Why do you shoot film... Digital is so much better!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amp34 said:
Film is fun to play with, different and interesting, no need to argue that its cheaper when in reality like for like it's not really. Just enjoy it, I'm enjoying it, which is why I'm justifying the cost over digital.
Click to expand...

I look at film photography as basically 'pay as you go' and digital as 'pay up front'.

You can buy a good condition Mamiya RZ67 complete with with 120 film back, finder, and lens for between £400-£600 (e.g., http://ffordes.com/category/Medium_Format/Mamiya/Mamiya_RZ67/RZ67_Cameras).

To just buy a RZ67 body brand new from Calumet would be £2000 alone (http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/product/mamiyaleaf-rz-67-pro-ii-d-body/351-670A/). Then you're looking at another £2000 on top of that for the lens and film back (or far more even for the digital back).

If you purchased the used RZ67 camera, you would need to shoot hundreds of rolls of film to start catching up to the price of either new RZ equipment or even the price of a full-frame digital camera and a lens.

The cost/performance ratio of film is ridiculous. As a bonus, film looks better too (to my eyes anyway). :)

Plus, with the used film camera, you should be able to sell it for near enough what you paid, whereas you'll certainly lose money with a new camera (film or digital).

I've used medium format in this example, but this also holds true for 35mm vs APS-C or full frame digital. My autofocus Nikon bodies cost between £5 and £25, so I'd need to shoot quite a lot of shots before I caught up to the cost of even my entry-level Nikon D5100, let alone anything full frame.
 
Last edited:
because of the smell of freshly opened film :love:

i'm not a wierdo i promise :LOL:
 
Another reason for me, it's nice and quiet in the darkroom.

(y)
 
I don't really have a strong preference for film or digital as a medium, but I enjoy using the old, manual, SLRs from the F2 period and that makes film a necessity. I suppose there is something intangible about the tactility of film coupled with these cameras too.
 
PMN said:
I guess quiet is appreciated while trying to figure out how to recover borked exposures?
Click to expand...

It does help, especially when the students union bar is so close by too. (y)
 
Again its preference. For me film is dead because digital gives you far more freedom and doesnt cost anything day to day. I like to instantly see results and the idea of that not being possoble is crazy.

For me digital is better but that doesnt go for anyone else
 
Well I think the problem with these sort of debates is we all know what works for each of us....and it can be difficult seeing other points of view, for example:-

I've bought a perfectly working Zenit camera with 58mm and 135mm lens for £1, I buy Agfa vista for £1 and get it developed and scanned at Asda for £3, so total cost for 36 good shots is £5 BUT a person could say well "I bought a 3mp P&S digital camera for £5, and I too have 36 good shots" so who is right? As in sunlight and on certain subjects his\her digital camera could possibly give better quality results than my low scan shots....then you stop arguing but if..............................
 
I shoot film for the exact specific yet unquantifiable points raised above. I shoot it because of the way it makes me think and, in equal measure, the look and the whole process of it all as well. Seeing a well exposed frame of 5x4 slide frankly makes me weak at the knees. Digital has simply never done that for me. I suppose one day it might, but I'll be shooting film for both as long as I can afford it and for as long as it is made.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't know what Paul uses for bass but I suspect he uses a solid state amplifier as these are more suitable for bass (although one play through an Ampeg SVT could change your mind!)
Click to expand...

I usually use a TL Audio valve preamp and solid state power amps but it really depends on where I'm playing and what I'm doing, sometimes I use my old Fender Dual Showman reverb. :)

Playing overseas I've had many an Ampeg as they're naturally near the top of the list of preferred amps to just walk up to un an unfamiliar situation. My favourite stage sound ever was a gig in Russia where I had an SVT and an AMpeg 4x10, I loved every second of playing through it. I enjoyed it more than the SVT and 8X10 I had a few years ago for some gigs I payed around Sweden. I'm generally a fan of smaller amps on stage than bigger ones! :LOL:
 
skysh4rk said:
I look at film photography as basically 'pay as you go' and digital as 'pay up front'.

You can buy a good condition Mamiya RZ67 complete with with 120 film back, finder, and lens for between £400-£600 (e.g., http://ffordes.com/category/Medium_Format/Mamiya/Mamiya_RZ67/RZ67_Cameras).

To just buy a RZ67 body brand new from Calumet would be £2000 alone (http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/product/mamiyaleaf-rz-67-pro-ii-d-body/351-670A/). Then you're looking at another £2000 on top of that for the lens and film back (or far more even for the digital back).

If you purchased the used RZ67 camera, you would need to shoot hundreds of rolls of film to start catching up to the price of either new RZ equipment or even the price of a full-frame digital camera and a lens.

The cost/performance ratio of film is ridiculous. As a bonus, film looks better too (to my eyes anyway). :)

Plus, with the used film camera, you should be able to sell it for near enough what you paid, whereas you'll certainly lose money with a new camera (film or digital).

I've used medium format in this example, but this also holds true for 35mm vs APS-C or full frame digital. My autofocus Nikon bodies cost between £5 and £25, so I'd need to shoot quite a lot of shots before I caught up to the cost of even my entry-level Nikon D5100, let alone anything full frame.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first part but not the latter of that comparison.

You can easily buy a used full frame camera and good lens for around £1000-1500 (such as a 5D2, D700, 1D Mk3 etc.). That reduces the difference drastically. Considering 1 roll of B&W film will cost you around £20 to buy and get developed (and scanned), you're only looking at 20-50 films for that price. Obviously that will reduce with colour films (but then people suggest B&W is one of the main reasons they stay with film) but there isn't really much of a difference if you get it developed by someone else.

You can do it yourself but then you need £150-200+ for a scanner, £50+ for basic developing kit and then consumables such as film and chemicals.

So I totally agree with the idea of "I look at film photography as basically 'pay as you go' and digital as 'pay up front'." however I think after a couple of hundred photos digital would start to edge it. The other benefit of buying used digital kit is it's not going to go down a huge amount either, but likely to reduce moreso than an older film camera.

So like for like a new MF camera is pretty much of a muchness with a new high end FF camera and not that far off with used equipment either.

That's a SLR MF, but a cheap TLR and the economics are very different. I didn't say it a;ways the same though, just that cost shouldn't really be a driver in many cases (for MF).

EDIT: Actually out of interest a new entry level DSLR is around £350 with a lens, so that's about £325 more than the used cameras you were talking about. I bet you could get a used D3200 for around £250 easily, which isn't that many rolls of 35mm processed by someone else..!
 
Put it in these terms, the technology in a digital camera will age quite quickly as new products are released, often enough to tempt people. My D7000, as trusty as it is, is already out of date and will probably require an upgrade in a few years time. This is where the expense of digital comes from, along with the cost of peripherals, computers and legitimate software.

The Yashica Mat, and Pentax Super ME, I have are both close to 30 years old. The technology behind an analogue shot isn't going to change, only the emulsion does. So when Kodak upgrades there emulsion, there is no need to drop ££££ on a new bit of kit, rather a few quid can be spent on a roll of film. I home scan my film, and at the moment it costs me about £8-10 a roll for 35mm, or £15 for MF.

A little price comparison:

Digital:

D7000: £1100 New
Computer: £700 New
Software: £200 (lightroom)
Total: £2000

Film:

Camera Cost (Yashica Mat 124G) - £100, Ebay
Film Cost (Slide + Dev + Scan) = £15
To match the cost of a digital camera, I would have to shoot 1 roll of film a week for the next 2.5 years. That's 1500 film shots.

It's a close run thing IMO, if you scan the image yourself, you are looking at a development cost for MF of about £8. Thats about 4.5 years worth of exposures (238 rolls, 3000 shots). In 4.5 years, the digital camera will be miles out of date (although, for the same amount of shutter actuations, barely used).

Food for thought, I have never looked at it from a cost point of view.

And digital with never replace the feeling of looking at a perfect slide film for the first time.
 
Sectionate said:
Put it in these terms, the technology iwhy digital camera will age quite quickly as new products are released, often enough to tempt people. My D7000, as trusty as it is, is already out of date and will probably require an upgrade in a few years time. This is where the expense of digital comes from, along with the cost of peripherals, computers and legitimate software.

The Yashica Mat, and Pentax Super ME, I have are both close to 30 years old. The technology behind an analogue shot isn't going to change, only the emulsion does. So when Kodak upgrades there emulsion, there is no need to drop ££££ on a new bit of kit, rather a few quid can be spent on a roll of film. I home scan my film, and at the moment it costs me about £8-10 a roll for 35mm, or £15 for MF.

A little price comparison:

Digital:

D7000: £1100 New
Computer: £700 New
Software: £200 (lightroom)
Total: £2000

Film:

Camera Cost (Yashica Mat 124G) - £100, Ebay
Film Cost (Slide + Dev + Scan) = £15
To match the cost of a digital camera, I would have to shoot 1 roll of film a week for the next 2.5 years. That's 1500 film shots.

It's a close run thing IMO, if you scan the image yourself, you are looking at a development cost for MF of about £8. Thats about 4.5 years worth of exposures (238 rolls, 3000 shots). In 4.5 years, the digital camera will be miles out of date (although, for the same amount of shutter actuations, barely used).

Food for thought, I have never looked at it from a cost point of view.

And digital with never replace the feeling of looking at a perfect slide film for the first time.
Click to expand...

But you're still comparing a 30 year old camera bought used from ebay to a new DSLR... How about a used D50 from the bay and the computer you use to browse the net and do your bills? I understand where you're coming from with regards to technology and lifecycles (and using your own equipment costs) but it doesn't stack up with buying an old film camera. With that in mind it's actually about 15 rolls. ;)

Agreed! Staring at a nice 6x6 slide is awesome, I btw LF and 617 slide is even better.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
But you're still comparing a 30 year old camera bought used from ebay to a new DSLR... How about a used D50 from the bay and the computer you use to browse the net and do your bills? I understand where you're coming from with regards to technology and lifecycles but it doesn't stack up with buying an old film camera. With that in mind it's actually about 15 rolls. ;)
Click to expand...

Are we not getting into the realms of pointlessness now? It's fairly evident that most people who shoot film don't really care about the cost because the enjoyment of shooting is worth it, on that basis what difference does it make compared to digital? It seems a monumentally pointless thing to argue about to me.
 
Edit: actually no, I'm not going to start something, ignored.
 
Indeed, it has to be said that your point has been made, amp, and it seems that people shoot film regardless. They shoot it because their reasons carry more weight than the points you raise. Sure, we could all jack in film and shoot digital because in the long run it's cheaper and blah blah blah. IMHO, digital is sterile and lifeless and boring, so no matter the financial cost averaged over time, I still wont shoot it if film is still available. Cost is irrelevant when it's *EVERYTHING* else about the characteristics of the film and the overall photographic experience that we film shooters love.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
You can easily buy a used full frame camera and good lens for around £1000-1500 (such as a 5D2, D700, 1D Mk3 etc.).
Click to expand...

A D700 alone still costs about £1000 alone from MPB, barring the models with 200,000 clicks on them, before you even get to a lens or any other accessories.

You could get a 'pimped' out medium format system with some backs and lenses for half of that price.

Not to mention the film camera can't really go down much in value.

Amp34 said:
That reduces the difference drastically. Considering 1 roll of B&W film will cost you around £20 to buy and get developed (and scanned), you're only looking at 20-50 films for that price. Obviously that will reduce with colour films (but then people suggest B&W is one of the main reasons they stay with film) but there isn't really much of a difference if you get it developed by someone else.

You can do it yourself but then you need £150-200+ for a scanner, £50+ for basic developing kit and then consumables such as film and chemicals.
Click to expand...

Well, I know that I'm not paying £20 per roll, not even anything close to it.

If you develop your own black and white, the development costs are almost nothing and it's extremely easy. I bought my Epson scanner for £5 (seriously) and bought my development gear for about £20 off of eBay. You could even just opt to wet print rather than scan.

Amp34 said:
EDIT: Actually out of interest a new entry level DSLR is around £350 with a lens, so that's about £325 more than the used cameras you were talking about. I bet you could get a used D3200 for around £250 easily, which isn't that many rolls of 35mm processed by someone else..!
Click to expand...

I don't really think a D3200 with a kit lens is any comparison for a good medium format system.

My Bronica has a 80mm f/2.8 lens that is the equivalent of a 30mm f/1.0 on a D3200. Try finding that lens for an APS-C camera at any price.

Amp34 said:
But you're still comparing a 30 year old camera bought used from ebay to a new DSLR... How about a used D50 from the bay and the computer you use to browse the net and do your bills?
Click to expand...

If the D50 does what you need it to do, then it can certainly be a good camera. I bought a used D80 about a year ago that was pretty solid, but it ultimately couldn't do what I wanted of it, so I sold it (for a loss...).

For me, only medium format gives me both the shallow depth of field and sharpness that I want when shooting wide open. To get comparable performance, I'd have to spend a whole lot more than £300 in digital equipment.

There just isn't a camera/lens combination in digital, that I can afford, that gives me the results that my medium format cameras do.

I'm not arguing that film is universally better (although I am quite partial to it ;)), but it's certainly much better and more affordable for what I like to shoot. It's also far more fun to boot!
 
Steve Smith said:
Why would you need a scanner?


Steve.
Click to expand...

It's that, get someone else to scan or print it yourself with the associated costs of that?

As already pointed out though I was just replying to a few people suggesting film is cheaper. I don't think it's the main reason most shoot film, certainly not me as I think it's pretty damn expensive! :LOL:
 
skysh4rk said:
I don't really think a D3200 with a kit lens is any comparison for a good medium format system.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I have a D3200 with an 18-70 lens. It is actually quite good but is no match for any of my medium format cameras.


Steve.
 
skysh4rk said:
A D700 alone still costs about £1000 alone from MPB, barring the models with 200,000 clicks on them, before you even get to a lens or any other accessories.

You could get a 'pimped' out medium format system with some backs and lenses for half of that price.

Not to mention the film camera can't really go down much in value.
Click to expand...

And a decent fast FF prime lens can be had for a few hundred, making about £1500 when you add on memory card.:)

skysh4rk said:
Well, I know that I'm not paying £20 per roll, not even anything close to it.

If you develop your own black and white, the development costs are almost nothing and it's extremely easy. I bought my Epson scanner for £5 (seriously) and bought my development gear for about £20 off of eBay. You could even just opt to wet print rather than scan.
Click to expand...

Out of interest then where do you get your 120 B&W film developed and scanned? At the moment it's costing me £15 not inc postage for Genie in London and about the same for Club 35. Film is another £5 a roll. If I can get that down it would be very useful.

I'm planning on getting developing kit soon as the price of developing B&W film is rather high!:LOL:

skysh4rk said:
I don't really think a D3200 with a kit lens is any comparison for a good medium format system.

My Bronica has a 80mm f/2.8 lens that is the equivalent of a 30mm f/1.0 on a D3200. Try finding that lens for an APS-C camera at any price.
Click to expand...

How about comparing it to a £1 35mm camera? That's what I was replying to (unless of course you put 35mm film in your MF camera?:LOL: I'll admit I could have been clearer.) :)

Amp34 said:
EDIT: Actually out of interest a new entry level DSLR is around £350 with a lens, so that's about £325 more than the used cameras you were talking about. I bet you could get a used D3200 for around £250 easily, which isn't that many rolls of 35mm processed by someone else..!
Click to expand...

I have an enlarger. I don't need to scan or get anyone to make prints for me.
Click to expand...

And photographic paper is free? Or do you just print one or two images after you've checked them?

I'm interested as photographic paper is pretty expensive IMO and I'd like to do some at some point.

Anyway as I said, away from the cost issue! It was a small part of my post but seems to have ballooned!
 
Sectionate said:
I thought Genie was cheap? Like £7 a roll, with scanning (not inc p&p).

Thats for Colour. I would use someone else for B&W
Click to expand...

Yep, £7 for colour and £14 for B&W which seems about standard from the companies I looked at. Any recommendations for B&W printers then?
 
Steve Smith said:
What does that matter? I was replying to the suggestion that a scanner was necessary.
Click to expand...

To be honest Mr Amp seems to be arguing against any and every single point of any kind that anyone makes, now seemingly just for the sake of it. :wacky:

Steve Smith said:
Me too. I think I'm the only guitarist in the world who gets told to turn up instead of down!
Click to expand...

You're my kinda guitarist! :D
 
I think its probably time to end this now, nothing to be gained by carrying on. Lets move on to more important things like taking photos and buying cameras.(y)
 
Andysnap said:
I think its probably time to end this now, nothing to be gained by carrying on. Lets move on to more important things like taking photos and buying cameras.(y)
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap:
 
Ilford Lab Direct is also good for digital photographers. If you convert your files to black and white, they can make prints on proper black and white paper.

Much better than inkjet prints or attempts on colour paper.

http://www.ilfordlab.com/


Steve.
 
This thread is doing nothing to educate or change my opinion.
Film and digital make two completely different things, they just share similar disciplines.
Comparing them is pointless because peeps want to compare them in their own backyards.
Film is forced to compete as a digital file, and we all know what losses for film there are in that.
Why don't peeps get digital to print itself on cellulose first and then compare them, maybe because that would be stupid, but then its no less stupid than digitally scanned film.
Nobody ever seems to compare oil painting with charcoal drawing, they both use the same hands to make them, you still need the same eye, talent transfers between them, they both create a picture in a similar format on similar materials, you still need an easel, time and patience ....hell they're practically the same thing.

Thing is, the oil painter wants to paint in oils, charcoal is of no use whatsoever except on the barby.
Captain charcoal has had a go with oil paints but it don't smudge like charcoal, the brush is a pain in the arse and he can't get that blob of carmine red out the carpet.

So why don't I shoot digital ?

because its paint and I want charcoal

:)
 
FruitFlakes said:
I do it for the hipster street cred, mostly.
Click to expand...

Love this! Wish I could say the same, but the folk from the film meets would wet their knickers...

BTW as at this moment, I still love 35mm better than MF. This may change when I get the films back from Llandudno, but given that the light meter (for MF) was playing up, likely not!

Anyway, chacun â son gout...
 
In fact, thinking about it, the main reason I shoot film over spending money on digericams, is because of the wonderful group of nutters I've got to know... right here!

(hic?)
 
Well it didn't take long for you to fit in with the nutters did it? :naughty:
 
joxby said:
Why don't peeps get digital to print itself on cellulose first and then compare them, maybe because that would be stupid, but then its no less stupid than digitally scanned film.

:)
Click to expand...

Sebastiao Salgado has this workflow

1. Shoot with a digital camera
2. RAW demosaic (+ exposure correction, I suspect)
3. Process with DxO Film Pack for Kodak TriX 400 or TMax 3200 film simulation.
4. Print that image to a 35mm technical film internegative (so you have a real negative whose image simulates his favorite old films without adding grain).
5. Print the internegative to silver halide paper in Parisian darkroom using his regular printer** (with dodging and burning for the Salgado look).

Bit of an pita but if its good enough for a man of his experience and skill its good enough for me.....although I am way to lazy to go through it all. :D

Andy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top