I use both. Film way more often, but I got a DD on a digital street photo.
Most commonly its film and scanning and/or contact sheets. I don't normally do wet prints these days for financial reasons, but otherwise all the best stuff would get wet printed. I never do digital prints, my scanning is solely for the purposes of digital archiving and/or online presentation.
Ok I misunderstood the poll as finite, or misunderestimated as George W would say. I earn my living through digital photography. About 40% of what I submit here are neg scans. Actually most of my xpan photos are two images stiched together, as the neg carrier only does half the frame.
The best street shooter on this site is a digital one [link] Although 90% of the digi shooters on this community when I see there images I just can't believe what I'm seeing, JDLR as picture editors would say. Thats fine for fashion and fine art, but for documentary it should be less subjective.
So you define real photography as having to be on film and wet printed?
Webster's sees that differently.
I shoot film but print digitally most (not all) of the time simply because I don't have room in my apartment for an enlarger and renting a darkroom in Taipei is rather expensive.
But I don't consider my photographs "fake".
I mean, I don't remove any elements from my photos...they are as I shot them.
Just being curious, do you consider traditional photos that have been dodged, burned, and sponged "fake"?
in fact, all my photography is 100% analog, but i had to admit, that i don't print by myslef we tried some time ago printing, but when we had real photos from the lab, to see our mistakes don't have time to try more.
I got one really cheap when I bought my darkroom stuff... I placed an advertisement in the newspaper to find it But I don't know if the print developing really pays off, the paper is quite expensive. Probably better to scan and print digitally... though, there's a lot more feeling when you put the paper in the different chemics
Sta.sh
Devious Comments
Most commonly its film and scanning and/or contact sheets. I don't normally do wet prints these days for financial reasons, but otherwise all the best stuff would get wet printed. I never do digital prints, my scanning is solely for the purposes of digital archiving and/or online presentation.
I was only asking what people use for street photography now. That doesn't mean that they have never experienced "real" photography.
Like me, I do "hybrid" due to space and financial restrictions, but still know how and sometimes do wet printing.
The best street shooter on this site is a digital one [link]
Although 90% of the digi shooters on this community when I see there images I just can't believe what I'm seeing, JDLR as picture editors would say. Thats fine for fashion and fine art, but for documentary it should be less subjective.
Webster's sees that differently.
I shoot film but print digitally most (not all) of the time simply because I don't have room in my apartment for an enlarger and renting a darkroom in Taipei is rather expensive.
But I don't consider my photographs "fake".
I mean, I don't remove any elements from my photos...they are as I shot them.
Just being curious, do you consider traditional photos that have been dodged, burned, and sponged "fake"?
don't have time to try more.
I need an enlarger.
Everything else I do myself
But I don't know if the print developing really pays off, the paper is quite expensive. Probably better to scan and print digitally... though, there's a lot more feeling when you put the paper in the different chemics