Perrrrrrrrrrsonally I like black and white to be reserved for black and white film... You've spent thousands on a digital camera with an incredible picture quality, so why degrade and use black and white? Thinking out loud here, I'll probably regret that statement later.
saying bw degrades picture quality completely depends on the process and the person behind that process, its not something that can be generalized. I can see what your saying with simple black and white settings on your camera, but if your shooting raw and converting in post how is that degrading the quality? I wouldn't say the style degrades image quality, more the photographer shooting and working on it. and I really enjoy film, but if you spend a grip of cash on a dslr why not take advantage of the convenience of it? Film is great for fine art stuff, and theres something in being able to hold your negatives or positives, but its not very practical.
I more meant that I dislike when people try to make their crisp digital files look like film, adding grain, making them black and white etc. It seems silly to spend so much on a camera for its picture quality to then take it back 10 years and make it look like film. But my comment was full of holes.
I really think b&w can sometimes do far more for a picture than colour ever could while shooting digital Personal preference I guess, whatever
Yea you're right in a way, that nice colour and quality you get with an expensive camera can't be looked past
i guess what hes trying to say is why have a digital camera if you're going for a film look i really like how film looks when its developed always been one for PHYSICAL photographs rather than digital files unfortunately i just can't afford film and developing otherwise id probably shoot with it all the time
it's cheap as hell to develop film. You can get a camera, tank, chems, thermometer, and clips for under $100. You can do it for under $50 if you try hard. developer and fixer and wetting agent will be less then $20 every few months. The expensive part is the enlarger or scanner.
shooting film yourself is pretty inexpensive. you can get pretty cheap enlargers too, like 100-200 for something half-crap, but it prints photos. but having a lab takes up so much space. you got 4 tanks for developing, then you have to have a cabinet for your negatives to dry, then another 4 trays for when you have to print, a fat enlarger, and then a place to dry prints. shit's hectic. and all this has to be in a dark ass place.
i dont think it would be too difficult to set up a darkroom. its just impractical. maybe if i i was a dedicated photographer, then yes it would be an option. but i'm not. and about the cost, it might be cheaper than i imagine but for the equipment, chemicals, paper, film, i'm sure it adds up i just get my digital photos printed at a photo lab for 30 cents each. much more convenient. film is real nice though and i would prefer it.
I thought you hated those. You know damnwell I'm getting one as soon as I get the money, but I'm going to get it as a kit. Tax refunds come here in february, so that's when I'll have one.
so i have been thinking about what i want out of a camera and since i dont know much about them, i come here again lol. i am set on the d40. but what is the biggest i will be able to print something and maintain a good image? i just might want to make bigger prints to hang in the house or for my girls rents thanks