yup...I'm addicted to film... have a few questions

[480sparky]

If I were to *invest* in film right now, it would cost me money that I don't have to spend. Digital saves me money because when I want to shoot, I can shoot without buying film or getting it developed, on a camera that I paid $500 for years ago. I've only spent a few hundred dollars on digital camera bodies over the last 7 years since I began shooting, and I can guarantee you with the amount of photos that I shoot that make it past the cull, I would have spent a lot more in film costs than I did investing in my cameras, and I would have spent the same amount for a computer and editing software that I would use regardless of shooting digital or film. Digital saves me money. There, now you've heard that line again.

If you were to *start over*, and actually put pencil to paper, I think you're truly be surprised. I think you're assuming that film gear costs exactly the same as digital does. That's far from true. Film SLRs are a dime a dozen. Legacy glass is cheap as dirt. Just look around. Heck, I've had perfectly usable Ai Nikkors just given to me. Same is true for 85% of my darkroom gear. Film is über-cheap these days. And you don't need to pay for prints, just tell the lab to develop only.

So you can spend a helluva lot of money on film & developing before you spend the same $500 on a single digital body.

Set down and actually run the numbers. Pick a film body or two, pick out some lenses, then shop around. Ebay, Craigslist, the online Big Box stores. Add it up. How much did you come up with?

No, really, do it. Until you do, you're just spinnin' your wheels.

The thing is, I won't be "starting over". Like I said in my original post, I cannot afford it right now. That's all. Right now, digital is the much more affordable option for me to continue with. Selling all of my digital gear and just starting over with film and completely changing my workflow is out of the question. Buying a film camera and a bunch of film is out of the question. I cannot afford it, like I've said now multiple times. If I were to go to film, it will be when I have the money to afford the camera that I want and make it a hobby on the side. I'm not, and never will, switch to film and stop using digital camera bodies.

So you're dismissing film simply because you cannot afford the additional expense. That's like saying riding a bicycle is too expensive because my car costs me enough to drive.

 

[limr]

Oh boys, boys, boys, just calm yourselves!

It's true that digital clearly has costs that people don't consider, and there are digital shooters who spend more money than I can fathom on new lenses, software, accessories, etc. But yes, each frame taken is free. And it's very very clear that Dan has used digital as economically as possible.

And it's also true that film requires a more continuous investment rather than a front-heavy or periodic burst of spending. But again, done carefully and economically, film can certainly be cheaper than those who are loose and fancy-free with their spending on gear, and as cheap as someone careful with their digital expenditures.

Dan, I understand your hesitation, and all I will say is that I'm poor as heck and can still afford my film habit, so if you ever do decide to take the plunge and add film to your impressive repertoire, let me know and I'll teach you how to do it all on the cheap Once you do more digging, you might be surprised at how manageable it actually turns out to be.

 

[bhop]

IMO, you guys are being pretty aggro. This is why digital fans hate us film "snobs".

That said.. it IS cheaper than most people think, but that's mostly if you learn how to develop yourself, which is actually pretty easy. I haven't ever really sat down and compared the costs of my own stuff, but now I think I might.

 

[spiralout462]

So far, film has been significantly cheaper for me.

 

[DanOstergren]

If I were to *invest* in film right now, it would cost me money that I don't have to spend. Digital saves me money because when I want to shoot, I can shoot without buying film or getting it developed, on a camera that I paid $500 for years ago. I've only spent a few hundred dollars on digital camera bodies over the last 7 years since I began shooting, and I can guarantee you with the amount of photos that I shoot that make it past the cull, I would have spent a lot more in film costs than I did investing in my cameras, and I would have spent the same amount for a computer and editing software that I would use regardless of shooting digital or film. Digital saves me money. There, now you've heard that line again.

If you were to *start over*, and actually put pencil to paper, I think you're truly be surprised. I think you're assuming that film gear costs exactly the same as digital does. That's far from true. Film SLRs are a dime a dozen. Legacy glass is cheap as dirt. Just look around. Heck, I've had perfectly usable Ai Nikkors just given to me. Same is true for 85% of my darkroom gear. Film is über-cheap these days. And you don't need to pay for prints, just tell the lab to develop only.

So you can spend a helluva lot of money on film & developing before you spend the same $500 on a single digital body.

Set down and actually run the numbers. Pick a film body or two, pick out some lenses, then shop around. Ebay, Craigslist, the online Big Box stores. Add it up. How much did you come up with?

No, really, do it. Until you do, you're just spinnin' your wheels.

The thing is, I won't be "starting over". Like I said in my original post, I cannot afford it right now. That's all. Right now, digital is the much more affordable option for me to continue with. Selling all of my digital gear and just starting over with film and completely changing my workflow is out of the question. Buying a film camera and a bunch of film is out of the question. I cannot afford it, like I've said now multiple times. If I were to go to film, it will be when I have the money to afford the camera that I want and make it a hobby on the side. I'm not, and never will, switch to film and stop using digital camera bodies.

So you're dismissing film simply because you cannot afford the additional expense. That's like saying riding a bicycle is too expensive because my car costs me enough to drive.

If I can't afford the bike, should I just sell the car so I can get one?

 

[DanOstergren]

Oh boys, boys, boys, just calm yourselves!

It's true that digital clearly has costs that people don't consider, and there are digital shooters who spend more money than I can fathom on new lenses, software, accessories, etc. But yes, each frame taken is free. And it's very very clear that Dan has used digital as economically as possible.

And it's also true that film requires a more continuous investment rather than a front-heavy or periodic burst of spending. But again, done carefully and economically, film can certainly be cheaper than those who are loose and fancy-free with their spending on gear, and as cheap as someone careful with their digital expenditures.

Dan, I understand your hesitation, and all I will say is that I'm poor as heck and can still afford my film habit, so if you ever do decide to take the plunge and add film to your impressive repertoire, let me know and I'll teach you how to do it all on the cheap Once you do more digging, you might be surprised at how manageable it actually turns out to be.

Thanks for being so kind as usual. I do plan to eventually experiment with film photography. I'd love to get an 8x10 camera and a TLR camera, but I'm just not ready to make any purchases yet.

 

[480sparky]

If I can't afford the bike, should I just sell the car so I can get one?

No, you should sell the car and make a down-payment on a Lear jet.

 

[minicoop1985]

So here's what I'm seeing. Once the initial investment is made, the thought is that digital images are free. That can only be true if the camera has paid for itself. With film, there is a small investment in every roll, but the initial investment is usually MUCH less than a digital setup (compare a Nikon F with a Nikon D810).

 

[Peeb]

I grew up shooting film.

Your whole mindset changes with digital- you have no conscience about clicking as you aren't paying for film or developing.

Is it more costly per image to shoot film? My instinct says that depends on how many images you care to shoot!

 

[limr]

Thanks for being so kind as usual. I do plan to eventually experiment with film photography. I'd love to get an 8x10 camera and a TLR camera, but I'm just not ready to make any purchases yet.

Oh wow, I'd love to see what you can do with an 8x10! I think your style plus the qualities of large format images would result in something pretty amazing. And that is definitely going to require some careful financial planning, since the cost of LF is not the same as tooling around with a 35mm and shooting a few rolls here and there for fun. The equipment is more expensive, but so is the film. At that point, though, at least the developing costs could be kept lower since you'd almost certainly have to do it yourself, but then there's the question of scanning. Definitely can seem like a daunting project to take on, even if you did have the funds at the moment!

It occurs to me as I am writing that one factor I haven't seen mentioned in the film-cost calculations is the cost of mistakes. That cost goes down as you become more familiar with the camera and the qualities of the film, but it's definitely something that can increase the hidden costs of starting a film hobby. There's a learning curve and people can burn through film a lot faster than they think at the start. It's one thing to burn through a few extra rolls of 35mm, but making mistakes with medium or large format film is more costly. It's probably cheaper in the long run to start with the TLR (oh, how I love them!) and get used to the way film behaves, and then take on the 8x10 so that you'll be dealing much more with just one variable (learning the equipment) rather than two (equipment + film), and this may result in fewer mistakes.

 

[pixmedic]

Why does everyone seem to assume that if you shoot digital you are just wildly holding down the shutter button for minutes at a time on every shot with no regard whatsoever for timing or composition?

Just because someone is using a digital camera does not mean they aren't careful about how many shots they take.
"Spray and pray" was not invented by digital shooters, they just took it to the next possible level.


Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[Peeb]

Why does everyone seem to assume that if you shoot digital you are just wildly holding down the shutter button for minutes at a time on every shot with no regard whatsoever for timing or composition?

Just because someone is using a digital camera does not mean they aren't careful about how many shots they take.
"Spray and pray" was not invented by digital shooters, they just took it to the next possible level.


Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

If you refer to my post, it's no assumption!

I am directly comparing experiences. I've run over 5,000 shutter actuations thru my Nikon since I got it 7 months ago. Probably a thousand more shots on my iPhone. I feel that I TRULY AM CAREFUL with my shot selection, but due to technology, I shoot more. I simply could not afford to pay for 6000 shots worth of film and processing back in the film days.

In other words, in the film days, there were many things I would not allow myself to try due to the financial realities of the medium. Now I can (and do) try more.

EDIT: BTW, back in my film days, my general rule of thumb was that if I could get one 'keeper' out of a 36 exposure roll, it was an OK day. That ratio likely still holds true, but my ability to discern 'keepers' in the field now makes the game a bit different (tho the TRUE story doesn't get told until I'm on a monitor, of course).

Again, back to my original point, if you shoot 500 or 600 images per year, film is probably amazingly cost effective. 10,000 or more per year? Sounds expensive to me. Honestly haven't done the math, so someone who REALLY knows, feel free to set me straight

 

[limr]

Why does everyone seem to assume that if you shoot digital you are just wildly holding down the shutter button for minutes at a time on every shot with no regard whatsoever for timing or composition?

Just because someone is using a digital camera does not mean they aren't careful about how many shots they take.
"Spray and pray" was not invented by digital shooters, they just took it to the next possible level.


Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

I agree that it should not be assumed that digital shooters just hold down the button and hope for the best. However, as Peeb said, I think it's just inevitable that a person shoots more frames with digital simply because they can. Sometimes they shoot a LOT more frames, even when they are being careful.

 

[Gary A.]

Film used to be free, so I shot the hell out of it, everyday. I shot the hell out of digital, largely because I don't have to stop and reload. Film is no longer free ... if I shot film as often as I shoot digital, I'd have to sell my Lear Jet.

 

[cgw]

How long do dslr shutters/electronics last? Most makers rate them between 100,000-150,000 actuations. Some live longer, others don't. If it's the latter figure, that's a bit more than 4,200 36-exp rolls. Many cameras can hit, exceed or die short of those MTBF figures in 2-3 years. Some owners take depreciation in stride by regularly trading up to newer models in order to avoid breakdowns or to benefit from newer technology. But there are still costs involved. Know any CPAs? If so, ask one.