I don't shoot film, I'm not rich enough...

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think the guy is so right: shooting a fair amount of pro color film is more expensive than digital. And shooting digital is much easier for most people... If not, 99.9% camera sales worldwide wouldn't be digital...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[lorenzo1910]

But he forget about the "expensive" argument when he bought that hi-class DSLR....

 

[btgc]

Sometimes film gear becomes expensive when one doesn't use to death single camera and two lenses, but start to accumulate fancy cameras and lenses, just because they are dirty cheap. This sums up, sometimes just on shipping....

 

[jsrockit]

I agree with Kieth. If you shoot with a digital attitude film will be much more expensive. However when I shoot each click has planned thought behind it and that makes all the difference.

I love how people assume we all use digital the same way. When I used film... I could shoot 3-4 rolls a day. Now with digital, I'll shoot 100 something photos on the same type of day... what's changed? Nothing. :bang:

 

[alexnotalex]

Depends on how many frames you shoot and where you source the media.

1. Shoot B&W.
2. Bulk load.
3. Bulk load.
4. Also, bulk load.
5. Process it yourself.

When I shoot Legacy Pro (= Neopan ACROS and Neopan 400) or TMAX 400 (bulk loaded) and develop it myself, it's about US $2-3 a roll. When I shoot Neopan 1600 it's about $6.00 (I can't find it in bulk).

On the other hand, the M6 was paid for 11 years ago, and I could turn it around on this forum today, and get out 80% of what I paid for it...

Bulk loaders - how many exposures do you get from a 100ft roll of film?
best,
Curious Alex

 

[alexnotalex]

Bulk Loaders - how many exposures do you get from a 100ft roll?
just thinking...
thanks!

 

[D.O'K.]

I suspect if printing the pictures is the object the cost of digital (per frame printed) probably much exceeds film.

Regards,
D.

 

[reiki_]

I can't understand people who shoot more than a roll each day. Hell , sometimes a roll lasts me two weeks. Maybe I'm just bad :/ .

 

[djonesii]

I just shot some of the most expensive frames of my life! I have a 4X5 converted Polaroid, and I use Grafmatic backs. I know, this is the fringe edge of rangefinders, but its what I use for film. Film runs about $1 a sheet, developing in a daylight tank is so cheap as to be almost free after the set up costs.

Buying the time from the model is VERY expensive.

3 of the six sheets in one Grafmatic were full on clear. The other three developed just fine, in the same tank. No way that points to developing. Obviously user error in the camera. Those thee shots where close to 1/2 of a session in front of the window with film. ..... Gone Zip, nada, nothing .... Luckily, I have the digital ones that I chimped!

If that was commissioned pro work ( which I don't do), they would be even more expensive.

I have not heard this brought up quite this way before, but it hit home last night.

As to my film SLR, thing never has a problem, same with my Fuji GA645Zi.

The main reason that I shoot film is that there is just something about analog. It's got an appeal that is simply missing in digital.

Dave

 

[jsrockit]

I can't understand people who shoot more than a roll each day. Hell , sometimes a roll lasts me two weeks. Maybe I'm just bad :/ .

😱 Wow... is it because you can't find something to photograph or because you don't take it too seriously?

 

[reiki_]

I don't know really , I mean of course you can shoot couple of rolls when you deliberately go shooting on the street or any photo project , but generally in a single day , my friends and cats don't really require more than 36 frames 🙂 .

 

[wgerrard]

Using film entails a recurring cost that digital does not. How much that cost is and whether or not it becomes prohibitively expensive depend on each individual's circumstances. So, no doubt it does become too costly for some.

As for the "not good enough for film" remark, I wonder if that's connected with expectations that good photography requires a highly automated camera.(It might also be connected with a digital user's brief and unsatisfying foray into unautomated film cameras: shoot a couple rolls before you know much about aperture and shutter speed and you'll likely be unhappy.) Those are available as digitals, but the F6 is the only film camera that comes to mind with comparable automation. While all of us here praise the virtues of barebones unautomated cameras, the opposite viewpoint does exist.

[I don't shoot more with digital than film. I don't shoot street so don't often shoot a lot of shots in quick succession hoping for the "decisive moment". It's a reasonably deliberative process for me.]

 

[dfoo]

Bulk Loaders - how many exposures do you get from a 100ft roll?
just thinking...
thanks!

About 18 36 exposure rolls.

The thing is with negative film it is actually easier. As long as you don't underexpose (and don't grossly overexpose) then the negative will contain something that is useable. With digital you have to be right on the button, otherwise the highlights will be blown out. The only advantage is that you can review the shot right after. But if you are street shooting, if you mess up the exposure it is gone forever.

 

[Vickko]

So here is a thought - imagine that you had to pay for every digital shot, at the price of a print. And that you had to pay to store each shot.

And most important, you pay BEFORE you can see the shot, or store the shot.

I think that would change the dynamic.

With digital, you prepay, in terms of buying the equipment.

Now, I know that the cross-over for "cost of film print" vs "cost of digital equipment" exists, and that cross-over is quicker and quicker these days.

Ah, that digital world is pretty enticing, isn't it?

Vick

 

[raid]

You get what you pay for.
Cost is not just about the expense needed to get back images.
It should include the level or personal satisfaction and rewards.
You can drive a car (a Fiat or a Maserati) to drive somewhere.
The Fiat will cost less up front and on the long run.
If you enjoy exotic cars, you may still get more satisfaction from the Maserati.
As it pertains to film, it could be that for some people it is important that a certain camera is used. Maybe a Contax IIa or a Leica IIIg. A digital camera cannot be a substitute here. On the other hand, if all that matters to you is the image, then it depends whether you want to use slide film for accurate colors or black and white film for shadow details or .....


it all depends! [as has been pointed out above by others]

 

[ray*j*gun]

I love how people assume we all use digital the same way. When I used film... I could shoot 3-4 rolls a day. Now with digital, I'll shoot 100 something photos on the same type of day... what's changed? Nothing. :bang:

I believe your an exception....maybe I should have said in my experience......which is my experience, not yours.

 

[Keith]

Bulk Loaders - how many exposures do you get from a 100ft roll?
just thinking...
thanks!

A 100ft roll gives about eighteen 36 exposure rolls ... 648 shots!

Legacy pro which is heavily discounted Neopan 400 under another name is $26.00 for 100ft ... it can be shot at 200 ISO or pushed to 1600 ISO and is regarded by many as the finest black and white 400 film available ... at four cents per exposure without processing that's pretty damned cheap. If you develop at home, with Xtol for example, you can add another few cents per exposure ... so lets say eight cents per frame developed!

Black and white film photography has never been so cheap if you're prepared to make some effort! 🙂

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

if you shoot and process slides yes...it is expensive...One of the best parts of film photography for me was shooting slides and projecting them on my wall, but now it is damn expensive...

Is there a way to self develop slides easily?

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

10% is not a bad success 🙂

I believe it is lower than that, ~1-2%

 

[atlcruiser]

I went back to film from digital when I figured out that to "step up" my digital I would need to invest in a bunch of computer stuff and cameras.

i bought the M4-p, M6 and the Mamiya MF kit. I started beveloping my B+W at home and i have a reasonable local deal on color developing. Investment in all of the developng kit!

Suddenly I needed a scanner....got a cheap one then had to get a better one. I had lots of scans but difficulty oganizing them.....so I bought lightroom.

Lightoom worked OK on my old puter but I needed better so I got a new 'puter. Wow! Lightroom rules. I was soon able to make much better files than my crappy printer could print so I got an Epson R2400 used.

Not too long after this I needed to se tup a home office/darkroom to use all of this crap....evne more money to Ikea.

When compared frame to frame digital would be a bit cheaper for me even though I "thought' film would be cheaper. I keep the film cost down to a low enough level I dont mind it at all.

One serious advantage I see is that I do not need to upgrade any of my cameras or lenses unless i jsut want to. My kit is solid and will never get outdated and can be fixed if broken. Over a number of years and heavy use i think film will equal out costing less as i will buy fewer cameras.....(That sounds good at least🙂 )

I consider myself a serious amature but I am far from rich and have struggled with large purchases many times. In the end i enjoy the feel of film and the slight additional cost is well worth it.