I too fondly remember my time in a darkroom. Jr. High yearbook..

I work in digital now whenever I do any photography, Tho I still have a few rolls of undeveloped 35mm.

There is nothing however like the anticipation of watching a polaroid image form.

But while I love what you can do with film, and I admit working in the darkroom is grand (even though it stinks my hands up for days.. I understand that developing roll film can be done entirely in a container, and even with the lights turned on for part of the process, but I was working with trays full of chemicals in the dark.. fun times.) I hate hate hate the guys I know who insist that film is somehow better than digital. The ones who insist that it is better visually are simply wrong, or don’t understand the concept of pixels or data formatting.. there are others, however, who swear that film is ‘more artistic’ because it ‘brings you closer to the work’.. these are the people who make me sick.

Oh, and there are also some I know who insist film is more stable for archival than digital.. like anyone who cares about their images will allow them to stay in a format once that format starts to be taken over by a better one.

Anyway, what I’m saying is that there are still reasons to use film, and other analogue methods, over digital in some cases.. there will still be reasons even when we start to make Large Format sensors, ones that won’t cost a king’s ransom.. film reacts differently to light than sensors ever will. However, using film for purposes that digital can do better, easier and with less waste, just because it is nostalgic.. I personally find that silly, although there will always be those who disagree.

Yeah, there’s just something in general about newer technology, it just makes things seem so much more…rushed. Like when old-time writers would have to start over for an entire page if they made a mistake or wanted to re-work something, but now we can just edit directly in a word processor. It changes something about how you write, I think.

Also, I knew a guy who would only use a darkroom for photography. But, then again, he also liked silent movies…go figure.

But of course I love my Pentax DSLR too, and I could never do my Project 365 – taking a new photo and posting it on Flickr every day – with film.

To expand on that, I think what’s being lost with purely digital photography is the act of making a photo. When what you had was ~30 exposures and no ability to see your photo until it was processed, photography was forced to be more of a craft. Even people taking nostalgic pictures had to be more selective in what they photographed, but on the art side of it, you were paying attention to exposure, composition, timing, and anything else needed to achieve your vision. After that, you still needed to develop the film properly, then develop prints. Essentially it made each exposure precious.

I don’t mean to say that digital photography is bad; much the contrary. I’ve moved entirely to digital photography, but I haven’t left behind what I’ve learned from film. I have a 2GB card in my camera, and I don’t think I’ll ever need more. That’s ~500 exposures and I aim to make ~80% of my shots good. I can also pull up a histogram immediately after taking a photo to see just how well I’ve exposed the image and get an idea if my composition works well. I don’t cut out the dark room experience, either. Just like I would make a contact sheet and decide which images were worth printing, I look through all my exposures and then work with the best to produce the final images that I print or share.

I suppose what I believe is that everyone should still start with film, if only to learn the value of a single exposure.