Film cameras. Are they worth it?

Dael_Pix

Dael_Pix

Messages
1,616
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I have an old Pentax film camera and I've thought about using it with black and white film.

Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have an old Pentax film camera and I've thought about using it with black and white film.

Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?
Click to expand...
Only you can answer that. I dabbled with it a couple of years ago but found my skills manually focussing an old lens meant I spent a lot of money to get lots of blurry, out of focus shots that I would have been better taking with a digital camera. That said I do miss it and would like another go. It’s expensive and slow but that’s the charm. You have to wait days or been weeks to see your images. You can get a couple of rolls of film shot and developed for not a huge amount of cash so why not give it a go and see if you enjoy it?
 
Dael_Pix said:
Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?
Click to expand...

There is no financial benefit to shooting film. People do it for a variety of other reasons. And those reasons are very subjective. If you already have the camera (and it works), it's £6ish for a roll of cheap B&W film (HP5 plus or Kentmere 400) with the developing on top. AG Photographic will dev for £3.99 or dev & scan for £9.99. Your sig shows a macro lens so you could probably jury rig something up at home to scan your negatives with the digital camera. Call it £20 to have a go. Is that worth it to you?
 
Hmm think I'll pass. Back in the wardrobe it goes.
 
I use film cameras a great deal - as many of us on Talk Photography do. It is worth it to us. The results are different to digital, mainly because film is rather thick while a digital sensor is essentially just a surface. If you have been taken in by the quest for "tack sharpness", then film is useless. If you want pictures that are worth looking at, film is very good.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Hmm think I'll pass. Back in the wardrobe it goes.
Click to expand...
Sell it. Rather than letting it sit unused sell it on here or eBay and let someone who wants to shoot film make use of it.
 
I shoot film on a Rangefinder; an SLR and a 6x6 folder. I also shoot digital on my EM1 MkII.

I love the different results I get from the different cameras and especially the different film stock.

IF you are certain the camera is working fine then I would suggest putting a roll of film through it and see what you think of the experience. Otherwise, why not sell it on whilst prices are quite high, they may not stay that way.
 
I have a Pentax P50 and Z-1p film cameras and they get occasional use, as does my Mamiya 645.

Do you still have some K-mount lenses? I'd keep them and use the film camera for a project.

Someone above does mention the cost of film, it has become eye-wateringly expensice I agree - and I remember the time you could by 3 Fuji Velvia plus processing vouchers from Fuji for £20; £20 buys you 1 film now (no processing). There is a tangible benefit as a developed film will give you negs/slides or prints. Print film will give you a fair selection of 6x4" prints from a roll of 36 which you might chose to do something with. Digital files sadly mostly stay on computer or hard disc, only a few go towards something meaningful.

So, get a film, and see how you get on.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have an old Pentax film camera and I've thought about using it with black and white film.

Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?
Click to expand...
The cheapest way to try out some black and white film might be to buy a roll of Ilford XP2, which can be processed in the C41 chemistry that's used for colour films and costs about £6. Then you can send it to filmdev.co.uk, who will develop and scan it for £4 at a resolution that's good enough for web use (add £2 for a medium sized scan that's fine for most purposes, or £4 for a large scan that's good enough for anything). That's £10-14 all in, plus postage. Don't be discouraged by the more negative responses. One reason to try it is for the variety - the results look significantly different to purely digital shots. The shots have a texture you don't get with a sensor. That old Pentax may be fine, though for £20 on ebay you could pick up an EOS film body that would work and autofocus with your modern lenses.
 
Interesting question. I haven't shot on film for many years (except for large format) but, like everyone else of my generation, I shot nothing else for over 40 years.
I still have my old Nikon F-100, a beautiful camera and really must see whether I'm still able to take decent shots with a real camera . . .

Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital camera of course, but I like the "look" and of course film is a great learning tool because it forces us to measure twice and cut once, rather than just blaze away.

But, if I ever do use film again then I'll do the developing myself, it's a simple process that adds a lot of control to the final result.

As an aside, my ex-wife died in October and I've been given a box of old 35mm slides, a few are Kodachrome and the rest are CT18. They brought back memories and although the came with my very first (Agfa) slide viewer, I've re-photographed them all with my D3. But the image quality, which was good for its day, probably isn't any better than my phone. Here's an example.
jill age about 21.jpg
 
For me, yes. I use everything from 35mm up to 10x8 (and 16mm if I want to use my Bolex), develop and handprint (colour and b+w) myself. Sometimes I'll scan. I picked up photography in 2007 and grew up on digital everything. I'm tired of staring at screens all day and using film is a good way to step back from all of that, especially when I print colour since the darkroom I use is a bit of a hub for photographers in London. You can actually catch up with people and see what they've been up to instead of just tapping 'like' on Instagram.

Yes, digital is easier and yes, it's 'better' than 35mm, but I've never walked onto a shoot or gone on a trip wishing I brought my D800E (when I had it - I traded it for 10x8 camera) instead. It's almost always 'I wish I brought my Leica/ Rollei/Pentax 67/large format'.
 
FruitFlakes said:
I'm tired of staring at screens all day and using film is a good way to step back from all of that.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, after spending years in darkrooms and printing many thousands of images I feel exactly the opposite. There was only so much pleasure I could take from watching images "come up in the developer"...

Adam with Rolleiflex E2.jpg
 
RustySnapper said:
Really, I bet this statement gets a few photogs spluttering over their coffee this morning. :eek:
Click to expand...
In 35mm it is, I only use 120 and larger now. The vast majority of 35mm photos I’ve taken come out with the same resolution as my iPhone, or worse. Not that it means you shouldn’t use it
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Oddly enough, after spending years in darkrooms and printing many thousands of images I feel exactly the opposite. There was only so much pleasure I could take from watching images "come up in the developer"...
Click to expand...

We’ll see if I still feel the same after another 30 years but I’ve been regularly shooting film for about 10 years now and haven’t nearly approached the same level of fatigue as I have with digi. It’s all about finding the medium you like working in. Hope you kept the Rollei though.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have an old Pentax film camera and I've thought about using it with black and white film.

Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?
Click to expand...
In my opinion I don't think film cameras are worth it.
I feel they are purely for hobbyists as I absolutely could not get the shots with film that I can with digital.

I hear what others say about being tired of staring at computer screens but for me, it's no worse than staring at a dev timer.
 
Last edited:
Ben johns said:
In 35mm it is.
Click to expand...

If you have bad eyesight, are using manual focus, using expired film, and are shooting to crop, with a potato & scanning with your iPhone 5, I agree - the results will be far worse than the latest Sony full frame with super AF. However my Canon T90 with the 28mm f/2, composed without the need to severely crop, and scanned on a Plustek 8100, will give me landscapes that are no worse than the Fuji X-T2 with 16-55 f/2.8.

IMO, it definitely depends on your camera as well as the method for getting enlargements. Most newcomers (I know because I was one) comparing film vs digital would say it's terrible, but now I can get acceptable 13x19s from 35mm.
 
I stayed with film when others were going digital but I just got so annoyed as the quality of the prints I was getting back nosedived, I assume they'd cut costs as digital marched on but I could be wrong. The last batch of prints went back three times and they never got to be acceptable and neither was the snotty note about fingerprints and hairs and the like on the negatives. Well. They were not from me. It was that experience that drove me to digital and I gave my SLR away. I briefly tried film again some years later and film can give a look that I struggle to get with digital but on the whole digital is just so much better, for me. Plus I'm in control of quality and I don't get any snotty notes about finger prints and hairs on negatives that I never took out of the packet.
 
We could all take this thread as a call to action to ensure any cameras we have in storage have their batteries removed!

Film cameras have a wider range of styles and formats. Using a sub miniature is very different to 35mm SLR which is different again to a technical camera. I find the variety is pleasing. As noted above digital imaging often lends a helping hand so film may help remind the user about some fundamentals. I realised long ago I was not a great photographer so it's more about the process than the result in some ways. Also film cameras are a reminder of history, A Japaneese HIT camera reflecting times of limited resourse or a Box Brownie perhaps showing a growth of leisure time pursuits. Then there is the way they reflect technology over time. Digital cameras are not spearate to this buta part of it. I have a Sony FD camera that takes floppy discs, remember those?

I wonder if there is an artists forum where the topic of "I found my old easel, should I buy some paint and give it a go or just keep working digitally" is being discussed?
 
Harlequin565 said:
composed without the need to severely crop,
Click to expand...
...wherein lies the rub. Many of the pictures I take require cropping to make them work, often quite harsh cropping (all innuendo will be ignored :naughty: ).

Once sensor density reached 6MP, I found that I was able to get images that I liked much more easily with digital than 35mm film and at 12MP, rollfilm formats no longer met my needs, either. Of course, this all comes down to personal circumstances and the idea of a general comparison between film and digital is downright silly. It's much the same as comparing a bus with a car: both will take people from A to B but how they do it is so different that comparison is largely pointless.

Then again, speaking of buses...

Tourist bus in London Leica M3 30.jpg

...Leica M3 & 90mm Elmar​

Young woman on phone crossing in front of bus Exeter P1011092.JPG

Panasonic G9 & 100-400mm​
 
Last edited:
Then of course there are lots of companies, like RNI or Mastin Labs who will sell you very expensive Lightroom profiles and presets to make your digital photos look like any film stock you desire
 
My perspective.

To answer the thread title. Absolutely.

To answer the question in the actual post - that depends on you, and if you'd like to see if film might be for you. For me, 35mm isn't worth it, as I can get better results with digital. With medium format film, black and white is better (certainly for me) than digital with a Sony a7rii. Large format film just leaves everything else not just standing but in a state of confused and hasty retreat :)
 
soupdragon said:
In my opinion I don't think film cameras are worth it.
I feel they are purely for hobbyists as I absolutely could not get the shots with film that I can with digital.

I hear what others say about being tired of staring at computer screens but for me, it's no worse than staring at a dev timer.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I used to scan the negs anyway to tweak them on the computer.
 
Harlequin565 said:
If you have bad eyesight, are using manual focus, using expired film, and are shooting to crop, with a potato & scanning with your iPhone 5, I agree - the results will be far worse than the latest Sony full frame with super AF. However my Canon T90 with the 28mm f/2, composed without the need to severely crop, and scanned on a Plustek 8100, will give me landscapes that are no worse than the Fuji X-T2 with 16-55 f/2.8.

IMO, it definitely depends on your camera as well as the method for getting enlargements. Most newcomers (I know because I was one) comparing film vs digital would say it's terrible, but now I can get acceptable 13x19s from 35mm.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe that a 35mm negative will give the same results as a 24mp camera. I’ve had 35mm scanned from a flatbed, a good lab scan and a scan with my macro lens and a6000 and none of them compare to my a6000 at 100%. Obviously at a certain size print you won’t be able to tell the difference but I’ve printed 35mm in a darkroom at 8x10 and it was still worse than my digital camera. I’m not saying you shouldn’t enjoy 35mm and the prints you get but for me the results aren’t worth the effort vs digital.
 
soupdragon said:
In my opinion I don't think film cameras are worth it.
I feel they are purely for hobbyists as I absolutely could not get the shots with film that I can with digital.

I hear what others say about being tired of staring at computer screens but for me, it's no worse than staring at a dev timer.
Click to expand...
I agree but it’s what you want from photography that will decide whether it’s worth it or not. For me it’s not worth it in 35mm. But I like using film cameras and 6x6 and above give me a good enough image that it’s worth using. But if I could pick just one it would be digital, I can do everything with my Sony. For me it’s a bit like having a sports car that you take out at weekends, it’s probably not worth it financially or logically but it’s more fun than driving the family car
 
Ben johns said:
I can’t believe that a 35mm negative will give the same results as a 24mp camera. I’ve had 35mm scanned from a flatbed, a good lab scan and a scan with my macro lens and a6000 and none of them compare to my a6000 at 100%. Obviously at a certain size print you won’t be able to tell the difference but I’ve printed 35mm in a darkroom at 8x10 and it was still worse than my digital camera. I’m not saying you shouldn’t enjoy 35mm and the prints you get but for me the results aren’t worth the effort vs digital.
Click to expand...

It's not worth the effort and the results will not be better than a good DSLR I think for those who still shoot film it's not so much about the results as the process. I know some who really enjoy the darkroom and the process of developing film along with the "look" of 35mm scans or prints. Personally, film doesn't hold a nostalgic hug big enough to make me want to spend hours in the darkroom, hours scanning and more hours tweaking in Photoshop. I'd rather cut to the chase and get the image done..
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
It's not worth the effort and the results will not be better than a good DSLR I think for those who still shoot film it's not so much about the results as the process. I know some who really enjoy the darkroom and the process of developing film along with the "look" of 35mm scans or prints. Personally, film doesn't hold a nostalgic hug big enough to make me want to spend hours in the darkroom, hours scanning and more hours tweaking in Photoshop. I'd rather cut to the chase and get the image done..
Click to expand...
I agree, that’s why I gave up on 35mm. I loved using 35mm cameras but in the long run it’s worth the effort vs the Sony. I miss using slide film, holding the positives is cool.
I think the look of 35mm can be pretty much got with presets now. I have one from Marstan labs and it gives it enough of a film look for me. There’s still life in 6x6 for me at the moment but I’m not sure for how long
 
Harlequin565 said:
This is what I was getting at.
Click to expand...
In my experience the print size that it’s not noticeable is too small. Maybe I’ve had really bad scans but the scans I get with my macro lens are really good. We don’t have have many smaller prints at home, I haven’t measured them but eyeballing them they look bigger than 10inches along the short edge so for me digital is better.
 
And in my experience, A3 (16x11) is my standard large print. And 35mm film easily gives excellent results for this size.

24Mp digital gives you about 375ppi at that size. My 35mm scans give me roughly 200ppi (13Mp) on a Plustek 8100.

The issue we're having is likely to be nose-up-close examination (as you mention 100%). If you assume a normal viewing distance of an A3 print to be 30 inches(?) the human eye (assuming 20/20 vision) cannot resolve better than 115ppi. It's only when you get to 12" distance that the eye may be able to resolve the difference. Certainly my eyes can't as I don't have 20/20 vision (and I've tried it!). The only step closer than that is zoomed in on a computer screen at greater magnification than the eye can see at.

And discussing the usefulness of looking at images at 100% is a whole 'nother conversation :)
 
Ben johns said:
For me it’s a bit like having a sports car that you take out at weekends, it’s probably not worth it financially or logically but it’s more fun than driving the family car
Click to expand...

That's it summed up right there. Absolutely no reason to shoot film unless you want to, same as there's absolutely no reason to have a Porsche 911, unless you want one (and can afford one).
 
I did once make what I'd call a technically good 10x8 print from 35mm, but that's it. At quarter plate size (call the image 3" x 4") it was always possible. Half plate (call it 5x6)mostly fine, whole plate (6x8)often. Better printers may well do better. I usually used PanF film (50 ASA - in those days!).
 
Harlequin565 said:
And in my experience, A3 (16x11) is my standard large print. And 35mm film easily gives excellent results for this size.

24Mp digital gives you about 375ppi at that size. My 35mm scans give me roughly 200ppi (13Mp) on a Plustek 8100.

The issue we're having is likely to be nose-up-close examination (as you mention 100%). If you assume a normal viewing distance of an A3 print to be 30 inches(?) the human eye (assuming 20/20 vision) cannot resolve better than 115ppi. It's only when you get to 12" distance that the eye may be able to resolve the difference. Certainly my eyes can't as I don't have 20/20 vision (and I've tried it!). The only step closer than that is zoomed in on a computer screen at greater magnification than the eye can see at.

And discussing the usefulness of looking at images at 100% is a whole 'nother conversation :)
Click to expand...

This opens up a completely different discussion on the psychology of viewing, what happens in the real world, and the ability of the eye to perceive differences at below the resolution of the eye. We'll have to fundamentally disagree on virtually all of your third paragraph.

The first paragraph is subjective, and my experience (or what I consider excellent results) are not the same as yours.

I agree on the final paragraph. :)
 
I was thinking of buying another film camera, as I was having issues with my current film camera and lenses.
But after thinking it through, I decided it was not worth it for me.
 
Ben johns said:
I can’t believe that a 35mm negative will give the same results as a 24mp camera. I’ve had 35mm scanned from a flatbed, a good lab scan and a scan with my macro lens and a6000 and none of them compare to my a6000 at 100%. Obviously at a certain size print you won’t be able to tell the difference but I’ve printed 35mm in a darkroom at 8x10 and it was still worse than my digital camera. I’m not saying you shouldn’t enjoy 35mm and the prints you get but for me the results aren’t worth the effort vs digital.
Click to expand...
if 35mm gave the same results as digital, none of us would use it. There is more to any picture than resolution. Comparing film to digital on the basis of resolution alone is like comparing a fry-up to a plate of gelatine leaves with some wallpaper paste on the side and a glass of vegetable oil to wash it down with. The second option contains all the same nutrients as the fry-up does but it is not even slightly delicious. I don't want just nutrients in my food - I want deliciousness as well. The way that a film produces an image as a three dimensional matrix of grains looks a whole lot more appetising than a flat digital image does.
 
john.margetts said:
if 35mm gave the same results as digital, none of us would use it. There is more to any picture than resolution. Comparing film to digital on the basis of resolution alone is like comparing a fry-up to a plate of gelatine leaves with some wallpaper paste on the side and a glass of vegetable oil to wash it down with. The second option contains all the same nutrients as the fry-up does but it is not even slightly delicious. I don't want just nutrients in my food - I want deliciousness as well. The way that a film produces an image as a three dimensional matrix of grains looks a whole lot more appetising than a flat digital image does.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say there wasn’t more to it than resolution. I was replying to a comment about image resolution...
 
Harlequin565 said:
There is no financial benefit to shooting film. People do it for a variety of other reasons. And those reasons are very subjective. If you already have the camera (and it works), it's £6ish for a roll of cheap B&W film (HP5 plus or Kentmere 400) with the developing on top. AG Photographic will dev for £3.99 or dev & scan for £9.99. Your sig shows a macro lens so you could probably jury rig something up at home to scan your negatives with the digital camera. Call it £20 to have a go. Is that worth it to you?
Click to expand...

Financial benefit should not come into the equation. The result of an image taken on film is entirely different from digital. It is very satisfying to know that you have produced something without the help of Dr Photoshop. Don't get me wrong I use digital too but I alternate between that and film. The film when it goes right. (I won't claim it does every time) the feeling is that you have achieved something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top