Return to film... True!

The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and
landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps
$25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography...
I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or
advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for
43 years.

I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always
expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who
recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a
digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to
allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet.
Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that,
might also give me and edge!

I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography.
Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work
was always with medium and large format cameras.

I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge
by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital
photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an
accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of
hitting something too.

I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with
uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used
a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do
the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the
****ty dynamic range of the camera.

I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject,
encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last
night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2 lenses
cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can
buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest
digital.

I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery and
ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with
digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin,
blowing away the specula highlights.

It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my
work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a
decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight
and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80% might
affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most
popular posters are all shot on film.

Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as
opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by
a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my
investment.

--
Having climaxed... She turned on her
mate and began to devour him.
Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman?