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



## mmaria

So... as you already know @480sparky  donated me a film camera and one color/bw film

I finally developed films and I'll post some of the results in bw gallery. I waited film to do this...

I'm fascinated by it. I love film. ( speaking about bw film because I didn't get anything useful out of color) I'm fascinated by it's dynamic range, dealing with highlights and much more... but there's a huuuuuge issue right now... I can't buy a bw film here! I'll probably have to buy it on ebay... grrrr...

However... I have a few questions about it... what is causing these issues?

Can meter be broken? I ask because, pictures I thought I overexposed (meter was showing overexposing) came back fine but pictures that had  "perfect" exposure according to the meter, were underexposed... What is my fault?

Examples of "perfect" exposure



 




"overexposed"


 


the view from my balcony

Photos I took and thought I f.cked up because they'll be overexposed are the ones that I love the most and I'll post them in bw gallery and then go back to add that link  
I waited film to do this...

oh... I forgot to ask... what is this?




and one I took especially for a crazy cat lady @limr


----------



## limr

YAAAAAYYYYYY!!! 

Now you understand why I'm a crazy cat AND film lady  

Okay, exposure. First possibility, the meter is off. I assume you have fresh batteries? Second possibility, the meter was fooled into thinking there was more light in the shot than there was. Lots of bright sky or water or snow can often mess with exposures. In those cases, I'll sometimes point the camera specifically to where I want good exposure, get a reading, and then recompose. Remember, these meters aren't as sophisticated as you're used to. Once you get a few more rolls under your belt and learn the camera better, you'll start recognizing which situations might be fooling the camera and learn to adjust for them.

Also a question - there's a purplish tint to a lot of those. Were they scanned in as color negatives? Or is it just my monitor?

As for that color frame - it looked at first like overlapping frames, but looking closer, it doesn't seem that way. The image lines up too perfectly. Did this happen at the end of the roll? Or maybe a sticky shutter? Like the second curtain got stuck briefly halfway through the frame and over-exposed half? But then I wouldn't expect a perfect line down the middle like that. I'd think there would be more light bleeding. Or I suppose it could be a developing error, though someone more familiar might chime in with a yea or nay.

Finally, thank you for the kitties!!


----------



## timor

Marija, it looks to me, that you are sitting in the middle of Europe. You are kidding about the problems with film supply. Or I am wrong ?


----------



## Trond

That last frame is an overlapping exposure. The images do not line up (it only looks that way). If it happens again I would have the winding mechanism checked.

I think slide film is good for telling you if you get exposure right. I would buy some Provia film, and do some bracketing (underexpose, normal, overexpose). Doing that, I found that I have a camera that normally overexposes a little, so I always underexpose half a stop, and the pictures normally come back perfect


----------



## compur

Bright skies in the frame tend to fool old camera meters into underexposing the shot. Unless your camera has a more modern segmented meter pattern you have to compensate by increasing exposure yourself.


----------



## 480sparky

The camera most likely has a simple center-weighted metering area, so the bright sky fooled the meter into forcing you to underexpose the images.  Moral: learn to recognize when the meter is lying to you and how to 'correct' the settings for 'proper' exposure

The 5th shot is a film advance error.  It may well be the camera simply did not advance the film far enough to place unexposed film behind the shutter.  It could be a mere one-of anomaly, and it could be a sign of a mechanical issue.

As for buying b&w film, if buying the film is an issue, developing will be more of an issue.  If you're looking for the b&w film I sent that can be processed as C-41, your best bet would be purchasing online.  But TRUE b&w film (processed in DD-X, Rodinal or even _coffee_!) might be impossible to find a local lab, so you'll have two choices.  One, send exposed film off to a lab and two, develop it yourself.

As for option no 1:
Pros: Easy and convenient. 
Cons: Expensive, turn-around time, little control over process.

Option 2:
Cons: Need to purchase own equipment, need to have dark space, some chemicals don't have long shelf life.
Pros :Equipment needed is not all that expensive, you can develop however you want (develop same day after shooting), ability to push/pull ISO, total control of developers, temperature, times, agitation etc., and my personal favorite: _the sheer joy of seeing the images you shot AND develop come off the reel_!



mmaria said:


> .......
> I'm fascinated by it. I love film. .....



Resistance was futile.  You have been assimilated.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Matching cats! They made me think of stone lions at each side of a doorway of a library or museum - what do these cats think they're guarding?? lol

Usually if I'm facing toward a brighter sky that's sending more light into my camera than the scene I'm photographing, I lower the camera toward the subject/scene to get a meter reading then recompose (which is pretty much what Leo said!).

I've had something similar to the color image happen. Usually it's at the end of a roll, especially when I'm trying to squeeze one more shot onto the roll - it's probably a bad thing to be doing, and I only do it if I'm willing to sacrifice the second to last shot because I may end up with a half assed half double exposed freak shot (but _sometimes_ it works! lol guess I'm livin' on the edge!).

Or as others have said, it could be the film didn't advance properly. Depending on the camera (I have one in particular like this) the lever may not have advanced all the way and you released it without it advancing a full frame. Or something could be out of whack. If it keeps happening maybe it would need to be serviced but it could have just been a one time thing.


----------



## minicoop1985

What on earth did you scan that with? Those scans are positively crispy!


----------



## vintagesnaps

You know what, looking again you have a partial double exposure, I didn't see it at first. Look at the sky on the right side, above and to the left of the sheep - there's a patch of snow floating midair up there!

And to the far right of the frame I see a faint grayish tree trunk that seems to be growing out of a sheep's butt! lol OK not really, but it's next to the back end of a white sheep and in front of the nose of the black sheep. So I think that frame of film captured part of the field to the left(?), only advanced halfway, and captured an entire frame of the scene we see.

Could be you just didn't push the lever all the way. You could look at the negatives and see what the previous or next frames look like and see what you were shooting before and after this one.


----------



## limr

Yeah, now I'm looking at in on a larger monitor, and it's definitely an overlapping frame. Check the negative strip. Where does it come on the roll? I've done like Sharon has done and tried to squeeze in one more frame at the end, but it doesn't quite work. If it happened in the middle of the roll, then you should see it on the negative strip, and as it's been said, perhaps you advanced far enough for the camera to think it was ready for the next frame, but not far enough to actually clear the last frame.

Also, you did have some fog and mist in those shots, and that can throw a meter off as well.


----------



## vintagesnaps

It works _sometimes_... not often... hardly ever... so why do we keep doing it?? lol


I was thinking too that sometimes as far as exposure goes that if the needle is fluctuating between settings I'll bracket shots, in film photography meaning that I'll take more than one shot, one at say f8 and another at f11, or at 1/125 and 1/250 as examples.

Then if I'm getting the film developed and a proof sheet done I'll have to tell them to not adjust (and the guy writes on the envelope Don't Adjust!) - I want to see if the bracketed photo's are darker/negative is dense, or if one is lighter, so I can see which looks best. If they adjust then the bracketed shots on the proof sheet look the same (although I can tell that the negatives look slightly darker or lighter for the shots I bracketed).


----------



## mmaria

limr said:


> YAAAAAYYYYYY!!!










> Now you understand why I'm a crazy cat AND film lady


 totaly!


> Okay, exposure. First possibility, the meter is off. I assume you have fresh batteries? Second possibility, the meter was fooled into thinking there was more light in the shot than there was. Lots of bright sky or water or snow can often mess with exposures. In those cases, I'll sometimes point the camera specifically to where I want good exposure, get a reading, and then recompose. Remember, these meters aren't as sophisticated as you're used to. Once you get a few more rolls under your belt and learn the camera better, you'll start recognizing which situations might be fooling the camera and learn to adjust for them.


fresh batteries

yeah... I always get reading on a place I want to be exposed properly and I think I did that with this camera also... but ...I'll just have to figure out how this works... I don't mind 


> Also a question - there's a purplish tint to a lot of those. Were they scanned in as color negatives? Or is it just my monitor?


Actually, one photo on the other thread was so red that I had to desaturate it, but because it was so red I didn't notice that the rest of the scans were red too... I'm not on my computer today but tomorrow I'll desaturate everything.

I saw that sparky explained about the film I used.

But the color cast isn't a big issue for me, I'll just desaturate the color ps recognize...

... or any work except pressing the shutter  Ok I'm lying... you have to do bunch of things before pressing the shutter... Focusing is what I seem to forget, because I do shoot manually with digital but I always use AF.


> As for that color frame - it looked at first like overlapping frames, but looking closer, it doesn't seem that way. The image lines up too perfectly. Did this happen at the end of the roll? Or maybe a sticky shutter? Like the second curtain got stuck briefly halfway through the frame and over-exposed half? But then I wouldn't expect a perfect line down the middle like that. I'd think there would be more light bleeding. Or I suppose it could be a developing error, though someone more familiar might chime in with a yea or nay.


 it happened at the end of the roll



> Finally, thank you for the kitties!!


 I visited a monastery. This is the house where the monk lives, he's taking care of them... when I saw those two I simply had to take a picture for you


----------



## mmaria

timor said:


> Marija, it looks to me, that you are sitting in the middle of Europe. You are kidding about the problems with film supply. Or I am wrong ?


Unfortunately, I'm not kidding..

Trying to find a place which has bw film...

I'm now in a photo club and I'll ask them where they get bw film...

It's not easy to find it at all


----------



## mmaria

Trond said:


> That last frame is an overlapping exposure. The images do not line up (it only looks that way). If it happens again I would have the winding mechanism checked.
> 
> I think slide film is good for telling you if you get exposure right. I would buy some Provia film, and do some bracketing (underexpose, normal, overexpose). Doing that, I found that I have a camera that normally overexposes a little, so I always underexpose half a stop, and the pictures normally come back perfect


 I'll do that with the next film I load



compur said:


> Bright skies in the frame tend to fool old camera meters into underexposing the shot. Unless your camera has a more modern segmented meter pattern you have to compensate by increasing exposure yourself.


 we'll se how will I do next time


----------



## mmaria

.


----------



## mmaria

480sparky said:


> The camera most likely has a simple center-weighted metering area, so the bright sky fooled the meter into forcing you to underexpose the images.  Moral: learn to recognize when the meter is lying to you and how to 'correct' the settings for 'proper' exposure
> 
> The 5th shot is a film advance error.  It may well be the camera simply did not advance the film far enough to place unexposed film behind the shutter.  It could be a mere one-of anomaly, and it could be a sign of a mechanical issue.
> 
> As for buying b&w film, if buying the film is an issue, developing will be more of an issue.  If you're looking for the b&w film I sent that can be processed as C-41, your best bet would be purchasing online.  But TRUE b&w film (processed in DD-X, Rodinal or even _coffee_!) might be impossible to find a local lab, so you'll have two choices.  One, send exposed film off to a lab and two, develop it yourself.
> 
> As for option no 1:
> Pros: Easy and convenient.
> Cons: Expensive, turn-around time, little control over process.
> 
> Option 2:
> Cons: Need to purchase own equipment, need to have dark space, some chemicals don't have long shelf life.
> Pros :Equipment needed is not all that expensive, you can develop however you want (develop same day after shooting), ability to push/pull ISO, total control of developers, temperature, times, agitation etc., and my personal favorite: _the sheer joy of seeing the images you shot AND develop come off the reel_!
> 
> 
> 
> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......
> I'm fascinated by it. I love film. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance was futile.  You have been assimilated.
Click to expand...

I'll be probably developing on my own but not yet... I'm not ready for it... I don't know enough to be brave enough for trying to develop film

I'm asking questions, google-ing arround to see what is available to me... I bought one color film they ( couple of places) had, it's Fujicolor C200... that was the only one I could find

anyway... the guys from the club should know more so I'll contact them


PS I don't have time to write anymore, but I will reply everyone tomorrow


----------



## astroNikon

mmaria said:


> oh... I forgot to ask... what is this?
> View attachment 115497


I'm sure everyone else is afraid to tell you what you have captured in that image.
Film can show you the real world unlike digital sensors.

To the right, are
Martian Sheep.

so be careful next time you're on that road.


----------



## timor

mmaria said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marija, it looks to me, that you are sitting in the middle of Europe. You are kidding about the problems with film supply. Or I am wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not kidding..
> 
> Trying to find a place which has bw film...
> 
> I'm now in a photo club and I'll ask them where they get bw film...
> 
> It's not easy to find it at all
Click to expand...

What country are you in ?!?


----------



## Gary A.

Marija, welcome to film!

The old meters are not nearly as sophisticated as a meter in a modern digital camera.  In the beginning, check the film meter with your digital meter. You may ultimately want a handheld meter if you get truly hooked on film.  Also, the best (cheapest) way to shoot B&W is to purchase the film in 100' rolls, then load your one cassettes. Much , much cheaper that way.  Developing yourself is no big deal as far as effort goes. PM me if you need anything, I may even have an extra handheld meter laying around.  For most situations, Sunny 16 works.

Good Luck and Good Shooting


----------



## 480sparky

mmaria said:


> ......it happened at the end of the roll..........



Then most likely it's a double-exposure due to the shutter being cocked before the film is completely advanced past the previously exposed frame.

Some cameras have that nasty design..... as you push the advance lever, it not only moves the film but at the same time it cocks the shutter.  If you push the advance lever halfway, the shutter is cocked, but you haven't moved the exposed film out from behind the shutter.  Better cameras will fully advance the film first, THEN cock the shutter at the very end of moving the advance lever.

Since the shutter will fire, you think you've sneaked one more frame in and saved a few drachmas.  But you've actually double-exposed the last full image on the roll.

So as soon as you feel the end of the roll of film through the advance lever, stop shooting and rewind instead of firing off another shot.


----------



## medic2230

Also check the negative to see if the little holes that guides the film are broken. At then end of the roll if you advance the film with a little force then it can break the guides on the film causing the lever to advance all the way and cocking the shutter thus letting you take another shot.


----------



## jcdeboever

Gary A. said:


> Marija, welcome to film!
> 
> The old meters are not nearly as sophisticated as a meter in a modern digital camera.  In the beginning, check the film meter with your digital meter. You may ultimately want a handheld meter if you get truly hooked on film.  Also, the best (cheapest) way to shoot B&W is to purchase the film in 100' rolls, then load your one cassettes. Much , much cheaper that way.  Developing yourself is no big deal as far as effort goes. PM me if you need anything, I may even have an extra handheld meter laying around.  For most situations, Sunny 16 works.
> 
> Good Luck and Good Shooting



I use this and it usually is dead on with my K1000 but a little off with my D3300. I don't know what that is about. I see these cheap on eBay, don't know if you would recommend these or not for her Gary. I think the D3300 is more precise? Thought I would add a inexpensive alternative that I know works but I am no expert.


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marija, it looks to me, that you are sitting in the middle of Europe. You are kidding about the problems with film supply. Or I am wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not kidding..
> 
> Trying to find a place which has bw film...
> 
> I'm now in a photo club and I'll ask them where they get bw film...
> 
> It's not easy to find it at all
Click to expand...

Foma films from the Czech Republic are great you should be able to get them, lots of film in Germany I buy I film called Orwo that I buy at 100 feet and roll my own

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## mmaria

astroNikon said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh... I forgot to ask... what is this?
> View attachment 115497
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure everyone else is afraid to tell you what you have captured in that image.
> Film can show you the real world unlike digital sensors.
> 
> To the right, are
> Martian Sheep.
> 
> so be careful next time you're on that road.
Click to expand...

oh nooooo!!!


but... they're soo cute! 

thanks for explaining me!


----------



## mmaria

timor said:


> What country are you in ?!?


 A small country in Eastern Europe



Gary A. said:


> Marija, welcome to film!


 Thank you! It's nice being there 



> The old meters are not nearly as sophisticated as a meter in a modern digital camera.  In the beginning, check the film meter with your digital meter. You may ultimately want a handheld meter if you get truly hooked on film.  Also, the best (cheapest) way to shoot B&W is to purchase the film in 100' rolls, then load your one cassettes. Much , much cheaper that way.  Developing yourself is no big deal as far as effort goes. PM me if you need anything, I may even have an extra handheld meter laying around.  For most situations, Sunny 16 works.


Oh... sounds pretty simple but how can it didn't even cross my mind .... I'll do that , compare meters

as for buying films,... had to google "the film in 100' rolls" - too much to handle right now I think... I think I need to figure out a lot about film first... seriously, I feel like I don't know anything about photography... this is a whole new world... a very nice one though 




> Good Luck and Good Shooting


 Thank you!

Among else, I appreciate you said I can pm you, because I will


----------



## mmaria

I'll pay attention next time


----------



## mmaria

medic2230 said:


> Also check the negative to see if the little holes that guides the film are broken. At then end of the roll if you advance the film with a little force then it can break the guides on the film causing the lever to advance all the way and cocking the shutter thus letting you take another shot.


 I'll pay attention, ty



jcdeboever said:


> I use this and it usually is dead on with my K1000 but a little off with my D3300. I don't know what that is about. I see these cheap on eBay, don't know if you would recommend these or not for her Gary. I think the D3300 is more precise? Thought I would add a inexpensive alternative that I know works but I am no expert.


 don't know anything about handheld meters that's sure


----------



## mmaria

gsgary said:


> Foma films from the Czech Republic are great you should be able to get them, lots of film in Germany I buy I film called Orwo that I buy at 100 feet and roll my own



just checked their website... I'll ask about shipping 

The guy from the photo club told me that they buy the film from Germany. They have Agfa APX 100 for 7,44 $ so I'll buy a couple from them... They develop films within the club but currently they have troubles with the space so...


----------



## timor

Marina, do you have iPhone ? There is an app for light metering for it. Some say it's good enough for starters.
I am also from  East Europe. Are you inside EU ? Nevertheless most stores will probably ship to you anyway.


----------



## 480sparky

timor said:


> Marina, do you have iPhone ? There is an app for light metering for it. Some say it's good enough for starters........



There's several for Androids as well.


----------



## timor

480sparky said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marina, do you have iPhone ? There is an app for light metering for it. Some say it's good enough for starters........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's several for Androids as well.
Click to expand...

O ! Nice !


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foma films from the Czech Republic are great you should be able to get them, lots of film in Germany I buy I film called Orwo that I buy at 100 feet and roll my own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just checked their website... I'll ask about shipping
> 
> The guy from the photo club told me that they buy the film from Germany. They have Agfa APX 100 for 7,44 $ so I'll buy a couple from them... They develop films within the club but currently they have troubles with the space so...
Click to expand...

Agfa APX is a great film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## limr

Yup, I use an app on my Android and it works just fine.

LightMeter Free - Android Apps on Google Play

and the iPhone version: myLightMeter Free on the App Store


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foma films from the Czech Republic are great you should be able to get them, lots of film in Germany I buy I film called Orwo that I buy at 100 feet and roll my own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just checked their website... I'll ask about shipping
> 
> The guy from the photo club told me that they buy the film from Germany. They have Agfa APX 100 for 7,44 $ so I'll buy a couple from them... They develop films within the club but currently they have troubles with the space so...
Click to expand...


This is AGFA APX100 developed in Rodinal







AGFA APX in the woods


----------



## timor

APX and Rodinal are made for each other.


----------



## jcdeboever

limr said:


> Yup, I use an app on my Android and it works just fine.
> 
> LightMeter Free - Android Apps on Google Play
> 
> and the iPhone version: myLightMeter Free on the App Store


Never knew of such a thing. Cool

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

timor said:


> APX and Rodinal are made for each other.


Is this the stuff I need? I don't think I have ever used it. How much 25-50%... What dilution should one start with for nice contrast? 

Compard R09 One Shot Agfa Rodinal Formula Film Developer - 500ml | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## timor

I used 1:50 on APX 100 in 20 C for about 11 min. But time depends in your exposure. Contrast could be controlled by agitation to hsome extend. But agitation works against accutation. Finding right balance would require few tests.


----------



## Gary A.

I have a penchant for Tri-X and D-76.


----------



## limr

Caffenol, hosers!


----------



## timor

I just drank my cafenol. Cafenol W. ( Coffee and whisky.)


----------



## mmaria

> I am also from  East Europe. Are you inside EU ? Nevertheless most stores will probably ship to you anyway.


no we're not in EU. It's BiH



timor said:


> Marina, do you have iPhone ? There is an app for light metering for it. Some say it's good enough for starters.


I'm not Marina  I'm Marija, nice to meet you  





480sparky said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marina, do you have iPhone ? There is an app for light metering for it. Some say it's good enough for starters........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's several for Androids as well.
Click to expand...




limr said:


> Yup, I use an app on my Android and it works just fine.
> 
> LightMeter Free - Android Apps on Google Play
> 
> and the iPhone version: myLightMeter Free on the App Store


android, downloading right now


----------



## mmaria

gsgary said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foma films from the Czech Republic are great you should be able to get them, lots of film in Germany I buy I film called Orwo that I buy at 100 feet and roll my own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just checked their website... I'll ask about shipping
> 
> The guy from the photo club told me that they buy the film from Germany. They have Agfa APX 100 for 7,44 $ so I'll buy a couple from them... They develop films within the club but currently they have troubles with the space so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is AGFA APX100 developed in Rodinal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGFA APX in the woods
Click to expand...

it's beautiful... what camera? leica?


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foma films from the Czech Republic are great you should be able to get them, lots of film in Germany I buy I film called Orwo that I buy at 100 feet and roll my own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just checked their website... I'll ask about shipping
> 
> The guy from the photo club told me that they buy the film from Germany. They have Agfa APX 100 for 7,44 $ so I'll buy a couple from them... They develop films within the club but currently they have troubles with the space so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is AGFA APX100 developed in Rodinal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGFA APX in the woods
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's beautiful... what camera? leica?
Click to expand...

Yes, limited edition Leica M4P

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## timor

Sorry for misspelling your name. It wasn't me, damn autocorrect.


----------



## 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

DanOstergren said:


> 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

480sparky said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Care to explain why?


----------



## 480sparky

DanOstergren said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to explain why?
Click to expand...


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

DanOstergren said:


> 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

gsgary said:


> Film just cost me


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


----------



## DanOstergren

480sparky said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to explain why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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

DanOstergren said:


> 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.



DanOstergren said:


> ...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.




DanOstergren said:


> .....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.




DanOstergren said:


> 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.




DanOstergren said:


> 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

480sparky said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...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. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

DanOstergren said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...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. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

cgw said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...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. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're playing the poverty card, then that means you're living beyond your means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....I never said "digital costs nothing". I literally said "once you have the gear, it costs nothing to take photos", which is true....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you shoot film, every frame costs a portion of what the film roll cost, in addition to the cost of getting it developed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

DanOstergren said:


> 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

480sparky said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## 480sparky

DanOstergren said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

So you're dismissing film simply because you cannot afford the _additional  _expense. That's like saying riding a bicycle is too expensive because my car costs me enough to drive.


----------



## limr

Oh boys, boys, boys, just calm yourselves!

It's true that digital clearly has costs that people don't consider, and there are digital shooters who spend more money than I can fathom on new lenses, software, accessories, etc. But yes, each frame taken is free. And it's very very clear that Dan has used digital as economically as possible.

And it's also true that film requires a more continuous investment rather than a front-heavy or periodic burst of spending. But again, done carefully and economically, film can certainly be _cheaper_ than those who are loose and fancy-free with their spending on gear, and _as cheap _as someone careful with their digital expenditures.

Dan, I understand your hesitation, and all I will say is that I'm poor as heck and can still afford my film habit, so if you ever do decide to take the plunge and add film to your impressive repertoire, let me know and I'll teach you how to do it all on the cheap  Once you do more digging, you might be surprised at how manageable it actually turns out to be.


----------



## bhop

IMO, you guys are being pretty aggro. This is why digital fans hate us film "snobs".

That said.. it IS cheaper than most people think, but that's mostly if you learn how to develop yourself, which is actually pretty easy. I haven't ever really sat down and compared the costs of my own stuff, but now I think I might.


----------



## spiralout462

So far, film has been significantly cheaper for me.


----------



## DanOstergren

480sparky said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're dismissing film simply because you cannot afford the _additional  _expense. That's like saying riding a bicycle is too expensive because my car costs me enough to drive.
Click to expand...

If I can't afford the bike, should I just sell the car so I can get one?


----------



## DanOstergren

limr said:


> Oh boys, boys, boys, just calm yourselves!
> 
> It's true that digital clearly has costs that people don't consider, and there are digital shooters who spend more money than I can fathom on new lenses, software, accessories, etc. But yes, each frame taken is free. And it's very very clear that Dan has used digital as economically as possible.
> 
> And it's also true that film requires a more continuous investment rather than a front-heavy or periodic burst of spending. But again, done carefully and economically, film can certainly be _cheaper_ than those who are loose and fancy-free with their spending on gear, and _as cheap _as someone careful with their digital expenditures.
> 
> Dan, I understand your hesitation, and all I will say is that I'm poor as heck and can still afford my film habit, so if you ever do decide to take the plunge and add film to your impressive repertoire, let me know and I'll teach you how to do it all on the cheap  Once you do more digging, you might be surprised at how manageable it actually turns out to be.


Thanks for being so kind as usual. I do plan to eventually experiment with film photography. I'd love to get an 8x10 camera and a TLR camera, but I'm just not ready to make any purchases yet.


----------



## 480sparky

DanOstergren said:


> If I can't afford the bike, should I just sell the car so I can get one?



No, you should sell the car and make a down-payment on a Lear jet.


----------



## minicoop1985

So here's what I'm seeing. Once the initial investment is made, the thought is that digital images are free. That can only be true if the camera has paid for itself. With film, there is a small investment in every roll, but the initial investment is usually MUCH less than a digital setup (compare a Nikon F with a Nikon D810).


----------



## Peeb

I grew up shooting film.  

Your whole mindset changes with digital- you have no conscience about clicking as you aren't paying for film or developing.

Is it more costly per image to shoot film?  My instinct says that depends on how many images you care to shoot!


----------



## limr

DanOstergren said:


> Thanks for being so kind as usual. I do plan to eventually experiment with film photography. I'd love to get an 8x10 camera and a TLR camera, but I'm just not ready to make any purchases yet.



Oh wow, I'd love to see what you can do with an 8x10! I think your style plus the qualities of large format images would result in something pretty amazing. And that is definitely going to require some careful financial planning, since the cost of LF is not the same as tooling around with a 35mm and shooting a few rolls here and there for fun. The equipment is more expensive, but so is the film. At that point, though, at least the developing costs could be kept lower since you'd almost certainly have to do it yourself, but then there's the question of scanning. Definitely can seem like a daunting project to take on, even if you did have the funds at the moment!

It occurs to me as I am writing that one factor I haven't seen mentioned in the film-cost calculations is the cost of mistakes. That cost goes down as you become more familiar with the camera and the qualities of the film, but it's definitely something that can increase the hidden costs of starting a film hobby. There's a learning curve and people can burn through film a lot faster than they think at the start. It's one thing to burn through a few extra rolls of 35mm, but making mistakes with medium or large format film is more costly. It's probably cheaper in the long run to start with the TLR (oh, how I love them!) and get used to the way film behaves, and then take on the 8x10 so that you'll be dealing much more with just one variable (learning the equipment) rather than two (equipment + film), and this may result in fewer mistakes.


----------



## pixmedic

Why does everyone seem to  assume that if you shoot digital you are just wildly holding down the shutter button for minutes at a time on every shot with no regard whatsoever for timing or composition? 

Just because someone is using a digital camera does not mean they aren't careful about how many shots they take. 
"Spray and pray" was not invented by digital shooters, they just took it to the next possible level. 


Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Peeb

pixmedic said:


> Why does everyone seem to  assume that if you shoot digital you are just wildly holding down the shutter button for minutes at a time on every shot with no regard whatsoever for timing or composition?
> 
> Just because someone is using a digital camera does not mean they aren't careful about how many shots they take.
> "Spray and pray" was not invented by digital shooters, they just took it to the next possible level.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


If you refer to my post, it's no assumption!  

I am directly comparing experiences.  I've run over 5,000 shutter actuations thru my Nikon since I got it 7 months ago.  Probably a thousand more shots on my iPhone.  I feel that I TRULY AM CAREFUL with my shot selection, but due to technology, I shoot more.  I simply could not afford to pay for 6000 shots worth of film and processing back in the film days.

In other words, in the film days, there were many things I would not allow myself to try due to the financial realities of the medium.  Now I can (and do) try more.

EDIT:  BTW, back in my film days, my general rule of thumb was that if I could get one 'keeper' out of a 36 exposure roll, it was an OK day.  That ratio likely still holds true, but my ability to discern 'keepers' in the field now makes the game a bit different (tho the TRUE story doesn't get told until I'm on a monitor, of course).

Again, back to my original point, if you shoot 500 or 600 images per year, film is probably amazingly cost effective.  10,000 or more per year?  Sounds expensive to me.  Honestly haven't done the math, so someone who REALLY knows, feel free to set me straight


----------



## limr

pixmedic said:


> Why does everyone seem to  assume that if you shoot digital you are just wildly holding down the shutter button for minutes at a time on every shot with no regard whatsoever for timing or composition?
> 
> Just because someone is using a digital camera does not mean they aren't careful about how many shots they take.
> "Spray and pray" was not invented by digital shooters, they just took it to the next possible level.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk



I agree that it should not be assumed that digital shooters just hold down the button and hope for the best. However, as Peeb said, I think it's just inevitable that a person shoots more frames with digital simply because they can. Sometimes they shoot a LOT more frames, even when they are being careful.


----------



## Gary A.

Film used to be free, so I shot the hell out of it, everyday. I shot the hell out of digital, largely because I don't have to stop and reload. Film is no longer free ... if I shot film as often as I shoot digital, I'd have to sell my Lear Jet.


----------



## cgw

How long do dslr shutters/electronics last? Most makers rate them between 100,000-150,000 actuations. Some live longer, others don't. If it's the latter figure, that's a bit more than 4,200 36-exp rolls. Many cameras can hit, exceed or die short of those MTBF figures in 2-3 years. Some owners take depreciation in stride by regularly trading up to newer models in order to avoid breakdowns or to benefit from newer technology. But there are still costs involved. Know any CPAs? If so, ask one.


----------



## Peeb

cgw said:


> How long do dslr shutters/electronics last? Most makers rate them between 100,000-150,000 actuations. Some live longer, others don't. If it's the latter figure, that's a bit more than 4,200 36-exp rolls. Many cameras can hit, exceed or die short of those MTBF figures in 2-3 years. Some owners take depreciation in stride by regularly trading up to newer models in order to avoid breakdowns or to benefit from newer technology. But there are still costs involved. Know any CPAs? If so, ask one.


Or worse- actuaries!


----------



## Derrel

I did some math earlier today. I did the SAME math a decade ago, after having shot $74,000 worth of film and processing equivalent using Ektachrome 100 36exp slide film and good lab developing as the baseline, using a Fuji S2 Pro d-slr that cost m,e $2,400 new.

Today's math went like this:

Fujichrome Provia 100F Professional transparency film is $9.75 per 36-exposure roll from B&H Photo. In a 5-count pack it is $48.75, or $9.75 per roll.

To save yourself hundreds of dollars in bus,train, or gasoline costs, let's use pre-paid mailers to have the film mailed in and mailed back as processed slides, at $10.49 per single-roll mailer.

1,000 images divided by 36 exp. requires 27.7777778 rolls of film (call it 28 rolls)

28 rolls of Provia 100F is $273.The 28 mailers at $10.49 costs $293.72 Slide storage pages for 1000 slides is $12.98 (ignoring filing cabinets/shelving/binders/other storage options).

$579.70 per 1,000 color slides of 100 ISO speed. Let's call that 58 cents per shot.


Now, let's take a $399, 24-megapixel d-slr camera from Nikon or Canon. Let's give it a conservative 100,000-shot shutter lifespan. 100k divided by $399 comes out to a per-shot cost of $0.00399. So, a little bit over ONE-THIRD of one PENNY per shot.

So, that inexpensive 35mm film camera you bought really isn't all that inexpensive when you want to shoot 1,000 pictures.  It will cost you $579.70 per thousand pictures in consumables (film,developing mailers,storage for the film)

So, for 100,000 color slide film images made on 35mm Fujichrome, the cost is $57,970. And 100,000 d-slr images from a Nikon D3200 is $399.

Hard drives to store 100,000 24MP digital negatives and thousands of work/index images? $279 at today's prices.

My computer/software costs per year since 2007 have worked out to a little over $750 per year (Mac tower, then Mac iMac, Lightroom, PS CC). I am a "slow upgrader" though. I realize that the faster, better computers that could shave minutes off of a batch process are still limited by the slowest part in the chain--which is "me",  a very slow, obsolescent, 1963 model.


----------



## cgw

How many here are content with a $399 dslr kit they intend to shoot till it breaks with no additional purchases? "Upgrade" and "investment" are arguably the two most frequently used words used in this site's many equipment discussions. Posters are constantly exhorted to buy stuff that blows their old gear "out of the water." Friends drop stacks of cash annually on gear. Stuff depreciates and breaks. Money lost that way, along with losses on trades and sales to fund those "upgrades," still needs accounting for. Doesn't matter whether the stuff is new or used. You're still spending the money. Cameras are the consumables now and they're not free.


----------



## limr

You make good points, but it's not the whole story and perhaps not a fair comparison. For example, you're using a bare-bones dslr with a kit lens and comparing it to slide film (more expensive) and commercial developing (more expensive.) I'd rather see a fairer comparison: bare bones digital vs bare bones film (bulk loading b&w negative film, home developing). Or do a more real-life comparison and figure in lens upgrades vs a mixture of film types with, for example, commercial C41 developing and home b&w developing.

At the end of the day, only one thing is known without any doubt: we have well and truly hijacked Marija's thread.


----------



## Derrel

cgw said:
			
		

> How many here are content with a $399 dslr kit they intend to shoot till it breaks with no additional purchases? "Upgrade" and "investment" are arguably the two most frequently used words used in this site's many equipment discussions. Posters are constantly exhorted to buy stuff that blows their old gear "out of the water." Friends drop stacks of cash annually on gear. Stuff depreciates and breaks. Money lost that way, along with losses on trades and sales to fund those "upgrades," still needs accounting for. Doesn't matter whether the stuff is new or used. You're still spending the money. Cameras are the consumables now and they're not free.



Yeah,yeah, yeah...for the past few days you have been parroting Thom Hogan articles here. Your comments in this thread sound like maybe you might even BE Mr. Hogan; as some might recall, I've wondered aloud here in the past if you're him. I see you parroting  Hogan's exact phrase, "Cameras are the new consumables".

Say you want a $1,299 camera. That cost divided by 100,000 images works out to $0.01299, or let's call it just under* one and one-third of a penn*y PER SHOT.

Say you want a higher-end Nikon that costs $2,699, then the cost goes up to $0.02699 PER FRAME, so a whopping *two and two-thirds pennies per frame.*

Let's go hog-wild and drop $6,400 on a high-end flagship digital camera, one with the now-standard 400,000-actuation shutters, but let's still just THROW IT AWAY the second it his 100,000 clicks, mmkay? $0.064 per frame fired. So, just under *six and a half pennies per clic*k with that top-shelf big black Canon or Nikon. And remember--we're THROWING THIS THING IN THE GARBAGE at 100,000 clicks.

Now, the 35mm 100-ISO slide film images are costing you $0.05787 each….let's be generous and call that "only" *fifty-seven pennies per click*. We could say 58 pennies per click, but WTF, right?

So, what kind of actual math was that one fellow doing when he challenged us,in this thread, to actually "put pencil to paper"…what was he thinking when he said we were ,"spinning your wheels" if you dare to state that digital imaging costs less than film imaging?

Hogan is full of crap on this point that cameras are a prohibitively expensive "consumable". He needs a serious reality check. He also needs an editor to bounce his crackpot ideas off of before published them on the internet, so he doesn't make a fool of himself by over-exaggerating mythical upgrade costs to the tenth power.

Please enlighten us how 57 cents PER SHOT is so much better a value than under a penny, a penny and a third, or two and one-third pennies, or even six pennies per frame?


----------



## cgw

_Let's go hog-wild and drop $6,400 on a high-end flagship digital camera, one with the now-standard 400,000-actuation shutters, but let's still just THROW IT AWAY the second it his 100,000 clicks, mmkay? $0.064 per frame fired. So, just under *six and a half pennies per clic*k with that top-shelf big black Canon or Nikon. And remember--we're THROWING THIS THING IN THE GARBAGE at 100,000 clicks._

You'd be out the depreciated value. Then you'd buy another camera for the going rate. Quite a hit to the old cash flow, eh? But when did numeracy--or reality-- ever count for much around here?


----------



## Derrel

The idea of comparing BULK-loaded black-and-white film home developed is not a reasonable comparison; a COLOR image from a digital camera can make a gorgeous color image OR a lovely black and white image. Black and white film is always B&W, no color, less-versatile than color slide film.

Color slide film can make a color image AND/OR a B&W image, which makes it well worth its cost.

Color slide film factory-loaded and bought in volume offers a well-sealed film cannister that will NEVER break open when dropped, unlike any type of reloadable cartridges I've ever used. Bulk film is subject to possible scratching, possible light leaks, and so on, at multiple points. I have shot tons of bulk 35mm film, both color Ektachrome and also Kodak B&W films, and have developed literally thousands of newspaper rolls of bulk Tri-X from up to eight or nine shooters per shift in reloadable cartridges...the biggest drawback with reloadables is scratches, light leaks, and accidental droppages causing the reloadable cart to pop open, ruining the entire roll.

I grew afraid to use a reloadable cartridge  for any more than four rolls...after that many uses, they begin to develop bent lips, and light leaks increase pretty badly. This was in both my personal and newspaper use, where we went through film cartridges at a pretty good clip because,well, they are disposable, and have a very definite ability to ruin an entire roll of images very easily.

No...let's compare* like for like*: "virgin" film, known perfect film, with COLOR recording, developed properly, every single time. Color positive film versus Color Positive digital capture. Like for like--with the advantage that the color film can do double-duty and serve as BOTH a color shot OR a Black and WHite shot....in just exactly the same way as digital capture can.

I am trying to do a fair comparison...*somebody else is trying desperately to swing the comparison back toward film*.

There is utterly no conceivable way in this universe that ANY film can be shot for less than a penny, or for two pennies, per shot. No. Possible. Way. Even using a $6,400 professional d-slr camera, and throwing it AWAY once it hits 100,000 actuations, the per-shopt price is just over six pennies per shot.

Digital capture ALSO allows infinite ISO adjustment, at no extra cost; color and B&W films cost more and more as their sensitivity levels go upward. Perhaps somebody missed my ISO 100 film stipulation? If I had wanted to make film appear worse, I would have allotted a significantly larger cost for perhaps 20 percent of the frames, specifying more costly higher ISO film.

I set out to compare* color positive capture* with the potential for B&W conversion FAIRLY, and logically, and not bend over backwards to compare different things in a rigged manner: color slide film versus digital color capture. Like for like, with pretty comparable image quality, resolving ability, color richness, and potential for alternative B&W conversion.


----------



## spiralout462

Frankly if cared one bit how much it cost to take a picture I would be doing something entirely different In my free time.


----------



## Derrel

cgw said:
			
		

> _Let's go hog-wild and drop $6,400 on a high-end flagship digital camera, one with the now-standard 400,000-actuation shutters, but let's still just THROW IT AWAY the second it his 100,000 clicks, mmkay? $0.064 per frame fired. So, just under *six and a half pennies per clic*k with that top-shelf big black Canon or Nikon. And remember--we're THROWING THIS THING IN THE GARBAGE at 100,000 clicks._
> 
> You'd be out the depreciated value. Then you'd buy another camera for the going rate. Quite a hit to the old cash flow, eh? But when did numeracy--or reality-- ever count for much around here?



So, 100,000 images made with a $6,400 digital SLR...is more expensive than $57,970 spent on film? And you question my numeracy? LMFAO pally!

Your inability to actually think is staggering! Perhaps you can find a Hogan article that re-invents the science of mathematics! Hilarious.

Oh....and that second camera to replace the first one...that would garner the photographer yet ANOTHER 100,000 images at roughly six cents each! So, for $12,800 the photographer could shoot 200,000 images, instead of paying $115,940 in film costs?

I'm sorry dude, but the idea of camera as consumable versus the cost of film as consumable is already a done deal...and is why a FujiFilm vice president, Toru Takahashi, told dPreview in an interview recently that the *demand for their film products has fallen to less than 1% of what it was in 2000. 

Digital capture won the battle. *The cost of cameras as "consumables" is insignificant compared against the cost of film and processing and scanning, and will continue to become more favorable to digital shooters as digital cameras get better and better and cost less and less, and as the shrinking supply of film stocks grows smaller and smaller, and more and more expensive. Fuji just cut its film offerings and raised prices.


----------



## allanwelshssony

Stick your hand over half the sky just before shooting..  Ps. It's a wind up, but maybe it's not.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk


----------



## cgw

My sympathies to those made sad and angry here.

Film Diaries: Examining the costs of shooting film vs digital

Put another way, money isn't everything.


----------



## allanwelshssony

A truly beautiful picture is best appreciated when it is hit in one go; Rather than as a result of rapid trial and error. However,  it is  just ego at work, as the casual observer couldn't care less how you created the beauty....but you will always know.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk


----------



## allanwelshssony

I'm skint.  I can buy a decent slr for 15 pounds,  and a number of decent lenses at a tenner each. If the camera breaks, I can buy another for the same price. The experience of photography is achieved for a minimal outlay, with a demand for skill in order to achieve. In short, it is a sport. I enjoy it. 
I find digital photography snobbish and unsatisfying. It is more successful, but involves less of me. I like to feel involved. Even if my involvement is a disadvantage.  
My pictures are mine. Created  with a camera, not by it. Most of them will be crap, but they are my crap and not the result of the whims of the designer of the  micro processor. 

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk


----------



## spiralout462

You are definitely a minority around here!


----------



## timor

Great discussion. Perfect exercise in futility.


----------



## limr

timor said:


> Great discussion. Perfect exercise in futility.



Exactly.


----------



## minicoop1985

Not sure how digital photography is "snobbish"... If anything film can be (looking at you, Hasselblad and Leica enthusiasts), due to the exclusivity associated with certain film cameras (once again...). It's also like vinyl-there's a retro, vintage aspect to it.


----------



## terri

Can someone offer Maria a flower?    

If there's a perfect way to get someone disinterested in shooting film, it's reading threads like these: an endless loop that never take into consideration what the photographer's personal preference is.    Which should trump everything else.


----------



## gsgary

minicoop1985 said:


> Not sure how digital photography is "snobbish"... If anything film can be (looking at you, Hasselblad and Leica enthusiasts), due to the exclusivity associated with certain film cameras (once again...). It's also like vinyl-there's a retro, vintage aspect to it.


I use Leica because they are so nice to use


----------



## minicoop1985

And my rationale for using Hasselblad is the same, but I still feel like there's a lot of "I'm better than you because my camera" going on with those two groups.


----------



## gsgary

minicoop1985 said:


> And my rationale for using Hasselblad is the same, but I still feel like there's a lot of "I'm better than you because my camera" going on with those two groups.


That's because we are better [emoji3] 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## minicoop1985

Oh Gary...


----------



## mmaria

limr said:


> ....
> At the end of the day, only one thing is known without any doubt: we have well and truly hijacked Marija's thread.


Oh yeah for sure







but I'm nice... I don't mind 



terri said:


> Can someone offer Maria a flower?


 yes please thank you 



> If there's a perfect way to get someone disinterested in shooting film, it's reading threads like these: an endless loop that never take into consideration what the photographer's personal preference is.    Which should trump everything else.


yup, clear and concise


----------



## mmaria

In a period of my life when I didn't have money for basic stuff I used to smoke and I had money for cigarettes.... because I won't eat properly, wont buy clothes/stuff/fruits but I'll buy cigarettes. Priorities.

It took me a few years to save necessary money for digital camera I wanted to buy (6D)+ the cheapest lens there is for a full frame camera-pancake lens .... and then it took me some time to buy 85mm 1.8... That is basically all of my equipment. (oh yes, I have a reflector I bought in China, ebay... and everything I want to buy is way more cheaper in USA so I buy it (almost everything) in USA and then wait someone to come and bring me) Until then I was shooting with the crappiest camera which demanded perfect light conditions and I was learning.

I got a film camera from Sparky and now I'll spend some money on films and developing/scanning... How many films and how often will I shoot? Idk, we'll see.

I'll also spend some money for printing 8 8x12 prints for exhibition. (prints aren't as expensive as they are in USA)

I don't know the cost of buying/developing/scanning film or printing frames but I think that when someone really want something he/she will find a way. It doesn't have to be today, tomorrow...who cares when it will be, but It will be.

I definitely see you @DanOstergren picking up a film camera, but when it will be, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> In a period of my life when I didn't have money for basic stuff I used to smoke and I had money for cigarettes.... because I won't eat properly, wont buy clothes/stuff/fruits but I'll buy cigarettes. Priorities.
> 
> It took me a few years to save necessary money for digital camera I wanted to buy (6D)+ the cheapest lens there is for a full frame camera-pancake lens .... and then it took me some time to buy 85mm 1.8... That is basically all of my equipment. (oh yes, I have a reflector I bought in China, ebay... and everything I want to buy is way more cheaper in USA so I buy it (almost everything) in USA and then wait someone to come and bring me) Until then I was shooting with the crappiest camera which demanded perfect light conditions and I was learning.
> 
> I got a film camera from Sparky and now I'll spend some money on films and developing/scanning... How many films and how often will I shoot? Idk, we'll see.
> 
> I'll also spend some money for printing 8 8x12 prints for exhibition. (prints aren't as expensive as they are in USA)
> 
> I don't know the cost of buying/developing/scanning film or printing frames but I think that when someone really want something he/she will find a way. It doesn't have to be today, tomorrow...who cares when it will be, but It will be.
> 
> I definitely see you @DanOstergren picking up a film camera, but when it will be, it doesn't really matter.


PM me your address and there will be film on the way to you


----------



## vintagesnaps

Yeah, it's all relative, not just photography related but what anyone spends their money on. I love shooting with the SX-70 and The Impossible Project film isn't exactly cheap, but for me it's a matter of budgeting for it (so I won't be buying more when another expense is coming up! but I can work it in eventually).

I've been a photographer like, forever, so I'm still shooting film. And don't see any reason not to.


----------



## john.margetts

Derrel said:


> The idea of comparing BULK-loaded black-and-white film home developed is not a reasonable comparison; a COLOR image from a digital camera can make a gorgeous color image OR a lovely black and white image. Black and white film is always B&W, no color, less-versatile than color slide film.
> 
> Color slide film can make a color image AND/OR a B&W image, which makes it well worth its cost.


I do not understand why I would want to go to the trouble of shooting with mono film and then decide I want colour. I do not - I want mono! Again, if I buy an expensive DSLR I would not be using my MX. I like using my MX and do not want to use a plastic automatic camera. I want to have fun.



www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk


----------



## minicoop1985

There's plenty of (expensive) digital cameras that are not automatic.


----------



## john.margetts

minicoop1985 said:


> There's plenty of (expensive) digital cameras that are not automatic.


I have, actually, but it is not an MX!

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk


----------



## mmaria

gsgary said:


> PM me your address and there will be film on the way to you




Seriously?






 ... but what have I done to get it!? 























me happy today


----------



## minicoop1985

john.margetts said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of (expensive) digital cameras that are not automatic.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, actually, but it is not an MX!
> 
> www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk
Click to expand...

You might appreciate an Olympus OM-D then. Or Sony a7.

My Mamiya 645AFD doesn't even HAVE an auto mode. It does have aperture priority, shutter priority, and, of course, manual. That's really it. It's both film AND digital.

There's plenty of film cameras that are fully automatic too.


----------



## limr

minicoop1985 said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of (expensive) digital cameras that are not automatic.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, actually, but it is not an MX!
> 
> www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might appreciate an Olympus OM-D then. Or Sony a7.
> 
> My Mamiya 645AFD doesn't even HAVE an auto mode. It does have aperture priority, shutter priority, and, of course, manual. That's really it. It's both film AND digital.
> 
> There's plenty of film cameras that are fully automatic too.
Click to expand...


I think he knows that


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me your address and there will be film on the way to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but what have I done to get it!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me happy today
Click to expand...

Being a new film shooters I'll help anyone who wants to shoot film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## spiralout462

mmaria said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me your address and there will be film on the way to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> ... but what have I done to get it!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me happy today
Click to expand...


He really is a top notch gentleman!  If there's anything you're looking for from the US let me know.  I'm happy to help as well.


----------



## minicoop1985

limr said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of (expensive) digital cameras that are not automatic.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, actually, but it is not an MX!
> 
> www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might appreciate an Olympus OM-D then. Or Sony a7.
> 
> My Mamiya 645AFD doesn't even HAVE an auto mode. It does have aperture priority, shutter priority, and, of course, manual. That's really it. It's both film AND digital.
> 
> There's plenty of film cameras that are fully automatic too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he knows that
Click to expand...



You never know.


----------



## limr

minicoop1985 said:


> You never know.



Have you looked at his website?


----------



## minicoop1985

No, I can't say I have.


----------



## gsgary

spiralout462 said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me your address and there will be film on the way to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> ... but what have I done to get it!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me happy today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He really is a top notch gentleman!  If there's anything you're looking for from the US let me know.  I'm happy to help as well.
Click to expand...


Some say i'm an asshole


----------



## gsgary

How about 4 rolls of Agfa Vista 200 (rebranded Fuji C200) Don't worry it only costs me £1 a roll
Here's a scan of some ive taken

The Wife and children


----------



## Nobodiya

minicoop1985 said:


> What on earth did you scan that with? Those scans are positively crispy!




"If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets."  !! well said ....


----------



## timor

Nobodiya said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth did you scan that with? Those scans are positively crispy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets."  !! well said ....
Click to expand...

Poetry aside, what do you mean by that ?
In any case, welcome on TPF.












me happy today [/QUOTE]

He really is a top notch gentleman!  If there's anything you're looking for from the US let me know.  I'm happy to help as well. [/QUOTE]

Some say i'm an asshole[/QUOTE]


Nobodiya said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth did you scan that with? Those scans are positively crispy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets."  !! well said ....
Click to expand...


----------



## minicoop1985

My dad used to say that. Rings quite true.


----------



## mmaria

gsgary said:


> Being a new film shooters I'll help anyone who wants to shoot film


  



spiralout462 said:


> He really is a top notch gentleman!  If there's anything you're looking for from the US let me know.  I'm happy to help as well.


 Oh thank you! It feels nice when you hear something like this 



gsgary said:


> How about 4 rolls of Agfa Vista 200 (rebranded Fuji C200) Don't worry it only costs me £1 a roll
> Here's a scan of some ive taken
> 
> The Wife and children


 It sounds good 

Thank you!

Sending pm


----------



## gsgary

mmaria said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a new film shooters I'll help anyone who wants to shoot film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spiralout462 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He really is a top notch gentleman!  If there's anything you're looking for from the US let me know.  I'm happy to help as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh thank you! It feels nice when you hear something like this
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about 4 rolls of Agfa Vista 200 (rebranded Fuji C200) Don't worry it only costs me £1 a roll
> Here's a scan of some ive taken
> 
> The Wife and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sounds good
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Sending pm
Click to expand...


Film is packed and ready to go tomorrow


----------



## gsgary

Posted and should be there in about a week


----------



## 480sparky

gsgary said:


> Posted and should be there in about a week





..................................................

















.


----------



## mmaria

gsgary said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a new film shooters I'll help anyone who wants to shoot film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spiralout462 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He really is a top notch gentleman!  If there's anything you're looking for from the US let me know.  I'm happy to help as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh thank you! It feels nice when you hear something like this
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about 4 rolls of Agfa Vista 200 (rebranded Fuji C200) Don't worry it only costs me £1 a roll
> Here's a scan of some ive taken
> 
> The Wife and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sounds good
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Sending pm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Film is packed and ready to go tomorrow
Click to expand...




gsgary said:


> Posted and should be there in about a week


----------



## mmaria

Guess what I got on Saturday?

Yup, I got 4 films, two cards Gary shot with Ilford,  and I even got something handwritten on the backside ..

Me happy! 

Thank you @gsgary!


----------



## jcdeboever

Pretty awesome of @gsgary


----------

