Atherton & District Amateur Photographic Society

Yes I did indeed. The last frames for Images of England are being done, and of course it is being shot on film. Kodak Supra Gold 400 Professional.

So you press the shutter, but.....there's nothing to indicate success. No quick flash of the image on the rear screen. No playback.

How incredibly unsatisfying...

Does the fact that McDonalds serve the food quickly make it better than a 'real' restaurant where you have to wait? <grin>

McDonalds serve the food quickly

I totally refute this. It's not food, more of a plasticy concooction that lies heavily on the stomach...and as for quickly...

Which is of course the point you so rightly making. However, it's getting to the point where digital is not only immediate but actually better as well.

John wrote:

McDonalds serve the food quickly

I totally refute this. It's not food, more of a plasticy concooction that lies heavily on the stomach...and as for quickly...

Which is of course the point you so rightly making. However, it's getting to the point where digital is not only immediate but actually better as well.

What does "better as well" mean John?
Do you think it is more satisfying ("better") to produce an image from a horrid old Epson - or new - printer or craft a 20 x 16 image via an enlarger and chemicals? Do you think after a couple of years on display one print would be "better" than the other?
Tony

What does "better as well" mean John?

Ah, Tony, you've got a good point there. I'm going to have to admit now that shooting digital I find better in almost every respect.

1. You can review shots, not after every capture, but enough to be reassured that all is working and the pictures are OK.

2. The results are available immediately on return home to be downloaded and examined in detail. Some can be ready for EPZ almost immediately if required, or shared on forums all round the world.

3. The images are clean and free of dust spots. OK, I know CCDs get dust spots, but nothing like the muck that ends up being spotted out on prints from negatives.

4. The clean look of digital images I actually prefer to the mushy look of medium grain films. A close call compared to the crisp grain of Tri-X or the superb sharpness of the long gone Panatomic-X, but in general...

5. The darkroom doesn't have to be set up and then cleaned up. I like darkroom work, but I prefer computer work. All the things I used to do in the darkroom I can now do in Photoshop, in the light, talking to Sue who's just next to me on her computer...

6. The printing ain't a problem, colour or monochrome. I get the results I want. Longeveity? Prints are lasting several years so far on the wall, but in any event an identical one can be made at any time.

7. Digital quality from a 10.2MP DSLR is, I reckon, as good if not better than from 35mm film. Different, maybe.

So that's some of what I mean by better, and maybe a few more things I've overlooked for now.

Good to hear your thoughts John, but dont you miss those cold, dark evenings in the darkroom with Sue - I'll bet you do!! Oh those clothes pegs, wet trays and nice b+w prints!!
Tony

Good to hear your thoughts John, but dont you miss those cold, dark evenings in the darkroom with Sue

I seem to remember they were quite hot actually....

John,
Just over a week ago I developed a Fuji 400 BW film in the kitchen, mess everywhere, brown fingers, acrid smell, - gorgeous. Unwnding the first few inches of film from the spiral still gives me the same thrill that it first did over fifty years ago.

Brill, Paul.

If I knew how to post a pic I'd post one from my last darkroom experience.
I'll see you tonight. I've put some pics on Flikr - does that help?

Who's 'yellowduster'??? Good man.

Tony

Canon, Fuji and then film ... but not necessarily in that order ... any gaps in the the syllabus, than you could maybe do a presentation John, on ... Confessions of a Club Secretary?

I think I'll sell the movie rights first. Maybe on eBay....

yellowduster is Harry. Proper chemicals lad!!
Thanks Paul.
Tony

PS I see that analog is now "film"

I still think that "film" and "digi" should be grouped together!

I really miss working in a dark room. Points noted about the hassle of cleaning and the smell etc but there is just something magical about seeing that photo developing before your eyes .....

PS I see that analog is now "film"

I still think that "film" and "digi" should be grouped together!

I changed that this morning following requests to do so. We do actually listen and act at ADAPS!

As for the second suggestion, it's early days yet so it's wait and see how it goes for a little while longer.

EDIT: I've just noticed that there are twice as many posts in the Film section as there are in the Digital section. Unusual these days.

And the lovely glow of red. . . .