Do I hate film for photography? Why do people ask? Why it's great and a dead end at the same time

Once again someone asks what I've got against film? Not that much given it's how I learned photography. Why it has a place but definitely not for me. Why, if you think digital is too easy, you are simply not trying hard enough.
The story of that print on my desk and how it changed my photography and still influences my work over 20 years later. One I'm happy to have on my wall.
• The landscape print wh...
For a full index of all my videos, see:
www.northlight...
-----------------
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keit...
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovid...
Adorama: www.adorama.co...

[@luismurag]

I have a darkroom setup at home, and do my own film processing (negative, slide, B&W) and printing (color RA4 and B&W) and I also do digital photography and inkjet printing with custom profiling (recently invested in a i1Pro). I enjoy both methods just as much and I find both ways to take photos equally rewarding. I often scan film and print on inkjet. Others shoot digital and print digital negatives to do silver gelatin prints. I love my new mirrorless just as I love my 70 year old 120 camera, and even though I like the intricacies and technical aspects of photography, what matters for me is the final image and not the tools I used. My tools and methods could be a conversation for another day.

[@KeithCooper]

Excellent that you get so much from it and appreciate the results...

[@pvandck]

100% agree with this. I've done photography all my life, since I was a little boy. Professionally I was a photographic printer, then an industrial/PR photographer for very many years. I learned photography and earned my living using film - mostly in medium format and 35mm. To be honest, and for many reasons, I would never go back to using film. From a purely photographic point of view, the only way to get the best images from film is by hand printing. Most photographers (amateur or professional) never did any colour developing and printing themselves - and that's even more true today. Automated machine prints are what most people get, which are the equivalent of modern camera-produced jpegs (but not usually as good). If you didn't do your own printing, then handmade prints were very expensive. The equipment and consumables for printing are expensive. On top of that, the chemistry for C41 developing and RA4 printing are neither health-friendly nor environmentally friendly. They can't just be disposed of down the drain. Then film stock itself is plastic, and the colour film emulsions are "interesting" organic chemistry (silver halide crystals and dye-couplers). Apart from the limitations of film (compared to digital arrays) with regard to light sensitivity and processing variations, there's the problem of how to view your images if you don't print them. Film stock produces "stochastic" images, in both film and print. Unless you print them, the only way to view them is digitally, which means scanning into a raster format. All of the supposedly virtuous characteristics of film, whatever they're supposed to be, are to be sacrificed in the digitisation process, so much so that it would have been better to take the photograph digitally in the first place. Everything that can be produced on film stock can be done digitally, and so much more. In my opinion there is no justifiable photographic reason to return to film photography. There are no advantages, but there are plenty of disadvantages (creatively, aesthetically, economically, physically and environmentally). Edit: I really don't like the phrase "analogue photography". It's all just photography. There's digital photography, film photography, plate photography, glass plate photography, etc., and a whole load of historical printing methods... cyanotype, salt, bromide, carbon, albumen, RA4... If we mean "film" photography we can just say "film" photography. Most people probably don't mean "wet collodion" photography or Ambrotype.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks for your perspective on this. A lot of the environmental issues are indeed glossed over, and your point about hand printing is well made.

[@charlessweeney2061]

About scanning film, that's something that has always puzzled me, why take pictures on film if you only intend to scan them and end up with a digital image? Just use a digital camera instead! Completely different thing of course if you have old film that you want a digital copy of, but I see KZbin videos of people getting into film that only scan and never print.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - printing, even if 'only' B&W it was where I got a real feeling for what made photos 'work'. Many of my B&W editing techniques are still influenced by my darkroom experiences.

[@pvandck]

@@charlessweeney2061 Quite. You could think of it as photographing a photograph. 😊 Before the development of digital photography you had to scan film and printed images for the reprographic reproduction. With colour images the 4 layers (CMY&K) were then separated to make the plates for 4-colur printing. The quality of the source material was of course very important. But in anything less than expert hands, and high-end equipment (a Heidelberg drum scanner, for example), something was always lost in the process. A scanned negative/diapositive or print, particularly on even the best flatbed scanners, will never equal the quality of a carefully made hand print, nor probably even a good machine print. Important data is lost even before you get to do any digital corrections on the scanned image. I can't imagine many hobby photographers, or even most professionals, can justify the cost of a decent drum scanner. I have a photographer friend who does mostly magazines, brochures and luxury brand advertising. And for his job he works exclusively digitally. But every so often he'll go out with his old Hasselblad, to shoot some film. The frame size is 6×6 cms. He doesn't do this for for his work. He justifies it, and I understand this, on the basis that the process forces him to be slower and more deliberate. He does it to force himself to think more deliberately about all the elements of light and composition. Wasting film is throwing money down the drain. He says himself, he doesn't do it for any aesthetic or creative reason, because there isn't one.

[@EstebanFonsecaAR]

Agree, I've done a lot of film scanning recently (DSLR method) to scan old film stock, and my late uncle's 3d stereo slides, but getting into film only to scan afterwards doesn't make much sense, at least not professionaly. but if it is as a hobby, please, by all means :)

[@cameraprepper7938]

I did analog film photography from 1970 to 2007, both for hobby and as a professional, now I only do digital, I do not understand the new trend with film photography now, I have always had bad conscience about all the chemicals used for analog photography and I have been fighting active as a nature conservationist for many years, so I am very happy with digital photography and I hope that the new trend with analog photography will end soon.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, back when I did film work, I never gave the chemicals a second thought - now, I would.

[@philipsutton8921]

Man - hallelujah - at last somebody who spelt this out succinctly without rubbishing either side. I concur 100%. Like Steve McCurry, when they interviewed him what he thought about film - I'm pleased to see the back of it. I shot it for decades and most of the time it was a pain. McCurry said when he was on a Nat Geo assignment, he had to carry this huge bag with 250 rolls of film in it and lug it through airports and up hill and down dale. Why on earth anybody wants to return to it I have no idea. I just watched a video from another creative saying that his Sony A7V has made photography too easy and now he doesn't enjoy it anymore. So he rushed off and spent thousands on buying a full Leica kit to ".... slow me down". oh boy - there is some crazy thinking out there. As you say Keith, who on earth said it has to be hard before you're doing it properly. I love modern gear and it has transformed my gigs/weddings and events photography. In film days, I was stuck with a flash sync of 250th sec, so I had to put ND filters on all my lenses when outside, then take them off when I went inside. Now my Godox V1 flash syncs right up to 1/8000th (HSS), and I fill flash all of my outdoor events and weddings. Imagine trying to do that on film. I could go on, but just embrace modernity and change, it is often for the best. To close - I don't see any of my neighbours rushing out to sell their cars and get a horse and buggy to commute to work. I haven't seen any of my colleagues lately, turning up to work in a steam car either. Ha Ha

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad it made sense! I did some industrial work not long after I'd recorded this - it got me thinking about all the mixed lighting in the factory, and how one or two shots of a grey card were enough for me not to worry about colour balance :-)

[@willemdelange4083]

Hi Keith, I am a hobby photographer who has only practiced digital photography for the last ten years. Recently I took up analog photography again as a hobby. The process of the darkroom, developing films and printing is fun to do again after 40 years. However, I will always continue to do a combination of digital and film photography. Digital does not replace analogue and vice versa. Both are fun, interesting and provide challenges!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - definitely places for all image making processes...

[@jumpingjohn280459]

I agree with so much of what you said and what irritates me are the people who say ‘well film is the only true form of photography’ - absolute tosh! However, I shoot and home-develop a lot of film and I would say that not all film photographers are pretentious. I just enjoy the activity and the hands on element. However, if I get up a silly-o-clock and drive miles to get a particular shot, and want the best chance of getting it right, what do I take? One of my Fujifilm digital cameras!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - I still get that urge to find some batteries and film, but less and less ;-)

[@JoeTourist]

I laughed out loud watching your video. We share the same perspective about using film for photography - been there, done that, got the t-shirt, time to move on! I have formal training in both photography and darkroom work, so my skills using film are well-founded, but in 2000 I gleefully let it all go to embrace digital photography when the Nikon Coolpix 950 debuted.

[@KeithCooper]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@pest174]

Couldn't agree more. Started hating film because of the cult-like behavior behind it. It stopped being about the image/subject, and more about the format in the NYC photography scene.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - that's the bit I find difficult ;-)

[@janjasiewicz9851]

Why would you hate film because of what others do? Love film because you enjoy doing it .. not what others do… or not…

[@pest174]

@@janjasiewicz9851 while I mostly agree, causing the prices for film to skyrocket and at the time I was submitting work for galleries. Some of these spaces were gated by the film community.

[@charlessweeney2061]

Hi Keith, I buy and sell film cameras on ebay, almost exclusively the Olympus OM1 (I did also sell the OM2 initially but was getting a lot with problems with the shutters not working and needing reset etc, so stopped selling them). Sold several hundred OM1 over five years. I would say my customers fall into two main groups: 1. Young people getting into film for the first time. 2. Older people (like myself!) returning to film for nostalgic reasons. I get a lot of students. Some art courses at universities involve film photography. I also get a number of older people buying as a present for their son/daughter, to let them see how it used to be done! I think film photography is the same as vinyl records, they both died a death when new technology came along, but are now enjoying a resurgence, and thankfully both will be here to stay (although in minuscule numbers compared to their heyday)! Keep up the good work.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I know several course which insist on film to start with, partly to get people out of the 'phone' habit ;-)

[@GetOffMyyLawn]

Like you i shot film from the 80's to the early 2000's. I purchased a 6mp Nikon D100 in 2003, and I never shot a roll of film again. Even back then, the cost of film and processing where high. If people want to shoot film, that's great... but like you said, there is no magic in film. I also noticed the "digicam" trend starting a year or 2 ago... influencers talking about how great those old 2mp cameras were in 1997. The other one that I also have a laugh at is the magic of the CCD sensor. Somehow CCDs turn photons into electrons differently, using the lost tech of the ancients.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - I've my old Olympus E20 sitting on my desk waiting for me to have a go with it again and point out the utter nonsense of such 'fans' ;-)

[@johnvaleanbaily246]

I too learned photography, at school (back in the 60's), and the film processing required to edit and view my efforts. I started dabbling with digital in the late 90's. That coupled with Photoshop (and subsequent photo editing programs) made me a convert. I would no more go back to film than I would sell my car and buy a horse and buggy... or start a buggy whip business !

[@KeithCooper]

But have you not seen the articles on the resurgence of [authentic] buggy travel... ;-)

[@dglenday8705]

Absolutely! I still have my OM2 and OM1n but haven't used them in over 20 years. Too many bad memories of hours spent stumbling around in near darkness spilling chemicals all over my mum's kitchen carpet. Never again!! Viva Lightroom and Photoshop 😁

[@mikeknapik6746]

“Technique changes, but art remains the same” Not an exact quote and may or may not be attributed to Monet. I too, am grateful for having used film in my early days, but like you, have moved on. Great video, thanks!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - good point

[@janjasiewicz9851]

Keith - One paper that I have consistently got good results with the Canon 200 printer for B&W is Ilford Galerie. Pearl Smooth is very nice. Gives nice deep blacks … and it appears to minimize metamerism.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I've not tested much with the pro-200 since my review.

[@janjasiewicz9851]

@@KeithCooper that was a great guide!

[@GS-vb3zn]

I cut my photography teeth on film as a teenager in the late 70s and I loved it. Well… actually I loved photography, film was just the means and the process of getting the picture. Digital is the way I do it now (occasionally shooting film… but it’s a hassle). What truly bugs me about the current film craze is the romanization of all of it’s flaws. The worshipping of grain, a thing we tried our best to minimize back in the day. A fondness for leak leaks and end roll half frames…. Come on. If your film had light leaks you either a) made a mistake loading the roll or b) needed to get your camera fixed. And half frames at the end roll were just a photo that got away.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - when I messed things up, I messed things up ;-)

[@matthewclapperton8673]

Great as usual Keith! I've been using film lately and I'm really enjoying it. I weirdly find it easier than digital for what I shoot. My f100 has five af points, and a handful settings I can adjust. The iso is mostly decided for me. I'm really just thinking about aperture and composition. And than all the irrational emotional stuff like loving the vintage look of the cameras and the images. I also think platforms like Instagram have flooded the internet with digital images, and things can all start to look the same after a while. Especially landscapes, everyone goes to the same locations, puts a rock in the foreground, sets the camera to f/11, iso 100, and rinse lather repeat. I think the more variation we have, the better for photography. That said I agree with everything your saying here.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - one reason I have always avoided instagram The fact that I shoot most digital fully manually [no AF or turned off] means that perhaps my digital is closer to film than many ;-)

[@robertjohnston8739]

I still have a darkroom. One of these days I wil clear it out (it's a junk room now). However, I do miss the printing, which took some skill. I think that some people prefer the craft side of film photography.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, my old darkroom became a place for a large format printer - still needs a proper clear-out.

[@jaypage8823]

The only thing that counts is how much you enjoy the process of being a photographer, whether you do digitally or analog is irrelevant.

[@KeithCooper]

Very true

[@tonyhayes9827]

Love your thinking. I use a Nikon z6ii for `everything.' But I'm not a pro. I don't rely on taking photos for a living. So I still play with film because I like it and I don't know why I like it; maybe `the look' I get from Delta 3200. But, if I was a pro and needed to get the job done; forget it. All innovations in gear over the years are to make things easier - that's the point

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I'd still happily shoot a roll or two of Tri-X, but but darkroom kit was all passed on a few years ago.

[@4th_Lensman_of_the_apocalypse]

As someone who started as a photographer aged 10 in 1976 with a Lubitel II then throughout the 90s when I turned pro, had my own darkroom I got my first DSLR in 2000. Never looked back and in no way sentimentally hanker after film. It was always the finished image that got me into photography….There’s a lot of BS out there right now and the one that bugs me cos its total bs is the CCD is so filmic bullcrap! 😂🤣💀

[@KeithCooper]

Ah yes 'filmic' ...one of those sorts of terms I'm always inclined to ask 'But what do you actually mean by that?' ;-) Much like 'depth' in prints...

[@robertsimpson1729]

Interesting video, thank you. Vinyl vs CD, film vs digital; use what gives you pleasure and fulfills your needs. I dip into film and pinhole once a year for nostalgic reasons. I will stick with streaming cd quality music and digital photography for everyday needs. My condolences on the loss of your father.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - yes finding what you get enjoyment from is important

[@joeguitar4548]

Hi, always love your videos. There is so much to learn.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks!

[@liveinaweorg]

Never seen you as a film hater, Keith just someone to whom it no longer appeals. I shoot digital m4/3 and film, 35mm, medium format and 4x5 and 5x7. I develop my own B&W and do some darkroom printing too. I also scan the film and do some prints on my Canon Pro 100. I enjoy using really old cameras, I enjoy shooting plates from the 1960's back to pre-WWI. I enjoy using pro-capture on my Olympus to make sure I catch the bird taking off. I enjoy the low light performance of my digital camera. I enjoy photography!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - that 5x4 on my desk is there that I ought to experiment a bit more sometimes ;-)

[@annespellberg7173]

I think people like the vintage cameras more than they like photos on film. I'm one of them, I really wanted a Rolleiflex, how can you not? They are so beautiful. But I had to relearn how to develop negatives, then I scan it with an Epson scanner, then print it. So it isn't obsolete, it is a lot of work but it is honest and beautiful still.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - I can appreciate that

[@gregdarroch1946]

I’m so glad I moved to digital photography years ago. Film got me into it, but I would never go back.

[@KeithCooper]

I was talking to someone involved in a photography course at a university recently. They insisted people used film in the first year partly to break some 'phone photography' habits ;-) Obviously more to it than that, but it made me smile :-)

[@jw48335]

I actually had the time to compare Adox CMS 20 II vs and A7R4 during the pandemic. I used the Sigma 105mm which resolves 220-ish lp/mm. I shot a USAF 1951 chart. I then used various conversion methods including drum scan, darkroom print->v850 scan, and camera compositing scan to get as much out of the negative as possible. The end result was that the Adox film out-resolved the 61mp A7R by a good margin, clocking in at 90mp. It did not out-resolve the A7R4 using the 16-shot pixel shift with the same lens. It was an interesting exercise, and more than anything made me appreciate the quality of that sigma lens. It was out-resolving the Sony sensor. I don't own that lens, but I did purchase the 40mm Art, which still resolves over 200lp/mm. I never thought you hated film Keith - it's just not your workflow anymore and there's no reason for it to be. It slows You down and costs extra money, which in a business is really not good.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - that's interesting to know. The last time I did a test like that was in 2003 although I used tree branches for detail ;-)

[@MarylandDroneMedia]

Great point the diversion from photography.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks

[@robertlawrence7958]

Very well said Keith. I fully agree with all you said in this video. Love the use of the word 'irksome' as it sums up my feelings on a number of subjects these days. Do I enjoy sitting in front of a computer? No I don't. Would I prefer to lock myself away in a wet darkroom? Absolutely not! Photography is all about the final image. That digital has made it easier can only be a good thing to my mind. 95% of the clamour around film is pretentious claptrap usually put out by KZbin "content creators" who are desperate to get more subscribers. Let's be honest, most of these advocates only do half the job anyway as the majority, having taken an image on film then proceed to scan the neg and process it digitally! I too have a B/W print on my wall which I shot on film. Taken in 1983 on a Mamiya RB67 camera, processed and printed in a darkroom by myself. It is a favourite picture that has been on a wall in every home I've lived in. BUT, I most certainly wouldn't claim it to be superior to anything I have produced digitally. Great video. Ps. Anyone in my vicinity who tells me that film is more "organic" will need to "organically" remove their camera from one of their bodily orifices. 😉

[@KeithCooper]

Yes indeed ;-) I'll never downplay what people personally get out of photography...

[@deraldart]

lots of fun. i was waiting for digital, still and video. my father did 8mm since 1942, on my mom's side, my grandfather's brother printed pics. good to hear about your father's photos. keep up the great work.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks! - time to get the projector and screen out again :-)

[@thomaseriksson6256]

I agree, I prefer Digital but I still have 3 analogue MF camera system and a MF scanner. But I am more creative when using digital cameras. I was a late Digital user I went digital 2007-2008 and sold of my analogue system but I also got 2nd hand MF and LF analogue cameras. I am a failed amateur nature and documentary photographer who switched to Art photography and now forest photography. I still have the printing area to fail in.

[@KeithCooper]

yes - it's a mix...

[@dude463waze6]

I like film. I like digital. I like being able to put food on the table and at the end of the day that's digital all the way. Still have film cameras and try to keep them in working order but it gets cumbersome to try to keep up. My next project will be trying to get more into 4x5 film but the cameras and gear you can find for sale all seem to be in various states of disrepair or are dreadfully priced. That's just a hobby though and won't be happening for quite a while I'm afraid. I've never got the impression that you hate film from your videos.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - it would take a bit of work to get the 5x4 on my desk running again ;-) I'll admit I never know where some questions come from, but I can't complain since they often give me ideas for new videos...

[@ricardoespanol777]

I only see one reason to go back to film from time to time: I still like what that old grain of high ISO B&W film brings to some photos. Perhaps it can be got digitally, but I haven't learnt yet... Or perhaps it is just a bit of nostalgia.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, there is that. I've seen some pretty impressive grain simulations though. I used DxO Film Pack to create some source patches for 'repairing' some scanned negs and with care the match was very good.

[@ricardoespanol777]

@@KeithCooper Thanks for the reference; I will give a try to DXO when I have the time. Anyway, as I go back to B&W film only from time to time, I think for the same money I will keep on exercising "full film process nostalgia". By the way, in my view, this is also the only reason why it can make sense to shoot film and then scan negatives.

[@davidmayer2082]

Like you, I found many pictures and snapshots in my parents' home. I have an Epson FF-640 (older model) and have put 1000s of prints through it. I really like it. You do have to clean its innards often to fight the dust, which otherwise shows up as vertical streaks in the scanned images. Vuescan supports it, but it is first scanner I've used where I get better results with Epson's bundled software. If you get a similar scanner, please do some videos. Scanning is an art too, and I'm always looking to improve!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I'll likely be borrowing one from Epson in the new year. All the pictures are still in my Father's house...

[@janjasiewicz9851]

I have the “luxury” of time to do film photography ..and would not go back to digital (pun intended, except scanning) .. however , I am a hybrid - I develop my own film and scan the negatives and print using canon pro 200. …but at this point in time a digital B&W print cannot compete with a well made darkroom print especially when made with more esoteric printing methods like Platinum Paladium or carbon prints… but then again the expense and skills needed are enormous … but in my opinion it is well worth . keeping the art alive. Sadly if I were a professional I’d be idiotic enough to shoot with film . Haha

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - one thing I still ask of Epson and Canon when I'm asked is for a 'serious' B&W print system.

[@supersonicsid]

I prefer digital but still get a buzz from developing medium format negs and scanning over on the Epsom 850, just going to try wet scanning with liquid called Kami which is £55 a litre, just found your channel, photography is always looking for the next best shot. Sid...

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - hope you find something of interest Since YT is very poor at letting you index past videos I recently made a categorised index of all my [500+] videos at www.northlight-images.co.uk/keith-cooper-photography-videos-index/

[@alanparkinson549]

Although I've only seen the first 3 minutes so far, your comment about 'pretentious nonsense' re film applies equally to the current fad of vinyl LP records!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes indeed - I tried to limit the number of toes I decided to step on ;-)

[@robinjones6999]

Arrrr - the iconoclasts - Great video Keith. I must confess, Ive often thought about having ago at using film again with a very old camera I have, but it's very expensive and Im no genius behind the lens. Im guessing the expense may make you more introspective and careful. Who was it that said that the best camera to use is the one in your hand?

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I did recently look again at the kit and chemicals for doing a few rolls of film, but wasn't tempted [must have been when Fujifilm sent me a GFX100 II to play with!]

[@lynsmith1096]

Nice 1 Kieth

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks

[@davidbridenstine6358]

Interesting to learn of the OM lens on your video camera. I started with a OM-1 and still have my lenses adapted. Obviously, they're not up to my best Fujis, but the 50mm, 3.5 macro yields some very good results.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - I still have a 50/1.2 which works well via an adapter on mirrorless, where you get to see the thin DOF

[@jamesmgreen15]

Film was great. Prints or slides were great. However, I was an early adopter of digital (OK EOS 300D era so not real vanguard). With a then young family the expense was totally worth it (lucky enough to afford it). Perhaps we had less expectations in the 80s (film). Certainly most never went cork sniffing edges from the developers. Things have moved on and simple as that, really. Film was good enough that it's all most ever needed (storage ease/ now sharing aside)...............JMO:)

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - it was the move to digital which allowed me to take up photography as a business. It was the time when knowing the techy side as a working photographer really gave you an advantage over those resistant to change

[@pederkristensen4691]

Interesting topic Keith, I’m also have boxes of slides and prints (legacy of working at Kodak). Question, what Epson scanner do planning to use?

[@KeithCooper]

It will be the FF680W Won't be for a while though - we're still clearing the house, and it's 130 miles away

[@akeolsson8020]

Only concern is archiving. A black and white film will most certainly survive and be readable five hundred years from now. I. Somehow doubt that jpeg, nef or dang files will. Or that the media they reside on will be accessible. Moving/converting all those image files to new technology will be a huge undertaking.

[@KeithCooper]

That is a concern, but one that personally I get less moved by as I get older ;-) YMMV

[@akeolsson8020]

True! I believe that precious few of my photographs will have great value for people hundreds of years from now. But for society and culture as a whole... Although at the moment I am wading through a lot of photographs of ancestors - pictures taken from around 1860 or so.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - one reason I'm keen to test that Epson bulk scanner

[@ytuberization]

Thanks Keith for sharing your thoughts. You are referring to a new Epson scanner or something already available?

[@KeithCooper]

It's been around for a while, but I'd never heard of the FastFoto FF-680W

[@stephendeakin2714]

But there is somewhat hidden costs to digital, I bought a computer set it up with Photoshop and thought that would be that. How wrong I was, computer goes out of date, replace it, printer gets superseded, needs replacing and it doesn't stop.

[@johnvaleanbaily246]

...and the cost of setting up a dark room with the same equipment that digital enables would be...!?

[@stephendeakin2714]

@@johnvaleanbaily246 exactly, nothing comes without additional cost and don't forget paper and chemicals as well as film costs. However an enlarger from thirty or forty years ago is still a working enlarger today. I jumped fully into digital once the six megapixel chip became available and I was not alone, at that time it seemed like everyone was dumping film equipment. As Keith says, film is yesterday's technology just like so many superseded things, however film is film, it won't last forever, it stands a chance of outlasting me, like the slides my dad took back in the sixties outlasted him, they will remain usable as long as they don't degrade and projector bulbs are available.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - I'm curious as to what's on those 25 rotary magazines...

[@janjasiewicz9851]

Actually the technology behind color film is actually unsurpassed..and more complicated than digital … even if it is quite old …

[@KeithCooper]

Complex chemistry, yes, but an awful lot goes into a modern high res stacked sensor - different sorts of complexity...

[@dunnymonster]

I'm assuming all those luddites that claim it isnt " proper " photography unless its shot using film are still driving about with horse & carts. 🤔

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - I got a lot more stick over this when I was giving talks to camera clubs 15-20 years ago ;-)