Yes but I think that's a misconception. I have 12 shots on my 120 roll (if I'm doing 6X6). I might take 400-500 shots in a digital session. That takes vastly more time to edit down.
Ps. Thinking about it right now reminded me of the two films I really miss the most... you'll probably laugh as most "normal" photographers in the 90's and 2000's didn't like these films AT ALL in terms of popularity... I miss PX/PXP (plus-x) most... and no FP4+ is NOT AT ALL like it, nothing is. I also miss TXP (Tri-X Pro 320, not even close to the tri-x most people have seen/used, the description of all toe nails it as the more exposure on the negative, the more contrast which is opposite of what people think they want in the highlights... a unique look and response that needs extreme attention paid to light and lighting ratios and a giant bunch of experience of where to put the mid-tones but when you get it right it sparkles like no other)... you can kind-a simulate it with a down-swept curve in digital BW... also a very unique color response.
I film I also miss but was not completely conversant with was Neopan 400, which they brought bach that vs Acros II as it was even more kinda Ortho which was great for super light skinned people with blue eyes... or any light colored non-red eyes)
I totally understand and agree... I have a slightly askew version of "don't have time" that's related to a different "wasting time" but on the shooting end that manifests in both film and digital but more like an order of magnitude differently... maybe I'll write that up sooner or later in which I'll contend "wasting time" on the front end of the process is far more devistating.
I've completely stopped shooting digital. Nothing against it, I just don't have the time.
Interesting take "I don't have the time". I think many would look at it in reverse...
Yes but I think that's a misconception. I have 12 shots on my 120 roll (if I'm doing 6X6). I might take 400-500 shots in a digital session. That takes vastly more time to edit down.
Ps. Thinking about it right now reminded me of the two films I really miss the most... you'll probably laugh as most "normal" photographers in the 90's and 2000's didn't like these films AT ALL in terms of popularity... I miss PX/PXP (plus-x) most... and no FP4+ is NOT AT ALL like it, nothing is. I also miss TXP (Tri-X Pro 320, not even close to the tri-x most people have seen/used, the description of all toe nails it as the more exposure on the negative, the more contrast which is opposite of what people think they want in the highlights... a unique look and response that needs extreme attention paid to light and lighting ratios and a giant bunch of experience of where to put the mid-tones but when you get it right it sparkles like no other)... you can kind-a simulate it with a down-swept curve in digital BW... also a very unique color response.
I film I also miss but was not completely conversant with was Neopan 400, which they brought bach that vs Acros II as it was even more kinda Ortho which was great for super light skinned people with blue eyes... or any light colored non-red eyes)
Did you ever use Neopan 400CN too?
no but I used Kodak BW400CN as well as XP2+ both had their charms...
Plus-X and Neopan 400 were great films. Alas, I never used Tri-X Pro 320!
I totally understand and agree... I have a slightly askew version of "don't have time" that's related to a different "wasting time" but on the shooting end that manifests in both film and digital but more like an order of magnitude differently... maybe I'll write that up sooner or later in which I'll contend "wasting time" on the front end of the process is far more devistating.