Let's tilt this in film's favor. The user spends $5000 on digital camera bodies every 2 years, and sells the old bodies for 30% of cost. That works out to $1,650 per year.
Next, we assume you already have multiple high-quality film bodies, never need a CLA or repairs, never need replacements, never buy any film cameras for the fun of it.
So far I'm with you, as I have multiple high-quality film bodies that have not needed repair. I do buy film cameras for the fun of it but most cost me <$50.
How many rolls of film is that? Let's say you shoot half color print film, half B&W which you process at home, and no slide film, and your typical cost (including storage) averages $15/roll. The break-even point is around 110 rolls.
I shoot exclusively B&W and the last time I did the math I was spending 24.3 cents per frame, or just under $6 to shoot, develop and scan a 25-or-so exposure roll (I bulk load). That was for HP5 and FP4 -- my latest 100 ASA purchase was Kentmere. I haven't done the math but that'll bring me down to around $5.35 per roll. That's with D-76 developer by the way -- I also use HC-110 which is about 25 cents/roll cheaper.
But let's go with the high figure -- $6. $1,650 would pay for 275 rolls -- that's more than 5 a week.
I don't shoot nearly that much -- I average about a roll a week. So what that hypothetical digital photographer spends per year on gear would keep me in film for over 5 years... with about $100 left over to buy a couple of 35mm cameras or get one CLAd.
Or 4 years and $100+ worth of gear for each of those years... which is about right.
opportunity cost, as you're not taking the shot.
I don't see that as a cost -- actually I see it as a benefit, having spent hours sorting through spray-n-pray sessions and asking myself "Why did I take that boring shot?"
You're also spending lots of time developing and scanning your film.
Yes -- and to me that is part of the pleasure of the hobbt.
By the way, I'm pretty sure the people who constantly buy new digital cameras are the same type of people who constantly buy film gear too, yes?
No -- because I'm the type who buys lots of film gear but doesn't constantly buy new digital cameras! *g* My digicam is my 6-or-so-year-old Sony a6000. If $$ was no object I might replace it with an A7C, only because it's more useful for adapting my 35mm lenses, but generally I don't change digital cameras unless the old one breaks or is not doing what I need.
With 35mm film, you're stuck with one ISO and type for multiple exposures.
True, but I generally travel with a second camera body.
The camera doesn't measure or adjust white balance. Many have only manual focus or primitive autofocus; same for motor drives. Most don't have multiple exposure modes, or auto bracketing, or focus stacking, or aspect ratio crop in the viewfinder. Only a handful of film cameras have primitive stabilization. If you aren't proofing with a Polaroid, you can't check your exposure. If you shoot B&W film, you can't do things like add a red filter in post. The list goes on.
None of these are disadvantages to me. I mostly shoot B&W, so WB isn't an issue, but when I do shoot color, I am generally after a certain look -- and BTW you can balance color neg, it's done in printing or scanning. I know a lot of photographers rely on automation, but to me, that's not fun -- I like using the skills I developed shooting film.
Meanwhile, you can easily choose to work slow, limit yourself to 1 ISO, 1 color profile, manual exposure, manual focus, and no exposure preview with digital. If that's how you want to work, and you don't use your gear that way, that isn't the gear's fault.
All true, but digital still can't emulate the film workflow. I enjoy the whole experience -- the ritual of loading film, the reliance on exposure and skill, the feel of the old gear, developing, the whole nine yards. To me, digital is a more results-oriented medium. I enjoy digital because it's a good tool for what I like to do with color photography, but the whole point-click-peek thing is unfulfilling to me. I do use manual focus lenses on my Sony, but it just isn't the same experience.
Harder = Less Practical. QED, yes?
Having recently helped shoot a wedding with a D850 (and also using my old Ricoh KR-10 and Mamiya C330), no, harder does not mean less practical.
I've seen plenty of digital and analog prints in my time, and I have no qualms saying that 50mp cameras match 4x5 sheet film
I try to avoid this argument since I've never experimented myself, but for the folks who have tried it, I believe the consensus is that FF digital can just about approach fine-grain 6x7 (mm) medium-format film and digital MF (80 MP? not sure) falls shy of fine-grain 5x5 (inch) sheet film. But you might be right. Personally resolution is not a reason for shooting film for me, so I don't much care -- but since 8x10 is still commonly available, we can't say that digital has higher resolution than film. Not yet, anyway!
The film has to be made somewhere, using large amounts of fairly nasty chemicals, and is sent to you in little metal containers inside little plastic containers that get thrown away.
The canisters are plastic and recyclable now as, of course, are the metal cans. I bulk-roll so the only trash are the boxes and the film centers, both recyclable, and the light-proof bag which I don't believe is.
Kodak had to set up a $50 million cleanup trust, and promise to pay more, when it went bankrupt in
I'm a former resident of Rochester, NY, and while I don't know all of the details, I do know that one of the buildings that was a major part of the cleanup was used to manufacture parts and machinery and I believe another was a disused gas station, with tanks causing the problems.
Film manufacturing was at Kodak Park, which was a contamination site -- I honestly don't know if that was related to film or not. Kodak manufactured a lot of things in the Park, including copiers and cameras, and had its own railroad. I do believe they dumped pollutants into the Genessee River -- Kodak Park was first opened in 1890 and has been manufacturing long before environmentalism was a large-scale concern.
Were photographic films to blame? I honestly don't know -- Ilford might be a better company to consider, as I believe film was all they made. Ilford goes back to 1879 and I don't know if they've been nailed for toxic cleanup or what.
Funny how most people use the "young people" argument as evidence that film is booming.
And no one seems to have any real numbers.
Well, Kodak and Ilford do -- and we know the numbers are high enough for Kodak to bring products back into production and for the Polaroid company to be relaunched. Last hard numbers I read (about 5 years ago) Fuji's Instax cameras outsold their digital cameras and the business was growing while digital camera sales were shrinking.
Anyway, my comment was not age-specific, and was oriented as much at clients as photographers.
Totally get that. And I understand that digital makes way, way, way more sense for pros than film -- though apparently there are some film wedding photographers doing pretty well.
What makes a photo great is the selection of the subject; the composition; the tonality, and so forth. I.e. it's the photographer, not the gear, that is responsible for a great image. None of that changes by using an analog camera.
We 100% totally agree -- and I also agree there are no changes between digital and analog. A great photographer can get a great photo using any gear.
Me, I think the journey is as important as the destination.
t "coming back." Like vinyl, it's a shadow of its former self.
Actually, it is. The market bottomed out about 15 years ago -- but now it's growing, to the point that Kodak is bringing back emulsions it had discontinued.
Again, I seriously doubt those types of claims
You doubt the claims that Kodak is bringing back old emulsions? Well, it's true -- Kodak relaunched Ektachrome and T-Max 3200, and has hinted at another return but hasn't said what.
The only data point I'm seeing is that Kodak's revenues collapsed years ago, did not recover, and are still mostly drifting down.
Kodak manufactured a lot more than film, and that fueled their collapse. They had the opportunity to break into digital and missed it -- too busy doing other things, I suppose.
Countless millions of unskilled photographers used film for decades. Point, click, shoot, drop off film, boring.
Correct -- the P&S camera. Or the autofocus, autowind SLR. I don't use those cameras much for that very reason -- taking photos is a bit of a snoozer, like digital.
And again, if you want digital photography to be hard? No problem. Use prime lenses, manual focus, manual exposure, tripod, turn off the screen, stick to one ISO, shoot RAW.
Can't turn off the screen (I use a MILC) but I have tried all of the other things. To me (and I realize I am in the minority), it still isn't as interesting as using film.
JFK wasn't saying that "we should make it harder to get to the moon." No one thinks that NASA engineers today should use slide rules instead of computers, because "hard is better than easy."
Of course not. But he made the point that it's worth it to take on something challenging, because the challenge has rewards. And that's how I think of film photography!
Thanks for engaging with me and continuing the conversation. I don't agree with all of your points, but I appreciate where you are coming from and enjoyed reading and replying.
Aaron
