# Is it advisable for a poor high school student to get a film camera?



## ronnie156 (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm taking a photography course in high school, so I've learned the basic stuff and practiced the techniques a bit using the DSLRs at school. But I really want a camera with manual control so I can practice outside school, and hopefully in the near future, advance to a professional level. 

The problem is I can't even afford a used DSLR kit in online stores, let alone a brand new one that comes with warranty and many other accessories. 

So I'm wondering if it's a good idea to start shooting with a film SLR camera. I've done a bit research on the internet and it seems to be advisable to do so. There're also quite a few deals on ebay selling SLR camera with lens under $50 (models like Pentax k1000, Canon AE-1,etc.). 

Though I'm concerned about the price of shooting and more importantly, cost of self-developing the photos. It would be much more preferable to develop the films the way I wanted, instead of handing them to the store and let someone else to do the job for me. Is it easy to learn how to develop your own films? and is it recommended to spend so much money on developing the photos? (like buying an enlarger, chemicals and the tools for editing)

I know that digital photography will be much cheaper in the long run, it's just that I really can't afford one at the moment, plus people have been saying shooting in film is a good way to learn photography. They said it gives you more discipline and prevents you from developing a dependence on photoshop. 

So can anyone give me some advice? What should I do?


----------



## ann (Apr 17, 2010)

developing film is very easy and isn't really expensive as most of the equipment needed can be bought used on ebay. 

Learning to print takes time and lots of practice to be good which can translate into an expense. Does your school have a darkroom?

You might check out KEH for a used camera, as they are a reputable dealer.

There is the option of doing your own developing and if you have a scanner, to scan the negatives which will then be useable on your computer; however, i am very old school and think darkroom work can be very helpful with future work with digital.

I don't think there is an easy answer here. You might also check to see if a school other than yours has a darkroom class you could attend, usually a class has a lab fee which will certainly help as then you will have only film and paper to buy.


----------



## ronnie156 (Apr 17, 2010)

Thanks for your advice, ann. Yes we have a darkroom in the school, but I'm not sure whether we can use it or not, I'll ask the teacher when I get back this Monday.

As for purchasing the camera, it's a shame that I can't afford anything above $100. I guess the only option for me is to get a kit set from ebay and bear the risks, but thanks anyway.

BTW just wondering is one set of kit lens enough to go a long way? It seems buying a whole package with the camera body + 2-3 lenses is much more economical than buying the body and the same lenses separately.


----------



## ann (Apr 17, 2010)

since you are on limited funds, get a body and one lens and wear that out learning.

start saving, even if it is a dollar at a time, so in the future you will a 'nest" egg to upgrade.


----------



## skieur (Apr 17, 2010)

The other approach is to get a point and shoot digital camer with manual mode and a good telephoto range.  It would be more expensive that a $50 SLR, but no film cost, and you would become familiar with digital faster.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2010)

skieur said:


> The other approach is to get a point and shoot digital camer with manual mode and a good telephoto range.  It would be more expensive that a $50 SLR, but no film cost, and you would become familiar with digital faster.
> 
> skieur



I've got to agree with skieur on this...I would rather have a decent, modern point and shoot digital camera than a 35mm film SLR. The film and processing costs of a $50 SLR will soon be money right down the tubes, for the most part, wheareas with the digital camera you'll have the ability to shoot basically, unlimited shots for almost no extra costs. There's nothing wrong with film or film cameras or shooting with film; the bottom line though is that today, digital images are fairly easy and economical to print--at WalMart,at Rite Aid,at Costco, there is access to superb printing capability in machines made by Kodak and on the Fuji Frontier printers,and today's most common medium,like it or not, is "the digital file". It's simply easier and faster and more direct to capture images digitally than it is using film and then some type of scanning process,and digital makes the "film and proofing" part almost free.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 17, 2010)

The only difference is, film forces you to be careful with EVERY picture you take, and it forces you to learn.  With digital, i can go out and shoot 300 photos and save only ten.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2010)

D-B-J said:


> The only difference is, film forces you to be careful with EVERY picture you take, and it forces you to learn.  With digital, i can go out and shoot 300 photos and save only ten.



I don't agree with that sentiment at all. How is it that film forces one to learn?
Just because there is film behind then lens instead of a sensor does not mean that learning occurs; that is a simply fallacious argument, with no grounding in logic.

Let's say we take 1,000 pictures, 500 with film and 500 with a digital camera; will there be a huge amount of learning with the 500 film shots, and no learning with the digital shots?

Learning in the field of photography is largely about learning how to translate theoretical or conceptual knowledge into a final photograph. Learning is also about *practicing* things like composing, focusing, and timing; with a digital camera, it's easy to practice all those things without incurring large bills for film and processing. Shooting fewer pictures on film versus shooting more pictures on digital--I know which practice and learning routine I think will produce a better-skilled shooter...and it is the routine that involved MORE exposures actually made,reviewed, and analyzed.

As far as analyzing results--digital makes it pretty easy, both with on-scene LCD review and zoom-in, in-camera histogram, and instant feedback,as well as EXIF information for complete technical details. With film, there is a 4- to 12-hour wait time between shooting and seeing any "real" results. I don't really think that film offers as much learning potential as traditionalists think that it does. For those who learn by doing, digital allows a huge amount of "doing" for very low cost, with instant feedback that serves as guidance along the way.


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 18, 2010)

Skieur and Derrel have it right. The P&S will allow him to keep taking shots without the fear of cost. If he has issues now, it will not go away when shooting and he may actually have to stop shooting because of the lack of funds.

Ronnie, there are all kinds of P&S cameras on ebay as well. Make sure you get a card with the camera, and start having some fun.
Also, try to get a camera that has some manual settings.

Good Luck


----------



## stone_family3 (Apr 18, 2010)

Don't forget about Craigslist and freecycle. I managed to get a whole darkroom setup for free off of freecycle. Another thing is if you are with in a year or two of college and are considering photography as a career look at your top colleges and see if they require a film camera for your basic classes.


----------



## Shaneuk (Apr 18, 2010)

I suggest saving for a D-slr, Slr's are good and they produce good images, but they are costly to run, film, developing, etc. 

Save up, it's better have a D-slr will speed up your learning as well. 

You don't have to buy new as well, I have a 450D for sale. You could also look around ebay for for some cheap deals.


----------



## compur (Apr 18, 2010)

ronnie156 said:


> I'm taking a photography course in high school, so I've learned the basic stuff and practiced the techniques a bit using the DSLRs at school. But I really want a camera with manual control so I can practice outside school, and hopefully in the near future, advance to a professional level.
> 
> The problem is I can't even afford a used DSLR kit in online stores, let alone a brand new one that comes with warranty and many other accessories.
> 
> ...



My advice is to buy what you can afford to buy and don't buy what you can't
afford to buy.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Apr 18, 2010)

ronnie156 said:


> I know that digital photography will be much cheaper in the long run, it's just that I really can't afford one at the moment


 
This is another common fallacy.  If you plan to stay competitive and technically relevant you will have to upgrade your digital equipment and software every few years and it becomes cost-prohibitive to repair broken gear.

A good film camera may last a lifetime and will be relevant as long as film and chemistries are available.  One can develop and make a lot of prints for the cost of one modest digital body.

I have bought a number of film cameras, various darkroom equipment, chemistries and a lot of film in the past 6 months and it's only a fraction of what I spent on one mid-level DSLR, a good lens and processing software.  That digital body will be obsolete within a few years but some of my film cameras are functioning perfectly after 40+ years in service.

The "which is cheaper" question is a complex one that absolutely cannot be reduced to "digital will be cheaper in the long run."


----------



## compur (Apr 18, 2010)

Don't be silly.  Everybody knows digital printers are free and ink and paper
grow on trees.  Computers and internet services (to send or post pictures) are 
free too and so is Photoshop. And, of course memory cards, DVDs, external 
hard drives and other storage media fall out of the sky into ones pockets.  
Digital cameras also never become obsolete and always maintain their re-sale 
value. And, all you have to do to get professional digital prints is to take your 
image files into a photo service shop and they'll be glad to give you all the 
prints you want at no charge.  Yep, just buy a digital SLR for $500-$3000 and 
you can shoot all the digital images you want forever without ever paying a 
another dime.


----------



## Phranquey (Apr 18, 2010)

compur said:


> Don't be silly. Everybody knows digital printers are free and ink and paper
> grow on trees. Computers and internet services (to send or post pictures) are
> free too and so is Photoshop. And, of course memory cards, DVDs, external
> hard drives and other storage media fall out of the sky into ones pockets.
> ...


 
:roll:

I print about 1% of what I shoot.

Gimp _is_ free.

Memory is dirt cheap these days.

If you're just learning, archiving is the least of your worries right now.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2010)

compur said:


> Don't be silly.  Everybody knows digital printers are free and ink and paper
> grow on trees.  Computers and internet services (to send or post pictures) are free too and so is Photoshop. And, of course memory cards, DVDs, external hard drives and other storage media fall out of the sky into ones pockets.  Digital cameras also never become obsolete and always maintain their re-sale value. And, all you have to do to get professional digital prints is to take your image files into a photo service shop and they'll be glad to give you all the prints you want at no charge.  Yep, just buy a digital SLR for $500-$3000 and you can shoot all the digital images you want forever without ever paying a another dime.



Uh, nobody said "free" except you in your sarcastic look from a film-shooting POV. Let's look at some current prices, shall we? Some real numbers, not just B.S., okay? Let's shoot 1,000 frames, shall we? Let's price it out, okay?

E200 135-36 Ektachrome Professional ISO 200 $9.95

35mm 36 exposure E-6 slide develop and mount $10.00

1,000 divided by 36 equals 27.7777 rolls. Let's call it 28 rolls, for a total of 1,008 frames with film. 28 rolls of professional slide film costs $278.60 to buy at $9.95 per 36 shot roll, with no shipping costs, no gasoline costs, no travel costs. Processing at $10.00 per 36 exposure roll of slides will run $280.00. So, film cost and developing cost for 1,008 35mm slides is $558.60. That is a little bit over 55 and four-tenth cents PER SHOT with a 35mm film camera.

So, for the cost of a low-end Nikon D40x AND a Nikkor 18-55mm lens, you can shoot and develop 28 rolls of E-6 slide film. Oh, but if you need to pay shipping on the film, add in extra money. And how much money and time will it cost to make all the trips to and from the lab to drop off film, drive home, then drive back,pick up the film, and drive back home? How about when only a few frames are needed? With film, you can shoot 1 frame or 36 frames and the slide developing cost is basically the same. If only 12 exposures are needed on a 36 shot roll , the cost will still be the same for the film and the developing: $19.95 total for the roll of film and the developing and mounting cost; hey, only $1.66 per frame when you need to shoot 12 frames!!! Film is such a great deal!

(Oh, did you want to shoot 200 ISO slide film at 400 ISO? Add the lab's Push/Pull fee of $3.75 per roll)


I bought a FujiFilm S2 Pro d-slr body a number of years ago, and it has shot the equivalent of over $80,000 worth of film and processing. And the camera STILL functions. Cost savings just to create the images, compared with film? $77,501. Sure, there were hard drives that had to be bought to archive the images, and DVD discs to back up the images as well. But nowhere near $77,501 worth of media is or was needed to archive that many digital images. The slide mounting pages, notebooks,and cabinets to house 143,000 35mm mounted slides would probably cost $10,000 quite easily. 

So, one single d-slr body that created roughly 143,000 images, shot over four years, at a cost of $2,499 for the camera; a camera that in today's marketplace, could be purchased new for only $500 or so, due to the huge drop in d-slr prices since 2002. A D40x is easily the equivalent of the S2Pro.
A Canon 7D or Nikon D300s is easily,easily a vastly superior camera.

Yeah, film is economical compared to digital capture. Sure. Right. Oh, and if you want to push-process some slide film, add that $3.75 surcharge per roll.


----------



## Fedaykin (Apr 19, 2010)

Wow Derrel, you sure like to look up and know your stuff before adding to a discussion, that was a very revealing post right there.

As you can imagine I agree on the P&S. You can easily find a decent one with Manual settings(at least Shutter and Aperture Priority) for cheap online, be it used or new.


----------



## ronnie156 (Apr 19, 2010)

Thanks for all your replies. A P&S camera with manual control is a nice idea, but I'd prefer to save up and get a DSLR, rather than changing cameras in a year or so. I'm still unsure if I should get a film camera, though, as I may not have the time and money to spend on developing and printing and all such. I'll keep looking out, but thanks for the advices anyways, I really appreciate it.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Apr 19, 2010)

I assumed from the OP that you would be shooting and developing your own b&w film, in which case the calculus above wouldn't apply.

Film will run $3-5 for a roll of 36 and $100 in equipment and chemistries will develop thousands of exposures.  No need to pay a lab for development or push/pull processing.  You can print or scan what you want if you have access to a lab, darkroom or scanner.

The b&w route is much cheaper than color in film.  But you are obviously limited to b&w unless you want to either pay someone to develop for you.

I enjoy developing film and making prints by hand.  There are still many folks out there that share my interest.  If you think that is something you would enjoy, then by all means go for it.  You will be a better photographer for the experience.  But if you would see the process as a painful chore then don't bother.


----------



## compur (Apr 19, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Uh, nobody said "free" except you



Not true and relax! My post was not aimed at you but at the following post 
by pbelarge in which he/she said:



pbelarge said:


> Skieur and Derrel have it right. The P&S will allow him to keep taking shots without the fear of cost.





Derrel said:


> in your sarcastic look from a film-shooting POV. Let's look at some current prices, shall we? Some real numbers, not just B.S., okay? Let's shoot 1,000 frames, shall we? Let's price it out, okay?
> 
> E200 135-36 Ektachrome Professional ISO 200 $9.95
> 
> ...



Keep your shirt on and read the OP.  He's talking about shooting and 
developing his own film.  Typically this is B&W film which can be bought for 
as little as 2 buck a roll or even less on specials from Freestyle.  I have a 
fridge full of premium B&W film bought at yard sales at an average of about 
0.50/roll or less. 

Yes, he will have to scan or otherwise print them but there are costs with 
either film or digital shooting.  I'm not saying one is cheaper than the other
particularly.  It all depends on how or what you shoot. My earlier comment 
was directed at those who seem to think that shooting digital is free and 
shooting film is expensive which is a common misconception.


----------



## benhasajeep (Apr 19, 2010)

I say go either direction.  

The cheapest up front cost would be a used manual focus slr and a 50mm f/1.8 lens.  Should be able to find that on ebay for $50.  Could even find an AF camera and inexpensive af zoom lens for about that if you watch.

The next option is to look for and pick up a Nikon Coolpix 5700 used on ebay.  This is a point and shoot bridge camera (looks like DSLR).  The nice fact about is, 1 - its fairly inexpensive for a 5mp camera. 2 - it has manual as well as shutter and aperture priority modes.  3 - has a decent range lens on it.  Its really not a bad camera.  I have its older brother the 8700 and still use it on occasion.  And the 5700 can be had for $100 on ebay.

Obviously the digital would be the cheapest in the long run.  But leanring to develope film and prints is a learning experience that will help with your picture taking.


----------



## stone_family3 (Apr 19, 2010)

I'll say this again, if you are going to school for photography in the near future, contact the school and see what they require for a photo degree. They may require you to take a few film classes, if that is the case a manual slr is worth it, you'll have time to get to know your camera as well as practice, practice, practice. Amazon has some cheap prices on film, some local places can offer student discounts on B&W film making them just a few dollars a roll. I can purchase FP4 for only $2 for 36 exposures.

It would really suck for you to go off to college and realize that you need to buy a manual slr


----------



## bhop (Apr 19, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Uh, nobody said "free" except you in your sarcastic look from a film-shooting POV. Let's look at some current prices, shall we? Some real numbers, not just B.S., okay? Let's shoot 1,000 frames, shall we? Let's price it out, okay?
> 
> E200 135-36 Ektachrome Professional ISO 200 $9.95
> 
> 35mm 36 exposure E-6 slide develop and mount $10.00...etc.



Way to choose the most expensive film+developing option to pad your example. :raisedbrow:

The "average" price for non-professional color film (do students need pro film?) is around 3 bucks.  Regular non-pro lab processing with cd scans is around 3 bucks too.  So 6 bucks a roll... that's quite a different result from your slide film options.   Of course, b/w film + developing is even less in the long run.

However, I do agree that shooting film doesn't make a difference in learning, that is if you really 'want' to learn and not just set everything on auto.  Personally, I learned more with digital because of the instant results and not worrying about wasting shots, but once I got the hang of things, I get more shots that I like with my film cameras.


----------



## Double H (Apr 19, 2010)

Aside from all of the usual Peacock spectacle on this forum, I would say go with what is going to give you your best understanding of light and time. I learned on a K1000, and looking back I am very glad I did. It is the fundamentals you must master on ANY camera. From there you can make anything work for your vision, and never back down.
Get to be good friends with your Yearbook Staff, if not become the photo editor. 

Most of all, enjoy shooting and soak up knowledge like a sponge. Hell, there's always someone there trying to wring you out.


----------



## ronnie156 (Apr 20, 2010)

Thanks again. I'm actually not planning to go to a photography school after graduation. I would love to take photography courses outside school though, as long as it's beneficial and affordable. 

I don't know much about film photography. Is it expensive to make your own prints? So we can make prints out of a developed film strip with a scanner if I haven't misread anything.

I've been quite comfortable with digital so far, and I'm certainly interested in film and would like to try doing everything myself. But as I never had any film developing experiences I honestly don't know if I have the time and patience to keep it up. This is one of my doubts about getting a film camera apart from the financial concerns.


----------



## ann (Apr 20, 2010)

leaning to print does take time and practice, which does cost money.  Also, it takes time and patience and if you feel that is something you can't commit to then you have your answer.

yes you can take a strip of negatives and scan them and then make correction in an editing program and print them out.

be aware that if your doing black and white prints unless you have a high end printer the prints are going to have a color cast. It is the nature of the printers and has been a problem for sometime with those that what "neutral black and white prints".


----------



## benhasajeep (Apr 20, 2010)

ronnie156 said:


> Thanks again. I'm actually not planning to go to a photography school after graduation. I would love to take photography courses outside school though, as long as it's beneficial and affordable.
> 
> I don't know much about film photography. Is it expensive to make your own prints? So we can make prints out of a developed film strip with a scanner if I haven't misread anything.
> 
> I've been quite comfortable with digital so far, and I'm certainly interested in film and would like to try doing everything myself. But as I never had any film developing experiences I honestly don't know if I have the time and patience to keep it up. This is one of my doubts about getting a film camera apart from the financial concerns.


 
If your not going to keep your photography education going.  I suggest picking up a good point and shoot.  Buying into a DSLR system may be a waste of money.  Once you learn more and figure things out in a couple years then buy a DSLR that you know you want.  Buying one now (even your mother) may not be the wisest move.  Nothing wrong with a point and shoot camera.  Just don't settle for those over priced ones at department stores.  You can find amazing deals on used ones.  For less than the cost of just the cheapest DSLR body you can pick up the best, top of the line Point and Shoot.  Don't discount them because they are not a fancy DSLR.  And the fact is your looking at buying the cheapest DSLR!  And your still going to need lenses for it!


----------



## dtjester (Apr 21, 2010)

Film SLR gets my vote. I have a D-SLR and several film SLRs. In my personal experience, I much happier with the results that I get shooting film, developing in my bathroom, and using an old enlarger. 

The arguments for or against film/digital go on and on and on and on, and obviously there are people on both sides who will never have their mind changed. I like film, I feel like I am a more discerning photographer using film and my D-SLR sits at home MOST of the time, except when convenience is key. 

Also, you don't HAVE to be able to enlarge to enjoy film. Buy the gear to develop at home and buy a scanner or have your negatives scanned.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 22, 2010)

Ronnie, stick with Digital.  When the time comes for you try film, you'll know it.

If you stick with photography there *will *come a time but if you are worried about the cost that time is not now.  You can save enough for either type camera but if you have trouble saving to buy film and then have to put the film back until you can afford to have it developed you will quickly tire of the whole process simply because you can't do it when you want to much less see what you have done.

Digi is your answer for now.

Good luck and Good Shooting!


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 23, 2010)

P&S digitals have tiny tiny sensors, which means very limited DOF options resulting in "shapshot" looking photographs.


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 23, 2010)

Derrel said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > E200 135-36 Ektachrome Professional ISO 200 $9.95
> ...


----------



## coreduo (Jun 13, 2010)

I work on minimum wage, $8/hour. I aspired too for a camera as a poor factory worker. What did I do to be able to afford the perks? I worked 12-16 hours a day, on weekends, 8 hours a day. I still have money left for vices like beer and cigarettes. Because of my work ethics, I now earn 14 dollars/hour. My boss gave me 1 dollar increase/hour/year.

To commies who are skeptical, ask yourselves, how much does a Chicom earn in China? How many hours is he allowed to work.How much can he afford to buy? (I am not demeaning anybody. But the commies are stubbornly invoking Maoism in the Philippines). Life is hard. Where can you find work that is not hard. Even in communist countriers, work is hard if not hardest. We remain salaried workers under communism if Obama succeeds in turning America into one. So there is no argument against capitalism. Take those Filipinos in Toronto, Canada as examples. They work hard, pool their resources as members of the family. In 5 years they buy their houses in CASH!!!Then the remaining members take their turns and buy each others' houses again CASH!! Pray unceasingly to able to obtain what you want.."Surrender yourselves to economic and health uncertainty" That is what the Bible commands us to do..."Ask and it shall be given"-God AND DO NOT ENVY THOSE WHO ARE FAR RICHER THAN YOU. THEY HAVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN WE HAVE....THEY PAY TAXES TO FUND OUR CHILDRENS' EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THEY ALSO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT THROUGH TV ADVERTISEMENTS...AND BECAUSE OF THE UNPREDICTABLE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET, THEY ARE NOT ASSURED OF THEIR PROFITS WHILE THEY SATISFY THE WANTS OF  THOSE CAMERA ENTHUSIASTS WHO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS..


----------



## stephen.2308 (Jun 13, 2010)

Well, i was recently in this same predicament. the first thing i did was ask my instructor what he thought was best. he made a few suggestions, none of which were in my price range, so i then searched the internet. after some research i decided that i wanted to get a Minolta XG-M. i bought mine on eBay for $30 (including shipping) and since then i have added two fantastic lenses to my set up and i have still spent less than $100. i guess the point im trying to make is that you can find great options by just looking around and keeping an eye out.
Also, i feel that film cameras are great for hobbies and learning, it gives you a greater appreciation for the work that actually goes into photography.


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 14, 2010)

Yes, it's advisable but paper is expensive. If you're talking B&W, that is.:er: And if you're talking Fiber...:lmao::er: Your bank account won't make it out alive. Film is a great learning experience especially if you're DIY and make sure your camera is a DSLR and if you haven't already, learn to shoot *manual*(ly)! Fiber based paper is expensive, but I suggest getting the 100 8x10 packs, it's the best deal in the long run. But if you're just starting out, which I guess you are...RC is your best option and it's much cheaper. Does your high school have a lab? Is there a University near by that would allow you to use their lab? I know enlargers are very expensive, at least that's what my Professor said, but I think it depends on the brand. I know nothing about having a darkroom in your house, though. :\ I'm guessing it'll be expensive.

----------

If you're talking about *learning* with film, your best bet is an SLR, but if you're too pressed for funds and think you're going to be shooting digitally more and can't get a DSLR, get a good semi-manual P&S until you can upgrade. I suggest any of the Canon Powershot SDs. [:

I also suggest getting a summer job?? What grade are you in? Idk how it is in Canada but here, HS kids get out at 2:30, plenty of time for a job, so maybe you can get a PT job to help with your dilemma.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 17, 2010)

Great advice Sbuxo, but Ronnie156 has left the building.  (you can check by clicking on their name in red above their avatar and then clicking find other posts by...)

So anyway, have you found a dance hall or theater to borrow in their off hours?


----------



## MushiiPeas (Jun 17, 2010)

I'm at college at the moment and my teacher is really happy to let me use the dark room. I think your tutor will be okay with it as long as you really want to pursue it longer than just college and they can trust you. What college are you at?


You could get a weekend job and save up.... all the hard work will be rewarding.

The only thing with digital is my friend will take a 'okay' photo and just go "oh i'll edit it on photoshop later" and i'm sitting there thinking why didn't you just take more time setting that one up but as long as your care about your photo's it's good.

I'm saving up at the moment for d-slr and i'm going to do a little happy dance when i have enough.


----------



## JR Davis (Jun 17, 2010)

Shared this info with my wife's photography class, which are vocational students, most cannot afford a new dslr, great ideas.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 17, 2010)

In my opinion film is the best choice for several reasons, most of which have already been discussed here. With film, you will take more time with the shot because you CAN'T fix it in PS and that will give you a better understanding of what it will take to make a good shot. Film can be relatively inexpensive to develop. I bought a Paterson daylight developer tank off ebay for $15 and a change bag for $8. Chemicals are not that expensive and some can be reused. There are even more corners you can cut like using water instead of stopbath. There are literally hundreds of sites on the web that can point you in the right direction like this one, Build a Film Developing Kit for Under $50

The end to all this is simple. If you are motivated, want to learn and don't mind a little work film is the way to go. It can be a fun hobby that you can enjoy for years to come and it can help you to be a better photographer if you end up going digital. 

Another plus for film, you will still be able to take pictures of the end of the world when all the dslr's stop working because of EMP from and upper atmosphere atomic blast


----------



## MushiiPeas (Jun 18, 2010)

guitstik said:


> . Film can be relatively inexpensive to develop. I bought a Paterson daylight developer tank off ebay for $15 and a change bag for $8. Chemicals are not that expensive and some can be reused. There are even more corners you can cut like using water instead of stopbath. There are literally hundreds of sites on the web that can point you in the right direction like this one, Build a Film Developing Kit for Under $50


 
Thanks for that link, i though it would be really expensive to develop my stuff at home but now i know it won't be i'm gonna see if my mum will let me dunno how she feel about chemicals at home. :mrgreen: :thumbup:


----------



## UUilliam (Jun 18, 2010)

My advice,

If you are going to do it for yourself, why not.

Id you are doing it for the course, I would say no, Dark room unfortunately is dying out, I am going into the last year that my college is using the dark room (the college was only built last year!!!! so they got a dark room to use for only 2 years!)

I cannot wait to use the dark room, been in it and the feeling was euphoric

I say, go get a part time job, and save the money for a used DSLR and a lens or 2
that Is what I done.


----------



## Vautrin (Jun 18, 2010)

UUilliam said:


> My advice,
> 
> If you are going to do it for yourself, why not.
> 
> ...




You know I don't think dark room will ever completely die out -- you'll always have the hold outs.

You'll always be able to buy chemicals and film from somebody out there


----------



## D-B-J (Jun 18, 2010)

Hey, i'm a highschooler too, and iknow how hard it is to get a camera.  I saved for about 6 months, and worked my a$$ off to get enough money to buy my camera. I Got a beautiful used d200 for 600 bucks, WITH a lens.  Granted, thats not cheap. But after six months of hardcore saving, it was worth every penny.  Then i saved and worked for another three months to get another lens.  Digital is expensive upfront, but my 105mm 2.8 micro is probably ten years old, and functions beautifully on my camera.  Don't bother buying new.  

It took alot of saving, but was worth it. so, SAVE SAVE SAVE


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 18, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Uh, nobody said "free" except you in your sarcastic look from a film-shooting POV. Let's look at some current prices, shall we? Some real numbers, not just B.S., okay? Let's shoot 1,000 frames, shall we? Let's price it out, okay?
> 
> E200 135-36 Ektachrome Professional ISO 200 $9.95
> 
> ...


Or, you could shoot 

short dated C41 film, about $2.00 a roll, 
process it in your kitchen sink about $1.60 a roll
Scan and proof (cost depends on what you have, or have access to) worst case is $3.00 to $4.00 for proofs, 4.68 from costco and the like @ .13 each 4x6.

One stop push processing, cost you 30 seconds, no more money. 2 stops, 45 seconds, still no money. Want to play with acceleration? No more money, other than the cost of your B&W developer. Cross processing? costs you no more, in fact it could be less if you find out of date E6 film inexpensively. As an art major, the ability to have that kind of creative control is very powerful. Depending on your creative bent, you can find materials inexpensively, if you are willing to look.

Want to shoot transparencies? Walmart offers send out E6 processing for around $2.00 a roll, far from the $10.00 mentioned above. There are many sources for short dated E6 film as well, I have never paid more than $2.50 a roll for either 35mm or 120 film, either E6 or C41. If it's been refrigerated, and you store it in the freezer, you will be fine. (just ask my wife, we have an entire freezer, just for film. When we get low on a particular type, we buy a few bricks to replace it)

so to summarize, using the same 28 rolls referenced above (assuming you print 50 8x10's at costco for $1.49) :

                     C41:            film cost       $70.00; processing    $44.80;prints          $74.50 for a total           $189.00      

E6: Film Cost $70.00; processing (walmart)$56.00 for a total of $126.00

As an aside, E6 film is the worst film to shoot when starting out, with very limited dynamic range, the extreme exposure accuracy needed and limited printing options (Ciba is just too damn expensive these days, leaving scan and print, or internegatives)

After proofing, you can decide which prints to actually print, either yourself or go to costco/wally world and pay around $1 for an 8x10. (I prefer using the studio's Frontier for scan, proof and printing, as it cost me $0). 

Add to the cost the camera of your choice, I have used F3's for years, an F3/MD4 combo is about $200, add a couple of mid range AI lenses for a hundred or so each and you are still far and away ahead of what you would be shooting digital. Now if you were getting paid for the job and needed fresh, color matched rolls, then yes, $10 a roll is fine, as you typically expense film and processing costs anyway. (or you should be directly or indirectly.)

This is just my opinion, I shoot both and still find film to be less expensive, even at 10 exposures per roll on 120 film. The key is having a clear vision of what you want before you shoot, as well as having the skill and familiarity with your equipment to make it so. 

Some do, some don't. Without exception, every one of my fellow students will wander around an object shooting away, then decide later. I prefer to wander around, find the viewpoint I prefer or have envisioned, shoot one or two exposures and move on.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 18, 2010)

UUilliam said:


> My advice,
> 
> If you are going to do it for yourself, why not.
> 
> ...




That's interesting, as of the 5 schools I am looking into for grad work (starting early, never hurts to get to know the faculty and selection committee members early), every one of them has either renovated and upgraded their facilities, or totally gutted and renewed them. Every single one had at the least a 20" RA4 processor, with one having a larger one. 

I guess it really depends on what level you want to work at, and whether it's incidental to your major or your major.

erie


----------



## dak1b (Jun 21, 2010)

film will cost you more than digital. i'm just starting to learn how to shoot film. excited for the journey ahead!!! good luck on ur choice!


----------



## Vautrin (Jun 21, 2010)

dak1b said:


> film will cost you more than digital. i'm just starting to learn how to shoot film. excited for the journey ahead!!! good luck on ur choice!



no, a film camera costs less up front then a comparable dSLR, but you get charged each frame you take for the film and developing.

i got a pentax k1000 with a 50mm prime lens for $40 that takes much better pictures then my $800 olympus evolt + pancake lens

i can find plenty of used lenses for my pentax for under $100 but good luck finding that for the olympus.

BUT every shot taken on my olympus is essentially free, while the photo store takes my money every time I take a shot with my pentax.

Of course, as other posters mentioned how you shoot your film helps determine costs too.  Shoot expired b+w film you develop yourself and it'll take you a long time to have spent the same amount as a dslr.  

Shoot E6 film you bought (and developed and framed) at a "camera shop" that specializes in gouging people like, say, Ritz Camera (not to be confused by a mom and pop camera shop run by people who care that might actually give you a good deal), and yes film will get very expensive very quickly


----------



## Vautrin (Jun 21, 2010)

And might I add real film is interesting to shoot because it gives you a feel for where photography has come, and I think choosing to shoot film sometimes has made my digital photography better


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 22, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Great advice Sbuxo, but Ronnie156 has left the building.  (you can check by clicking on their name in red above their avatar and then clicking find other posts by...)
> 
> So anyway, have you found a dance hall or theater to borrow in their off hours?


:lmao: nahh, i haven't looked. I'm working full time now, probably in the fall I'll try.


----------



## MagicLantern (Jun 29, 2010)

Hi Ronnie,

The digital vs. 35mm debate is completely a style choice and you shouldn't listen to any "facts" stating one is really superior to the other.  

Getting an inexpensive 35mm SLR is an excellent idea if the idea of darkroom action, chemistry and being a bit old school appeals to you.  Darkrooms are some of my favorite places on earth, and if you live near a college or in a big city you can find places where you can rent them by the hour.  You can also get the used equipment for a real bargain.  I have a personal preference for 35mm.  I simply think it is more beautiful.

The advatage of digital cannot be ignored and you can get good results on a regular, inexpensive digital camera.  You cannot learn to work with different lenses though, so I would not call it a real "professional" learning situation.  If you like the immediacy and digital editing options, then this might be the direction for you. Bear in mind that   Photoshop sure isn't cheap and you will want to get it!

All in all, it's a personal call and, I assure you, both are very possible and within cost range if you are creative about it.


----------



## MagicLantern (Jun 29, 2010)

Aww man, I hadn't read this last page.  Sorry everyone!


----------

