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

[DanOstergren]

I really want to get into film, but what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of digital photography is that once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos. When I have more money to spend, I'll definitely start exploring film photography.

 

[480sparky]

I really want to get into film, but what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of digital photography is that once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos. ....

One of these days you'll know otherwise. And why.

Truthfully, film is cheaper than digital.

 

[DanOstergren]

I really want to get into film, but what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of digital photography is that once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos. ....

One of these days you'll know otherwise. And why.

Truthfully, film is cheaper than digital.

Care to explain why?

 

[480sparky]

I really want to get into film, but what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of digital photography is that once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos. ....

One of these days you'll know otherwise. And why.

Truthfully, film is cheaper than digital.

Care to explain why?

Amortization, pure and simple.

It costs you money to buy the camera, didn't it? And said camera will not last forever. Even if you live longer than the camera, it still cost you money, and it costs you to use it. Whether it's paid off or not. Saying "Digital doesn't cost anything" is a false economy.


As for film being cheaper, run the numbers. What does your camera cost? Add in the cost of of your computer, hard drives, etc. Now compare that to film. What does a film camera cost compared to digital?

 

[timor]

And constant updates of editing software.

 

[gsgary]

Film just cost me

 

[spiralout462]

I really want to get into film, but what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of digital photography is that once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos. When I have more money to spend, I'll definitely start exploring film photography.

I will patiently wait for your results! You will have a ball. some of your subjects would be outstanding on film.

 

[timor]

Film just cost me

Texas Leica ! Can't hide it in the pocket but hard to beat even by Hassy.

 

[DanOstergren]

I really want to get into film, but what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of digital photography is that once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos. ....

One of these days you'll know otherwise. And why.

Truthfully, film is cheaper than digital.

Care to explain why?

Amortization, pure and simple.

It costs you money to buy the camera, didn't it? And said camera will not last forever. Even if you live longer than the camera, it still cost you money, and it costs you to use it. Whether it's paid off or not. Saying "Digital doesn't cost anything" is a false economy.


As for film being cheaper, run the numbers. What does your camera cost? Add in the cost of of your computer, hard drives, etc. Now compare that to film. What does a film camera cost compared to digital?

It also costs money to use film, and film cameras don't last forever. Money that I would literally have to spend every time I shoot, and develop. I started out using film, but because I couldn't always afford to buy film or pay to get the film developed (which would mean I had to completely stop my photographic process until I did have money), it just didn't work out between us. So I saved $250 and bought a used Rebel XTi and used the lens I had on my film camera. Very small investment. Then I upgraded by selling my XTi and buying a used 5D for $500, which I still use. As for editing software, I would still use photoshop to retouch photos I take using film, so that's an expense that would be there no matter what. But considering I could be dead broke, but still take new photos because my camera doesn't take film, digital is looking like the much more affordable option to me. As well, the film cameras that I want would cost much more than what I have ever paid for a digital camera (which is $500). My Macbook was gifted to me, so that is a cost that does not factor in either, and again I bring up the fact that I would be retouching photos on my computer regardless of whether they were shot digitally or on film, and the fact that I would still invest in a computer even if I wasn't a photographer.

I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true. When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed. I could have literally zero money to spend, and that would never get in the way of me making my art if I shoot digital.

 

[480sparky]

It also costs money to use film, and film cameras don't last forever....

How long will your digital camera last? Will it still be working in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Compare the lifespan of your current digital gear with how many 30+-year-old cameras are still in use. Did any of your old film cameras have a published shutter life rating? I doubt it. And few digital cameras definitely will be around for decades after they're sold.

...Money that I would literally have to spend every time I shoot, and develop.
I started out using film, but because I couldn't always afford to buy film or pay to get the film developed (which would mean I had to completely stop my photographic process until I did have money), it just didn't work out between us. ...

If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.

.....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....

So, once you pay the bank off, fill your tank with gas and your insurance premium check clears, you can drive your car for free? Just because you don't have a receipt in your pocket with todays' date on it doesn't mean it's not costing you money.

When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....

Same is true for digital. But you paid a huge amount up front. Try amortizing ALL of your photo-related gear over the expected lifespan of it.

I could have literally zero money to spend, and that would never get in the way of me making my art if I shoot digital.

And you could do exactly the same with film. Load up on film (you know, just like spending lots of money on digital gear!), buy your own processing kit, stock on up chemicals. So even if you don't have two nickels to rub together, you have a stock of materials on which you merrily go about enjoying snapping shutters. I buy film by the 100' rolls (35mm), 5-packs (120) and 100-sheet boxes (4x5). A lot of it is in the freezer. So when I find myself low on funds (yes, that does happen to me), I still have a hobby I can enjoy.

In fact, when my wallet is very thin, I actually turn to film instead of digital.

 

[DanOstergren]

It also costs money to use film, and film cameras don't last forever....

How long will your digital camera last? Will it still be working in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Compare the lifespan of your current digital gear with how many 30+-year-old cameras are still in use. Did any of your old film cameras have a published shutter life rating? I doubt it. And few digital cameras definitely will be around for decades after they're sold.

...Money that I would literally have to spend every time I shoot, and develop.
I started out using film, but because I couldn't always afford to buy film or pay to get the film developed (which would mean I had to completely stop my photographic process until I did have money), it just didn't work out between us. ...

If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.

.....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....

So, once you pay the bank off, fill your tank with gas and your insurance premium check clears, you can drive your car for free? Just because you don't have a receipt in your pocket with todays' date on it doesn't mean it's not costing you money.

When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....

Same is true for digital. But you paid a huge amount up front. Try amortizing ALL of your photo-related gear over the expected lifespan of it.

I could have literally zero money to spend, and that would never get in the way of me making my art if I shoot digital.

And you could do exactly the same with film. Load up on film (you know, just like spending lots of money on digital gear!), buy your own processing kit, stock on up chemicals. So even if you don't have two nickels to rub together, you have a stock of materials on which you merrily go about enjoying snapping shutters. I buy film by the 100' rolls (35mm), 5-packs (120) and 100-sheet boxes (4x5). A lot of it is in the freezer. So when I find myself low on funds (yes, that does happen to me), I still have a hobby I can enjoy.

In fact, when my wallet is very thin, I actually turn to film instead of digital.

I'm not playing any sort of poverty card, jeez. In my experience, film has cost me more. Digital has saved me money. Like I said in my original post, when I can afford to shoot film, I will.

 

[cgw]

It also costs money to use film, and film cameras don't last forever....

How long will your digital camera last? Will it still be working in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Compare the lifespan of your current digital gear with how many 30+-year-old cameras are still in use. Did any of your old film cameras have a published shutter life rating? I doubt it. And few digital cameras definitely will be around for decades after they're sold.

...Money that I would literally have to spend every time I shoot, and develop.
I started out using film, but because I couldn't always afford to buy film or pay to get the film developed (which would mean I had to completely stop my photographic process until I did have money), it just didn't work out between us. ...

If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.

.....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....

So, once you pay the bank off, fill your tank with gas and your insurance premium check clears, you can drive your car for free? Just because you don't have a receipt in your pocket with todays' date on it doesn't mean it's not costing you money.

When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....

Same is true for digital. But you paid a huge amount up front. Try amortizing ALL of your photo-related gear over the expected lifespan of it.

I could have literally zero money to spend, and that would never get in the way of me making my art if I shoot digital.

And you could do exactly the same with film. Load up on film (you know, just like spending lots of money on digital gear!), buy your own processing kit, stock on up chemicals. So even if you don't have two nickels to rub together, you have a stock of materials on which you merrily go about enjoying snapping shutters. I buy film by the 100' rolls (35mm), 5-packs (120) and 100-sheet boxes (4x5). A lot of it is in the freezer. So when I find myself low on funds (yes, that does happen to me), I still have a hobby I can enjoy.

In fact, when my wallet is very thin, I actually turn to film instead of digital.

I'm not playing any sort of poverty card, jeez. In my experience, film has cost me more. Digital has saved me money. Like I said in my original post, when I can afford to shoot film, I will.

Digital might be more of a false economy than you suspect--or admit. DSLRs are the new consumable. Periodic OS and software upgrades, along with storage and hardware upgrade costs? Quality printing costs? Time spent on post work? Haven't heard the "digital saves me money" line for years, either.

 

[DanOstergren]

It also costs money to use film, and film cameras don't last forever....

How long will your digital camera last? Will it still be working in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Compare the lifespan of your current digital gear with how many 30+-year-old cameras are still in use. Did any of your old film cameras have a published shutter life rating? I doubt it. And few digital cameras definitely will be around for decades after they're sold.

...Money that I would literally have to spend every time I shoot, and develop.
I started out using film, but because I couldn't always afford to buy film or pay to get the film developed (which would mean I had to completely stop my photographic process until I did have money), it just didn't work out between us. ...

If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.

.....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....

So, once you pay the bank off, fill your tank with gas and your insurance premium check clears, you can drive your car for free? Just because you don't have a receipt in your pocket with todays' date on it doesn't mean it's not costing you money.

When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....

Same is true for digital. But you paid a huge amount up front. Try amortizing ALL of your photo-related gear over the expected lifespan of it.

I could have literally zero money to spend, and that would never get in the way of me making my art if I shoot digital.

And you could do exactly the same with film. Load up on film (you know, just like spending lots of money on digital gear!), buy your own processing kit, stock on up chemicals. So even if you don't have two nickels to rub together, you have a stock of materials on which you merrily go about enjoying snapping shutters. I buy film by the 100' rolls (35mm), 5-packs (120) and 100-sheet boxes (4x5). A lot of it is in the freezer. So when I find myself low on funds (yes, that does happen to me), I still have a hobby I can enjoy.

In fact, when my wallet is very thin, I actually turn to film instead of digital.

I'm not playing any sort of poverty card, jeez. In my experience, film has cost me more. Digital has saved me money. Like I said in my original post, when I can afford to shoot film, I will.

Digital might be more of a false economy than you suspect--or admit. DSLRs are the new consumable. Periodic OS and software upgrades, along with storage and hardware upgrade costs? Quality printing costs? Time spent on post work? Haven't heard the "digital saves me money" line for years, either.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.