What would it take for you to try Film?

[dave lackey]

Now, back to the poll...nowhere for me to vote but I would say that I would shoot entirely film if I had someone locally competent enough to develop and scan all of my film. If I had someone to walk me through a half dozen rolls, I would certainly do the developing at home but I cannot travel outside the home to learn developing without someone staying with my bride and there is no one to fill that role.

Then there is the "no scanner/no funds" issue.

So it is a vicious cycle for now.

Riccis has a good source and I just may try his and put up with the wait. Precision Camera has done a good job for me in the past, too.

 

[shadowfox]

Dave,
To me taking film photography to its fullest cycle (darkroom printing) is the ultimate way to enjoy it. Fully realizing that not everyone can afford the space/time/resource.

Yes, it's difficult, but so what if I only end up with a couple good prints in a year? the sense of accomplishment that I get out of those is more than anything I've tried using digital. <---- Don't misunderstand me, I am proud of my good photos in digital also, but I don't feel as connected to those as my best darkroom prints.

 

[shadowfox]

Oh yeah... that's exactly what I'm gonna do. <chuckle> I'm struggling 'cause I don't even want to spool another 35mm roll onto a processing spool. But still... there' something about film.

With large negatives you don't spool any film.

 

[tempest68]

I shot 110 when I was around 10. Then had Ricoh P&S when I got married. Went digital P&S in 2001 and DSLR in 2006. After several years learning how to effectively use Aperture priority, Shutter priority and eventually learned how to use manual mode, I was finally no longer scared to try a film SLR. I had enough fun with that so I wanted to try a Voigtlander rangefinder to be challenged with nothing done for me except the built-in metering. I'm struggling a little sometimes, but still having fun learning. The only part of digital I miss when I'm shooting one of my film cameras is the ability to change ISO after each shot if the lighting is different. With digital I appreciate I can shoot outdoors during the day at ISO 100 or 200 and then up the ISO if I then shoot inside or outside after sunset.

 

[ninjaslim]

I never stopped using film there's no option for that
I have a digital camera so that I can take 250 shots of a building I have to measure, I use the digital for the family snaps but film for family memories and shots of my buildings that I consider photographs
I love my iphone, instagram all the time but not sure I consider it photography.
I love my vinyl collection too, oh and my massive MP3 collection
Do it all

 

[wgerrard]

Haven't been here for a long time, but here's what it would take for me to use film: A box into which I could insert a film spool, push a button, and out comes a print. A large digital display with editing capabilty before the print was made, plus creation of a RAW file to dump to my laptop would be very, very nice.

I spent a few years developing film in the kitchen, scanning it in, trying to produce acceptable prints. That wasn't fun for me. The fun is in the shooting and looking at the results. What's in the middle, film or digital, is, for me, just unwelcome legwork.

 

[paradoxbox]

hope my opinion still matters but..

i started on digital. had no interest in film at all, was very excited about the latest digital gear.

what got me interested in film was the huge dynamic range that film has and the ability to take photos even with no batteries.

i remember being really annoyed that my Nikon D2X at the time couldn't handle the summer city scenes I was shooting without blowing out highlights or turning shadows into total blackness. there was not nearly enough range.

when i saw how black and white and color negative film could easily handle the range in a scene i decided to convert. that was all it took.