Quote Originally Posted by Loupey
I assume most of you are developing film but scanning the negatives to process and print digitally? If so, the pure fun/quality/enjoyment of analog photography is lost (to a large extent) and much of the costs incurred by the pure digital photographer are also incurred in the form of computer hardware, software, external storage, inks, etc.
I understand what you're saying, but I'll be the first to admit it's not a completely logical decision. I don't do it for financial reasons or for some objective measure of quality. I do it because I like the look of film, I like using my rangefinder and other old cameras, and I like the creative control I get from developing my own film. I don't make wet prints anymore because I don't have the means. However, I don't think the look of film comes from a print. It comes from the film, and you can't get that look from a digital camera. It also has some advantages that wet printing doesn't. At any point, I can hit save and go do something else with out spending half an hour cleaning up. Hopefully one day I'll move into a house where I can build a darkroom, and when I do, I'll have a collection of negatives to keep me busy. :thumbsup: