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

[Olympus Lady]

I use both. It depends what I want to do that day. If I am really energetic, I will shoot in film and digital. It is interesting and fun to compare when the film comes back.

It can take me a few months to use up a roll of film in one camera but then I have the digital for the "gotta have it now" syndrome. 😎

 

[_goodtimez]

Cost is not the selection factor for me. I can afford a Leica M10 or S2 but I would not be happy using them. I prefer old used cameras to new ones, and I prefer shooting film of course. Just like I prefer old used cars rather than new ones.
Something that really makes my day is buy an old camera with a few discrepencies, fix it and make it reliable and use it !

 

[kxl]

Yes, certainly cost and/or convenience is one of several criteria, but only in some scenarios, e.g.,

For color, I shoot digital partly for the conveniece, but also partly for the control I have in post-processing.

For B&W, cost/convenience is NOT a factor. I want to shoot with a film RF body, so I do. I want to continue to develop my own negs, so I do.

As far as which gear I use, then cost is certainly a major contributing factor.

 

[Lauffray]

If I was looking for convenience I definitely would not be shooting a full manual film camera, developing and scanning everything myself 😀
That said, I'm not after convenience (for the moment) so I'm happy with the current deal

 

[sojournerphoto]

Difficult. I really like black and white film, but my work and family needs mean that I have a pile of rolls waiting to be developed and scanned. Hence I'm thinking of selling all (or most!) of the kit, apart from the M-lenses, and Nikon 9000 and adding a Monochrom to the M9.

I'm sure it cna do all I need, but I will miss working with film and the film bodies, which are far ahead of the digi bodies in actual enjoyment in use. I may keep a ZI or MP for occasional dusting off and running a roll through the flatbed...

Mike

Update - added an MM, which is a wonderful camera. Sold one ZI to someone who I think will give it a good home, kept one ZI and MP, plus MF and LF cameras. Still love film as well, so will just keep using both, as the mood takes me.

Mike

 

[De_Corday]

I have a bunch of old nice lenses. a Nikon D200 used with accessories was about 300. And thats it I'm good to go. I'm a poor student and a freelancer, so film is a special occasion gift to myself. If I had my druthers I'd have a brick of HP4 and a good film scanner, but...

 

[noisycheese]

Why do I shoot film? Cost is a huge consideration.

I love rangefinder photography. I love to shoot with my Leica M kit, and my XPAN. I want to shoot with these cameras and lenses, not with digital SLRs.

For me, the cost of digital M vs. film M photography is as follows -

Monochrom M body: $7950 USD
Leica M240 body: $6950 USD

Fuji Pro 400H film: $8.99/roll
Chemistry to develop Pro 400H: $1.96/roll
Kodak Tri-X: $4.49/roll
Chemisrty to develop Tri-X: $0.25/roll

I can afford film and chemicals; I can't afford either of the digital Leica M rangefinder cameras. so I use the gear I already have and pay as I go for film and chemicals.

It works for me - YMMV. 😉

 

[______]

For those that shoot film, I heard very little about printing. Do you have a darkroom and do your own printing? Do you send your film out to be printed? Do you have your film scanned and print at home, or send it out?

 

[De_Corday]

When I do shoot film, I get it scanned and don't print. I get select frames printed later. I don't have my own darkroom.

 

[Chris101]

For those that shoot film, I heard very little about printing. Do you have a darkroom and do your own printing? Do you send your film out to be printed? Do you have your film scanned and print at home, or send it out?

Sometimes I scan and print at home, and sometimes I print in the school's darkroom. I like the versatility of having both media. Unlike some however, I DO see a clear difference between the two. One is not 'better' than the other, they are different.

I also print my digital work at home. It's different than either film based methods.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Unlike some however, I DO see a clear difference between the two. One is not 'better' than the other, they are different.

I agree.

I scan and print digitally, except 5 by 7 which is for contact printing. I'd like the time and space to have a darkroom set up at home, as I did when I was but a lad, but at the moment it's not going to happen I'm afraid.

 

[______]

Can someone describe the difference between film that is scanned and printed and photos from a digital camera and printed using the same lens?

 

[keytarjunkie]

Can someone describe the difference between film that is scanned and printed and photos from a digital camera and printed using the same lens?

I will once you find me a digital sensor that adequately covers 4x5 and 8x10!

 

[sojournerphoto]

Can someone describe the difference between film that is scanned and printed and photos from a digital camera and printed using the same lens?

Warning - whole can of worms alert...

 

[______]

Warning - whole can of worms alert...

Didn't mean to open a can of worms. It just seems odd to shoot film, then digitally scan it, then digitally print it. What's the point? I guess I'll find out for myself. After decades away, I'm heading back into the darkroom for both film processing and printing. I'll get some of my film scanned and do some comparison prints. I was just looking for others experience.

 

[______]

I will once you find me a digital sensor that adequately covers 4x5 and 8x10!

Not sure I understand your comment. I was thinking about what the differences might be between scanned film images from an M6 versus digital images from an M240 taken with the same lens.

 

[thegman]

Didn't mean to open a can of worms. It just seems odd to shoot film, then digitally scan it, then digitally print it. What's the point? I guess I'll find out for myself. After decades away, I'm heading back into the darkroom for both film processing and printing. I'll get some of my film scanned and do some comparison prints. I was just looking for others experience.

For me, scanning is just plain easier and faster than having a full darkroom. I want to use film, but don't have the time or space for printing traditionally.

I could use digital of course, but it's just not the same hobby for me.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Unlike some however, I DO see a clear difference between the two. One is not 'better' than the other, they are different.

If only more people could understand and accept that last sentence.

 

[seascribe]

I can't say that cost or convenience has influenced me in my permanent move to digital. I developed and printed my own film for thirty years and loved it. And I still greatly enjoy seeing other photographers' film based work. I'm also happy that my friends who still enjoy film can get supplies and great camera deals. But, like Chris 101 says, the two forms are different...one is not "better" than the other.

I've left HP5 and TriX (and much-loved Kodachrome 25) behind to explore the limits of digital, and I'm already amazed at the images my Monochrom and X100 can bring forth. I'm hooked!

 

[semilog]

Current backlog: ~25 rolls of B&W. I shoot digital and the results are lovely. I can't seem to stop shooting film, though. At least, for B&W…