And this is why I shoot mostly film... with digital it's too easy and tempting to resort to parlor tricks instead of taking a genuinely good photograph.
I just scored a semi-nice film SLR the other day; it used to belong to my parents but they've gone digital and it hasn't been used in yonks. It's certainly nowhere near as programmable as even a cheap digital SLR, but whatever, it's fun to use.
The difference, in terms of taking shots, is night and day - with my digital camera, I'll snap 10+ shots of the same thing to try and find the right one; with this, I spend five minutes angling around and trying to find the right shot off the bat.
I'm not a good photographer by any means; in fact, I'm substantially below average if I'm honest about it. But raising the bar to entry certains makes you focus on what you're doing a lot more.
Which I guess is a long and winding way of saying I agree. It's more fun when there' more effort involved.
I feel the same way - there's a greater sense of accomplishment when you allow yourself only a single opportunity to capture what you see in front of you.
In photography parlance we call it chimping - i.e., jumping around like a monkey and clicking the shutter like crazy, trying to get the right shot. Even if you get the right one, you have no idea if it's your skill, luck, or just law of large numbers...
When I shoot film I feel more purposeful - I rarely ever take more than a single exposure of any one particular thing - it also teaches you to be patient, and hold the shutter until you know you have the right shot. On rapid-fire you will often get a good picture, but no idea what makes it good, whereas with film I'm aware that this picture works because, say, I waited until there was no one in the background.
My current favored camera is a Leica R4s - only manual and aperture priority modes, manual focus, manual aperture control, and only 2 metering modes (you only ever need one - center-weighted). When you strip a machine down to the bare minimum it opens a lot of creative doors.
I shoot film (as an amateur) by choice (sold my DSLR last year), but I still scan all of it, so every now and again it still gets tempting to give it the PS treatment..
I used to have a second hand Minolta Scan Dual IV, which is a dedicated 35mm scanner.
I've since started shooting 35mm & medium format, and I sold the Minolta and bought an Epson V700, which is a flatbed. I also used an Epson 4490 while I was in NY for a while last year, really good value for money.
Thanks, sorry for the late response. I have a friend (Wiktor Wołkow) in Poland that has an archive of about 150,000 images, no backups.
It's his life work, most of it is 35 mm, some on 60x60, he's been a professional photographer his whole life long and the thought of a fire there scares me.
So I have been thinking off and on about how to tackle that job, it would take quite a bit of time and money to do it properly.
There was a company a couple of years ago that did outsourced bulk film scanning. You basically sent them your film en masse, they sent it to India and had it scanned there, and then sent you back the film and the scans.
Couldn't find them with a quick google though, they may not have survived the GFC.
