Is film right for me?

[JarredRoss]

Hey everyone. I'm new to photography, and I was thinking about getting into film. I posted another thread and everyone told me that film is not the way to go, as I am on a budget, but I just cant seem to let go of the idea. I don't take many pictures, maybe 1000 max per year if I'm really ambitious. I like a little bit of magnification sometimes, and I also really enjoy black and whites. The max i would spend on a camera is 150$, and I wanted to know what other film users thought about my situation. Everyone tells me that film is overly expensive to buy and develop, but that aside, what do you guys think? Any input you have is much appreciated. Thanks, Jarred

 

[amolitor]

I wouldn't do film unless I was planning to do at least some of the chemistry myself. If you're just going to send it all out to someone else, might as well go digital or whatever, so go cheaper (which is digital).

If you're going to get in to the chemistry, you'll have to include some expenses for gear and supplies there, which is going to eat into your budget a bit.

It's fun, though. I do a bit of wet photography now and then.

 

[JarredRoss]

so you mean like developing it yourself?

 

[gw2424]

I'm back, i'm sorry, but i'm back.

Amolitor is very right. You would need to do your own processing. I really (really) think digital is the way to go. If you do go with film I would pick up an old Olympus Om-Something with a kit 50mm 1.8. But go with digital. Start with digital and if you get hooked try film.

My 2c

 

[JarredRoss]

You cant just do part of the developing right, once you start it you have to finish?

 

[amolitor]

Well, you have to develop an entire roll of film at a time, from start to finish. This requires $30 worth of gear, and the use of 3 or 4 chemicals. A supply of the chemicals will set you back maybe another $30 or $40 (US dollars).

This will get you developed rolls of film. Turning film into prints is a separate process, or you can scan the film and work digitally from there. Either of these options is gonna set you back a minimum of a couple hundred bucks (and you can, as with all things, spend pretty much an infinite amount of money if you like).

 

[dxqcanada]

Film costs more than digital ... you don't need to buy a new memory card every time you want to shoot.
Film needs to be developed ... then printed (or scanned).
Developing film can be cheap if you do it yourself or somewhat expensive if done by someone else ... same goes for printing or scanning.

Why do you really want to get into Film Photography ?

 

[Derrel]

Digital, all the way. All.The.Way. Seriously. If you need "budget" images, film will just destroy your budget.

 

[SCraig]

Like he said, we've already had this discussion in another topic.

 

[JarredRoss]

Ok guys, I think i'll go with a digital for now. if i have a few buck left over maybe ill screw around with an old film for 20 or 30 bucks.

 

[gw2424]

Did you check out the epl1?

FS: Olympus EPL1 14-42 kit. Panasonic 20mm f1.7. Hoya ND8X, ND400X, Marumi CPL 52mm. - FM Forums

I would offer him $130 and not pay more than $145

Remember it is in Japan so try to get it shipped for that price.

 

[SCraig]

Ok guys, I think i'll go with a digital for now. if i have a few buck left over maybe ill screw around with an old film for 20 or 30 bucks.

That is going to be by far the least expensive route for you to go. I've been both ways, and can tell you for a fact that it's true.

 

[JarredRoss]

I guess its the nostalgia maybe? Idk it just seems like everyone uses digital now and they don't think twice about the work involved or what their cameras started out as. Ive never been a person to follow the crowd

 

[amolitor]

You'll find there's a pretty big crowd of non-crowd-followers just like you using film

 

[gw2424]

I guess its the nostalgia maybe? Idk it just seems like everyone uses digital now and they don't think twice about the work involved or what their cameras started out as. Ive never been a person to follow the crowd

You will get there.