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 am a documentary photographer and I shoot b&w film because it captures the "grit" of my subject matter. I do shoot color DSLR video occasionally because the nature of the subject requires capturing motion. I maintain a home darkroom to process my film and make enlargements.
I bought a 4x5 large format camera and film to help me slow down and be more thoughtful about each photo I take. Digital makes it too easy to just shoot a bunch and hope you lke one of them. With film, one must consider a lot of different components of the composition before hitting the shutter.
I shoot film for my personal projects and enjoyment. All of my professional has been digital for at least 17 years since the film workflow is inevitably slower and more expensive. But I always have a roll of Tri-X or HP 5 in one of my Contax rangefinders and use them whenever time and the weather cooperate.
Used to shoot Agfachrome and Ektachrome in a Nikon Photomic FTN and print using Cibachrome. That was then - Fuji XH2 and Epson 3880 with mostly Awagami now!
Shot Kodachrome/Ektachrome for many years but was never satisfied. Once digital images and the digital darkroom arrived I never looked back. The digital darkroom allows me so much more freedom to create. One thing about film though, the restriction of 36 images/roll and the planning associated with a journey meant that each image was well thought out. After years of sloppy digital shooting I’m returning to the lesson from film - be deliberate. And enjoy the beautiful images that film craftsmen make, they have a special beauty. I’m just grateful for an alternative that better suits my restless nature.
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.
I am a documentary photographer and I shoot b&w film because it captures the "grit" of my subject matter. I do shoot color DSLR video occasionally because the nature of the subject requires capturing motion. I maintain a home darkroom to process my film and make enlargements.
Black and White film was my first love, and still is... Just wish it wasn't $10/roll or more now...
I bought a 4x5 large format camera and film to help me slow down and be more thoughtful about each photo I take. Digital makes it too easy to just shoot a bunch and hope you lke one of them. With film, one must consider a lot of different components of the composition before hitting the shutter.
I shoot film for my personal projects and enjoyment. All of my professional has been digital for at least 17 years since the film workflow is inevitably slower and more expensive. But I always have a roll of Tri-X or HP 5 in one of my Contax rangefinders and use them whenever time and the weather cooperate.
I tend to use range finders or my Hasselblad 6x6 when shooting film now. Occasionally I'll use a Nikon or Olympus SLR but that's super rare now...
Used to shoot Agfachrome and Ektachrome in a Nikon Photomic FTN and print using Cibachrome. That was then - Fuji XH2 and Epson 3880 with mostly Awagami now!
Shot Kodachrome/Ektachrome for many years but was never satisfied. Once digital images and the digital darkroom arrived I never looked back. The digital darkroom allows me so much more freedom to create. One thing about film though, the restriction of 36 images/roll and the planning associated with a journey meant that each image was well thought out. After years of sloppy digital shooting I’m returning to the lesson from film - be deliberate. And enjoy the beautiful images that film craftsmen make, they have a special beauty. I’m just grateful for an alternative that better suits my restless nature.
Occasionally shoot film of various varieties--30-40% of the time.
30-40% sounds A LOT more than occasionally from my perspective. Any particular project, reasons, cameras, etc?
Ps. if I shot film even 30% of the time I'd certainly be more broke than I already am!!!
Though I enjoy looking back at slides and film strips of old!
WOW... more than 50% by a hair shoot or are interested in film... Hmmmm, what shall I do about that??? Who would have guessed?