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

[stewmander]

I agree with what alex said regarding post processing digital photos. It ends up being a question of "how much is my time worth?" Days sitting in front of my PC pouring through all my digital photos vs. a few hrs. scanning select negatives could be quite a considerable "expense" when you start to put a dollar value on your time. Of course, if you love the digital post processing, then its a moot point, because you are already spending your time the way you want.

Also, I find that taking a camera loaded with 135 36 film helps me enjoy the trip more. For example, with a DSLR I feel compelled to photograph everything of interest, and end up experiencing the world through the lens. With a single roll of film, I take more selective photos, and when the roll is done, I enjoy the rest of the trip (until I can reload) without taking photos.

EDIT - Kuzano, my point exactly! I posted before reading your post...

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Digital is not free

Digital is not free

I'd have to agree w/ the gentleman you met though. Film is quite a bit more expensive to shoot, even if you develop it yourself, as w/ a digital camera it's free.

But its not free. Digital cameras--- leaving aside, for now, their cost of ownership-- have also costs of operation. Beyond consumables such as batteries, how do you plan on storing and keeping the images? With film you have negatives. They were purchased with the capture media: film. With digital you must purchase the archive media and the costs--- as I've outlined above--- are quite significant. The costs of archiving 5000 digital images for 30 years at the current pricing for services such as S3 is higher than the price of 1000 rolls of film.
Whats "free" (well not really but will pretend) is the act of taking a picture and throwing it away. Wasted shots are cheap, nearly free, with digital.. That's why digital promotes a very different shooting style.

 

[amateriat]

Lots of thoughtful stuff here, folks.

It all really comes down to habits for me. When I've shot digital (not that often), my film-shooting habits take center-stage. Shoot more when I think it's necessary, but not just "because I can." Shooting film isn't crazy-expensive for me these days (and I'm anything but "rich"). There's this thing about waiting for the moment, as opposed to spray-and-pray (and, now, of course, chimp). Photography for me has long been more about awareness of one's surroundings than simply "Oh, look at that" reflexiveness, even though I too was swayed by flavor-of-the-month fads for a while as well. Probably longer than I cared to admit.

If you apply yourself rigorously, choice of medium should matter little. How many people have the chops for this? Another question entirely.


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

But its not free. Digital cameras--- leaving aside, for now, their cost of ownership-- have also costs of operation. Beyond consumables such as batteries, how do you plan on storing and keeping the images? With film you have negatives. They were purchased with the capture media: film. With digital you must purchase the archive media and the costs--- as I've outlined above--- are quite significant. The costs of archiving 5000 digital images for 30 years at the current pricing for services such as S3 is higher than the price of 1000 rolls of film.
Whats "free" (well not really but will pretend) is the act of taking a picture and throwing it away. Wasted shots are cheap, nearly free, with digital.. That's why digital promotes a very different shooting style.

And, as a freelance IT tech, I can recall dozens of stories of people who didn't understand that hard drives indeed do have a finite lifespan, and require a backup system for reasonable (but not necessarily absolute) peace of mind. Yes, "it's all just ones and zeros", until a drive fails electro-mechanically. Sort of like how Rutger Hauer's character "dies" at the end of Blade Runner, although his death was a bit more predictable. It's amazing how many people won't spend a little under two hundred bucks for serious data protection, but go into cardiac arrest after a drive failure, when I tell them they need to go to someone like DriveSavers, who likely can get their failed drive's data back, but at a fairly steep price.

This isn't, by the way, why I prefer shooting film. I like film for a host of other reasons. But it does come to mind once in a while.


- Barrett

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

All this.....just when I thought film was dead!😱

 

[Mister E]

And, as a freelance IT tech, I can recall dozens of stories of people who didn't understand that hard drives indeed do have a finite lifespan, and require a backup system for reasonable (but not necessarily absolute) peace of mind. Yes, "it's all just ones and zeros", until a drive fails electro-mechanically. Sort of like how Rutger Hauer's character "dies" at the end of Blade Runner, although his death was a bit more predictable. It's amazing how many people won't spend a little under two hundred bucks for serious data protection, but go into cardiac arrest after a drive failure, when I tell them they need to go to someone like DriveSavers, who likely can get their failed drive's data back, but at a fairly steep price.

This isn't, by the way, why I prefer shooting film. I like film for a host of other reasons. But it does come to mind once in a while.


- Barrett

One we are hit with a EMP and loose all of our digital files film will once again reign supreme. I'll start building my Leica cache now.

 

[_mark__]

They are both very expensive if your skint! I think digital takes the crown with bi/tri-yearly software and hardware upgrades, consumables etc.

 

[Vincent.G]

My full frame compact, Nikon TW Zoom 35-80, costs less than USD100. I cannot find a digital compact full frame at this price.

All said, not everything in photography can be measured with money. I enjoy the process of shooting with film with which money cannot buy nor digital can provide.

 

[Mcary]

One we are hit with a EMP and loose all of our digital files film will once again reign supreme. I'll start building my Leica cache now.

But you're forgetting about the film eating mutants, that are spawned in every nuclear blast, Yah that's something else the government has covered up.

Tri_X Tri-X Tri-X

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

One we are hit with a EMP and loose all of our digital files film will once again reign supreme. I'll start building my Leica cache now.

.....not sure what a EMP is? - but if I ever get hit by something nasty - the last thing I'll give a sh*t about is digital files or negatives surviving!

 

[Luna]

.....not sure what a EMP is? - but if I ever get hit by something nasty - the last thing I'll give a sh*t about is digital files or negatives surviving!

Electromagnetic pulse.
I really need to get a raid system going. My son keeps kicking and knocking over my external hard drive with all my crap on it.
But I'm not rich enough to get one.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

RAID is no answer

RAID is no answer

I really need to get a raid system going.

If you get an electrical failure and blow the controller--- and its more common than any of us are comfortable thinking about--- you can blow all the disks. YES, I've experienced it.. FIRST HAND.. No urban lore.. Its real... and after telling the story to a customer at a research institute.. a few months later.. he experienced same.. In our case we just lost our spider's cache--- we were indexing the Internet.. He lost his accounting db.. Cost him many $1000s of USD to get the data out by a team of elves in Norway.. and was quite happy... VERY happy.. The damage could have been many many times over that amount.. Nope.. RAID is no answer to the question.. Neither is DAT, Tape, DVD, CD etc.. MO was about as close it came but still not the solution..
The problem is the mode of failure.. When a negative gets damaged you loose some information but its not all lost. With digital the mode of failure is complete. Throw in the density of storage and its nothing short of a ticking bomb.. its not "if" but when the information is lost..

 

[wgerrard]

With digital - the camera becomes the recurring cost

Said in jest, I think. But, still, no one compels anyone to upgrade. if someone is satisfied with the images produced by the digital camera he owns today, why should he be any less satisfied when next year's model is released?

 

[craygc]

Said in jest, I think. But, still, no one compels anyone to upgrade. if someone is satisfied with the images produced by the digital camera he owns today, why should he be any less satisfied when next year's model is released?

Semi jest 😀 Not so much as in its necessary but thats its almost embedded "behaviour" with digital :bang:

 

[wgerrard]

.....not sure what a EMP is? - but if I ever get hit by something nasty - the last thing I'll give a sh*t about is digital files or negatives surviving!

If an EMP get us, we'll be looking for dry twigs and leaves to start fires so we can stay warm enough to look at our lovely negatives and prints while holding a burning piece of pitch on a stick in one hand.

 

[Colin Corneau]

When a digital shooter says "I'm not good enough to shoot film" what they mean is film doesn't let them use cop-outs like Photoshop filters etc. to cover over laziness, lack of skill or a simple unwillingness to get it right at the time of shooting.

I shoot both and you need to get it right at the outset with either method.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Said in jest, I think. But, still, no one compels anyone to upgrade.

All devices have their limitation and its part of human nature and the driving force for technological progress to want to "upgrade".

if someone is satisfied with the images produced by the digital camera he owns today, why should he be any less satisfied when next year's model is released?

With film cameras replacing the sensor is as simple as getting new film.

Upgrading in film is trying out a new or different film, a new or different developer combination.. photo paper.. print developer.. etc..

With "analog" cameras, of course, the whole technological advance was in metering, automation and shutter speed.. Not in capture.. that's the job of the film. Most of the technical advances were to make it easier, more foolproof, faster and/or cheaper.. the basic operation changed little..

With digital cameras your stuck with the sensor and most often the soft- and firmware running the thing. With a 50 year old rangefinder the the controlling system is your brain and it should be constantly developing, learning.. getting "upgraded"...

 

[healyzh]

I was quite shocked what Wolfe camera charged me last time I brought a roll there... Now that Costco has dropped developing in my area, it sucks to get color film developed. Luckily for film I'm a 99% B&W guy.

I'm able to get film at a decent price from my local "Pro" store, but development costs from there lab are on the excessive side. I use them for C-41 120 & 4x5, plus have used them for B&W work, but I do that myself now. I've purchased a couple rolls in the last couple years from a chain store in the NW and was horrified by the price.

I bought a lot of C-41 35mm this year, and have several rolls to drop off at Costco after I get paid next week. Costco does an almost consistently great job, for a good price. Hearing that in some areas they're starting to drop the service is most distressing!

 

[healyzh]

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?

The problem I see with doing your own slide development is getting the chemicals. In the late 80's while in the Navy, I could get "E-6 kits" that were good for something like 3 rolls of film. When we were in port and on shore water, I'd go in a battery locker, bolt the door, and turn the lights off. I used the hot and cold water in the deep sink with a thermometer for temperature control. It was fairly easy, though the temp control was a pain. With a proper temperature controller for your water it would be downright easy.

The problem is, you now have to buy the chemicals in far larger quantities. I'd love to find a source for small quantities.

I'm not sure how hard it is to get mounts. I was shooting slide film with 3D cameras, so always had to do my own mounting anyway.

 

[healyzh]

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...

Warning, ramble ahead! 😀

When I'm shooting colour film, it's typically "pro film". I shoot the cheap stuff when I'm testing a camera body.

I consider film to be cheap, at least 35mm film. Here is why, I buy the film and shoot it, then I drop it off at Costco and they develop it. An hour later I can pick it up along with a set of prints and a CD. Done. I shoot digital (RAW), I come home, I download the pic's, I choose the best ones, and then I spend who knows how much time on the computer tweaking the image to improve the exposure and colour. While I enjoy it, that is time I could be doing something with my wife and kids. There is an old saying, time is money, and at least with colour 35mm there is a serious time savings for me.

Having said that, I can get better results out of my Nikon D300, than I do out of most of my colour 35mm shots.

With B&W the savings isn't there, I have to develop the film myself, then I scan it, as I don't have a darkroom setup yet. This takes a lot more time than digital, BUT, I enjoy it, and I get very good results, even with a crappy scanner. Once I finally upgrade the computer & scanner, this should take a lot less time. My existing scanner, an Epson 2450, is very slow.

If I'm shooting 120, or 4x5 and I don't mess up, there is no doubt in my mind that the quality blows my D300 away. Of course that's with a pro lab doing the developing, rather than Costco, or me doing the B&W developing of the 120 (I'm planning to start doing my own 4x5 developing).

For 35mm the advantage is size and weight of the camera vs. the D300, or quality of the images vs. a Canon G11 (or other P&S). With my Leica, or G11, I only need to carry the camera, and maybe some film. With something like the D300, even if I only carry the camera with one lens, I have a lot more weight.

As for cost, you really need to consider more than just film and developing. How often do you replace your digital camera, how often do you replace your computer, how often do you replace (or buy new) photo related software? How about the cost of prints, if you're doing prints? Digital Photography is *NOT* cheap if you're serious about it. With film photography you can buy used equipment that a lot of us would never be able to afford the digital equivalent of.

Then of course there is the question of how you approach digital and film photography. I really enjoy using a totally manual camera where I'm fully in control. You have a level of control and simplicity that is lacking with digital cameras. Film also encourages you to slow down and be more careful in your shots.