Film? cause it's easier

<p>I am turning back the clock<br /> I f#$king hate backing up anything...rather keep negatives in a safe place (after scanning - ok so there's a dig bU ...how could I not nail that puppy)</p>

<p>but,</p>

<p>I have spent a year shooting exclusively film...and I love it</p>

<p>I have a Nikon f100, a canon T90, a Canon 620...and many more $20 ebay finds (luv point and shoots at thrift stores provided they are snagged at under $5)</p>

<p>I started bout 16mnths ago...a canon 5dmkii came my way, so I shot 5,000 pictures - yup they all sucked (ok maybe not all of them) but most for sure...then I scored an Olympus $30 point and shoot - shot 2 rolls - WTF...loved the results</p>

<p>so I quit digital...got into Hasselblad...shot another 20,000 images over 12 mnths (Everything film from hass to Canon to Nikon to Holga)....figure I got 5 good pics out of that mess - yup 1 in 4,000</p>

<p>maybe next year i'll get one in 2,000...cause I ain't stopping</p>

<p>ha ha..so, shoot film, it's easier...cause if I stayed on digital...I suspect I would not have been pleased and somehow have missed out on my 5 shots out of 20k</p>

<p>to cost control, I do develop, scan, and print in-house</p>

<p>vertical integration is key to affording an artistic process...</p>

<p>so I'm nutz - right - I know dig is easier on all levels - just wondering if anyone else is as misguided as myself and for what ever reason....wants only to shoot on film (a process I simply could not afford growing up...buy now...it's OK ...hum maybe that's it...finally got what I dreamt of as a kid...but could never afford...'a camera with endless film'....like I said...I fully understand that i'm nutz...but I di think film just looks better...I buy expired and process at home .,..so I'm not looking at film with a snobbish attitude...I just like looking at film...jpegs look like candy...that's all...I f$%ing hate candy)</p>

<p>thought?</p>

<p>Ah, yes, another film versus digital thread. Just what this world needed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"so I quit digital...got into Hasselblad...shot another 20,000 images over 12 mnths (Everything film from hass to Canon to Nikon to Holga)....figure I got 5 good pics out of that mess - yup 1 in 4,000"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure we would all be curious to have a look at those 5 good pictures. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>thought?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure; I think you have expressed your interest quite strongly in the wrong forum. There is a film forum here on Photo.net. I feel sure you will find some like-minded folks there who will agree with you since that seems to be what you're after.</p>

<blockquote>

<h1>Film? cause it's easier</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure...life is always about taking the easy way out, isn't it?</p>

<p>Hard to believe you could not have done better than 1 in 4000 using your Canon DSLR. </p>

<p>He's not the only one who has returned to shooting film. I bought a D80 in 2005 and shot no film at all until 2011. Then, I started using a Brownie Hawkeye Flash that had belonged to my mother-n-law. It was fun! Since then I've bought a number of historic cameras, along with a very nice collection of pre-Civil War and c.1900-1928 lenses for my 4x5. It's really cool shooting with historic cameras! I still shoot with a D7100 for weddings etc., and anything else where speed is important. Another big factor for me is I see $$ spent on modern digital cameras as sort of wasted--they lose value so fast! My 1942 Leica IIIc, 1928 Bergheil, 1951 Rolleflex, 1930 Brownie F will most likely continue to hold their value. Below shot made with a 1904 Brownie No. 2. I have every bit as much fun shooting a $5 Brownie as I do a $1,200 Nikon.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>I really like the mechanically connected feel I get from my film cameras, and for that reason I enjoy using them occasionally. But if I'm after results then there's no question that I'll use digicams because I simply can't be bothered with the process of film. </p>

<p>It's really not about film v. digital as much as it is about the derived personal pleasure, sort of like driving pre-computerized cars - not very safe, quite clunky, spends more time in the shop than on the road, and I'll never take it more than 20 miles from home, but boy is it ever fun for Sunday drives:-) </p>

<p>Sarcasm on: ...</p>

<p>Let's see, 5 out of 20000 120 exposures were "good".<br>

Cheapo Ultrafine Plus B&W 100 at PhotoWarehouse = $2.10/roll.<br>

Cheapo 120 development at Wallymart = $4.83/roll. (DIY would be cheaper I'll grant you.)<br>

1666 rolls = $ 11,545.38 which yielded 5 "good" images. :o)<br>

Yep, digital sure does not make monetary sense, nope, not at all.</p>

<p>Sarcasm off: ...</p>

<p>As an old hobbyist, I still do shoot film in 35mm, 120 and some 4x5 for fun and when I care to get back to my roots. But digital sure has a lot going for it, no question about that. Apologies to the "analog" vs. "digital" eternal debaters.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sure...life is always about taking the easy way out, isn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, for the majority, yes.</p>

<p>OK, ok, labelling it "film versus digital" might be a bit simplistic, and sure, everybody should use whatever pleases most (btw, I agree on the "mechanically connected" feel of older cameras - it does feel mighty nice). But... using a F3 instead of a D700 doesn't make my photos better or different. I am still the same photographer with the same lack of abilities. If I start shooting daguerrotypes from now on, I will still be the same.<br>

So, easy way out? Dunno, but start with acknowledging it's the photographer that makes an image, and the choice of tools really does come second.</p>

<p>When I look through the viewfinder and work to find a composition that I think is worth photographing, and when I find the light is right to support a composition that I think is worth photographing, whether my camera has film or a sensor is irrelevant. My apologies to the casual conversation folks on this site who should be reading my response on film forum.</p>

<p>Folks, the OP is pranking you. No, not even a troll--a straight-out prankster. The only conceivable explanation is dry humor or satire when you make statements like, "hot another 20,000 images over 12 mnths ... shoot film, it's easier ... I do develop, scan, and print in-house". Further evidence of joking or satire: "hot another 20,000 images over 12 mnths .... [F]igure I got 5 good pics out of that mess - yup 1 in 4,000".</p>

 

Mr. Music,

 

Good for you. Digital is merely a passing fad anyway. Same as this "color" thing. Black and white film, that's where it's at.

I'm snail-mailing my reply to this thread. After the ink dries. And I

need to sharpen a few more quills.

<p>Let me get this straight. Shooting an average of 55 frames per day, every day, for a year plus developing and printing time and then scanning every image is "easy"? With film and chemical costs around $10K, and the payoff is five images?<br>

This thread doesn't even rise to the level of trolling - it's just silly.</p>

<p>Dagnabbit, I spilt the ink bottle over my parchment. I must needs begin anew to compose my thoughts on this issue.</p>

<p>Where is the off-topic forum when we need it most? That is the only place that spilled ink should be discussed! But since we are discussing it here... what were you doing when you spilled it, dipping some little girl's pigtail in it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film: ...then I scored an Olympus $30 point and shoot - shot 2 rolls - WTF...loved the results<br>

Digital: figure I got 5 good pics out of that mess - yup 1 in 4,000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My conclusion: The low-wage kid who processes your film knows more about how to process an image than you do. In your case, outsourcing the processing/postprocessing is the better choice.</p>

<p>I was reaching for the container of salts of silver in preparation for sensitizing some glass plates when the frilly cuff of my shirt snagged the edge of my snuff box and launched it amidships of my ink vessel. Most inconvenient. The postman is due this hour. I fear my reply to this discussion shan't be ready before a fortnight has passed.</p>

<p>19 responses in under a day while how many photographs posted in that same period go uncritiqued.</p>

<p>This does seem to be what people want to or are able to talk about, claims to the contrary notwithstanding.</p>

<p>I'm heading over to critique a photo.</p>

<p>One gives f#$king photos, the other gives f$%ing ones. I need both.</p>

<p>If it works for you do use it and shoot plenty of film. For those of us who use both, I like the idea of someone using film so keep the prices reasonable.</p>

<p>Fred, objectively, I read nothing more into the OP than a post expressing one man's opinion about his own experience, which he is entitled to, and I found nothing particularly objectionable about it.</p>

<p>In fact I would characterize it as no more than the start to a casual conversation about photography, albeit not very well articulated, which only becomes contentious if one chooses to react negatively. It wouldn't particularly bother me either if I was taken for a fool. </p>

 

<p>I have a strong distaste for film*, in fact, having used it by necessity for over 60 years. However, I LOVE old film cameras and there's no other way to use them than to use film. As I write this, I am now scanning in a roll of film. After I have done that, and it's not trivial, I can then look forward to a fruitful period of "spotting" the debris off the images (even Kodak left flotsam and jetsam on their developed film, I know).<br /> Then, after some transfers, I can finally get the point I would have started at if I had been shooting digital from the start (or Start, as the case may be).</p>

<p>But go to it. I hope optimists like you will keep on shooting film so. like Starvy, film is available for me to shoot in my old cameras.</p>

<p>_______<br>

*The only exceptions were Kodachrome and Polaroid Type 52, which I actually loved.</p>