Why Do You Still Shoot Film?

I dunno, Shutterflower. All my darkroom equipment has been amortized over thirty years and is still working perfectly. I buy B/W film in 100 foot rolls. I buy chemistry and enlarging paper cheap. Film cameras don't become outdated, and work perfectly for years, after which you can get them CLA'd for, usually, less than $100. As long as I can withstand the occasional GAS attack, I find film photography rather inexpensive.

Digital, however, is not cheap. $3000 for a camera and lenses, $1000 or so for a computer, $800 for a good photo quality printer, and who knows how much for all the software one has to purchase to make everything work? Plus the monthly internet fees, the modem, the inks, the scanners (film and flatbed), all of which become quickly outdated or break.
 
Why shoot film?

Because my film cameras are my age... or older. Same generation. We understand each other. I look at and read about digitals, all the changes, newest, latest tech widgets that replaced the obsolete junk that came out last week. And I'll probably get one sooner or later...

when they get to be my age.
when you can wind one before each shot.
when they don't need batts.
when they make 'em out of metal.
when the shutter goes "schluh-chap!"
when the new Zorki LTM DSLR comes out.
 
$$$

$$$

I think for an enthusiast, either can get expensive. My wife shoots with a Canon 10d, and my 160gig harddrive quickly started to fill. As a result I upgraded to a 320 gig drive... but then stated to worry about losing the data, so I bought a second 320 gig drive to mirror the data. I also got an external drive to hold offsite, and back up to it every couple of weeks.

She then wanted to run Aperture, but it won't run on a single G5 1.6gig Powermac... So cost of software and more new hardware.

It can be done a lot cheaper, but if you care about your data (pictures) it can start to cost - more than I though at least.
 
Last edited:
tedwhite said:
I dunno, Shutterflower. All my darkroom equipment has been amortized over thirty years and is still working perfectly. I buy B/W film in 100 foot rolls. I buy chemistry and enlarging paper cheap. Film cameras don't become outdated, and work perfectly for years, after which you can get them CLA'd for, usually, less than $100. As long as I can withstand the occasional GAS attack, I find film photography rather inexpensive.

Digital, however, is not cheap. $3000 for a camera and lenses, $1000 or so for a computer, $800 for a good photo quality printer, and who knows how much for all the software one has to purchase to make everything work? Plus the monthly internet fees, the modem, the inks, the scanners (film and flatbed), all of which become quickly outdated or break.
Click to expand...


I guess I was figuring it for medium format. That really jacks up the prices. No cheap drug store processing or scanning or printing. ANd no 100 foot rolls. Not that I know of.
 
tedwhite said:
Digital, however, is not cheap. $3000 for a camera and lenses,
Click to expand...

$550 for Pentax *ist DS. Lenses were all pre-digital and mounted with adapters. Finally broke down and bought an SMCPA AF zoom - $60 on eBoy.

$1000 or so for a computer,
Click to expand...

Got one anyway. Didn't need a new one just for photos. In any case, those who do film and scan also need a computer.

$800 for a good photo quality printer,
Click to expand...

Don't own one. I print using Walmart uploads - or MPIX if I need high-quality work. Same process I go through to print scanned negs from film. Cost to print - same for digital or film.

and who knows how much for all the software one has to purchase to make everything work?
Click to expand...

I run Linux, Vuescan, and The Gimp. Cost? Linux = $0, Vuescan = $40, The Gimp = $0.

Plus the monthly internet fees, the modem, the inks, the scanners (film and flatbed), all of which become quickly outdated or break.
Click to expand...

Digital cameras users need no scanners. I have no printer, hence, no ink. I have cable hi-speed access, no modem. And I'd be paying the internet fees whether I played with cameras or high-powered centerfire rifles. No extra fees for camera fondlers. I have a flatbed and a dedicated film scanner - for .... film. Not digital cameras. The Epson flatbed was $99 a few years ago, the KM SD IV was $300, now going for $200. I did have a dud SD III, bought for $300 sold for $150.

Tell me again how much more expensive digital is than film.

Oh but then there is the 'workflow' argument. How it is so much more work and so tedious to massage an image into something resembling a photograph if it came from a digital camera, because digital cameras are so inherently flawed, blah blah blah.

In my first response, I tried to be fair to everyone. I realize that some are not as keen with a PC as I am - and I'm a long ways from expert - but this is my day job as well, playing with computers. So for the traditional film photographer, workflow in the darkroom may well be more productive than workflow in front of a PC. To each their own. Live and let live, etc. Like I originally said, I prefer film's quality, but shoot digital for paid work because it is faster/cheaper FOR ME.

But here we go into this tired old saw - oh, digital sux because it costs more (wrong). And the workflow is too slow (only for dinosaurs). And the images - they just look so fake (totally made-up by people who haven't looked a digital photo for fear they'd melt or something).

Blah, blah, blah.

If you can't or won't learn to use Photoshop, don't assume the rest of the world can't either. It's OK, I haven't been in a darkroom since 1979 and would probably embarrass myself in one now.

Best Regards,

Bill mattocks
 
This is the best thread ever; I would gladly print out some of the responses and hang them up on my wall.

I *think* all of my reasons have already been named, but one: when you're shooting film, you can't delete. Save for physically destroying that one frame, you've got to live with what got recorded after you released the shutter. Makes you think twice before snapping away, doesn't it?

(Oh, and it's much easier to get rid of all those annoying people who crowd around the back of your camera and demand to see their photo immediatey. :D)
 
Because I like to make photographs. Photography = film. I do not use digital image capture devices. I am a proud "grognard" (a word I just learned on the Cameraquest thread a minute ago).

Julian
 
I am a collage student, and I find the whole process very rewarding. Developing film releaves my stress, and gives me a break from studies. Time alone in the darkroom is also nice break when you are constanty surrounded by people. I also do a lot of experimentation with film to achieve effects that would take days to replicate in photoshop.

I do use digital for some things though. I think both are good for different reasons.
 
For me, it's 50/50 between film and digital. That's because it's 50/50 between RF and DSLR. The choice for medium is a byproduct of the choice of which camera I need for a particular situation.

Oh, and I use my DSLR exactly as I would use a film SLR. No computer required. I take the memory card out, go to a shop and plunk the card into a photo-kiosk. The only difference is the option to select a subset of images to be printed, and the turn around time of course; 2 minutes instead of 2 days.
 
Kin Lau said:
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 >
Click to expand...

Who rattled your cage Kin Lau? Want to take that as offensive? Be my guest. I called no one a liar, I voiced an opposing viewpoint, as others have done to mine. I do not consider them calling me a liar (however, they may be misguided and blind to the whole picture).
Anyhow, back on topic, why do you still use film Kin Lau? That is what this thread is about, I didn't see your reasons Kin Lau. As you only selected my post to complain about, among quite a few who have expressed reasons for sticking with film, are you only here to troll?


shutterflower said:
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
Click to expand...

You missed out ink, paper, computer, software, batteries. And the fact that to stay in the game ALL digital gear has to be renewed every couple of years or so.There is also the constant cost of backing up files in duplicate/triplicate/seperate locations.


shutterflower said:
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
Click to expand...


You also missed the fact that most pro's buy film and chemicals in bulk. That's a lot cheaper than your estiamate. Home processing costs a hell of a lot less than a lab. Enlargers are a once in a lifetime purchase. You assume film users enlarge every negative, we don't, so paper costs are not as high as your assumption. Also most people who use film and a real darkroom do not scan everything to computer, why should they? They already have the hardcopy. As for time taken, do digital users spend no time at all photoshopping, backing up, filing, printing etc?



Hey Kin Lau, I did it again, I voiced a different opinion, want to take offense again?
 
Last edited:
pvdhaar said:
For me, it's 50/50 between film and digital. That's because it's 50/50 between RF and DSLR. The choice for medium is a byproduct of the choice of which camera I need for a particular situation.

Oh, and I use my DSLR exactly as I would use a film SLR. No computer required. I take the memory card out, go to a shop and plunk the card into a photo-kiosk. The only difference is the option to select a subset of images to be printed, and the turn around time of course; 2 minutes instead of 2 days.
Click to expand...

The same here, I shoot about 50/50. Film when I feel like using my Leica M outfit, digital when I feel like using my Digilux2, Canon 10D when I need a SLR.
The medium in which I capture the image is pretty unimportant to me. I'm an amateur, so cost is pretty irrelevant either. I use what I can or want to afford.
I do scan my film, because I love the control that digital processing gives over the final image,especially colour images, analog to B&W in the wet darkroom. That, to me, is the real bonus of the digital process. I always hated dropping off my film and just accepting whatever the lab or machine turned my photo's into. In that I differ from Peter, I shoot my images RAW and work them in PS. There is room for an immense improvement in quality there, Peter! Now I can control every step of the way.
Btw, this is about the first film vs. digital thread I have ever seen that has not turned into a mud-slinging match. Great!
 
Last edited:
Andy K said:
Who rattled your cage? Want to take that as offensive? Be my guest. I called no one a liar, I voiced an opposing viewpoint, as others have done to mine. I do not consider them calling me a liar (they may be misguided and blind to the whole picture).




You missed out ink, paper, computer, software, batteries. And the fact that to stay in the game ALL digital gear has to be renewed every couple of years or so.There is also the constant cost of backing up files in duplicate/triplicate/seperate locations.





You also missed the fact that most pro's buy film and chemicals in bulk. That's a lot cheaper than your estiamate. Home processing costs a hell of a lot less than a lab. Enlargers are a once in a lifetime purchase. You assume film users enlarge every negative, we don't, so paper costs are not as high as your assumption. Also most people who use film and a real darkroom do not scan everything to computer, why should they? They already have the hardcopy. As for time taken, do digital users spend no time at all photoshopping, backing up, filing, printing etc?



Hey Kin Lau, I did it again, I voiced a different opinion, want to take offense again?
Click to expand...

yeah, and my mom is no pro. And hasn't changed cameras in two years. And she represents 99% of the consumer market..

and my cousin took 15 gigabytes of pictures in Europe on our trip. Break his $350 digital down into film, processing and scanning to get those images into his computer. . . buy a car.

but don't get me wrong. I love film. I'll not be buying a digital camera again until film truly IS dead (like no one makes it anymore). And money is nothing to me. Heck, I'm selling off my car and buying a bus pass just to stay in the game. :)
 
Last edited:
shutterflower said:
and my cousin took 15 gigabytes of pictures in Europe on our trip. Break his $350 digital down into film, processing and scanning to get those images into his computer. . . buy a car.
Click to expand...

Why the need to buy a car? The 17 rolls I shot on my last trip equal twice that amount in data if I scan hires and tiff (four times if I do 16-bits). I had them in my backpack.

/Håkan
 
Of course film is cheaper.

A ten year old digital camera is obsolete, but a quality brand ten year old film camera has a lot of life in it.
 
Jon Claremont said:
Of course film is cheaper.

A ten year old digital camera is obsolete, but a quality brand ten year old film camera has a lot of life in it.
Click to expand...

But will the digital cameras they build now be obsolete in ten years time? Most of the high-end ones are capable of far more than the average or even advanced photographer will ever want of them.In other words, the digitechnical leap-frog race is slowing down - dramatically.
 
jaapv said:
But will the digital cameras they build now be obsolete in ten years time? Most of the high-end ones are capable of far more than the average or even advanced photographer will ever want of them.In other words, the digitechnical leap-frog race is slowing down - dramatically.
Click to expand...

Yes they will. There are people buying the latest Canon when their old model is less than two years old. There are already people on this forum talking about buying the latest version of the RD1. Personally, if I had spent £1800 on a digital camera, and less than a year later a new updated version went on sale, I would be pretty pissed off at Epson.
 
But there are still plenty of great shots being made with a D30 (as opposed to a 30D which has essentially the same sensor). Most of the so-called "progress" is pure marketing and gimmicks. The rest are mostly technical camera improvements like for instance better Auto-Focus, which would be the same for a film-body. in ten years they went from 6MP to 8 MP with only marginally enhanced electronics. The only field that really improved was high-sensitivity noise, which is pretty good now as well. So I really do think that technology is rapidly approaching the point where further developments have no real-world relevance.
 
Last edited:
Why does obsolescence always come up in digital v. film arguments? A Leica M3 is obsolete in terms of its intended purpose ( a professional workhorse ). You could argue that all RF's became obsolete with the arrival of SLR's. Surely it's the end result that counts whether you use film, digital, SLR or RF no one method is inherently better than another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom