Why Do You Still Shoot Film?

Film--because===
1)I don't have digital and..
2)there's still a lot of "mystery" and anticiapation to film.
You don't know really what you have until you see it in your hand.
Same reason to use ham radio instead of the internet...send a signal thousands of miles into space---and the surprise is the contact...you just never know.
Paul
 
Andy K said:
Because film is a five course gourmet meal, digital is McDonalds.
Click to expand...

I like that analogy, Andy!

I'll change it for my use, to this:

Film is llike home-cooking, digital is like fast-food.
 
Because that's what goes into my Contax T and Leica M3. Once I get the minimal shutter lag, rapid focussing, (semi-)manual control, battery-life (in the case of the former), I shall no longer shoot film.
 
I have to admit I'm glad my wife put aside her Pentax LX's some years ago and took up a Nikon digital. As a very active shooter, her color film and processing costs were painfully high. Keeping up with cutting, filing, and labeling her film took some effort. Fortunately, she remains content with the same camera and hasn't found a newer model compelling. :) I don't shoot that quantity myself, though still, over time, the cumulative costs can be surprising.
 
Doug said:
I have to admit I'm glad my wife put aside her Pentax LX's some years ago and took up a Nikon digital. As a very active shooter, her color film and processing costs were painfully high. Keeping up with cutting, filing, and labeling her film took some effort. Fortunately, she remains content with the same camera and hasn't found a newer model compelling. :) I don't shoot that quantity myself, though still, over time, the cumulative costs can be surprising.
Click to expand...

Film being more expensive than digital is a myth.
The following was posted on another forum, I'll paste it here as it seems relevant:

"Digital is far more expensive than film. Printers, Inks, Paper, Computer to handle the new version of Photoshop, Photoshop Upgrades, Hard Drives, DVD, Laptops, Memory Cards, Card Readers, etc.. The list goes on and on. Then you have printer maintenance and if you do not use your printer at least twice a week you run the risk of drying out a nozzle and you can go through 2-3 ink cartridges to unclog it not to mention al the paper running test after text to see if it is unclogged, and at $80 a pop for a 7600 cartridge it gets expensive real quick.

Also. if you are not shooting on a constant basis don’t forget about your batteries for your digital camera. If you do not use them they get a memory and are ruined, hence having to buy more and they are not cheap either.

You know who makes out with digital?

The camera, computer, ink, printer manufactures as you are forced to always upgrade and buy new. If you are in business you have to stay current of the client will not use you it is that simple. They will ask why are you not using the 12 MP camera, you answer better not be you cant afford it as if it is they ask why business slow? And they walk. "
 
Andy K said:
Film being more expensive than digital is a myth.
The following was posted on another forum, I'll paste it here as it seems relevant:

"Digital is far more expensive than film. Printers, Inks, Paper, Computer to handle the new version of Photoshop, Photoshop Upgrades, Hard Drives, DVD, Laptops, Memory Cards, Card Readers, etc.. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...
Not a myth in this household, as we already had and used all that stuff anyway (digital darkroom). :) And as I said, she hasn't upgraded her Nikon (though we did start, experimentally, with a Kodak DC50), so I'm glad she's happy. I'm the one who has been expensive, with all this acquisition of more RF film gear. :)
 
Film just has a certain verve, some things are worth waiting for and time enriches them...digital is for the masses, film for the discerning..it's less complicated...plus I only shoot BW, but I do scan and print with my espon and MIS BW inks. I do traditonal darkroom as well. One is not better than the other just different
 
I still shoot film because digital looks flat, lifeless . . digital. Film cameras 35mm + still have image quality supremacy over all the digital gear out there. Shooting medium format, as I do, I am safely in an Ivory Tower, totally beyond the reach of digital revolutionaries.

And because it just feels so good.

And I don't like that every digital sensor produces essentially the same image. Maybe if they worked on producing some variations (like B&W only sensors), I would be more inclined to buy a digital.

Can you imagine the image quality you could get from a B&W only sensor? wow.
 
By shooting film with my 20 to 70 year-old cameras, I've deftly side-stepped the never-ending consumerism treadmill/turnstile. I can do this because I enjoy the luxury of not being a professional photographer.
 
Andy K said:
Film being more expensive than digital is a myth.
Click to expand...

Another poor generalization. For some people it's cheaper, for some people it's more. You basically just called Doug a liar Andy. I find that attitude offensive.

If you don't have personal experience to back up your claims, it's best to simply not make them. Please!

< much angrier stuff deleted... this is not going to degenerate into D vs F >
 
I shoot film because I don't know any better. Because I've always done it. Because I understand exactly how film and a film camera work. Because I've had the same enlarger for 30 years and know how it works. Because I've used D76 and Dektol and Agfa and a variety of other enlarging papers and know how they work.

I have no idea how a digital camera works. I have one - a Pentax istDS DSLR - that I use strictly for commercial work - and farting around with menus makes me realize it's not a camera that I've fastened a lens onto, but a computer. When I'm done with the job I take my Bessa R - or my aged Spotmatic - and wander around. Then I know what I'm doing.

For example, last week I photographed a 5 PM Friday ritual in my town: Women in Black. They line up at the main intersection and stand there for one hour. There are actually a few men among the group. They hold up signs protesting violence. When a car goes by they raise an arm and give a 'V' signal with two fingers. They began this in 2002 and at first passersby (in cars and on foot) merely looked but did not respond. Now everyone rolls down a window and smiles and responds with the same signal. WIB have had an impact. They made us think beyond Bisbee, Arizona. I did the commercial part first: DSLR. Then I put away technology and got out my Bessa R with Neopan 1600 (light was fast fading).

What could be more appropriate than to photograph Women in Black with black and white film?
 
Andy K said:
Film being more expensive than digital is a myth.
The following was posted on another forum, I'll paste it here as it seems relevant:

"Digital is far more expensive than film. Printers, Inks, Paper, Computer to handle the new version of Photoshop, Photoshop Upgrades, Hard Drives, DVD, Laptops, Memory Cards, Card Readers, etc.. The list goes on and on. Then you have printer maintenance and if you do not use your printer at least twice a week you run the risk of drying out a nozzle and you can go through 2-3 ink cartridges to unclog it not to mention al the paper running test after text to see if it is unclogged, and at $80 a pop for a 7600 cartridge it gets expensive real quick.

Also. if you are not shooting on a constant basis don’t forget about your batteries for your digital camera. If you do not use them they get a memory and are ruined, hence having to buy more and they are not cheap either.

You know who makes out with digital?

The camera, computer, ink, printer manufactures as you are forced to always upgrade and buy new. If you are in business you have to stay current of the client will not use you it is that simple. They will ask why are you not using the 12 MP camera, you answer better not be you cant afford it as if it is they ask why business slow? And they walk. "
Click to expand...


wow - that is very very off the mark, sir. Here is the real math :

digital (we'll assume you have lenses and want a DSLR):

camera every two years - $1500
memory cards - $200
printer $749
hard drive/DVDs - $100

Film :

Camera - $1500
film - about $60 per month to buy the film
$60 to process
$120 per month for film and processing
printing at lab - $10 per 8x10 from MF, $20 for 4x6 from the roll 220.
printing at home - enlarger ($500), chemicals ($100), paper ($100), time (8 hours at a stretch)
scanning your negs - buy a film scanner (no less than $500 - but $1500 for scans good enough to compare to chemical prints), buy a huge harddrive or DVD burner with DVDs ($100).
archiving pages and notebooks $50
Loupe - $30
can of air - $10
printer : $749


now let's just see where that adds up so far :

Digital : $2549 + $1500 every two years = 8549 . . . but, if comparing to film is our goal here, we are looking at only $3000 instead for the camera and no further purchases - $4049 one time price. Someday, digital will surpass film, but not yet. Not any time soon.

Film : if getting your film done at the lab but scanning at home and printing on an inkjet - $4059 + montly $120 for film and developing ( $1000 per year, give or take a couple hundred). OK, and maybe $100 a year on ink of you print at home. Still cheaper per 100 prints than chemicals and paper, in my experience.

If printing at home traditionally and doing your own negs - $2350 + monthly film and chemical costs that add up to over $1000 per year. Easily.

basically, digital is much much cheaper than film for most people. My mother, for instance, never prints her pictures. SHe just uses this pretty nice little Kodak 4 MP camera with a really nice lens, and has folders full of pics that she emails to family around the world, etc. For her use of hte camera, she'd have spent many times the cost of the camera already this year in film and processing and printing/scanning.

If you are a person who wants to print, digital is still cheaper - because you are skipping a bunch of expensive steps that analog does not. You ahve a digicam and one nice printer : $2000. You have a nice film camera, scanner, printer : $3000 minimum + film costs.

No way digital is more expensive unless you are a VERY heavy user and buy the latest model of printer, camera, software, etc every few months. I'll tell ya, I could, if I liked digital, make due with my Nikon D70 + $170 IP5000 for the rest of time of my only interests were family snapshots and pics to email to people. Heck, that camera is overkill for that.
 
Because it's easy to grab a couple of rolls of film, jam the camera into a pocket and take off. With a digital camera, I always have to remember to charge the battery, make sure I pack the extra battery and charger just in case I run out of juice... you get the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom