers.

there are also places called print shops for those who do not wish to
purchase a printer, or want a something larger than what their own
printer can do (which is usually 8x10).

I have all I need to print my photographs. Currently, I only have stock
for up to 10" wide photos, but I could be printing any size up to 20"
wide in three days (shipping time for a roll of photo paper).

apparently you don't have all you need, otherwise you would be able to
make prints of digital images so that your friends can 'connect' to
those too, which is an meaningless metric to judge image quality.

camera stores will even take a memory card and print every image on it,
as if it was a roll of film.

Nearest place 'round these parts' for that is WalMart or CVS. Or my
darkroom for film negatives.

upload them and have them mailed.

the point is that it's *very* easy to make prints from digital photos,
even easier than with film.

claiming that film is better because it can be printed is bull****.
nothing prevents making a print from a digital image.

one option is to create a book, which makes for a very nice gift. maybe
your friends can 'connect' with one.
http://asseenbyjanineblog.com/wp-con...Create-PDF-Tes
t-Copy-of-Book-Within-Lightroom-Book-Module.png

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Rk_mdzBcPp8/maxresdefault.jpg

or move to civilization, where there's more than just a walmart and cvs.

another reason why your friends might say that is because they don't
have quality displays, or they're looking at low quality photos (which
also exist with film too).

compare a photo on a wide gamut hi-dpi display versus a print and
they'll have a very different opinion because the image on the display
will have much better colours and a much wider dynamic range than
anything a print can do.

And we could look at the photos on this "wide gamut hi-dpi" display
while sitting at a table in a bar, or in someone's living room? Or how
about if I visit some of my family's Amish friends, and want to show
them my photos?

that's no problem whatsoever.

a dci-p3 wide gamut retina display is standard on recent macs, iphones
and ipads, so all you need to do is bring one with you or make sure
someone else did. some pcs and android devices have similar displays,
but it's not as common and not as well integrated.

an ipad would be better suited at a table in a bar, while a 27" imac
would be preferable in a living room (or any other room).

even better if there's a 4k tv in said living room. connect the iphone
(various ways to do that) and display the images at full quality.

meanwhile, how many people have the equipment to print using 300' rolls
of photo paper, especially in a bar, or at an amish home?

Once again, you have failed to take into consideration that some people
prefer Coke and other people prefer Pepsi. Both are available, and
neither is inherently wrong.

i never said either was wrong nor do i give a **** what someone prefers.

what i said was your claims about digital are wrong, which means your
preferences are based on very incorrect information.

today, digital photography exceeds film in every metric, although it
can be downgraded to duplicate 'the film look' if that's what someone
prefers.