Buying New Film Equipment? (Beginner Discussion)

[JesseTustin]

I recently entered the world of photography, armed with a Canon AE-1 Program that was handed down by my father, and two lenses (a 28-205mm f/3.5-5.6 macro focus lens, and a 135mm f/2.8 prime lens). I absolutely love shooting film and am looking forward to an opportunity to invest in some equipment.

The problem is, I don't know where to start.

I have several ideas as to where I should focus my efforts first. I'd love to get into medium format, but the equipment to start is as expensive as a new, entry-level DSLR. Also, I'd still be stuck spending $20 per roll for developing my black-and-white film by mail (although they do a fantastic job). I could invest in a new lens or two (a nifty-fifty lens comes to mind) and maybe still be able to get developing equipment and chemicals, but then I'd be left with negatives I can't scan reliably. I also could invest in a scanner for my negatives; then, I'd have to pay considerably less to get good quality scans from my films.

Where's the best place to start?

Thanks. Have a great day!

 

[Ysarex]

I recently entered the world of photography, armed with a Canon AE-1 Program that was handed down by my father, and two lenses (a 28-205mm f/3.5-5.6 macro focus lens, and a 135mm f/2.8 prime lens). I absolutely love shooting film and am looking forward to an opportunity to invest in some equipment.

The problem is, I don't know where to start.

I have several ideas as to where I should focus my efforts first. I'd love to get into medium format, but the equipment to start is as expensive as a new, entry-level DSLR. Also, I'd still be stuck spending $20 per roll for developing my black-and-white film by mail (although they do a fantastic job). I could invest in a new lens or two (a nifty-fifty lens comes to mind) and maybe still be able to get developing equipment and chemicals, but then I'd be left with negatives I can't scan reliably. I also could invest in a scanner for my negatives; then, I'd have to pay considerably less to get good quality scans from my films.

Where's the best place to start?

Thanks. Have a great day!

Two questions: Why do you love shooting film? And what do you want to do with the photos you take?

Joe

 

[TCampbell]

As you've discovered, when you add up the cost to buy film, then process the film and get prints... it's probably at least $15/roll -- you mentioned $20.

You can imagine that if you get active shooting... it's not long before the cost of buying and processing film exceeds the cost of just buying a new DSLR camera.

I stuck it out with film for years and just occasionally I would "dip my toe" into the digital waters, evaluate the quality, and usually stay with film. I did that for a while, but probably around 8 years or so back I finally started seeing results that were good enough that I decided it was finally time to switch. I've not shot a single roll of film since.

Unless you've got a very strong preference for wanting to stick to film, you'll probably find that the economics of digital is more attractive and it's also considerably more versatile.

One major difference is that when we shot film, we had no idea how our shots turned out until we processed the film. If a shot had a bad exposure, blur, ... even caching people blinking during a shot wasn't something you'd know about until it was too late. On the other hand... this forced us to be extremely aware of our exposures. It was economical to just take a ton of shots and hope to occasionally get lucky.

When I used to shoot weddings on film... the average wedding was typically between 21 and 25 rolled of film. We'd pack 30 rolls. I think the biggest wedding I did used about 28 of those rolls. A roll is 12 exposures (these were medium format cameras). That's 250-300 shots for a wedding. TODAY, I talk to photographers who shoot weddings with a DSLR. Some of them tell me they take about 4000 shots. I can't possibly imagine what they're shooting to be able to come back with 4000 shots (I have to believe they just do the whole thing with the shutter button in rapid-burst mode). You'd go broke doing that film. But with a DSLR, it's actually possible.

 

[JesseTustin]

As you've discovered, when you add up the cost to buy film, then process the film and get prints... it's probably at least $15/roll -- you mentioned $20.

You can imagine that if you get active shooting... it's not long before the cost of buying and processing film exceeds the cost of just buying a new DSLR camera.

I stuck it out with film for years and just occasionally I would "dip my toe" into the digital waters, evaluate the quality, and usually stay with film. I did that for a while, but probably around 8 years or so back I finally started seeing results that were good enough that I decided it was finally time to switch. I've not shot a single roll of film since.

Unless you've got a very strong preference for wanting to stick to film, you'll probably find that the economics of digital is more attractive and it's also considerably more versatile.

One major difference is that when we shot film, we had no idea how our shots turned out until we processed the film. If a shot had a bad exposure, blur, ... even caching people blinking during a shot wasn't something you'd know about until it was too late. On the other hand... this forced us to be extremely aware of our exposures. It was economical to just take a ton of shots and hope to occasionally get lucky.

When I used to shoot weddings on film... the average wedding was typically between 21 and 25 rolled of film. We'd pack 30 rolls. I think the biggest wedding I did used about 28 of those rolls. A roll is 12 exposures (these were medium format cameras). That's 250-300 shots for a wedding. TODAY, I talk to photographers who shoot weddings with a DSLR. Some of them tell me they take about 4000 shots. I can't possibly imagine what they're shooting to be able to come back with 4000 shots (I have to believe they just do the whole thing with the shutter button in rapid-burst mode). You'd go broke doing that film. But with a DSLR, it's actually possible.

Part of the reason I like film is due to the distinctive look it gives off as opposed to a digital photograph. I understand this look can be closely emulated in post-processing applications such as Lightroom, but I've never seen a true comparison. Ever since I became an active photographer I've noticed I'm burning through 24 exposure rolls very quickly. Often, I'll be taking 10-12 pictures per day if I find good subjects. That doesn't seem like a lot, but considering I'm in high school and I'm paying for the film, development, batteries, etc., it's a lot to be shooting.

So, from what you're telling me, it would be more economical to buy a DSLR or Mirrorless camera, buy Lightroom and some glass down the line, and just post-process to give the similar look of film. In this scenario, what kind of DSLRs should I be looking at? I've been lucky enough to the point where my mother has agreed to buy my photography equipment, but I can't do a DSLR over $500. Thanks for any further advice you can give me.

 

[480sparky]

For about $100, you can get the gear needed to develop film at home. You DO NOT need a darkroom.

Of course, you'll only have negatives. It will either require a darkroom to make wet prints, or for about $200 you can get a good-quality scanner.

 

[Ysarex]

As you've discovered, when you add up the cost to buy film, then process the film and get prints... it's probably at least $15/roll -- you mentioned $20.

You can imagine that if you get active shooting... it's not long before the cost of buying and processing film exceeds the cost of just buying a new DSLR camera.

I stuck it out with film for years and just occasionally I would "dip my toe" into the digital waters, evaluate the quality, and usually stay with film. I did that for a while, but probably around 8 years or so back I finally started seeing results that were good enough that I decided it was finally time to switch. I've not shot a single roll of film since.

Unless you've got a very strong preference for wanting to stick to film, you'll probably find that the economics of digital is more attractive and it's also considerably more versatile.

One major difference is that when we shot film, we had no idea how our shots turned out until we processed the film. If a shot had a bad exposure, blur, ... even caching people blinking during a shot wasn't something you'd know about until it was too late. On the other hand... this forced us to be extremely aware of our exposures. It was economical to just take a ton of shots and hope to occasionally get lucky.

When I used to shoot weddings on film... the average wedding was typically between 21 and 25 rolled of film. We'd pack 30 rolls. I think the biggest wedding I did used about 28 of those rolls. A roll is 12 exposures (these were medium format cameras). That's 250-300 shots for a wedding. TODAY, I talk to photographers who shoot weddings with a DSLR. Some of them tell me they take about 4000 shots. I can't possibly imagine what they're shooting to be able to come back with 4000 shots (I have to believe they just do the whole thing with the shutter button in rapid-burst mode). You'd go broke doing that film. But with a DSLR, it's actually possible.

Part of the reason I like film is due to the distinctive look it gives off as opposed to a digital photograph. I understand this look can be closely emulated in post-processing applications such as Lightroom, but I've never seen a true comparison.

Digital can look like film or digital. Film can only look like film.

Separate these out -- which is film and which is digital:

photo 1
photo 2
photo 3
photo 4

Joe

Ever since I became an active photographer I've noticed I'm burning through 24 exposure rolls very quickly. Often, I'll be taking 10-12 pictures per day if I find good subjects. That doesn't seem like a lot, but considering I'm in high school and I'm paying for the film, development, batteries, etc., it's a lot to be shooting.

So, from what you're telling me, it would be more economical to buy a DSLR or Mirrorless camera, buy Lightroom and some glass down the line, and just post-process to give the similar look of film. In this scenario, what kind of DSLRs should I be looking at? I've been lucky enough to the point where my mother has agreed to buy my photography equipment, but I can't do a DSLR over $500. Thanks for any further advice you can give me.

 

[JesseTustin]

Joe,
All of them look very, very similar to film, but 2 and 3 seem undeniably close to film, if not truly film.

 

[Derrel]

I would start with an entry-level d-slr camera and an 18-55 kit zoom, an d perhaps a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and a copy of Lightroom. I shot film from 1975 to 2001. I would never go back to film as a steady diet...I bought new chemicals and a changing bag in the summer of 2014, and shot and developed some B&W film, as well as some 120 color rollfilm (both slides and negatives) with a 120 twin-lens reflex and my then-new-to-me 1938 baby Speed Graphic.

Ehhhhh...I prefer the speed and ease and low cost of digital capture. As was mentioned above, you need to determining for yourself WHY, exactly, you want to shoot film. Film is expensive to buy, and to process, and scanning it is relatively slow to do.

MY suggestion; if you really WANT to shoot film, start with a high-grade bulk film loader, something like the old Watson brand, the felt-free, "good" bulk film loader, and then buy some color slide film in 100-foot rolls, and then the cost of developing will be 1) lower than for prints and 2) you will be able to see the images as color slides and 3) be able to show them as slides (slides are VERY impressive with a decent projector and screen in a darkened room!!!!) 4) be able to scan them relatively easily. 5) be able to store or file them easily 6)have good long-term image viability.

 

[Ysarex]

Joe,
All of them look very, very similar to film, but 2 and 3 seem undeniably close to film, if not truly film.

There's both digital as well as scanned film in that set of four photos. In case anyone else wants to wager a guess I'll wait till at least tomorrow to tell you. Check back.

Joe

P.S. I've posted these elsewhere in the past. No one's been able to get it right yet.

 

[Derrel]

Joe,
All of them look very, very similar to film, but 2 and 3 seem undeniably close to film, if not truly film.

There's both digital as well as scanned film in that set of four photos. In case anyone else wants to wager a guess I'll wait till at least tomorrow to tell you. Check back.

Joe

P.S. I've posted these elsewhere in the past. No one's been able to get it right yet.

Oh noes!!!! This set of four shoots holes in that myth about, "The film look".

 

[Ysarex]

Joe,
All of them look very, very similar to film, but 2 and 3 seem undeniably close to film, if not truly film.

There's both digital as well as scanned film in that set of four photos. In case anyone else wants to wager a guess I'll wait till at least tomorrow to tell you. Check back.

Joe

P.S. I've posted these elsewhere in the past. No one's been able to get it right yet.

Oh noes!!!! This set of four shoots holes in that myth about, "The film look".

Oh nooooooo!

Lots of people shoot film for very good reasons. It's a venerable and wonderful art that we should support. I just want to help the OP sort out why he wants to shoot film if indeed that's what he wants. Yeah, "the film look" isn't a good reason.

Joe

 

[Vtec44]

I started in high school but then stopped when digital took over, then went back to film a few years ago with a Nikon F100 35mm and a 50mm f1.4. I basically wanted to learn how to meter consistently and read the light. Color casting is much more prominent on film than on digital IMHO. Now, I'm using a medium format Pentax 645nii with a Pentax 67 105mm f2.4 and a 645 FA 75mm f2.8 , along side with my digital cameras. I shoot color film because of the skin tone and highlights retention. Plus, I love that wide angle shallow DOF of medium format. It's expensive so hopefully you have a plan to recoup your investment.

 

[webestang64]

I agree with Joe....."the film look" isn't a good reason to shoot film, unless you have the funds to do it. Black-n-white is going to be less expensive when you do all the work yourself. Color will be high as most people do not want to try and develop C-41 at home (my lab charges $7.00 for develop only on C-41, but perfect results every time).

Maybe there is a local photo club in your area. That is a great place to get advice and deals on cameras as some people will upgrade and sell their older cameras.

 

[Ysarex]

Joe,
All of them look very, very similar to film, but 2 and 3 seem undeniably close to film, if not truly film.

Number 4 is scanned film. The other three are digital. Numbers 1 and 3 were attempts to do a good job emulating film. Number 2 was actually a give away in which the simulated grain was made deliberately too sharp. Someone who knows film and looks carefully should catch that one.

To the extent that film has a defined specific look it can be matched in digital processing. The fact is there were/are a lot of different films with very different characteristics so there's no specific film look but rather many film looks.

Shoot film because you enjoy the process. Most people today who do shoot film still wind up with a hybrid process because they scan the film to move it to the computer. If you're going to do that why not just start with a digital camera? Where I work (college) we hang on to our B&W darkroom tighter than old Chuck Heston hung on to his gun. As fine artists we're committed to film and darkroom print processing because proper B&W print processing produces a completely unique product. It's not about "look" it's about permanence. If I make a B&W print in the darkroom and do it right it will out last any print anyone makes with a digital process. That matters to people who buy photographic prints. And as artists one of the ways besides slinging burgers that gets us through periods of starving is selling a print.

Joe

 

[Dave442]

It's great that you are starting out with film. The problem is that most people start out wanting to shoot everything... and that has always been expensive for a student with film.

As your current camera is used, I would suggest also starting into digital with a used camera. The Canon 5D is under $500 and the Nikon D700 is close to that price. Those are both full frame so they will give the same field of view as what you have now with your AE-1 if you put the same focal length lens on both camera bodies.

For the B&W film I suggest developing yourself.