How many still shoot film?

Started Sep 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rexgig0 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,905
Re: Digital is not so inexpensive!

ADMint wrote:

Rexgig0 wrote:

I have seen several mentions of the expense of film, compared to digital. While this is true, to an extent, it ignores the substantial expense of a computer, a truly capable monitor, software, digital media storage, and such. We are looking at the acquisition of a new computer, or two, some time within the next six to eight months. For our non-photographic needs, we could each be satisfied with something like the 11" Macbook Air.

The limitations of my wife's computer, which had been state of the art not so long before, became painfully apparent when we acquired 16MP and 18MP DSLRs. (Of course, if we wish to digitize our negatives, and then work with the files, a decent computer and monitor will be desirable.)

Then, there are the cameras. I bought my film SLRs as pre-owned, but pristine. My two as-new F6 cameras cost less than a new D800, and a new F6 would have cost hundreds less than a D800, yet the F6 is more like a D2/D3D4-series camera in build quality and ergonomics. The F6 was announced together with the D2x, but the F6 has no digital sensor to become obsolete. The Nikon factory in Sendai still makes a few F6 cameras a year, so support is not a problem. Life is good!

It all evens out eventually. I shot with film up until 10/11 and decided I didn't want to deal with the headaches of finding film, processing and cleaning negatives/slides, scanning, and spot removals.

Then there's the expense of the scanner (I have a Nikon Coolscan LS4000ED) if you plan on scanning and digitizing your images, which BTW requires a computer anyway.

Oh and let's not forget the chemicals and items/equipment needed to process your own film. Or the expense of having someone reputable doing it for you.

Yes, the initial expense in digital photography can be expensive, but it levels off, and from there it just comes down to upgrades every few years.

Anyway in the end it all comes down to convenience and ease with digital photography. Film on the other hand just has that nostalgic look that's just priceless.

My two cents.

-- hide signature --

New to this forum, not to forums!

Quite true! Neither is inexpensive; I just wanted to address the "digital is virtually free" idea that I see posted all too often. I hope my tone is seen as positive; no rant intended.  I use both Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses, and enjoy both film and digital.

-- hide signature --


I wear a badge and pistol, and, primarily with 7D cameras, with 10-22mm and 100mm Macro L lenses, shoot evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, PJ, and occasional action.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +31 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow