Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
Mahmoud Mousef
Senior MemberPosts: 2,363
Like?
Re: Nikon Dino
In reply to The Davinator, Apr 15, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Interesting comments on high cost.  Can you point out where I can get a FF digital camera for $100?  Maybe I missed where you can pick up a camera with a good 60 to 70 mp of resolution and 14-17 stops of DR for $600....I have apparently missed it.

Can you imagine omitting processing costs in your cost analysis?

Can you imagine front loading your processing costs to get a FF camera.  If someone shoots a roll a week...and believe it or not, the average person snaps less photos than that....

I'm sure any figures about this are debatable, and I bet film users take lots less (unless they are being paid for their work) but let's not get into this.

* Taking out a roll after you've done a few shots? How practical is this to capture precious moments without fiddling with the camera? Kids running around. Animals. What do you shoot?

* Not being able to see how things turned out after the shot; after setting up lighting, or checking if a shot is blurred with a long telephoto or low light or high speed? How practical is this with film?

I can go on and on. I'm OK with people finding their niches and enjoying film. But to me it would take out so much of the enjoyment of shooting I just wouldn't do it, even if I bought a cheap film body. Of course not everyone is going to feel the same and that's fine.

it amounts to between 400 and 500 dollars a year.  Now FF bodies go for in excess of 2000....

You've found some good second-hand deals and done your cost/benefit analysis. Good for you. I would miss digital too much and pony up the costs, if full-frame was on my needs list. In coming years, these prices will just continue to fall anyway, so the situation will be different again.

So that's 5 years of use paid for up front.  Then after 5 years....guess what happens....you spend more to upgrade.....and it starts all over again.

As a professional shooter, my film costs me nothing....I just add it to the costs of the packages.

Sorry...you simply don't understand the topic....best to move on.

What makes you think I don't understand the topic?

You have done your cost analysis, and that's fine.

Film fills some niches; no doubt about it.

My point stands though: if it were intro'd after digital, it would be laughed off by enthusiasts and the masses alike. It can have some cost benefits in certain niches (largely due to it being phased out in most circles, and a long history of manufacturing and refinement). It can have some performance benefits under certain shooting situations and can give the results some people are looking for.

And I guess you can do some things more cheaply in certain circles. In my opinion, there are heavy convenience penalties to pay but that's not on everyone's priority list, necessarily.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow