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

[DabCan10]

So I've always wanted to meet up with like minded photography individuals, and being in Paris for 6 months, was also looking for some peers to hang out with. I went to a flickr gathering and after striking up a conversation with one of the guys (it was all guys save for one girl), I asked if he used film or digital. He replied "oh I don't shoot film, I'm not rich enough". He later added "I'm not good enough to shoot film".

Seemed like an odd comment as I later gathered that he has a top end Canon Dslr and even some studio equipment. How much does he think film photography costs? I've been ordering film for under 3 euros/roll, and if I weren't so lazy I could bulk load for far less. Now I do shoot both, and I don't want to turn this into a film vs. digital debate, but the comment really struck me as odd.

I think what really got me was his second comment. How is digital any easier than film? If he bought the last produced Canon film SLR it would likely have almost all the same features as his digital and would likely take the same pictures, possibly better with the full frame.

Do others get these comments too? In the end I was pretty dissapointed with the hole evening in general (not just the comments above) and likely won't go back next month. I thought there'd be some meaningful conversations about film but it never really progressed.

 

[maddoc]

Well ... I am not rich either but I can understand that standpoint, especially when shooting color film. Prices (Japan) are ~ $8 / 135-36 (for example Fuji Natura N1600, Superia X400, Portra400), $4.5 for developing and some $ for scanning if one does not have any scanner. Prices for color-slides (where film really rules, IMHO) are higher by ~ 20 to 30%.

Shooting a normal short trip, lets say 3 to 4 days is 20 rolls 135-36, ~ $250. 4 trips of that kind per year adds up to $1000... (that is only 80 rolls of 135-36 film, 2880 frames).

If I would not shoot BW most of the time and also develop BW myself I would think twice about using film.

 

[ChrisN]

Similar for us here in Australia. I would have given up film a long time ago if not for bulk film, overseas ordering and home-processing. Colour film is a rare experience for me due to the cost of processing (in medium format). I must investigate home processing for colour but even that looks expensive.

 

[Keith]

It's a comparrative thing IMO!

People take for granted that they can blaze away and shoot hundreds of images in a short period of time with digital at damn all cost ... which they can of course.

Because they can't envisage moderating their enthusiasm for repeatedly tripping the shutter at anything that grabs their attention they have a perception of the actual cost of shooting film that is purely their own ... and not reality!

 

[filmfan]

I used to think I could save money by shooting film... but in the last four years I have realized how wrong I was.

 

[btgc]

While I can buy cheap eBay film and process color negs for $1 I'm in. I couldn't buy those expensive $6-10 individual 135 negatives plus $5 processing.

Bulk loaded and self processed B/W is another good thing.

 

[alexnotalex]

I've had loads of conversations like this. Every time someone asks me to recommend a digital camera "I have £2000 to spend" i say "get a D40 on ebay and take your wife to Paris for the weekend and you'll still have £1000 left."

is film more expensive? when i shoot digital, i will take three hundred photos in an afternoon, spend a day on post processing, and keep 10. When i shoot film i will take 30 in an afternoon, spend an hour on post and keep 10
I bought 10 rolls of Superia on ebay for less than £25, and each time I process a film Jessops give me another new roll (Fuji C200). Those are numbers I can live with.

So, if I shoot film how I shoot digital, yes it's expensive, but I don't. Also shooting digital I just lost a day in Paris doing post when I could have been hanging out in rue st andre des arts or having lunch au pere fouettard or contemplating the Giacommettis aux Tuileries... Not to mention the kit, laptop, lightroom... and the pennies it will all be worth by the time I learn how to use it right.

Is film harder? dunno. Does it require more effort? yes, definitely. Even dropping off the film at the lab is extra work. Maybe your "ami raleur" is just lazy.
With digital you can shoot, chimp and adjust, with film you need some kind of technique.

Do film cameras have less knobs and settings? thankfully, yes. Do they work without batteries? many excellent ones, yes. Top of the range film kit is a fraction of the price of top digital, and you can probably sell it back on ebay for what you paid for it in 3 years if you get bored.

Don't let him get you down. "experts" never agree with you anyway, and keep posting Paris pics.
Love your blog and your adventure.

Alex

 

[semilog]

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...

 

[thegman]

I think if you shoot a lot, film will always be expensive, especially compared with free.

Having said that, if you shoot a reasonable amount, then the costs are reasonably low, most months I spend less on film/processing than my gym membership, and lots of other things that we just absorb the cost of.

 

[Ronald M]

Both can be cheap or expensive depending on how you use it. Digital requires computer and programs. You can use the computer to proof and thus save money. You will thoughtlessly bang out a hundred photos of the boy at the park and dispose of 98 of them. Then buy a new digicam after 2 years because you wore it out. You have to keep up with the latest and greatest you know. I on the other hand went to a vacation town on Saturday with my D40 and had a few minutes after a business meeting and I did a quick walk around making 6 exposures.
all were keepers because I can think before I push the button. If I had 6 exposures on a roll of film, how long would I wait to finish the roll or will it be the wrong type of film to do the next event?

Now the flip side. Been bulk loading film for 5 decades. It is cheap. I don`t need a new camera or computer program or monitor or computer to move to the next level. Just buy the latest and greatest film stock. My 1953 Leica takes pics the same as the newest one, not that I have not bought some new models, just don`t sell the old.
I can cut 6 exposures off the front of a roll of thirty six and process just that although I never do it with color, just B&W.
The maintenance is film, paper, chemicals, and enlarging bulbs and an occasional cla for the camera. Heck of a lot cheaper then my new Nikon D3 at $5000.
I have a foot in both camps and use what I want when I want. Cost is never a thought. Fast quality processing is. Digi files are easier to get printed well if I process them correctly than color film is. Colors always seem to get screwed up on color neg even if it is daylight film exposed in daylight or flash. They always have to push buttons to improve my work instead of simply letting the printer print them all just like a contact sheet which I do from color neg. Guess what. No filtration change on a contact and the color is great on every frame.

So I have to open my dark room to make prints from film. Digi I have the option of sending out.

I never consider cost. My Nikon D3 is a gem. But so is my Leica 111C

And you amateur digi guys that make 300 pics a week, restrain your self, think, and learn to visualise first. Nobody makes 300 GOOD pic a week.
And it you do, they are not good ones anyway.

 

[_mark__]

You make sacrifices.

 

[lorenzo1910]

Digital is more expensive at the beginning (gear cost)...then it's free...
But preserving highlights for me is priceless (hence I shoot mainly film)

 

[sig]

Yes I have got that comment. In some cases digital is more expensive, but in most cases digital is cheaper.

 

[DabCan10]

Glad to hear these responses. I think I found his second comment the most odd ("I'm not good enough to shoot film). I was hoping to find some like minded people to chat with like I often do on this forum, but after one beer I decided to leave and take some pictures. I had far more enjoyment taking photos then talking about them...

Thanks for the comment on the blog as well. We do daily posts, but sometimes the pictures are a bit backlogged as the majority are film and it takes a while to process and scan...

 

[Chris101]

I think many consider digital easier than film. You can see right away if you got it or not. With film, you have to either just know, or figure it out.

I shoot a moderate amount of film - ten dollars or so a week on average. But when I am working on a project, especially an installation project that originated in film, the spending can get wild! So yeah, film photography can be as expensive, or more so than digital. Especially if the French digital shooters were just posting on the internet.

 

[Mcary]

I think what really got me was his second comment. How is digital any easier than film? If he bought the last produced Canon film SLR it would likely have almost all the same features as his digital and would likely take the same pictures, possibly better with the full frame.

Depending on the type of pictures one is taking that isn't always true. An example of this is any kind of shooting that involves the use of studio strobes or mixed lighting.
Not sure what experience you have with studio strobes but the simple fact is most of the stuff sold today has crappy under powered modeling lights so unless you have a lot of experience it rather difficult if not impossible to visualize how the lighting will fall on a subject with a single strobe let alone two or three of them. This is were digital can be a god send as it allow you to see how the lighting falls on the subject and make adjustments as necessary.

 

[Luna]

I shoot film and I'm not rich enough to.
But just like cocaine, you got to pay for the high.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I shoot film and I'm not rich enough to.
But just like cocaine, you got to pay for the high.

This.

10 characters

 

[ray*j*gun]

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.

It's a comparrative thing IMO!

People take for granted that they can blaze away and shoot hundreds of images in a short period of time with digital at damn all cost ... which they can of course.

Because they can't envisage moderating their enthusiasm for repeatedly tripping the shutter at anything that grabs their attention they have a perception of the actual cost of shooting film that is purely their own ... and not reality!

 

[alexnotalex]

Glad to hear these responses. I think I found his second comment the most odd ("I'm not good enough to shoot film). I was hoping to find some like minded people to chat with like I often do on this forum, but after one beer I decided to leave and take some pictures. I had far more enjoyment taking photos then talking about them...

Thanks for the comment on the blog as well. We do daily posts, but sometimes the pictures are a bit backlogged as the majority are film and it takes a while to process and scan...

🙂 more effort. Climb up the stairs at the Tuilieries to the top level then shoot back onto Place de la Concorde and down Rue du Rivoli towards the Louvre... amazing views. ::sighs:: How I miss Paris.

Alex