35mm Film / Digital

It cost him $12 + processing costs at NCPS to do that. That's a total of 17.50 (+ shipping?) for 37 shots. If I was to do that for the 10,000+ images I've taken with my DSLR, it would have cost me $4,729.

Add in the fact that I would've had to buy and carry around 271 rolls of film. That's a LOT of extra cost and bulk. Then add in missed shots while I'm changing rolls of film. Then realize that you'll only get that kind of quality when shooting ISO50 film, which is worthless outside of broad daylight, while my DSLR can change from ISO200 to ISO1600 (ISO100 to 6400 on most modern bodies) in a split second between shots, no changing of rolls required.

We haven't even touched on the fact that I can instantly use my shots instead of in a few days or weeks, or on the fact that I can do a quick shoot with as few or as many shots as I like - I don't need to wait to finish a roll of film. The same roll of film's been sitting in my Nikon FE for 2 months now as I try and finish it off.

No, I think I'll stick to digital.

Looks a little noisy to me. The resolution is good, though. Good 35mm film will be equivalent to about twenty megapixels.

ya.

But I like film.

True but you dont have a single printed photo to show your friends.

Neither does Rockwell since he just has it scanned. I've made prints off both digital and film. To be honest, I've made far better prints off digital than off film thanks to the ability for me to do post-processing.

I dont know. I have 2 systems. One digital and one film and the satisfaction that I used to get from shooting slide film or b/w film just isnt there with digital. Also needless to say that composition etc etc is suffering with my DSLR. The feeling of "no constraint and shoot as much as you want" doesnt help. I am an average shooter who used to shoot around 1 roll per week and for that use I think I would rather have never moved in digital. Btw my digital gear is top of the line (5d+35L+85L+17-40L) so its not that equipment or quality is lacking.

vinyl & film sounds/looks nicer than digital. digital is more practical/convenient than analog.

Pfft. Sold my better 35mm cameras off (kept the couple of the cheap, plastic ones for kickabout) as I don't care much for the format size, feel it's too small and fiddly. I would rather use my Nikon DSLR. Still shoot 120 roll film along side my digital and have just picked up this for the hell of it:



I have an Epson V700 scanner that can handle up to 8x10 if necessary and a job lot of 4x5 film I won stupidly cheap in an ebay auction last year. It was either the likes of the above or a pinhole camera.

Oh, and you just can't beat shooting with real black & white film. I've yet to find digital post processing that comes close to something like Ilford HP5+.

It's been a while since I've used film, and the only thing I miss was the color darkroom. The constant toiling of playing with the dichroic enlarger and seeing if the color cast was gone; that was like nirvana. I loved reeling a roll of NPS 160 in a Mamiya 7 with a 65mm and just shooting portraits. But nowadays, it isn't too economical to shoot with film, unless if processing is dirt cheap.

However, I think it's amazing for 35mm and medium format to become popular again, especially because of the recent resurgence of toy cameras like the Holga, Diana, Lomo, etc. There isn't a week that goes by at the lab where I work without someone asking if we process 120 film, and at least one young person will walk in with a toy camera. Plus, finding a local lab that will do large format film processing is quite a rarity.

Film has that romance with many photographers, but unfortunately that love story will eventually have to end.

If i'm casually strolling or walking about, I'd much prefer to carry around a film camera of some sort. For some reason I'm happier with the good results I get with film, than with digital. If I was getting to paid to shoot a show, I probably wouldn't consider film. There's just something about not knowing the results of your shots until later, and being surprised with what you've got.

I've got my Yashica A, but it doesn't see too much use. I kinda wish I bought a camera that had a wider or more normal lens, or the option to change it. I've also got a holga, polaroid land, and I sent my Canon QL17 in for repair. Out of all of them, I probably enjoy the Canonet the most. I'm looking to get another 35mm camera though, there's a popular fuji one I see frequently used by asian flickerites which I'm reading is rare and was never sold stateside. I'm also optioning some Contax stuff. Gonna have to wait a while though because I just picked up a new compact, and my car has a lot of work that needs to be done, and that's a bigger priority.

Though right now, I'm beginning to enjoy toting around my Ricoh GX100 over a DSLR. I've even brought it to shows with results I'm extremely satisfied with. Here's to a much better APS-C sized sensor compact(looking at you ricoh and sigma).

Nice camera. I remember dreaming of a Contax way back when. As far as digital vs film ... well, that's an argument i don't have two lifetimes to get into....

i started off in life with a film yashica minister D, now its all digital, i went with the trend.
still would like to own a m7 one day.
Leica Camera AG - Photography - M7

Whats to argue? Film is film and digital is digital? Can't they co-exist? I shoot both daily and love them both for what they do. I have just as much fun in the darkroom as I do in the computer lab.
If you shoot film, Fantastic! Keep it up!
If you shoot digital, Fantastic! Keep it up!