Buying New Film Equipment? (Beginner Discussion)

I think it's all relative - if you enjoy shooting film, you can budget your spending money for that along with other hobbies, interests, etc. It doesn't have to be either/or when it comes to shooting film or digitally, do what works for you.

I'm a longtime film photographer and had always done 35mm so getting into 120 I've used vintage cameras. Those or plastic cameras can be a fun way to get into it although with plastic lenses, basic viewfinder cameras, etc. the quality will not be what you could get with sharp lenses and SLRs or rangefinders and to me is experimental. I know I'm not the only photographer who shoots film and uses the same lenses on my digital camera.

Buying used could be a good way to go - try reputable dealers like KEH, Adorama, Pittsburgh Camera Exchange, etc. KEH changed their site awhile back and now has many of their vintage film cameras on their ebay page with photos of the actual cameras (much of their website's digital listings use stock photos).

You could look up various labs and do some pricing and see what would be worth trying. I get color film developed and usually 4x6s prints (depends on what I was shooting and what I want to do with it) and have sent out B&W film for developing only, or developing and scanning - there are usually choices so it's a matter of how much money and/or time you want to spend. Try Dwayne's in Kansas, The Darkroom in San Clemente; Richard film lab in CA also has a good reputation.
 
Last edited:
And based on a quick look at each - #1 film, #2 digital, #3 film, #4 digital. That's just first gut reaction, if I think about it I'll just start second guessing it! lol But to me, you're looking at a scan or digital copy of film images anyway, so it's hard to tell online. I can tell the difference with prints because of the paper and gloss, and there's just a different quality to photos I've done in the darkroom. But as far as quality, I've done submissions to juried exhibits and had film, digital, and polaroids accepted so to me the quality is more what matters. And doing what you like.
 
And based on a quick look at each - #1 film, #2 digital, #3 film, #4 digital. That's just first gut reaction, if I think about it I'll just start second guessing it! lol But to me, you're looking at a scan or digital copy of film images anyway, so it's hard to tell online. I can tell the difference with prints because of the paper and gloss, and there's just a different quality to photos I've done in the darkroom. But as far as quality, I've done submissions to juried exhibits and had film, digital, and polaroids accepted so to me the quality is more what matters. And doing what you like.

The answer is in post #14.

Joe
 
Darn, I didn't cheat and go back far enough in the thread!

edit - I'll go back and look but if #2 was the one with a lot of sky, I thought something looked off with how grainy/noisy it looked (feel like I'd need to go hunt out a grain scope! lol).


I like the smell of fixer... and playing with a GraLab timer. And... well, years ago i discovered I'm a darkroom rat.
 
Last edited:
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

Shoot, I was still making up my mind when I saw the answers.

FWIW, here's what I thought. My gut reaction when first opening the photos was that #1 and 4 were film, and #2 and 3 were digital. Upon closer inspection, I changed my mind about #1 but couldn't decide about #3. I was
Photo 1 (stream): digital
Photo 2: (church): digital
Photo 3: (poverty): was still trying to decide.
Photo 4: (flower pot): film

Ultimately yes, the "film look" can be simulated if you know what you are doing in the software, though it also requires an understanding of what that "film look" is to begin with and how to achieve it with software. I've seen horrible attempts at making something "look like film" when all the person did was throw in a few scratches and fade the colors. To really get it right, you need an understanding of both film and digital images.

The ultimate question is where do you want to put your main effort - into the raw material of the image or into the processing of the image?

I have a DSLR but use it for maybe 10% of my shooting. I personally still shoot film because I enjoy the process much more than a purely digital process. I enjoy the challenge of not being able to see my images immediately after shooting. I enjoy the tactile nature of the developing. Yes, I do use a hybrid process and scan the film, though honestly, the main reason for that at the moment is practicality and convenience. I can't have a darkroom in my house at the moment, but the goal is to move to wet printing when I'm able. Even when I do have a darkroom (or at least easy access to one,) I'd probably still scan the film instead of printing a contact sheet to preview the images and decide which ones are worth printing. There's also the undeniable fact that if I want to share my images, that's more likely to happen online than in person, so scanning film or print is still going to be part of my process.

So yes, @JesseTustin there are things to consider, but ultimately it's your choice. Don't give up film just because people are saying that you shouldn't bother, but don't hold onto film if there isn't a clear reason. Find out what you really love: shooting film or shooting any kind of camera.

As for economics, film seems like the more expensive choice because there are ongoing costs that don't really figure into digital shooting, but it's not always clear cut. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of that argument (and I'm begging the rest of you to follow my lead! :D) but all I'm saying is that the equation can become complicated, so consider all the factors before deciding which will be truly more economical or feasible for you right now.
 
Darn, I didn't cheat and go back far enough in the thread!

edit - I'll go back and look but if #2 was the one with a lot of sky, I thought something looked off with how grainy/noisy it looked (feel like I'd need to go hunt out a grain scope! lol).


I like the smell of fixer... and playing with a GraLab timer. And... well, years ago i discovered I'm a darkroom rat.

Yup, I was looking at the skies, too, to help determine. The sky in #3 looked more "filmy" than the sky in #2, which is one of the reasons I couldn't quite decide if #3 was film or digital.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top