Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Film and digital are different. Just like vinyl and digital are different. Not counting the cost of the equipment, film is more expensive to buy and process. Unless you are a real pro, you will waste a lot of money on bad shots that you paid for. I have two film cameras and even a couple of rolls of film and I don't use them. In the 1980's I gave up photography altogether after getting roll after roll of prints back that had just a couple of usable shots on each. I got back into it when I could buy a digital camera for $350. I have about a hundred vinyl albums on the shelf behind me that I never play on my turntable and stereo. They have all been played hundreds of times in the past and sound like it. They probably had that pristine sound on their very first play. Today I listen to the oldies music channel on cable TV, coming out of the TV speaker, more than anything. The amplifier and box speakers sit unused. The art transcends the equipment. After all, I first fell in love with Beatles music listening to their songs on a transistor radio with a 2" speaker powered by a 9 volt battery.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I remember when digital films were just coming in, and digital projectors were still rare. Siskel and Ebert had a show about it, and arrived at the conclusion that movies shot on film were best with analog projection, and movies shot digitally were best projected digitally. I think the same is true with still photography.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If I had not had the backlog of film to scan I might not have jumped on the Coolscan.

However, the Epson scanner does an adequate job with 35 mm film and is almost as good as the Coolscan for medium format. It's also the only practical choice for large format since the optical resolution of the Hasselblad is not much better for 4x5.

But you can find some very nice used drum scanners for a song. That's worth looking into. I just don't have the need at this time.

BooBoos

I like to utilize both mediums. Film and digital are tools to a craft. I started with film and certain subjects require film and others require digital. Best of both worlds

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

You probably knew this, but it may be useful to born-again film users who develop B/W film themselves that Tri-X was tweaked for the ASA 400 market but works very well at lower speeds. I found that the development time, (changes in) temperature, and developer affect grain more than the film itself. Plus-X and Tri-X can be used for either 125 or 400, as well as speeds a few stops above and below their rating if you develop accordingly. Tri-X works as a decent fine grain film at ASA 50 when developed properly, for example, but for people needing ASA 400, it was the best formula among Kodak's popular three. I mention it in case you encounter the need for a finer grain film and all you have is Tri-X. It's a lot closer to Plus-X and Panatomic-X than their packages indicated.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Also, rating Tri-X lower and pulling the development is great for controlling contrast in high contrast lighting situations.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Yes, that was the main reason for doing it, if I recall. Finer grain was a bonus. My favorite was Plus-X at ASA 25. The sensors and electronics today are a whole new ride!

Impressionist

Film and digital are separate animals. New are the people growing up now and discovering the old tried and true technologies. It has never been ether or. It is exciting to see what young fresh minds have to bring to the table. Not as many as before will invest but once started some like many of us old farts will be hooked because it is an awesome trip. It has been the journey more then the final product. Sure prints take up more space, but nothing replaces the joy of having family and friends kicking back passing around old prints, looking at slides through viewers. What starts as work going through them turns into a party. We don't need a stampede, just enough to keep film being made.

Don Craig Loc: Saranac, NY

I had a $100 Canoscan that gave me as good prints with my printer as I ever got from the drugstore. Now I'm looking at an Epson 550. Not to make art prints, just to make pictures.

We shoot film because we like to. I started in the early 50s. Don't get me wrong, I have two DSLRs and two P&S, they are my go-to cameras and I always have at least one or two with me in the truck. I also have six film cameras, one a 1937 RF, and I always have one of those with me. Just because I like those cameras, their weight and feel, and the film technology. Should we give up drawing and painting because digital is more efficient? Give up singing or playing an instrument because CDs are more efficient?

Shooting film is it's own end, like outdoor landscape painting. I'm sure the youngsters taking up film also have a smartphone camera handy if not some other digital camera, and computers, and printers.

JeffL Loc: New Jersey

Shooting film vs. digital forces the photographer to make better choices in composition, angle, lighting, focus, shutter and aperture. Why? Because you only have 24 or 36 exposures per roll vs. a couple thousand or more images on an SD card. You can't realistically spray and pray, hoping for that one great shot out of many. So, those of us antiques who learned when we were poor and film was costly were, out of necessity, forced to consider all if the components of every shot.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I totally agree. That is one reason I have stated that "spray" shooters are merely equipment operators and not photographers. Try shooting an 8x10, you really check, recheck, and get it right in one shot. Similarly, learning to fly a tail dragger teaches proper rudder control vs a tri gear.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I'm certainly not going to use one of my 4x5's when shooting motorcycle races (like I did last weekend). I'm not sure what you mean by "spray" shooting but there's nothing wrong with using the continuous shooting mode in certain conditions - such as shooting motorcycle races.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

With Ektachrome on it's way back from Kodak and the seeming interest in learning film photography, for the price of a high end scanner one could set up a darkroom quite affordably.
A quick search on E-bay will hook you up with some quality camera and darkroom equipment for pennies on the dollar. I recently picked up a replacement Vivitar 1:3.8-4.8 75-205 zoom to replace a fungus infected Kiron zoom for 20 bucks including shipping and it was in excellent. The only caveat is that you must do the research and ask questions of the seller. Anyhow I am glad to see the interest of the younger generations in the film process. I think the whole process will make them better photographers, there is no instant gratification in film as there is in digital photography. It forces one to slow down and hone the art of really seeing a photograph, knowing that you can't shoot your way out just because you have a digital card that will hold thousands of images. In film work you choose the type and speed of the film and go out to shoot with a limited number of exposures, then its off to the darkroom to develop and print to see how you have done. All this mean is that I believe you will appreciate this exciting hobby more by going through a time intensive process as opposed to one that offers instant results. I've done film for 50 + years and am now starting to work with the digital format, it has been surprisingly easy and I enjoy it, but I will never give up film as long as I can get film. I may have to retire the 4x5 view camera but hopefully 35mm and medium format will saty alive as long as I am. The gist of all of this is to just enjoy the process no matter which you choose and keep learning. Old dogs can indeed learn, new tricks, of which I am proof. But young dogs, I am sure, can learn OLD tricks. Happy shoooting to alll!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

It's certainly growing!

I sold all of my digital equipment and now shoot film exclusively, and several of my friends do too.

If you want to hang and talk film with like minded folks... the APUG forum is the place to be.

If you haven't seen this video...check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjtphPVchJI&t=16s

rscholl Loc: Menlo Park, VA

Some nits and gnats re: Film vs. digital, analog sound recording vs digital. It's more complex than it sounds. One of the biggest advantages of digital is reproduction repeatability (first generation vs copies of copies), but not all digital is the same (for sound MP-s vs CD vs ... - sensor size and technology,etc., for photo . . . ) One of the biggest advantages of analog is the potential for storing more information, but not all analog is the same (analog tape vs first gen. LPs vs . . . etc. for sound, different film emulsions, film size. . . etc. for film). Also, even if more information is stored in an analog medium, different extraction processes may recover different amounts of that information (not unlike digital extraction processes). For both sound reproduction and photography, today's digital technology is generally more convenient or easier to use than the equivalent analog technology. Each technology is "better" than the others depending on what specific criterion is more important in each situation. Consequently arguements for and against reflect the priorities of those argueing.