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?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?
Is it worth the money to buy film and get them developed since it's epensive?
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.Hmm think I'll pass. Back in the wardrobe it goes.
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.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?
........Image quality is very poor compared to a modern digital camera of course,.......
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"...I'm tired of staring at screens all day and using film is a good way to step back from all of that.
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 itReally, I bet this statement gets a few photogs spluttering over their coffee this morning.
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"...
In my opinion I don't think film cameras are worth it.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?
In 35mm it is.
"I found my old easel, should I buy some paint and give it a go or just keep working digitally" is being discussed?
...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 ).composed without the need to severely crop,
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.
Forgot about the whole scanning nause.Agreed. And I used to scan the negs anyway to tweak them on the computer.
Forgot about the whole scanning nause.
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.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 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 carIn 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.
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.
Obviously at a certain size print you won’t be able to tell the difference
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.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..
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.This is what I was getting at.
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
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
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.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.
I didn’t say there wasn’t more to it than resolution. I was replying to a comment about image resolution...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.
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?