seems kind if pointless if those results are typical. working with film is expensive and wasteful, and there are other ways to get effects and tones like those working with modern cameras.
and what would i learn? that chemical baths aren't needed to develop? that rolls of specially-treated paper aren't necessary as a medium? that somehow oldschool photography is more efficient materials-wise than digital photography?
seems kind if pointless if those results are typical. working with film is expensive and wasteful, and there are other ways to get effects and tones like those working with modern cameras.
and what would i learn? that chemical baths aren't needed to develop? that rolls of specially-treated paper aren't necessary as a medium? that somehow oldschool photography is more efficient materials-wise than digital photography?
1926
+100 years
-------------
2026
86 years old is hardly "almost 100"