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

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's not a matter of cost or convenience, I just don't want to take hundreds of photographs, free or not.

Exactly the point I was making.

 

[thegman]

Exactly the point I was making.

Apologies, I should drink more coffee in the morning before replying on here.

 

[Alpsman]

I use B&W-Film because:
I'm used to it for 30 years
the durability of film
the play-value & simplicity of mechanical cameras
the beauty of aa B&W-negative
if it should outlast me I use film
but
I use a digicam because:
for testingpurposes it is the camera I was waiting for
if it is not important, I use the digicam
it is the long awaited "Instantback" instead the F2 on my Nikonlenses
but it catches dust in the corner which non of my filmcameras does because I do not use the digicam very often.

Film, what else?

 

[goamules]

It depends on what I'm doing:

- If shooting for fun and family - sometimes digital wins. (cost/convenience matters a lot)
- If shooting for history and mechanical marvels - 35mm film (cost irrelevant)
- If shooting for large prints - 5x7 and up film (cost irrelevant)

 

[rluka]

Cost and convenience win for me.
Film might be wonderful, but without good labs and affordable scan, the point is moot. I'm not going to process those films myself and I shoot colours.
Not to mention film other than the dirt cheap made me reluctant to use it other than in really special events.

Digital is winning most of the time and shooting film has been for sake of shooting film itself (means, pictures I don't really care how it came out as)

 

[TXForester]

A little of both. The film I'd like to use is higher priced than what a currently use, and I don't have good local developing. As a result, I shoot more digital despite loving my film cameras.

 

[Bill Clark]

It depends.

When I was, amongst other people photography, getting hired for weddings, the B&G desired quick results. Film wouldn't give that. one of the options I had was to take a camera and make small jpeg files. I would use it at various times from getting ready up to traveling to the reception. during that drive time I would have an associate photographer upload 75 to 100 photos to my MacBook and would show them at the reception. I also would offer as an option to upload the images to a portable device the B&G could take with them on their honeymoon.


Many times people want instant gratification and this was a way of fulfilling that desire.

 

[froyd]

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.

Funny, because I shoot film specifically because of cost/convenience! If I could get a digital version of my M4 for the $800 I paid for it, I would be shooting digital. Same with the TLR. No digital version and if one became available, it would cost above 10k.

 

[jsrockit]

Funny, because I shoot film specifically because of cost/convenience! If I could get a digital version of my M4 for the $800 I paid for it, I would be shooting digital. Same with the TLR. No digital version and if one became available, it would cost above 10k.

But this is more about ergonomics and a connection to the camera than results. In your case film is cheaper, but only because of the type of camera you want to use. It's not easy being a RF and TLR fan in digital... it's ALWAYS a compromise unless you spend a lot of cash (as you said).

Because I miss having a rangefinder, I've been thinking of getting a film rangefinder because I don't want to use the M8 again and the M9 is more than I want to spend.

 

[Spanik]

More one of convenience than cost. I use slide because you put it at the lab and it comes back finished. I don't have to spend in postprocessing. Just put it in mounts and in the projector, done.

 

[Doug]

I voted "yes".

If you look at it in cold hard terms, digital is massively cheaper than film, provided you take advantage of its primary strength - the ability to take hundreds of pictures "per roll". However, photography, as practiced by this membership, is nothing to do with "cold hard terms", so everything I have written above is irrelevant to the choices we each make. 😉

The reason I use medium format more than 35mm is that I don't want to take 36 shots on a roll, let alone hundreds. I think that 'strength' is only appropriate for those who want to take hundreds or thousands of photos, but I don't really, so it does not apply to me. It's not a matter of cost or convenience, I just don't want to take hundreds of photographs, free or not.

Agree, I don't want to take hundreds of shots per "roll" either, but it's strange to think a digital camera will force or tempt you into doing so, just if it's possible. If you have little discipline with the shutter, or happily shot-gun your way through the day, clearly film is not your friend... though pros with their motor-drives and 250-exp backs felt they needed to. Those guys are now happier with digital cameras I'm sure, but that doesn't imply that same proliferacy to us. We can be just as thoughtful and selective in our shooting with digital cameras as we are accustomed with film... can't we?

It's a pain having to deal with a glut of raw files at the end of the day. Not convenient. More selective shooting that results in about the same number of shots as with film is more convenient than film. And either way, processing with digital is less expensive than the equivalent volume of film shooting. But other costs tend to be higher, to offset.

Cost and convenience are both factors for me, but add output quality in there too. 🙂

 

[swoop]

I really hate the phrase "Film makes me slow down and think" or when people say that about rangefinders. I shoot at the same rate whether I have a film camera or a digital camera in my hand. The only difference to me is that with film I have to either develop it, or go get it developed and then for professional work I have to scan it before anything can be done with it. In the end it gets digitized regardless. So I figured why not save myself the trouble and go digital. So yes it's for convenience.

Also with film vs digital there really isn't a price difference if you're a professional. Digital isn't free or cheap. You're just paying the expense of film and development upfront instead of over time.

 

[jschrader]

I use film because the only true b&w option is the MM and it is too expensive.

I do not shoot much, therefore cost saving with the digital path would be limited (at least compared to the MM price).

So, in a way it is a financial decision. Digital would be easier (no need to develop films and scan).

 

[henri klein]

I use mechanical cameras
I guess exposure
I do my own black-and-white printing since >20y.

I just don't care.

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

I have both and it is all driven by mood to choose between them.

 

[Rayt]

I shoot b/w and prefer the look from a traditional print.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I really hate the phrase "Film makes me slow down and think"

I agree to a point. You can shoot digital exactly the same way you use 35mm film. Where the real slowdown comes with film is when you're using 4x5 or 8x10 there's a big difference in thought and workflow that is virtually impossible to mimic with digital.
Most of my work is done on medium and large format which are very different experiences than making images with a digital. I can go to a location and set up my camera wait for the light and if it's not right I'll go home rather than waste a $50 sheet of film.
Similar with the Rolleiflex, the way of working is slow and deliberate (and laterally inverse), if I go to shoot a client, the images from the Rollei will be very different from the ones with a Nikon–it's a different way of working forced upon you by the limitations of the camera.

Trust me there is a huge difference between some film cameras and any digital camera you care to mention, so film doesn't make you slow down and think, but for a certain subset of users having those camera's it certainly will.

 

[thegman]

Agree, I don't want to take hundreds of shots per "roll" either, but it's strange to think a digital camera will force or tempt you into doing so, just if it's possible. If you have little discipline with the shutter, or happily shot-gun your way through the day, clearly film is not your friend... though pros with their motor-drives and 250-exp backs felt they needed to. Those guys are now happier with digital cameras I'm sure, but that doesn't imply that same proliferacy to us. We can be just as thoughtful and selective in our shooting with digital cameras as we are accustomed with film... can't we?

Agree 100%. You could could go out and shoot 36 shots on digital, and no more. I have done in fact, when I used to shoot digital, I didn't take that many shots with it. Maybe a few more than I do now with film, but not much.

My point is not that film 'makes me slow down an think' (I don't like that phrase either), it's that the benefit of digital shots being cost-free makes no difference to me. Some people will look at the shutter count of say 10,000 shots, and work out what that would cost on film, but that simply does not apply to me, on either film or digital.

 

[Alpsman]

Film won't slow you down, it's digital that speeds you up.😛

 

[Michael Markey]

At the moment I`m switching my slr stuff to digital but continuing to use the film Ms and Rollie 35.

Partly convenience and partly because I`ve struggled for four years developing film using a changing bag.

The notion that its all you need is not true and is dependent on where you live.
Any humidity present makes it nigh impossible to load film properly using a bag.

Wasted effort and wasted film has caused me to re evaluate.

I am looking for other alternatives such as making a dark room and/ or going back to C41 as I don`t want to give up film entirely.