# Is film right for me?



## JarredRoss (Dec 23, 2012)

Hey everyone. I'm new to photography, and I was thinking about getting into film. I posted another thread and everyone told me that film is not the way to go, as I am on a budget, but I just cant seem to let go of the idea. I don't take many pictures, maybe 1000 max per year if I'm really ambitious. I like a little bit of magnification sometimes, and I also really enjoy black and whites. The max i would spend on a camera is 150$, and I wanted to know what other film users thought about my situation. Everyone tells me that film is overly expensive to buy and develop, but that aside, what do you guys think? Any input you have is much appreciated. Thanks, Jarred


----------



## amolitor (Dec 23, 2012)

I wouldn't do film unless I was planning to do at least some of the chemistry myself. If you're just going to send it all out to someone else, might as well go digital or whatever, so go cheaper (which is digital).

If you're going to get in to the chemistry, you'll have to include some expenses for gear and supplies there, which is going to eat into your budget a bit.

It's fun, though. I do a bit of wet photography now and then.


----------



## JarredRoss (Dec 23, 2012)

so you mean like developing it yourself?


----------



## gw2424 (Dec 23, 2012)

I'm back, i'm sorry, but i'm back.

Amolitor is very right. You would need to do your own processing. I really (really) think digital is the way to go. If you do go with film I would pick up an old Olympus Om-Something with a kit 50mm 1.8. But go with digital. Start with digital and if you get hooked try film.

My 2c


----------



## JarredRoss (Dec 23, 2012)

You cant just do part of the developing right, once you start it you have to finish?


----------



## amolitor (Dec 23, 2012)

Well, you have to develop an entire roll of film at a time, from start to finish. This requires $30 worth of gear, and the use of 3 or 4 chemicals. A supply of the chemicals will set you back maybe another $30 or $40 (US dollars).

This will get you developed rolls of film. Turning film into prints is a separate process, or you can scan the film and work digitally from there. Either of these options is gonna set you back a minimum of a couple hundred bucks (and you can, as with all things, spend pretty much an infinite amount of money if you like).


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 23, 2012)

Film costs more than digital ... you don't need to buy a new memory card every time you want to shoot.
Film needs to be developed ... then printed (or scanned).
Developing film can be cheap if you do it yourself or somewhat expensive if done by someone else ... same goes for printing or scanning.

Why do you really want to get into Film Photography ?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2012)

Digital, all the way. All.The.Way. Seriously. If you need "budget" images, film will just destroy your budget.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2012)

Like he said, we've already had this discussion in another topic.


----------



## JarredRoss (Dec 23, 2012)

Ok guys, I think i'll go with a digital for now. if i have a few buck left over maybe ill screw around with an old film for 20 or 30 bucks.


----------



## gw2424 (Dec 23, 2012)

Did you check out the epl1?

FS: Olympus EPL1 14-42 kit. Panasonic 20mm f1.7. Hoya ND8X, ND400X, Marumi CPL 52mm. - FM Forums

I would offer him $130 and not pay more than $145

Remember it is in Japan so try to get it shipped for that price.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2012)

JarredRoss said:


> Ok guys, I think i'll go with a digital for now. if i have a few buck left over maybe ill screw around with an old film for 20 or 30 bucks.



That is going to be by far the least expensive route for you to go.  I've been both ways, and can tell you for a fact that it's true.


----------



## JarredRoss (Dec 23, 2012)

Why do you really want to get into Film Photography ?[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I guess its the nostalgia maybe? Idk it just seems like everyone uses digital now and they don't think twice about the work involved or what their cameras started out as. Ive never been a person to follow the crowd


----------



## amolitor (Dec 23, 2012)

You'll find there's a pretty big crowd of non-crowd-followers just like you using film


----------



## gw2424 (Dec 23, 2012)

JarredRoss said:


> Why do you really want to get into Film Photography ?[/QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tevo (Dec 23, 2012)

Nikon FM: $100
Nikon 50mm 1.8: $80
Kodak TX 400 B&W 36: $5 / roll

This is my setup, and from here comes the cost of developing / enlarging or scanning.

If you are new to photography, learn on a digital. Getting into film is not terribly expensive, but learning on it is tough. Buy a decent digital camera to learn on, and then buy a film camera later. You can get a 35mm slr much cheaper than a DSLR so it won't hurt your pocket later on, and if you go Nikon then your lenses will be mostly compatible. I picked up an N90 with a 70-210 for $100 yesterday, and it works (with AF!) with all my D lenses.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 23, 2012)

I think that most Digital shooters don't think of the continual expenses when shooting with film.


----------



## JarredRoss (Dec 23, 2012)

Thanks a ton guys, ive checked out that olympus too, thanks guys


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 23, 2012)

In my opinion shooting film is only worth it if you want to shoot large format and maybe medium format. If your going to shoot 35mm you might as well go digital. 

I love shooting 4x5 large format it slows me down and makes me think more about my image. 

I use 4x5 primarily for landscapes, everything else is mainly shot digitally.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 23, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> In my opinion shooting film is only worth it if you want to shoot large format and maybe medium format. If your going to shoot 35mm you might as well go digital.
> 
> I love shooting 4x5 large format it slows me down and makes me think more about my image.
> 
> I use 4x5 primarily for landscapes, everything else is mainly shot digitally.



And with large format you're talking $1 a shot, not including development.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 24, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion shooting film is only worth it if you want to shoot large format and maybe medium format. If your going to shoot 35mm you might as well go digital.
> ...



3 Times that if you do color. A box of 10 sheets of Ektar 4x5 is $30. 

But for fine art landscapes you cannot beet the quality of a large negative. And quality aside shooting 4x5 really makes show down and think more. With my shen hoe field camera there is absolutely no way I can put wip that thing out and take a quick snapshot. The more thought you put into the image before clicking the shutter the better the final image will be. 

Pre exposure work will always lead to a better image then post processing will.


----------



## timor (Dec 24, 2012)

JarredRoss said:


> Everyone tells me that film is overly expensive to buy and develop, but that aside, what do you guys think?


 Shooting on film is, like any other activity, for anyone. All what's needed is a passion. If your goal is to have just images, then, like Derrel is saying: digital All.The.Way. But then he is crazy about digital. Film is more like a life style, involves more, then just to own a camera. When comes to costs, sure, $150 is not sufficient for film, but is not sufficient for digital either. Digital p&s is good for vacation, family gatherings etc. Sure with experience one can squeeze more from them. If you think about equaling images presented on this forum, you gonna have to work hard. Soon you will know, that you need more then just simple Canon for $150. Now, what about software for editing your pictures ? No one mention this. Lightroom is $150, Photoshop $700. Good computer screen which you can calibrate another $700-1000 (fast computer you might have already).Decent Dslr setup will cost at least $2000 and in 3-4 years it would be outdated. So cost of digital passion is not small. Film however requires one thing and here cost maybe irrelevant, it requires a darkroom. If you will have other people to take care of film development and prints, then you better off with digital. By the way, numbers given you for film costs are somewhat exaggerated; top quality film may cost you as little as 35 cents/foot and single development closer to 40 cents than 20-30 bucks. Prints are another matter, but also less, than same quality digital stuff. Lousy 8x10 in Wallmart cost 8-10 bucks, for $10 I make 25 prints on RC paper. Unless you will be happy with just projection on the monitor. 
To be clear I am talking about b&w. For color I am digital All.The.Way.


----------



## terri (Dec 24, 2012)

> Film however requires one thing and here cost maybe irrelevant, it requires a darkroom.


I agree with most of your post, but film only "requires" a darkroom if you plan to get into developing your own _prints._    You do not need a darkroom to develop your own _film_.    At night, sitting on the floor of a closet, you can load your film easily in the dark; once it's in the tank you can develop standing at the kitchen sink (I'm talking B&W as well).   If you want to develop your own negatives, a minor up-front cost for the tank and chemistry will set you up, and save you lots of money down the line.    You can go hybrid at that point and a decent film scanner will get your negatives onto your computer, and you can use a print service like a lot of digital folks do.    

It all depends on what your presentation goals are.   I think the OP made his mind up already, but thought it worthy to touch on that point.   

signed,
Terri (digital All.The.Way when hell freezes over)


----------



## bhop (Dec 24, 2012)

Startup costs are way smaller with film (cheaper camera bodies, etc.), but it's true that in the long run, film will cost you more because of the added costs of the film itself and developing.  However, if you truly only take around 1000 shots/year as you mentioned, then I don't think it's going to be _that_ expensive for you.  If you get a _*decent*_ used dslr, it's probably going to cost you at least $1000.  That cash would buy a lot of film.

Personally, I prefer film, mostly because of the types of cameras I like shooting with, (older slrs, rangefinders), plus I feel like my film shots have more "soul" than my digital shots.  I know that last bit is subjective, but oh well..


----------



## timor (Dec 24, 2012)

I just bought Olympus 35 SP in pristine condition for $40. Lucky me !


----------



## thevideographer (Dec 26, 2012)

Jarred, if you want to shoot film just shoot film.  Clearly you want to or you wouldn't have started multiple topics on this, and I think it is a great way to learn photography.  If you start with film a whole bunch of things in the digital world will make a lot more sense, like lenses and ISO.  If it's something you like to do film is just more fun to shoot.  Of course if you take an objective look at all of the factors digital makes more sense but that doesn't take into account the fact that you want to shoot film and some people just like that as a hobby.  You don't have to get a dark room and develop your own film.  I shoot 3-4 rolls a year on film and just take them to CVS.  If you can afford it though you should try to do some developing yourself because making 3 or 4 large B&W prints yourself is a lot more gratifying than getting 24 pics back from CVS (or 1000 pics off your digital camera).


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 26, 2012)

You cant really compare costs of film vs digital... They are two separate mediums with their own costs.  Photography is like any other hobby. Go with what you like. 
If you want to shoot film,  do it and dont worry if it costs a little more to get film developed.  Its just another cost you incur with the hobby.  Photography is one of those hobbys where you can spend as little or as much as you want, whether it is film or digital. For what you would spend on photoshop and/or lightroom,  you can buy a lot of film.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

I'd suggest STARTING w/ digital using an SLR (or MILC) in M, A and S modes.

No photoshop, no lightroom, just SOC JPGs (using the built in color and b&w modes) on a digital SLR.... with the goal being to shoot, show, learn, and repeat... over dozens of iterations until you are happy with your accomplishments.

THEN go learn to shoot, process and print b&w film.

Having that goal in mind will give direction and passion to everything you do while working to get there (learning).


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 26, 2012)

nycphotography said:


> I'd suggest STARTING w/ digital using an SLR (or MILC) in M, A and S modes.
> 
> No photoshop, no lightroom, just SOC JPGs (using the built in color and b&w modes) on a digital SLR.... with the goal being to shoot, show, learn, and repeat... over dozens of iterations until you are happy with your accomplishments.
> 
> ...



The OP said their budget was $150..not going to get much of a digital camera for that... CAN get a decent film camera with lens though.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 26, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> I think that most Digital shooters don't think of the continual expenses when shooting with film.



How about all the continual expenses of digital photography?  Upgrading software every other year for photoshop and lightroom.  Upgrading digital cameras every couple of years due to shutter life. 
Buying larger and/or faster memory cards. Computer and monitor upgrades to keep up with photoshop. How long do you keep a film body compared to how long someone keeps a digital body on average? At the very least the digital body will need a shutter replacement at some point,  not just a CLA. 

The day to day continuous expense of film is far outweighed by the eventual expenses of digital.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 26, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > I think that most Digital shooters don't think of the continual expenses when shooting with film.
> ...



I shoot film and also have the added computer expenses. I just spent 8 hours in photoshop working on a 4x5 negative scan.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I'd suggest STARTING w/ digital using an SLR (or MILC) in M, A and S modes.
> ...



If the budget is to learn, then the film camera will _*require *_more budget... not negotiable, must spend.  say 20 rolls of film at $10 / roll for a year? That would hardly last a year.  Therefore, the $150 number is not a real number.  It may be what he has now, but not what it takes for the first year.  In that context, the smart money says to save a little longer until you have $215  ($199 plus 5 bucks for a memory card and 10 bucks for a usb card reader).

For $200 he can get a used LX5 and shoot all year w/o _*having to*_ spend another penny.  Is that the best thing since sliced bread?  Hardly.  Is it good enough to learn real photography?  Absolutely.

And if he can scrape together enough for an EPL1 or a GF1 w/ a kit lens?

Don't get me wrong.. I love b&w film.  I think he should do film.  Eventually.  I just think digital is a better way to learn the basics.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 26, 2012)

Then i guess we just have to hope the OP has a computer :-D


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > I think that most Digital shooters don't think of the continual expenses when shooting with film.
> ...



While that may be true eventually.. he can get ANY DSLR w/ the kit lens, once $5 memory card (SD, CF maybe $20) and shoot SOC jpg for an entire year without spending another penny.

That's about the equivalent of how I learned... buy a roll of Portra or TMAX, run it through the camera, send it in and get it back, and learn from the results.

When I got my first real digital (D1), my learning pace accelerated substantially.  The shorter feedback cycle had me finding problems, fixing them in the same session, rather than 2 weeks later when I got my film back (or found the energy to go in the darkroom myself).

While film may be cheaper than a $2000 slr kit... over the course of even one year, a $400 dslr or u43 or bridge camera _*can be*_ cheaper than a $150 film camera.


----------



## jake337 (Dec 26, 2012)

Damn all this back and forth!


Let's just be honest.  


Photography as a hobby is expensive in general with all mediums.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Then i guess we just have to hope the OP has a computer :-D



lol   Even if not, a 4GB sd card is $5 at micro center and holds something like 700 JPGs on my LX5.  

Even if he never finds the delete button... how many dollars of film is that equivalent to?

He can just keep buying $5 SD cards until Santa brings him a computer in 2017 ;-)


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Damn all this back and forth!
> 
> Let's just be honest.
> 
> Photography as a hobby is expensive in general with all mediums.



It's as expensive as it can be... or as we let it be.  But really... it doesn't _*have to*_ be. 

Ouch.  And I have a lot of expensive gear too.  Luckily I don't have to justify it to anyone but myself hehe.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 26, 2012)

Meh... Film is dead anyway. 
;-)


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

God I hope not.  The thought of losing b&w film to digital is just too depressing to bear.

But to be fair, I'll probably never shoot color film again.  If I ever get the urge to shoot color film it would likely be a medium format urge... Hopefully I'll pick up a used 45mp D900 for $1000 instead.


----------



## thevideographer (Dec 26, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Damn all this back and forth!
> 
> 
> Let's just be honest.
> ...



Photography is one of the cheapest hobbies there is!  Most people have a computer, so all you need is a digital camera, lens and memory cards.  I have those things as well as a film SLR so I can shoot a handful of rolls a year when I feel like it.  Film isn't $10 a roll by the way, it's about $3.  The developing is what costs you.  Since photography is mostly fixed costs you can get away with a few hundred dollars every few years.  That's *way* cheaper than golf!


----------



## hearts0075 (Dec 26, 2012)

Film is awesome! My photography professors have dark rooms that I can use! And film is still the original format of learning, it what makes it fun! Oh yeah you ask me if film or not! It rocks!


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 26, 2012)

thevideographer said:


> photography is mostly fixed costs you can get away with a few hundred dollars every few years.  That's *way* cheaper than golf!



I've never known anyone who is interested in photography be able to only spend a few hundred dollars every few years.  And I don't anyone who is active on this forum actually stays under a few hundred dollars every few years ether.


----------



## thevideographer (Dec 26, 2012)

Well now you have.  How long I stay active on this forum... depends :mrgreen:


----------



## xjken99 (Dec 26, 2012)

Go on ebay, find a decent 35mm slr with a lens or two.  Then run two or three rolls of B+W and two or three rolls of color through the camera.  Take the rolls to CVS, Walgreens, Costco or where ever tell them you want them processed and scanned to a disk.  You can then pick which photos you want to print if any, no sense in paying for the rotten ones.  This usually cost me around $6.00.

Just did a quick search on ebay and found this.  
Canon 35mm T70 SLR Camera w 50mm Lense Speedlite 244T Flash Extra 75 200mm Zoom | eBay


The only way to find out is to shoot some film.


----------



## timor (Dec 26, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> I've never known anyone who is interested in photography be able to only spend a few hundred dollars every few years.  And I don't anyone who is active on this forum actually stays under a few hundred dollars every few years ether.


Damn right ! Hobby is about spending money on pleasure. For most of us present here, don't count pros.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 26, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> thevideographer said:
> 
> 
> > photography is mostly fixed costs you can get away with a few hundred dollars every few years.  That's *way* cheaper than golf!
> ...



That's only because you never knew anyone into photography who only _*had*_ a few hundred dollars every few years. ;-)

With the advent of digital, photography may have become just about the only hobby where you can literally spend $400 once (assuming you already have a computer), and not have to spend another penny for 5 years.  No other pursuit, not even watercolors, has that potential.  Every other hobby I can think of has either insane gear requirements as you progress in expertise, or some kind of consumable supply cost.

Get ANY $400 DSLR, and you have a tool that you can use to create amazing images for years to come.  Are there going to be limits in what you can create that could be overcome with more gear?  Of course.  But there is no shortage of breathtaking work you can do within the limits your equipment permits.

And you can hilljack a lot of equipment from crap you can beg borrow (but not steal) from around you.  Need a "reflector"?  White spray paint and a refrigerator box.  Or aluminum foil.  Need a gobo?  Black spraypaint and a refrigerator box.  Need a scrim?  white sheets.  Need a light?  grab a table lamp, your cardboard, and some masking tape.  But please don't burn the house down.  But seriously, you don't need much money to create amazing art today.

Don't believe me?  Go look at the Flickr streams of what people are creating with the most basic SLR/MILC cameras available today.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 26, 2012)

If you ever get into film, worst thing you can do is cheap processing. Send the film to a real lab like Richard Photo Lab. 


but the thing is you'd blow your budget after just 8 rolls or so.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2012)

nycphotography said:


> While that may be true eventually.. he can get ANY DSLR w/ the kit lens, once $5 memory card (SD, CF maybe $20) and shoot SOC jpg for an entire year without spending another penny.
> 
> That's about the equivalent of how I learned... buy a roll of Portra or TMAX, run it through the camera, send it in and get it back, and learn from the results.
> 
> ...



How do you make out he never spends another penny unless he charges batteries next door and has a computer good enough to process files


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 27, 2012)

It's _*possible*_ to charge batteries and process files at the local library.  Not ideal, but possible.

I suppose you'd say the food for the calories he'd burn walking to library is a photography expense too?


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2012)

nycphotography said:


> It's possible to charge batteries and process files at the local library.  Not ideal, but possible.
> 
> I suppose you'd say the food for the calories he'd burn walking to library is a photography expense too?



No, it sounded like you were trying to make out digital is free


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 27, 2012)

holy crap people...
film is "right" for anyone that wants to try shooting film. thats all that really matters. 
film is cheap to get into. yea, you have to buy film and get it developed. and yea, digital gives you instant results and feedback. 
but what do you WANT to do? 
maybe someone has enough budget to buy a roll of film or two every paycheck. maybe every other paycheck. who cares which is  cheaper or by how much. do you WANT to shoot film? if yes, then go shoot some film and enjoy it.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> holy crap people...
> film is "right" for anyone that wants to try shooting film. thats all that really matters.
> film is cheap to get into. yea, you have to buy film and get it developed. and yea, digital gives you instant results and feedback.
> but what do you WANT to do?
> maybe someone has enough budget to buy a roll of film or two every paycheck. maybe every other paycheck. who cares which is  cheaper or by how much. do you WANT to shoot film? if yes, then go shoot some film and enjoy it.



And film has soul, ive got some very expensive Canon lenses but have not used them for months only shot film for 4 months, i shot both before


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 27, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> holy crap people...
> film is "right" for anyone that wants to try shooting film. thats all that really matters.
> film is cheap to get into. yea, you have to buy film and get it developed. and yea, digital gives you instant results and feedback.
> but what do you WANT to do?
> maybe someone has enough budget to buy a roll of film or two every paycheck. maybe every other paycheck. who cares which is  cheaper or by how much. do you WANT to shoot film? if yes, then go shoot some film and enjoy it.



I agree with that, btw.

My point is only that if someone  really wants to "learn photography" and money is tight, digital can be cheaper  and offer a faster a learning curve.  That's all.


----------



## BrianV (Dec 27, 2012)

If the OP returns to this thread, send me a PM. I still have the Konica TC-X, 50/1.8 lens, and a Zoom boxed up. The price cannot be beaten, free.


----------



## Mully (Dec 27, 2012)

Good thing he is not trying to get into wet plate...maybe next year


----------



## bhop (Dec 27, 2012)




----------



## BrianV (Dec 27, 2012)

Never did wet plate and I'm all out of Speed Graphics. Gave two away, traded one with a Xenotar off.


----------



## timor (Dec 27, 2012)

gsgary said:


> And film has soul, ive got some very expensive Canon lenses but have not used them for months


Full frame lenses ? If so maybe time to get EOS 1n to ??? :scratch:


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2012)

timor said:


> Full frame lenses ? If so maybe time to get EOS 1n to ??? :scratch:



yes 300f2.8L, 200f2.8L, 50f1.4, 70-200f4, 24-70f2.8L
Ive got an EOS5,but i prefer range finders and TLR's and with my M4 im using mostly 28mm


----------



## timor (Dec 27, 2012)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Full frame lenses ? If so maybe time to get EOS 1n to ??? :scratch:
> ...


Understood.


----------

