Reading mode: Light Dark

If you want just Black & White...

Go to last post
Yes, the Pentax and Leica Monochrom produce beautiful images.

I can't speak for other film shooters, but I prefer film because of the craft. I like mechanical things. I like to mix chemicals and watch prints develop. I like the attention to details when composing and exposing a shot. I like the throwback to the analog era.

Not bashing digital cameras. If my task was to produce a set of B&W images for commercial purposes, I'd certainly use a digital camera.
 
Pentax K3 monochrome is £2000

I can get a Pentax MZ-30 with lens for £20.
I bought my epson v500 for £20
Black and white film starts at £5.5 and dev is £6.

That's 170 rolls of film+dev with the money left over. 37 exposures per roll, that's 6300 images.

And the beauty of that? If I want to shoot colour, I just buy some colour film. I don't have to buy another camera. Also, my inicial investment is £50, so if I decide I don't want to shoot only black and white, I don't have to try to sell a £2000 camera that is very specialised and probably hard to sell.

Financially, unless you're very, very sure you want a camera that only shoots black and white, buying a film camera sounds like a much better option.
 
flektogon said:
But Alex, it doesn't matter how much is the cheapest film camera! The main cost is the film and its processing!
Click to expand...
But you're missing the big point -- if you're shooting B&W, one can shoot a roll a week and spend less $$ than buying a digital camera and upgrading every 4 years.
Aaron
 
flektogon said:
Just look more carefully at the second picture (in the link I've provided), taken at a higher ISO. Its fine grain (consisting only of the luminance noise) is similar what my films (well, much less sensitive) exhibited. Very, very pleasing.

So no, such a digital camera like Pentax K3 mono can deliver as pleasing results as the best films. The only decision, whether to shoot film or digital (like this Pentax) is, whether you want to spend money right the way, or spread it over the time.
Click to expand...
Who makes you the arbiter of spending money "the right way?" We all value different things. Not one person on this board needs a camera to live, so every purchase is made with different personal parameters. Just because you value a monochrome only camera doesn't mean the rest of us do. And some of us just really, really like the process of shooting film.
 
flektogon said:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67814145

Well, this camera is not cheap at $2,200 (in Canada over 3k). For sure it is still 4 times cheaper than the next B&W digital camera made by Leica, but still..

However, if you are "cost sensitive", getting this Pentax K3 monochrome may save you a lot of money
Click to expand...
It's not necessary to use a monochrome digital camera to get B&W results. It can be done with an ordinary digital camera costing far less than that. It's a lot easier to filter a color image for B&W tonal variation, too. I know there are enthusiastic monochrome digital camera users, but I doubt many buy those things with the thought of economy in mind.
 
Last edited:
I can't argue with the main point of the OP that digital, in any significant volume, is far more economical (and flexible) than shooting film by a long shot. When I shoot a wedding I'll easily capture anywhere on the low end around 600-800 frames and upwards of 3000 frames with two shooters. The point is valid.

I shoot both digital (professionally) and film for personal enjoyment. Those who come across as critical to film and film users generally don't understand the attraction. There are multiple reasons depending on the individual. For some, it is nostalgia, for those who are younger and never used film it might be the novelty. For those steeped in the craft it is often the experience, the process, and the challenge (doing it at top levels requires a lot of knowledge, skill, and experience). There's no single reason for film's resurgence and it only adds to the photography community. For me, I'm an outlier- I still shoot film for the craft, the process, the uniqueness (admittedly, differentiation), and even more so, for those gorgeous, large traditional silver-gelatine prints from film that I still make by hand myself in the darkroom. Yes, I am part of a minority even in film circles, but there's a surprising global sub-culture there too.

Why the seeming animosity to film I still don't understand. That animosity isn't explicit or blatant - it is implied in many posts and responses; we can easily read between those lines. We all should embrace every aspect and process of photography - from tin-types and platinum printing to smartphone photography and the most advanced digital technology. It's all good, and being inclusive only makes all of us better, smarter, and stronger in the craft.

Mike
 
Michael Firstlight said:
I can't argue with the main point of the OP that digital, in any significant volume, is far more economical (and flexible) than shooting film by a long shot. When I shoot a wedding I'll easily capture anywhere on the low end around 600-800 frames and upwards of 3000 frames with two shooters. The point is valid.

I shoot both digital (professionally) and film for personal enjoyment. Those who come across as critical to film and film users generally don't understand the attraction. There are multiple reasons depending on the individual. For some, it is nostalgia, for those who are younger and never used film it might be the novelty. For those steeped in the craft it is often the experience, the process, and the challenge (doing it at top levels requires a lot of knowledge, skill, and experience). There's no single reason for film's resurgence and it only adds to the photography community. For me, I'm an outlier- I still shoot film for the craft, the process, the uniqueness (admittedly, differentiation), and even more so, for those gorgeous, large traditional silver-gelatine prints from film that I still make by hand myself in the darkroom. Yes, I am part of a minority even in film circles, but there's a surprising global sub-culture there too.

Why the seeming animosity to film I still don't understand. That animosity isn't explicit or blatant - it is implied in many posts and responses; we can easily read between those lines. We all should embrace every aspect and process of photography - from tin-types and platinum printing to smartphone photography and the most advanced digital technology. It's all good, and being inclusive only makes all of us better, smarter, and stronger in the craft.
Mike
Click to expand...
This should be a sticky post on all articles here about film.
 
Ulrik Christiansen said:
Michael Firstlight said:
I can't argue with the main point of the OP that digital, in any significant volume, is far more economical (and flexible) than shooting film by a long shot. When I shoot a wedding I'll easily capture anywhere on the low end around 600-800 frames and upwards of 3000 frames with two shooters. The point is valid.

I shoot both digital (professionally) and film for personal enjoyment. Those who come across as critical to film and film users generally don't understand the attraction. There are multiple reasons depending on the individual. For some, it is nostalgia, for those who are younger and never used film it might be the novelty. For those steeped in the craft it is often the experience, the process, and the challenge (doing it at top levels requires a lot of knowledge, skill, and experience). There's no single reason for film's resurgence and it only adds to the photography community. For me, I'm an outlier- I still shoot film for the craft, the process, the uniqueness (admittedly, differentiation), and even more so, for those gorgeous, large traditional silver-gelatine prints from film that I still make by hand myself in the darkroom. Yes, I am part of a minority even in film circles, but there's a surprising global sub-culture there too.

Why the seeming animosity to film I still don't understand. That animosity isn't explicit or blatant - it is implied in many posts and responses; we can easily read between those lines. We all should embrace every aspect and process of photography - from tin-types and platinum printing to smartphone photography and the most advanced digital technology. It's all good, and being inclusive only makes all of us better, smarter, and stronger in the craft.
Mike
Click to expand...
This should be a sticky post on all articles here about film.
Click to expand...
But this is the film forum thread, right? All posts should be on film:-)
 
mollyc said:
flektogon said:
Just look more carefully at the second picture (in the link I've provided), taken at a higher ISO. Its fine grain (consisting only of the luminance noise) is similar what my films (well, much less sensitive) exhibited. Very, very pleasing.

So no, such a digital camera like Pentax K3 mono can deliver as pleasing results as the best films. The only decision, whether to shoot film or digital (like this Pentax) is, whether you want to spend money right the way, or spread it over the time.
Click to expand...
Who makes you the arbiter of spending money "the right way?" We all value different things. Not one person on this board needs a camera to live, so every purchase is made with different personal parameters. Just because you value a monochrome only camera doesn't mean the rest of us do. And some of us just really, really like the process of shooting film.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was really attacking digital or film....just showing the benefits of a camera that might look like film. I am a film 'nut'.... have been forever, so I am film all the way thru. But can appreciate digital, if the right kind. It sounds like the Pentax Mono is close (I have no idea as I haven't shot any). I would like to see more examples of this.
 
lmans100 said:
Ulrik Christiansen said:
Michael Firstlight said:
I can't argue with the main point of the OP that digital, in any significant volume, is far more economical (and flexible) than shooting film by a long shot. When I shoot a wedding I'll easily capture anywhere on the low end around 600-800 frames and upwards of 3000 frames with two shooters. The point is valid.

I shoot both digital (professionally) and film for personal enjoyment. Those who come across as critical to film and film users generally don't understand the attraction. There are multiple reasons depending on the individual. For some, it is nostalgia, for those who are younger and never used film it might be the novelty. For those steeped in the craft it is often the experience, the process, and the challenge (doing it at top levels requires a lot of knowledge, skill, and experience). There's no single reason for film's resurgence and it only adds to the photography community. For me, I'm an outlier- I still shoot film for the craft, the process, the uniqueness (admittedly, differentiation), and even more so, for those gorgeous, large traditional silver-gelatine prints from film that I still make by hand myself in the darkroom. Yes, I am part of a minority even in film circles, but there's a surprising global sub-culture there too.

Why the seeming animosity to film I still don't understand. That animosity isn't explicit or blatant - it is implied in many posts and responses; we can easily read between those lines. We all should embrace every aspect and process of photography - from tin-types and platinum printing to smartphone photography and the most advanced digital technology. It's all good, and being inclusive only makes all of us better, smarter, and stronger in the craft.
Mike
Click to expand...
This should be a sticky post on all articles here about film.
Click to expand...
But this is the film forum thread, right? All posts should be on film:-)
Click to expand...
Your comment took me two takes before I got it, and I ended up laughing out loud - very good one!

Mike
 
lmans100 said:
mollyc said:
flektogon said:
Just look more carefully at the second picture (in the link I've provided), taken at a higher ISO. Its fine grain (consisting only of the luminance noise) is similar what my films (well, much less sensitive) exhibited. Very, very pleasing.

So no, such a digital camera like Pentax K3 mono can deliver as pleasing results as the best films. The only decision, whether to shoot film or digital (like this Pentax) is, whether you want to spend money right the way, or spread it over the time.
Click to expand...
Who makes you the arbiter of spending money "the right way?" We all value different things. Not one person on this board needs a camera to live, so every purchase is made with different personal parameters. Just because you value a monochrome only camera doesn't mean the rest of us do. And some of us just really, really like the process of shooting film.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was really attacking digital or film....just showing the benefits of a camera that might look like film. I am a film 'nut'.... have been forever, so I am film all the way thru. But can appreciate digital, if the right kind. It sounds like the Pentax Mono is close (I have no idea as I haven't shot any). I would like to see more examples of this.
Click to expand...
I mean, to me, the statement "whether you want to spend money right the way" is pretty much a thinly veiled judgment against film photography. For some people, who aren't prolific shooters, film can be less expensive in the long run, particularly with a used camera and bw dev at home.
 
lmans100 said:
mollyc said:
flektogon said:
Just look more carefully at the second picture (in the link I've provided), taken at a higher ISO. Its fine grain (consisting only of the luminance noise) is similar what my films (well, much less sensitive) exhibited. Very, very pleasing.

So no, such a digital camera like Pentax K3 mono can deliver as pleasing results as the best films. The only decision, whether to shoot film or digital (like this Pentax) is, whether you want to spend money right the way, or spread it over the time.
Click to expand...
Who makes you the arbiter of spending money "the right way?" We all value different things. Not one person on this board needs a camera to live, so every purchase is made with different personal parameters. Just because you value a monochrome only camera doesn't mean the rest of us do. And some of us just really, really like the process of shooting film.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was really attacking digital or film....just showing the benefits of a camera that might look like film. I am a film 'nut'.... have been forever, so I am film all the way thru. But can appreciate digital, if the right kind. It sounds like the Pentax Mono is close (I have no idea as I haven't shot any). I would like to see more examples of this.
Click to expand...
Of course Jim that I am not attacking either of them, I am just trying to compare them, their benefits, weaknesses, etc. Thanks Jim!

And definitely I am not trying to "ignore" anyone's feeling for working in the dark room. I still remember how I used to be excited whenever was in the dark room (bathroom :-) ). Everything is clearly stated in the title of this thread.
 
Michael Firstlight said:
I can't argue with the main point of the OP that digital, in any significant volume, is far more economical (and flexible) than shooting film by a long shot. When I shoot a wedding I'll easily capture anywhere on the low end around 600-800 frames and upwards of 3000 frames with two shooters. The point is valid.

I shoot both digital (professionally) and film for personal enjoyment. Those who come across as critical to film and film users generally don't understand the attraction. There are multiple reasons depending on the individual. For some, it is nostalgia, for those who are younger and never used film it might be the novelty. For those steeped in the craft it is often the experience, the process, and the challenge (doing it at top levels requires a lot of knowledge, skill, and experience). There's no single reason for film's resurgence and it only adds to the photography community. For me, I'm an outlier- I still shoot film for the craft, the process, the uniqueness (admittedly, differentiation), and even more so, for those gorgeous, large traditional silver-gelatine prints from film that I still make by hand myself in the darkroom. Yes, I am part of a minority even in film circles, but there's a surprising global sub-culture there too.

Why the seeming animosity to film I still don't understand. That animosity isn't explicit or blatant - it is implied in many posts and responses; we can easily read between those lines. We all should embrace every aspect and process of photography - from tin-types and platinum printing to smartphone photography and the most advanced digital technology. It's all good, and being inclusive only makes all of us better, smarter, and stronger in the craft.
Mike
Click to expand...
Please, read:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67819484
 
flektogon said:
lmans100 said:
mollyc said:
flektogon said:
Just look more carefully at the second picture (in the link I've provided), taken at a higher ISO. Its fine grain (consisting only of the luminance noise) is similar what my films (well, much less sensitive) exhibited. Very, very pleasing.

So no, such a digital camera like Pentax K3 mono can deliver as pleasing results as the best films. The only decision, whether to shoot film or digital (like this Pentax) is, whether you want to spend money right the way, or spread it over the time.
Click to expand...
Who makes you the arbiter of spending money "the right way?" We all value different things. Not one person on this board needs a camera to live, so every purchase is made with different personal parameters. Just because you value a monochrome only camera doesn't mean the rest of us do. And some of us just really, really like the process of shooting film.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was really attacking digital or film....just showing the benefits of a camera that might look like film. I am a film 'nut'.... have been forever, so I am film all the way thru. But can appreciate digital, if the right kind. It sounds like the Pentax Mono is close (I have no idea as I haven't shot any). I would like to see more examples of this.
Click to expand...
Of course Jim that I am not attacking either of them, I am just trying to compare them, their benefits, weaknesses, etc. Thanks Jim!

And definitely I am not trying to "ignore" anyone's feeling for working in the dark room. I still remember how I used to be excited whenever was in the dark room (bathroom :-) ). Everything is clearly stated in the title of this thread.
Click to expand...
Although I shoot film exclusively, I seem to have a revolving 'digital' I keep that tries to match film. I have had multiple, including the Leica M8, Ricoh's of all numbers, Fuji',s...and now an old OM E5 Mark 111. The pictures look great...but admittedly when compared side by side, the differences are obvious. The grain, shadows, overall contrast etc....less sharpness, all showcase film.

But if I didn't have film images to view, I would look at some of the digital and say, yeah! But certainly not on every image shot on digital. Perhaps 1 out of 36 images which, happen to speak to how many images shot on a roll of film that I expect to turn out as 'the shot'... ..the magic number of 1 out of 36 still prevails.
 
flektogon said:
Michael Firstlight said:
I can't argue with the main point of the OP that digital, in any significant volume, is far more economical (and flexible) than shooting film by a long shot. When I shoot a wedding I'll easily capture anywhere on the low end around 600-800 frames and upwards of 3000 frames with two shooters. The point is valid.

I shoot both digital (professionally) and film for personal enjoyment. Those who come across as critical to film and film users generally don't understand the attraction. There are multiple reasons depending on the individual. For some, it is nostalgia, for those who are younger and never used film it might be the novelty. For those steeped in the craft it is often the experience, the process, and the challenge (doing it at top levels requires a lot of knowledge, skill, and experience). There's no single reason for film's resurgence and it only adds to the photography community. For me, I'm an outlier- I still shoot film for the craft, the process, the uniqueness (admittedly, differentiation), and even more so, for those gorgeous, large traditional silver-gelatine prints from film that I still make by hand myself in the darkroom. Yes, I am part of a minority even in film circles, but there's a surprising global sub-culture there too.

Why the seeming animosity to film I still don't understand. That animosity isn't explicit or blatant - it is implied in many posts and responses; we can easily read between those lines. We all should embrace every aspect and process of photography - from tin-types and platinum printing to smartphone photography and the most advanced digital technology. It's all good, and being inclusive only makes all of us better, smarter, and stronger in the craft.
Mike
Click to expand...
Please, read:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67819484
Click to expand...
Oh, I did and commend your post. You are correct in your original post's assertion and I said as much. My comments about implicit negative posts do not apply to your post, and I hope mine didn't imply that :-)

Regards,
Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Blogging With Film
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
p_anotherguy
P
flektogon
Are you planning to complement your film camera(s)
Replies
12
Views
156
Joe Moche
J
A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
15K
alex_virt
A
B
Regret using color negative film
Replies
18
Views
319
D Cox
D
G
Anyone with experience shipping film abroad? (CT scanners dangers)
Replies
7
Views
374
peter826
P

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top