I wanted to share this one in the ongooooooooooing and ongooooooing discusion on why we should(n't) go digital:

One member of my course made the final remark on choosing digital. I prefer to sit in the room with my family when printing my pic's, over an evening alone in the darkroom.

Excellent choise to go digital.

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), April 28, 2002

Answers

depends on how much you like your family I guess!! ;O)

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 28, 2002.

Its interesting that you equate the benefits of 'digital' with your family, giving you more time with them, sharing in making the pictures etc. I have often wondered what will happen to the actual family photographs in the future. With it being so easy to delete all but the best pictures, are we heading for a future devoid of typical family snapshots? The imperfect ones that often say more about the family than the staged wedding, birthday, and Xmas ones do. I'm not saying in your case that would happen, but will most social history and family memories in the furture be just that, memories? I guess my thoughts must go against the percieved wisdom that the ease of digital will create a glut of images, but it could go the other way, as the delete button is pressed, and photographs held on the PC are dumped when a new PC is purchased.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globanet.co.uk), April 28, 2002.

That comment must be spoken by someone who hasn't actually spent much time doing digital photography work. It is just as possible to get lost in PhotoShop work and stay up all night in front of the computer as it is in the wet darkroom. If you doubt this just speak to any of the "computer widows" out there, the wives and girlfriends of those who are hooked on their computers. To me it is part of the social paradox of the computer. On the one hand the computer and internet have allowed people to routinely chat with those on the other side of the globe about any subject at any time of the day or night. On the other hand, the fact that many folks disappear after dinner to spend hours on the computer certainly has not helped the level of communication and intimacy in their own relationships at home.

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.

Tim, I saw that one comming :-)

Actually I don't care. I don't have any familie (at least at home). To me it is my joy to be alone in the darkromm together with my pictures. They are more or less family to me, so my darkroom stays :-).

It was the first non-techy reason in the digital discussion I ever heard. I loved it.

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), April 28, 2002.

Steve, I never thought of it that way! But yes, any kind of digital (virtual) material can be lost with a wrong mouseclick or any kind of ahrdware failure.. I doubt that much folks will bother to make backups to save their stuff. What I love about digital is that you get the results immediately, and the much lower threshold to actually shoot a pic. You can delete it anyway, when it's crap, isn't it? So people shoot deliberately.. OK, a lot of bad pictures, but I would ba happy if this had happened 30 years ago, and there would be a lot of bad pics of my childhood, and family, instead of the few lousy pictures that were actually made..

..ok, back to topic - quality is the problem with digital, and the fact that digital cameras are slow, and painful to operate. Thus, the contrary of a leica, and my reasons for using leica.. Things are different with the digital darkroom, which is really fun and powerful. And thanks to Kodak's photo cd, I turned my 70 year old leica II into a i-don't-know-how-much-megapixel digital camera, while still having the negatives. Best of both worlds? The combo works good for me, at least.

-- Jean (derimac@yahoo.de), April 28, 2002.

I use film and will continue to use film for the forseeable future. However I use a digital darkroom. But on those occasions that I do wet work, it is done at the kitchen sink, using tubes for prints, and of course, tanks for film. From what I've seen of modern Leica Photographers, non do any type of darkroom work. Those members of this forum that do wet darkroom work can probably be counted on one hand. I would assume that more do digital darkroom work, and at least they're getting involved more than usual with the photo making process.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

In 5 years time pictures taken with the latest digital cameras will look primative compared to the new designs - you are stuck with the original capture file. In the same time span there will be a similar improvement in scanner and manipulation software/hardware - the info is still on the film and can be improved on.

-- John griffin (john.griffin@millerhare.com), April 28, 2002.

I prefer to sit in the room with my family when printing my pic's, over an evening alone in the darkroom.

yeah. and that same picture gets faded after two weeks. you don't spend an eternity on the darkroom to make your LONG-LASTING pictures, why make a big deal out of it? you'll have to make a compromise to get the best of somethinng...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

I have and enjoy both digital and wet darkrooms. They both have advantages and shortcomings, so I use the one appropriate for a given task. I like having all my images on film so as the digital storage media changes I dont have to worry about transferring all my images. As for the argument about computers taking time away from family interactions, well if it's not the commputer it will be the television or the wood shop etc. If one values intimacy with ones family, hobby activity will be kept in moderation.

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), April 28, 2002.

The whole darkroom issue has absolutely nothing to do with digital imaging for me. I despised wet darkroom work and I despise digital darkroom work. The same way a chef might feel about washing pots and pans. I like taking pictures, not processing them. I don't care what technology my lab uses, as long as the results please me.

My digital issue is only with regards to intial capture, and that doesn't relate to spending time with family. Certain things I like about digital capture: instant preview, 1.6x magnification without light loss due to teleconverters, carry one postage-stamp-sized Microdrive instead of a large bag of film, immense cost-savings oer film and processing even after factoring in obsolescence of gear. Certain things I don't like about it: Large prints are expensive to have made since they require manipulation and interpolation at the lab; all-eggs-in-one-basket risk with Microdrive vs multiple films; same issue with images stored on HD or CD-ROM; lack of ultrawide angle coverage with current digital SLRs.

In conclusion, I see no reason to "go digital" or "stay with film". I am embracing both technologies. I feel eventually digital will address all the negative issues, and 35mm film will become prohibitively expensive and inconvenient. My only hope is that the latter does not precede the former.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 28, 2002.

Dexter, Digital advancements have been made. Prints don't fade in weeks, months, or according to 3rd party researchers, years (or even centuries???). I didn't believe the claims from Epson on their 2000P. So, I made an 12 X18 color print with over-saturated Magenta ( the most fugitive color ) and put it in my sun-washed bay window with 1/2 of it covered. It showed a very slight effect after one year. Reg. processed prints failed the same test. Yes, well processed B&W prints are a proven archival medium, no doubt. But color has always been a problem. If a digital print is properly mounted and framed to keep it away from the real print killer, the environment, there is no reason to believe that it won't last as long as a conventional color print. And if the claims are overblown, I'll just pull another EXACT duplicate because the original color corrected, retouched images are stored on CDs and a seperate 100gig HD.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 29, 2002.

Guys stop

you are missing the point. This is a humorous entry, stop the techy stuff!

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), April 29, 2002.