Is cost/convinience a major factor for your medium choice (film vs digital)?

[msbarnes]

For personal use. I think commercial photography is very different because it relies heavily on client demands...

We all have reasons for choosing our medium and we have heard it all...but is cost/convience a major reason for your decision?

For me, cost/convinence has little to do with my medium choice. It effects my camera/lens choice (e.g. can't afford ASPH Leica lenses) choice and format (e.g. large format vs 35mm) for sure, but not my medium choice.

Even if someone were to give me a Leica S2, Leica M9, or digital Hasselblad...or even my favorite film cameras with digital sensors...I would still prefer to shoot my film cameras with film. But to be honest, I'd love to try digital MF...haha.

 

[Calzone]

I only shoot B&W, but I shoot a Monochrom and mucho film.

Cost and conveniece is an issue: although a Leica Monochrom is an expensive camera, it offers lots of flexibility and convenience. Know that I'm basically a lazy slacker and I don't ever intend to scan. In many ways it seems like Leica built me my ideal digital camera.

For me film is my chosen medium and I'm good at it. Film is still readily available and the cost is still inexpensive the way I do it, where I bulk up and use economies of scale to lower costs to the bare minimum. I use Diafine and get great results so my cost of development is only a few pennies worth of fixer because my developer gets reused indefinately. Last summer I was shooting 50-60 rolls a month.

I'm hoping I will be able to continue shooting mucho B&W film for a long-long time. I know if I stopped shooting film and went exclusively Leica Monochrom (easily done because it is a dream camera that can do things I only dreamed of in film like high ISO and near medium format resolution, but not MF contrast dynamic range) that I would have remorse knowing that I should of shot as much film as possible while it was readily available and still cost effective.

For me cost and convenience is mixed: on one hand the Monochrom makes mucho shooting easy, but it is an expensive camera; but film still is cost effective for me. The crossroads lays ahead, I hope in the way distant future. Meanwhile I do both.

Cal

 

[Rodchenko]

For the next month, it will be for me. I prefer shooting film, but it costs to get it developed, so, with money currently very tight indeed, I will be shooting purely digital for the whole of July. I'm taking it as an opportunity to learn more about my digital camera.

 

[thegman]

I shoot film, the cost, for my sort of volumes is neither here nor there. The convenience, on one hand I like the delayed-gratification of waiting for my developed negatives/scans. But then, if it's important rolls, then I worry about their safe return.

 

[jsrockit]

Cost and convenience is a plus, but not the reason why. I consider myself a color photographer and truly prefer the look of digital to most film types for color (and love the extended ISO). When I need B&W, I can live with conversions from digital though I still think film looks better overall for B&W.

The other reason is that it is easier for me to keep up with digital. At this point in my life, it fits my lifestyle and my lack of a darkroom.

That said, if film truly does it for you and you love the feel of mechanical cameras, then digital won't do...and vice versa.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

No, I have a fridge full of film, up to 8x10" sheets, and I can develop myself but recently the fridge stays always full and it is very rear I buy any film at all. I guess the main factor is the convenience of having an instant feedback of what I do plus having all the details in the metadata plus a shot of light arrangement. With film is is a lot of notes and Polaroid, not good!

GLF

 

[msbarnes]

I guess I have been thinking about this because a friend asked me why I like film and my cameras.

There are many reasons why I shoot film. I tried to get an M43 for snapshots to save on film costs and for convinience, but then I realized that I just like film. Outside of the aesthetics and cameras, I like to have binders full of negatives instead of harddrives full of (too many) files.

If film prices were to go up and emulsions were to discontinue, then I'd rather shoot less.
If my life got too busy, then I'd pile up undeveloped negatives for weeks or months.

This is my thinking now...who knows..I might end up with a digital Leica/Nikon/Fuji and think how naive I was.

 

[jky]

Convenience was a great factor - free time to shoot more instead of processing and scanning.

 

[Calzone]

Cost and convenience is a plus, but not the reason why. I consider myself a color photographer and truly prefer the look of digital to most film types for color (and love the extended ISO). When I need B&W, I can live with conversions from digital though I still think film looks better overall for B&W.

The other reason is that it is easier for me to keep up with digital. At this point in my life, it fits my lifestyle and my lack of a darkroom.

That said, if film truly does it for you and you love the feel of mechanical cameras, then digital won't do...and vice versa.

John,

If I shot color I likely would follow your footsteps. Only thing I would add though for B&W the Monochrom is what it is: a great camera. For B&W only it gives resolution that is very near MF in quality, but perhaps not the same MF dynamic contrast range. For high ISO the Monochrome offers performance I could never get with film.

B&W film for me is just too familiar, and I get wonderful results. Somehow I have gotten attached to all these old retro cameras, but the Monochrom is quite the camera on its own. I'm a lucky guy.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Convenience was a great factor - free time to shoot more instead of processing and scanning.

No scanning required with a Monochrom. More time for shooting.

Off topic: Something very exciting with looking at almost 300 images out of an eight reel tank. I love the surprise of all at once and I find this very rewarding.

Cal

 

[roboflick]

d800e for Bessa IIIw

d800e for Bessa IIIw

I recently traded my d800e for a Bessa IIIw, it cost me about 800 dollars in depreciation to use the camera for a year. I came to a realization, that I could use the Bessa for hyperstereo 3d using medium format slide film, print to cibachrome, for the near future, and leave the cycle of upgrade and GAS that digital entails. I still have a nikon f4, and f5 that I can use the wonderful lenses with.

For my amateur usage, I have decided to switch to film , scanning and darkroom printing.

For color, nothing beats a well exposed slide, either projected or in a backlit viewer for stereo. The most realistic images I have produced are medium format 3d slides.

At some point I may get another d700 which was the sweet spot for me. I will rent another d800e or the equivalent if i ever need that sort of resolution again, but I can shoot medium or latrge format up to 8 by 10 and have more fun doing it.

Interesting to see the other's opinions as this is a very individually dependent decision.

financially it's a wash as my costs for film and processing are less than the depreciation of a high quality dslr

Nik

 

[Godfrey]

Cost is always a factor, for both pros and amateurs. No matter which medium you prefer, there are costs associated ... in consumables, and in time and management. Photography has never been an inexpensive undertaking. In that respect, nothing has changed between mediums. Making exposures is cheaper on the consumables side with digital capture, but that's just one form of cost.

Convenience ... that's up to an individual's preferences and tolerances. For instance, I hate carrying film when I'm flying nowadays: flying is enough aggravation today that adding film to the jumble is a serious annoyance. But if I have an idea for which the Hasselblad SWC is the perfect camera*to use, I accept some annoyance to get what I want done. It's also true that what's convenient for some people is often very inconvenient for others.

People who only shoot a small amount, or who are relatively tolerant of annoyances related to managing the media, see little differences in total cost and convenience. People whose income depends upon their photographic work become very sensitive to costs and inconvenience becomes a factor as it relates to increasing costs in time and management.

I work with both film and digital capture. Which I choose to use for a given project/idea/effort depends upon what I'm trying to achieve, independent of cost and convenience since I neither make my living from photography anymore, nor care much about inconvenience when it comes to doing work that is meaningful to me.

G

 

[Photo_Smith]

I use both, the cost doesn't really enter into it because I shoot the same few frames regardless of the medium.
My go to medium for most subjects is film, mainly because i love the way I work with the Rolleiflex.
I prefer B&W on film colour is a wash; sometimes I like digital and it's colour temp freedom and higher ISO, other times I love the way certain films render subjects like Velvia or Portra 400.
I do like the hands on feeling I get with film also, I get the 'I've made it' feeling with wet prints, that's something I don't get when I upload .jpgs to Flickr

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I just love film enough that I happily live with the demands it imposes. I love my Rolleiflex and the way it works, I actually like playing with reciprocity (sometimes I WANT really long exposures!), and if I really really need to have my results quickly, I can process the film myself (don't need a darkroom to develop film, just a changing bag, a sink, and a thermometer to help keep your temperature steady) and have it ready to edit and scan in as little as an hour. By doing it myself, I keep the lab costs (and problems) at bay, and I don't think I've spent anywhere near the cost of a Canon 5D Mk II (or Mk III !) on film in the last two years. Digital is cheaper if you are a working pro who has to shoot tens of thousands of frames a year and can't bill that cost back to the client, or if you write off the cost of your computer and camera and software upgrades (and their extremely steep depreciation) before you start calculating your per-shot cost. With the possible exception of ultra-large format shooters, I doubt most amateurs are spending north of $6K in three years on film and processing.

The other thing I love about it is the sense of physicality, of "realness" that I get from working with film. I do software development by day, and so I spend at least 8 hours a day parked on my butt looking at a monitor, manipulating zeros and ones. Physical, chemical photography gives me a chance to create something that remains, that I can share with someone, and that has a life beyond mine. I know, I know, the cloud, virtual storage, once-its-online-it-s-never-gone, yadda yadda. Not the same. There's something to the controllable-but-not-100%-predictable nature of wet process photography that appeals to my creative nature and gets me out of my chair and making something with my hands. That's Mastercard priceless to me.

But it's also a tool-for-the-job thing - when I need to shoot lots of images, quickly, I reach for my Canon 5D - I can't beat the ability to keep shooting without stopping when I'm shooting an event or any kind of action that I can't slow down, control or repeat. I've shot the Rollei at a parade, and it worked, but the 5D was the better tool because it overcame the limits of the Rollei.

 

[Calzone]

I just love film enough that I happily live with the demands it imposes. I love my Rolleiflex and the way it works, I actually like playing with reciprocity (sometimes I WANT really long exposures!), and if I really really need to have my results quickly, I can process the film myself (don't need a darkroom to develop film, just a changing bag, a sink, and a thermometer to help keep your temperature steady) and have it ready to edit and scan in as little as an hour. By doing it myself, I keep the lab costs (and problems) at bay, and I don't think I've spent anywhere near the cost of a Canon 5D Mk II (or Mk III !) on film in the last two years. Digital is cheaper if you are a working pro who has to shoot tens of thousands of frames a year and can't bill that cost back to the client, or if you write off the cost of your computer and camera and software upgrades (and their extremely steep depreciation) before you start calculating your per-shot cost. With the possible exception of ultra-large format shooters, I doubt most amateurs are spending north of $6K in three years on film and processing.

The other thing I love about it is the sense of physicality, of "realness" that I get from working with film. I do software development by day, and so I spend at least 8 hours a day parked on my butt looking at a monitor, manipulating zeros and ones. Physical, chemical photography gives me a chance to create something that remains, that I can share with someone, and that has a life beyond mine. I know, I know, the cloud, virtual storage, once-its-online-it-s-never-gone, yadda yadda. Not the same. There's something to the controllable-but-not-100%-predictable nature of wet process photography that appeals to my creative nature and gets me out of my chair and making something with my hands. That's Mastercard priceless to me.

But it's also a tool-for-the-job thing - when I need to shoot lots of images, quickly, I reach for my Canon 5D - I can't beat the ability to keep shooting without stopping when I'm shooting an event or any kind of action that I can't slow down, control or repeat. I've shot the Rollei at a parade, and it worked, but the 5D was the better tool because it overcame the limits of the Rollei.

Nice post. I love my Rollie also.

Cal

 

[daveleo]

Cost & convenience are the ONLY factors for why I shoot digital (100%).

I came to love photography & art after retirement, so cost drives my choice of medium
(cash flow in is not what it used to be 😀 ).

I still have and love my film cameras and I would go back to film in a heartbeat if
I could make the $$$ work for me. If I could get a development space set up in my basement . . . .
oh, don't get me started again.


PS: I love film more for the ways the cameras handle and feel than for any other reason. It's just more personal.

 

[Photo_Smith]

80 hours a week! God bless you for having the time to take pictures, let alone process them (looks guiltily at the small stash of film on the shelf ready for processing-that I've been putting off doing)

 

[DougFord]

Cost and convenience along with aesthetics are my primary reasons for shooting film.
I own a number of film cameras and since my frig is stocked with expired film purchased years ago, it's a match made in heaven.

 

[zuiko85]

I have a budget for this hobby. That is what it is, a hobby. My photography has never brought in a dime, everything is outgo, not income. I shoot film because that is what the cameras I like use. Even before digital, when cameras became electronic and battery dependent with auto focus, auto exposure and LCD screens I lost interest in new stuff. I would never own one of those free form, melted plastic look Canon film EOS cameras. They may be wonderful picture taking machines but they just don't look "right" somehow.

The original, all mechanical Canon F-1, now that looks right.

Now, I don't shoot Canon, that was just an example of the way I think about cameras. My chosen platform for full frame film is Olympus OM-1 and OM-1n, both all mechanical classic cameras.

 

[mdarnton]

I have both, and the best tool for the job is my only consideration.