Too cool...film photography is cheap!

[dave lackey]

Been thinking through the next 5 years for film photography for me only...And you know what? It is absolutely the way to go, cost-wise, as well as medium-of-choice-wise (is that a word?).😛

For 2013, buying film, and having my buddy's lab process and scan, it will cost me $1.00/frame for the rest of this year, and that is including buying an R8 ($600-300 value after depreciation) to use alongside the R4...one camera for color and the other for b/w.

For 2014, I will be processing my own, buying a scanner and scanning my own with no more gear costs. Even with the cost of a scanner, my cost is $0.80/frame.

For 2015, 2016, and 2017, there is only processing my own (chemicals only), and scanning my own, so my costs drop to $0.36/frame.

These costs are quite manageable monthly.

In fact, buying a full frame Nikon and Leitax conversion for the lovely R Camera lenses is way expensive and makes film cheaper for the next 2 years. And that is even presuming that I don't need a new computer to handle all the digital images coming off the D700!

Now, to go out and buy a few bricks of film while it is still relatively cheap!🙂

 

[dave lackey]

And not one response...amazing.

 

[kdemas]

Interesting though it cleary depends on shooting volume. The 2000 frames I pop off at a motor racing event will certainly skew the affordability curve a bit!

Have fun Dave, you have a nice setup and I'm glad it works for you!

Kent

 

[dave lackey]

Interesting though it cleary depends on shooting volume. The 2000 frames I pop off at a motor racing event will certainly skew the affordability curve a bit!

Have fun Dave, you have a nice setup and I'm glad it works for you!

Kent

Thanks, Kent. When I was doing motorsports and/or other sporting events, I would routinely shoot 1000-2000 frames on the D2H/D2X. I don't do those anymore and don't own a DSLR of any kind. Whilst shooting film, I have specific things in mind, and therefore I shoot maybe a thousand frames a year with film along with an untold number of digital frames with the X1 or any of the Nikon P&S cameras.

So, for me, spending $50-$100/month on film photography is within my meager budget...er, most of the time. Looks like I have found the secret to film nirvana...where production and affordability intersect!🙂

 

[dave lackey]

Of course, this is a slippery slope.

Adding the chrome and the black Nikon FE2 cameras along with the M3, and I have a hungry lot! Reminds me of our teenagers hanging around the house and trying to keep them fed.😛

Not to worry, it is difficult to find free time for shooting lately, so my average shots/week are going to be quite low for awhile.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, Dave (to quote HAL): I was busy.

Depends on how you use the pictures.

Digital is cheaper for commercial illustrations.

Love to you and Linda,

R.

 

[frogfroggy]

Even though I shoot film, I have to comment that film is not cheap, but shooting more carefully and thoughtful will make the shot a keeper. H

But your math equations sure look good. I wish I could dev/print/scan film for 1 dollar! Here in Germany it's definitely more expensive !!!

 

[shadowfox]

Dave,

Film no longer make sense for working photographers in any fields that demands high volume (sports, automobile, war/conflict, fashion, marine/geology researches, document/artifact recordings, retail/commercial, and many more).

Now that we got that out of the way, I submit that film makes a whole lot of sense for photographers who are not bound by any "contract" save with oneself, to produce the best photograph with a certain amount of resources that are available.

In a sense, film photography, with its rich history and abundant "avenues" to pursue, offers a serious alternative to digital. Remember, just like some people can become tired of film, the reverse can also happen, especially among those born post film-era.

Having said that, I'd recommend taking it all the way to the finish line: darkroom printing.

 

[dave lackey]

Dave,

Film no longer make sense for working photographers in any fields that demands high volume (sports, automobile, war/conflict, fashion, marine/geology researches, document/artifact recordings, retail/commercial, and many more).

Now that we got that out of the way, I submit that film makes a whole lot of sense for photographers who are not bound by any "contract" save with oneself, to produce the best photograph with a certain amount of resources that are available.

In a sense, film photography, with its rich history and abundant "avenues" to pursue, offers a serious alternative to digital. Remember, just like some people can become tired of film, the reverse can also happen, especially among those born post film-era.

Having said that, I'd recommend taking it all the way to the finish line: darkroom printing.[/quote]


I agree with that recommendation. Only problem is, our income is fixed (save for the occasional joke known as cost of living wage for SS). Our medical bills are dramatically on the increase and inflation is taking it's toll already.

So, that is why I posted this thread, I have found an equilibrium point within our budget that allows me to practice my art with film at a level I can afford...mostly. In other words, I am happy that I can enjoy shooting with my film cameras for another five years and longer.:angel:

I cannot ever hope to own an M9/M-E/M. But that's okay. My $800 X1 can handle that. Or, a depreciated D700 one day with Leitax converters. Or, something else if I need to change digitally. Just loving the X1 for now.

You are absolutely correct. I am working for myself and have only myself to please. 😀 I would love to immerse myself in film totally. But I am content to be able to do what I can for the time being and into the future.

Just wish those danged cameras would quit calling me...I can't shoot but one at a time!

 

[hepcat]

I cannot ever hope to own an M9/M-E/M. But that's okay. My $800 X1 can handle that. Or, a depreciated D700 one day with Leitax converters. Or, something else if I need to change digitally. Just loving the X1 for now.


Just wish those danged cameras would quit calling me...I can't shoot but one at a time!

Ahhh... but the M8s seem to be steadily dropping in price and remaining quite constant in performance... don't rule one out. If I didn't need to have an FF body to be competitive, I'd be quite content with my M8 alone. AND there's nothing that says film and digital must be exclusive. They're equally fun, competent and rewarding. I've found that by limiting my stable to ONLY Leica M bodies and then lenses that fit them, I actually don't have a lot of money invested across platforms. For the first time in years, I have a single array of lenses that work across three bodies; two digital, one film. It's pretty liberating, actually. If I hadn't bought the M9P body, I'd have less than $5,000 total in my gear (M8, M4-P, eight lenses, visoflex and various other acoutrement.) Thats a pretty good value in photography right now. Leica doesn't have to be expensive and you can have the best of both worlds.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I don't find film massively expensive, of course I don't shoot 2000 frames a day, more like half that per annum.
I buy Agfa Vista 135-36 for a pound, process myself so I get negatives and processed for about £2.
I scan these on a V500 which is my wife's flatbed for her work, so pretty cheap.
For B&W and 120 I use Fomapan which is about £2 a roll and almost zero cost to process in Rodinal.
Because I shoot 90% 120 and a small amount of 35mm and 4x5 it'll take me 5 yrs to reach the cost of my D700.
Petrol is my main expense on a weekly basis, film is cheap.

 

[dave lackey]

I don't find film massively expensive, of course I don't shoot 2000 frames a day, more like half that per annum.
I buy Agfa Vista 135-36 for a pound, process myself so I get negatives and processed for about £2.
I scan these on a V500 which is my wife's flatbed for her work, so pretty cheap.
For B&W and 120 I use Fomapan which is about £2 a roll and almost zero cost to process in Rodinal.
Because I shoot 90% 120 and a small amount of 35mm and 4x5 it'll take me 5 yrs to reach the cost of my D700.
Petrol is my main expense on a weekly basis, film is cheap.

^...THAT is what I meant to say in less words!🙂

 

[ibcrewin]

Dave,

Having said that, I'd recommend taking it all the way to the finish line: darkroom printing.

Heck yeah! That's where it's at!

 

[PhotoJim]

I keep hearing that digital is cheaper than film, but dropping $3,500 on a D800 and vertical grip (I wanted full frame and it didn't seem sensible to go with the D700; the D600 was not yet available) makes me think I could have shot a ton of film and still been ahead. 🙂

Don't get me wrong - I love the D800 - but I haven't even included software costs, hardware costs (I have local backup plus offsite backup, plus RAID on my server, to ensure no data is lost)... and, of course, time.

Film certainly consumes money and time also, but archiving it is a lot simpler. I'm certainly at risk of a disaster, but there is no need to be migrating backups through to more modern storage media.

I tend to shoot for output, now. If it's online and convenient content I want (that I could print if I wanted), I use the D800. If it's a photographic print or transparency I want, I shoot film.

 

[noisycheese]

Even though I shoot film, I have to comment that film is not cheap, but shooting more carefully and thoughtful will make the shot a keeper. H

But your math equations sure look good. I wish I could dev/print/scan film for 1 dollar! Here in Germany it's definitely more expensive !!!

Kodak Tri-X = $4.29 USD per roll
Leica M Monochrom = $7950.00 USD per body

That makes the choice obvious - for me, at least. 😉

 

[BW400CN]

You´re right about the cost! that´s why I bought a used F90 insted of a new D600. for the cost of the D600 and a new Computer, I can buy and develop tons of film!

 

[noisycheese]

Dave,

Film no longer make sense for working photographers in any fields that demands high volume (sports, automobile, war/conflict, fashion, marine/geology researches, document/artifact recordings, retail/commercial, and many more).

Now that we got that out of the way, I submit that film makes a whole lot of sense for photographers who are not bound by any "contract" save with oneself, to produce the best photograph with a certain amount of resources that are available.

In a sense, film photography, with its rich history and abundant "avenues" to pursue, offers a serious alternative to digital. Remember, just like some people can become tired of film, the reverse can also happen, especially among those born post film-era.

Having said that, I'd recommend taking it all the way to the finish line: darkroom printing.

True on both counts, in my experience at least.

For a freelance photographer who shoots for him/herself, film makes alot of sense. For a commercial photographer who is dancing to the client's jig, digital makes alot of sense. Clients expect and demand instant results; only digital can provide that.

Based on my reading and research, for digital imagery to equal film based imagery in terms of image quality a full frame camera of 35-36 mp - such as the Nikon D800 or Canon's equivalent, whatever the model number is - is the minimum camera needed.

For those of us who like to use Leica M cameras, we would need to go to a digital M in the $7000-8000 USD price range. Of course, you would need two of them, in case your primary camera broke while shooting; you always need a backup body.

Not being in a position or having the desire to cough up $14-16K for digital bodies (that will be outdated and worth fifteen cents on the dollar for trade-in value two Photokinas down the road) and not wanting to be painted into the SLR corner, I have elected to continue to shoot film with my film M cameras.

I'd recommend taking it all the way to the finish line: darkroom printing.

Believe it or not, one can get an exhibit quality print from film and paper. Depending on the emulsion and developer you select, there will be a limitation in print size that you cannot exceed without seeing print quality begin to decline. With the 24x36mm format, it is (generally) around 16x20 inches, sometimes 20x24 inches depending on emulsion, developer and the skill of the printer.

But then again, how many 6x8 foot prints does a person ever really want or need??

Just some food for thought...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

B/W 135 film as hobby is very cheap.
Working FSU RF with 50mm lens, or Japanese RF with build-in lens are under $100.
Even simple cameras like those are giving incredible b/w pictures.

Bulk film is cheap, developer and fixer are very cheap.
The $100 total per year for bulk film and chemicals is possible. It will be something like 100 rolls of b/w film, developed, ready to scan.
It is like two rolls per week. Reasonable amount for hobby.

Compare it to FF digital. The cheapest one you could get is Canon 5D for $500-$600.
And it is DSLR, which is big and heavy and impossible to fix if something goes wrong.

Even if it Leica film RF. Not cheap. But you'll buy it only once and it could be kept in family as collectible, not just digital box to take pictures.