Douglas Tharp Loc: Texas

Film is coming back. There are a number of young people buying cameras. The price of medium format has increased. Shooting film is expensive, my calculations show that sending the film to a small lab is cheaper. I get develop only and scan myself.

I need to included a footnote, the cost of developing film myself is cheaper, but the lab price makes it more attractive for them to do it.

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

The cost of digital also needs to include a computor and it's never ending cycle of updating and software. Oh backup drives. A printer, inks and paper if you chose that path....

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Are you going to be making prints? And do you have a darkroom at your disposal?

User ID

Nobody needs a darkroom to print from film. Scanners and printers do not need darkness ... nor plumbing ... nor venting ... nor temperature control etc etc etc.

anotherview Loc: California

The few photographers I've talked with who left film behind for digital photography have said they did so for more control over the process. Enough said.

dave.m

A fwe of other things not included in the equation, again from my personal experience

- the OP assumes that all the chemicals will be used to full capacity, I seldom exposed enough film for that or stored film in the fridge until I had sufficient
- people almost forget the event by the time I had D+P completed
- one of the biggest problems for me as a 'generalist' (grandchildren one day, landscapes the next etc) was often having not having the optimum ASA film in camera

I revisited shooting film recently, because I always wanted to have a go at large format. I experimented with a canon 35mm body to use my EF lenses. A soon worked out - for me - although gratifying to still be able to do everything myself, a return to film was a non starter. It just took too long from shutter to result, and when I factored in a used Bronica + couple of lenses, it was cheaper to buy a new EOS 5D body!

Again for me, like driving a manual gearbox car, shooting manual with a modern DSLR etc etc, shooting film is something I'm pleased that I know how to do and still can, but it won't replace the convenience / ease of use/ speed of workflow of a DSLR

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Bob, I have been shooting film since I was a young lad. For many years I used b&w and then beginning in the late 60's color film with emphasis on using slide film in the form of Kodachrome 64. It was expensive then and for those buying the film and sending the film for processing and printing it is expensive, less so if scanning is considered. I do not know how many persons here buy film in bulk in addition to a gallon of developer and fixing. You know that if those chemicals do not have enough use they oxidize and are good for nothing. I used to throw chemicals away because I was not shooting enough b&w to use them regularly.

Digital cameras, like the D850 are very expensive but there are many reasonably priced digital SLR bodies offered at a bargain price along with so many inexpensive lenses for those that want to shoot on a budget. Digital is a very practical media as you know. It offers instant feedback and the opportunity of making corrections in the field for a better image. Digital is invaluable to make sure we have nailed the right exposure. In the case of photo journalists they can send the images to the other side of the world in the blink of an eye without waiting for film development and printing.

I enjoy using film, it is what I did for so many years of my life and although there is in my opinion nothing more joyful than to developing and printing images it takes time and lots of efforts. Do not misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong shooting film specially those beautiful b&w images to be made with a 4x5 camera. If the person doing that has the time and motivation to spend time developing and then printing in the darkroom then why not, it is indeed a lot of fun specially using a handheld exposure meter and a completely manual camera and lens.

I do not shoot film that often any longer so in my case it is not practical buying film in bulk and chemicals that will end up discarded one way or the other. Buying an individual roll of film is not that cheap anymore and developing and scanning are extra expenses to end up editing the images digitally. Add to this that in many places the film has to be sent out to be processed taking several days before getting back the results of that particular shooting.

As I said, digital is a very practical media and the quality today is exceptional. Come to think of it, it is so easy and practical to shoot color and if desired to make a conversion for a great b&w image.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Did you miss the statement, "The facts and figures presented here are from personal experience." in the original post?
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Not enough said. By processing the film myself, I, and only I, have complete control over the process.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Personal experience varies from one to another. The original post was focused on the cost of using film.
--Bob

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You're assuming that I have a darkroom, an enlarger, and all the necessary hardware. I'm 100% digital.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

But this also depends on the forum you are pursuing. IMO, for sports and wildlife photographers there is no going back to film. If you are doing landscapes, architectural or other single shot subjects, film would definitely be an option. For moving subjects when you are competing for that unique shot, film is not an option. Can you imagine the issues associated with 20 frames per second. Also, although I have not read every post on this subject, I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't commented on the environmental considerations.

ELNikkor

Time to process?, scan?, post process?, print in your own dark room? cost of enlarger?trays?, timer?safe lights? dektol?, stop?, running water? hypo clear? fixer? paper?

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Clearly a disjointed comparison.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jerry, there were no assumptions made. This was for people who continue to bring the cost of film into the discussion. As pointed out, it's not that expensive.
--Bob