Haveing spent countless hours in the darkroom and shooting miles of film of gray cards getting my BFA at Ohio U. In the 70s. Zone system doesn't work very well with Digital. I works quite will with single layer B&W films like some made by Adox. It does not work as well with modern multi layer films like Tmax or even Tri-X. To do it right you need to calabrate your camera and all your lenses. Each is a little different. Then you shoot miles of film of gray cards. Measure all of that on a desitometer. You'll discover that it works best with sheet film since you can adjust development to each shot vs a whole roll of 35mm or 120. Yes it is one heck of a lot of work. My Sony systems do quite well with their HDR of +- 5 or more. Much easier than real film. Just remember, digital is similar to film but not the same. Digital is strictly physics and film is physics AND chemistry.

I still do both film and digital. Film is relegated to B&W in my Mamiya 645 and 4X5 . I do all the processing from film to print. Digital just cannot match the quality of film or the depth of a silver print. I back up with my digital for exposure. Digital is used for color since digital prints are archival and traditional film color is not since cibachrome and Kodachrome are gone. I'm old school, I previsuallize my photos and make one or sometimes 2 shots. When I was shooting an 8x10 I only shot once. Film was over $20 per pop then. I can't even imagine what it costs nowadays. None of this shooting 100 images and hope that I got it. That just isn't being a photographer to me. It is being an equipment operator. Sorry to offend all you equipment operators.

Schools or workshops are great places to use old film. I use it to teach students how to roll film onto SS or plastic reels for processing. I have them practice in the daylight before they ever try it in a film bag or the darkroom. They got to learn somehow.

Worms can be quite useful in the garden or fishing.

The reply by romanticf16 is not all together true. The better lenses by Zeiss and Leitz as well as a few of the Canon and Nikon, were designed to focus the correct colors of light to it's 3 corresponding layers of emulsion on the color film. Note: that some Fuji films have 4 layers. Early lenses depended on an external color filter yellow, red green etc to only focus one color on the single layer of B&W emulsion. They did not do well with color films. Today's digital sensor does not have color layers only a flat tile pattern. The exception to that is the Fovon Sensor which has color layers like color film has. Computer technology has greatly leveled the playing field when it comes to brand of lenses. Note: also each color of light acts a little differently as is passes through the lens glass. A combination of glass formula, lens design and lens coatings help to compensate for those minor differences. The vast majority of lenses are zoom autofocus. They bye nature are not as sharp as prime lenses because of all the moving parts and it is designed to be a compromise of focal lengths. A prime lens has no moving parts except for the diaphragm and has the best sharpened of all. Then as now, the better the lens , the better the image. Happy shooting.

For those that are new to the game or never really knew: APS-C started out in the late 1980s and became more popular in the 90s. Yes, I am talking about film. Most of the standard 35mm films were in APS. It was created to replace the aging 126 instamatic and to help those that were having trouble loading and unloading 35mm. It was essentially 35 mm in a special film can. The photographer never touched the film, ever. The photographer didn't have to set the ASA (iso) on the camera. You could even change film types in the middle of the roll and not lose a shot. Then put the partial used roll back in the camera and finish off the roll. The film was processed and returned in the same film can. Safe for storage and any damage. Prints usually came with an index print to located photos. The image size (negative) was your standard 8x10 . Which is exactly a full frame 35mm cropped to 8x10 format. So there was no wasted film. Very few people actually print a full frame 35mm image mostly it is in 8x10 and sometimes 5x7 format. So, the APS-C lives on in Digital Photography. Is Full frame Digital better than APS-C? That is like asking is Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Olympus, or Zeiss better? So you have a full frame 36mp camera , is it really better than the APS-C at 24mp..... For the final 8x10 print, They are exactly the same. You want the best final print.... Go with the largest format you can afford. The laws of physics are the same for film as it is for digital. Bigger is better. Happy shooting.

I highly recommend Freestyle Photo out of Holywood CA. The have the largest supply of B&W and color film of anyone. They are the only place to get chemicals such as Rodinol to do B&W film. They have been around more than 50yrs. Not just 35mm but all the way up to and including sheet film. They keep my students and darkroom happy.

The Grand Circle in Utah,Nevada. That is Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, Zion NP, Cedar Breaks UT. Oregon Coast, Crater Lake, Painted Hills, Mt Hood, Old McKinsey Hwy, Columbia River Gorge, Hells Canyon. Going North, Olympic NP. Lots and Lots to see. you are going to need more than 4 rolls of 36exp Kodachrome. Happy shooting

No one mentioned the "all in one" cameras. I have had several Minolta now Sony all in one's. I currently use a Canon SX-50HS which has an excellent long optical zoom (50x) I take it on trips where weight is a factor and I don't want to carry all my DSLR or 645 equipment. it weighs about 1lb. Virtues or the long zoom all in one cameras is size, weight, no need for extra equipment (lenses). I love it because it optically zooms to 1200mm. It is great for shooting birds or animals. It has most of the controls that my DSLR has. Canon has superseded it with SX60hx and the SX530hx. If I were to buy one today it would be the Sony HX400V or if price is a factor the SONY DSC-400. I like the HX400V because it has Zeiss Lens, Nikon and Canon are hard presses to equal the superior image that a Zeiss lens gives you. The Sony cameras are easy to use and are a 20+MP camera for superior images. Neither one of these cameras will ever need the sensor cleaned or the rear lens element cleaned. The camera is sealed. Ok, it may not be cool to have a "all in one " camera but I use mine a lot. When traveling, it sure beats the heck out of 30lb of equipment. Happy shooting.

I currently have a a65 but am looking to upgrade to a a99ll. I had the pleasure of using a a7rll this past spring. I primarily shoot Mother Nature and. Sometimes people (weddings) . Although I like the extream low light ability of the S, I absolutely would go for the R. It's low light capability is far superior to film and my present a65 that I would be happy. The 42 meg pix gives you more options for capturing Mother Nature. Photos look great on a 55" or larger 4K tv. I can really see the difference on my Mac between the 40+ mp of the R vs the 20+ of the S or my 65. Of cours, messing with that much data slowes the computer down. Happy shooting.

No one mentioned the Mamiya 645. I use it. Not digital at the moment. They make digital equipment and are very good at it. The newest equipment will not accept the older lenses. But most of the previous equipment will work with the older manual focus lenses. It even has backs that are up to 100mg pix. Someday if I win the lottery I will be able to upgrade to a full autofocus Mamiya 645 digital . But for now I shoot, B&W on my 645 then scan the negatives. Not instant gratification but I have been using my equipment for over 30 years , so I now that 99% of the time I have a good shot. I am old school, I do not need to shoot 100 photos just to make sure I got the image. I know my equipment. I previsuallize my shot and when it is right...I shoot it. Same thing when I shoot 4x5.

I lived in Alaska and taught photography at the university. 10 days is not enough time unless you have enough money to hire a guide and an airplane. Brooks lodge is your best bet for Grizzly Bears. Mid-late July and early August for bears. As for Moose and other animals Denali Park Bus tour in Late August through September is best. September the caribou herds are on the move, colors in the Alaska range and north are great. Homer Spit is a great place to see Bald Eagles, feasting on fish from the seafood plant. Haines is the place to see hundreds of Bald Eagles gathered in one place after after September when the snows arrive. Kenai Fejords is great for Puffins and seals/sea lions, anytime. I lived in Alaska for 10 years and never saw Polar Bears in person, not even while flying for the Ididarod AirForce. I don't recommend looking for them without a guide. Both Gizzly and Polar Bears are VERY dangerous. I would recommend no less than a 500MM lens or longer fast lens. The longer the better, the faster the better. Whales are seen best via the Alaska State Ferry or smaller tour boats. Alaska is a BIG place. It is roughly the size of the lower 48 states east of the Mississippi river. Just think about touring that much land in only 10 days. There is barely 10,000 miles of roads in all of Alaska. Everywhere is accessible via bush plane. Very little via auto. Don't forget bad weather. Do your homework Plan Plan, and have Plan B then Plan C. Expect rain every day in the south east alaska. After September 1st, expect snow in Denali and north of the Alaska Range. Good Luck and enjoy your trip

Lots of places in Oregon, I Live in Prineville OR. Creator Lake, Painted Hills, Smith Rock, Crooked River Gorge ( out of Prineville), Old McKinsey Hwy (out of sisters) Tulip Festival, Mt Hood, Newberry Volcano. and a bunch more . Just contact me for more places best times to see them.