Digital versus film photography

[boskysquelch]

All photo chemicals have hazards.

The best in the WORLD printer I ever met had a left hand like a lobster from all the chemicals he had sloshed over it from the years of processing in trays.

*he used to print for Sarah Moon...if anyone could find out who he was or if there is anything on the Net about him I'd be v grateful...he was based in a house in Fulham and called Bill Robinson (but prolly not...I ferget) ...or somesuch.

 

[Herbsman.]

Is not also true that if you shoot a hundred exposures you stand more chance of getting a really good photo - same goes for professional and amateur? Film limits you to a few exposures unless you want to carry loads of spares with you when you can get 500 photos on one memory card. So in one way film is better as it makes you think before wasting an exposure and digital allows you to experiment and take risks with every photo and discard the rubbish without feeling you have wasted any money.

I disagree.

I just took about 200 photos for the weekly assignment and they're all shit

I might have been more careful if I had 36 exp on a film and knew I had to pay 8 quid for dev & scan... but then again I might have just got 36 equally shit pictures