At current prices, on the average, film and processing per print is about $0.50. So, those couple hundred shots you took on the weekend would be about a hundred dollars!
Myself, I shoot both digital, and analog (film). Digital when I want to shoot a lot of photos, or need the shot ASAP. I shoot film, when I want the quality of image that film does better with, such as extreme contrast range, and subtlety of colors.
I still shoot film and I still develop it. But, I have a good digital film scanner for the processed film, so I edit and catalog and file it digitally. I print them (when I need a print) digitally. (I also am in the process of digitally archiving over fifty years of film photos from my past (tens of thousands of pictures).
There is a small but active group of "fanatic" photographers that use only, or mostly film. Wether that will be sufficient numbers to keep the complex and expensive production of film economical enough, to be continued in the long run, is yet to be determined.
Oshi Shikigami I admire you for your use of film. Call me old-fashioned (which would be fairly accurate) but I believe that the experience one has using film, increases the skill when making the switch to digital. The challenge I love is getting the shot I envision without a lot of after-editing unless I want a creative spin just for fun and those results are rarely what I envision:-)
Thex Dar Do you ever worry about your grandkids and great-grandkids being able to access all of those backed-up photos in the distant future? I do, but I don't like to think about the what-ifs.
Thank you Ann Kennedy, for your nice and kind comments.
In my years I have shot and processed literally miles of film. A very famous photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson, said "Your first ten thousand photos are your worst." And, I would agree, having taken many times that.
But ANY experience in taking photos, helps improve your technique. And the less "auto everything" the camera is, the more you will learn. You will certainly learn more using a manually set digital camera, than you would, a point and shoot film camera.:-)
The editing of digital photos has become a very hot one lately. There are some who take enormous pride in saying that their digital photo was "un-edited". In other words "straight out of the camera" Where as there is another group equal passionate about spending hours on a shot. Trying "everything" to see how the photo can be "improved".
The truth is, that the digital camera itself "edits" the photo. Regardless if it only one preset option set, or you program the camera to take the photo with a specific set of instructions. If you bring the photo into any photo editing software, or organizing software, it will have a built in "default" editing it does to the image, before you click on anything.
So I find the whole argument pointless. However one can seriously debate how far one takes the photo from it's beginnings, to the final output. How "real" or "accurate" a rendering it is. But in this everyone set's his or hers perimeters, and is a mark of their "personality' stamped into the photo. And for that I say, "to each his own".
Archivalness of photos is something that I am keenly interested in and study a lot. Unfortunately there is a lot of unknowns and uneducated people making suggestions, as well.
Sadly we only know for sure, after-the-fact. The rest is speculation. We can run tests and simulations, but for truly long term, we have to extrapolate and conjecture.
One could write many books on this, and in fact there are many. Not all of them agree on everything though, for reasons stated above. I will try and simplify, and keep in mind that normal individuals are unable to obtain or afford the seriously archival stuff and storage that would in theory be better.
With film, store in a cool, dark, and stable low but not dry humidity. There are sleeves and archival paper packets they can be put in that are much better protection than the paper or plastic products you usually get from the photofinishers. (Message me if you want info.)
Keep in mind that Black and white film is much more archival than any color film is. The same for prints.
For digital pictures (or any files), the thing to keep in mind is "redundancy" and "diversity". Redundancy means simply backups. and backup of the backups. Diversity means when you duplicate your files, be sure to do it in different storage mediums. Discs, hard drives, solid state drives, tape, (If you already have it.) So if we find discs deteriorate (which they do) or mechanical drives fail, without replacement parts, and chips get an EMP, then you will have a different option.
With digital, with duplicate 'masters', it is also practical to have some sets of your duplicates located at another location. So, if fire, flood, earthquake, or whatever happens, you have a set far enough away to be unaffected.
If any of you have specific questions about archiving film or digital, just drop me a note. I will try and get an answer to you. :-)
I have to agree with Oshi Shikigami and the rest of you that feel film is better at capturing some things better than digital. And I get my important photo's processed on paper if they were captured on digital to save them as well as using a backup system. Of late I had been thinking of backing up the backup. Now I know I will be doing that. Thanks Oshi for the mini lesson in photography. Ann Kennedy I can answer a small part of your original question, what film cost in those days. I have something From around 1956/57 that will tell us what one kind was worth back then. Stay tuned, I will post it now.
Oshi Shikigami Margaret Siemers Thex Dar Thank you friends for the thoughtful insights and information! It's good discussion. The more backups, external drives, cloud storage, etc. that I deal with, the more appreciation I have for a photo that I can hold in my hand, label, put in an album, and onto a real honest to goodness bookshelf:-)
Great!
ReplyDeleteP.J. Schaberger Thanks:-)
ReplyDeleteAt current prices, on the average, film and processing per print is about $0.50. So, those couple hundred shots you took on the weekend would be about a hundred dollars!
ReplyDeleteMyself, I shoot both digital, and analog (film). Digital when I want to shoot a lot of photos, or need the shot ASAP. I shoot film, when I want the quality of image that film does better with, such as extreme contrast range, and subtlety of colors.
I still shoot film and I still develop it. But, I have a good digital film scanner for the processed film, so I edit and catalog and file it digitally. I print them (when I need a print) digitally. (I also am in the process of digitally archiving over fifty years of film photos from my past (tens of thousands of pictures).
There is a small but active group of "fanatic" photographers that use only, or mostly film. Wether that will be sufficient numbers to keep the complex and expensive production of film economical enough, to be continued in the long run, is yet to be determined.
Oshi Shikigami I admire you for your use of film. Call me old-fashioned (which would be fairly accurate) but I believe that the experience one has using film, increases the skill when making the switch to digital. The challenge I love is getting the shot I envision without a lot of after-editing unless I want a creative spin just for fun and those results are rarely what I envision:-)
ReplyDeleteThex Dar Do you ever worry about your grandkids and great-grandkids being able to access all of those backed-up photos in the distant future? I do, but I don't like to think about the what-ifs.
ReplyDeleteThank you Ann Kennedy, for your nice and kind comments.
ReplyDeleteIn my years I have shot and processed literally miles of film. A very famous photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson, said "Your first ten thousand photos are your worst." And, I would agree, having taken many times that.
But ANY experience in taking photos, helps improve your technique. And the less "auto everything" the camera is, the more you will learn. You will certainly learn more using a manually set digital camera, than you would, a point and shoot film camera.:-)
The editing of digital photos has become a very hot one lately. There are some who take enormous pride in saying that their digital photo was "un-edited". In other words "straight out of the camera" Where as there is another group equal passionate about spending hours on a shot. Trying "everything" to see how the photo can be "improved".
The truth is, that the digital camera itself "edits" the photo. Regardless if it only one preset option set, or you program the camera to take the photo with a specific set of instructions. If you bring the photo into any photo editing software, or organizing software, it will have a built in "default" editing it does to the image, before you click on anything.
So I find the whole argument pointless. However one can seriously debate how far one takes the photo from it's beginnings, to the final output. How "real" or "accurate" a rendering it is. But in this everyone set's his or hers perimeters, and is a mark of their "personality' stamped into the photo. And for that I say, "to each his own".
Archivalness of photos is something that I am keenly interested in and study a lot. Unfortunately there is a lot of unknowns and uneducated people making suggestions, as well.
ReplyDeleteSadly we only know for sure, after-the-fact. The rest is speculation. We can run tests and simulations, but for truly long term, we have to extrapolate and conjecture.
One could write many books on this, and in fact there are many. Not all of them agree on everything though, for reasons stated above. I will try and simplify, and keep in mind that normal individuals are unable to obtain or afford the seriously archival stuff and storage that would in theory be better.
With film, store in a cool, dark, and stable low but not dry humidity. There are sleeves and archival paper packets they can be put in that are much better protection than the paper or plastic products you usually get from the photofinishers. (Message me if you want info.)
Keep in mind that Black and white film is much more archival than any color film is. The same for prints.
For digital pictures (or any files), the thing to keep in mind is "redundancy" and "diversity". Redundancy means simply backups. and backup of the backups. Diversity means when you duplicate your files, be sure to do it in different storage mediums. Discs, hard drives, solid state drives, tape, (If you already have it.) So if we find discs deteriorate (which they do) or mechanical drives fail, without replacement parts, and chips get an EMP, then you will have a different option.
With digital, with duplicate 'masters', it is also practical to have some sets of your duplicates located at another location. So, if fire, flood, earthquake, or whatever happens, you have a set far enough away to be unaffected.
If any of you have specific questions about archiving film or digital, just drop me a note. I will try and get an answer to you. :-)
I have to agree with Oshi Shikigami and the rest of you that feel film is better at capturing some things better than digital. And I get my important photo's processed on paper if they were captured on digital to save them as well as using a backup system. Of late I had been thinking of backing up the backup. Now I know I will be doing that.
ReplyDeleteThanks Oshi for the mini lesson in photography.
Ann Kennedy I can answer a small part of your original question, what film cost in those days.
I have something From around 1956/57 that will tell us what one kind was worth back then. Stay tuned, I will post it now.
Oshi Shikigami Margaret Siemers Thex Dar Thank you friends for the thoughtful insights and information! It's good discussion. The more backups, external drives, cloud storage, etc. that I deal with, the more appreciation I have for a photo that I can hold in my hand, label, put in an album, and onto a real honest to goodness bookshelf:-)
ReplyDeleteSo agreed Ann Kennedy so Very Much Agreed.
ReplyDeleteThex Dar They can't get at them now, but in the distant future, you will want them to see those precious pictures, right?
ReplyDeleteThex Dar Thanks for the helpful link. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteOshi Shikigami As I gather more thoughts and questions, I am pleased to know I can ask you. Thank you so very much!
ReplyDeleteAnn Kennedy, or any here. I am happy to answer whatever I can, and direct you to sources, when I can't. :-)
ReplyDeleteLindo esse Cartaz da Kodak!
ReplyDeleteJoanna Penna Thanks, Joanna! Glad you like it!
ReplyDelete