leftj Loc: Texas

I love film and shoot with a Canon EOS-1 but do it sparingly. Processing is expensive and unfortunately I haven’t learned to do my own.

leftj Loc: Texas

Why is that bad? Put a battery in it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bad because IF I want to exercise the shutter, I have to buy a battery just to do that.
I don't shoot film anymore.
So for the 30 seconds I'd exercise the shutter, then throw the battery a bit later....

Bad because it's not good use of materials.
The camera is a decoration, a memento.

Terkat

Hi HarlMan - I remain a proud owner of a 1996 Nikon F5. Purchased new and still looks new. I would never get rid of the F5. Many, many rolls have gone through the old girl and she continues to function just as well as she did 23 years ago. Thanks, Terry

leftj Loc: Texas

So why do you need to exercise the shutter if it’s a decoration?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Hypothetical, stay with me.
All I said was that the shutter can not be tripped unless there is a battery in the camera.
(Ergo, don't wind it.)
That's how you might know the condition of the mirror sponge. IF one is interested in knowing the condition of the mirror sponge.
For the halibut.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Go hybrid. Just do processing, no prints, and scan your negs yourself for printing. Saves considerably on the cost of shooting film.

Stan

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I don't know how many thousands of rolls of film I shot over the nearly 50 years that I used it (1956-2003), or how many hours I spent in the darkroom making B&W prints. I used LOTS of GREAT and iconic cameras in that time - Minox, Leica rangefinders, Nikon SLRs, Rollei TLRs, Hasselblads, as well as many others.

I enjoyed most of it and remember the process and the equipment fondly. But after I rented a digital outfit in 2003 to take to one of my daughter's weekend horse shows, and the first night had 10 contact sheets ready to print after about 20 minutes at the computer (sitting down, dry, in the light) I never took another frame of film. And I would not go back to film even if I still had my cameras and darkroom equipment. I get better images of the type I need, faster and easier, with digital equipment than I ever did with film. And if I can ever get rid of my periodic GAS attacks it'll be cheaper too.

So God bless the film shooters. I do hope there are enough of 'em to get the film and developer companies to keep the production lines running. But here's one old film shooter who has happily moved on, and only looks back for nostalgic purposes. (Just as there probably were old glass plate shooters who said the same thing when they moved on to that new flexible "film" stuff, way back when.)

Silversleuth Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Took a film photography class at local City college last year, resurrected my first Nikon F and a F4. Had so much fun, outfitted a basement darkroom from e-bay and Craigs List bits and pieces. Great way to slow down and get back to the basics of our art - craft- and science.

TJ28012 Loc: Belmont, NC

Shoot film and scan results and you have your “full-frame” camera for scenery work. Or get processing where they put photos on disk. I shoot b/w and process negatives only - just need a tank.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I think the rest of us thought it was happening all along. I still take film photos using several different cameras.

Dennis

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I'll match image quality from my Hasselblad, Rollei, Leicas, or several others to anything digital. Digital has its place, and I use mydigital gear often. If I worked professionally, I'd certainly use digital for almost all purposes.

But shooting film is inherently pleasurable, and it forces me into a more contemplative and enjoyable method of shooting. I'm doing enough now that I'm about to purchase a scanner and C-41 kit. C-41 processing is actually quite simple, and if you ever did B/W in the past, you shouldn't find it too challenging. A two liter kit of chemistry will last you thirty to fifty rolls, and costs about fifty dollars. And a good scanner is under $200. It's worth it to me.

Andy

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Amen. Amen. And amen. (sob)

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Why, ...sentimental reasons to use film ? Digital can do so much more...and no polluting chemicals to be poored down the drain, when exhausted. Can you change the color of someone eyes in a full length portrait, with film ? I'm only using that as a suggestion of the extreme to suggest 'control' the photographer has in digital. Photography has a history of evolution and change, so using film and chemicals is nostalgia. All my Hasselblads, Nikons, and Alpas are on historic display. I do still fondel them and exercise their shutters.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

Still have my Pentax film cameras, K-1000 and another semi-automatic. Also have a Canon FT (?) QL that had been refurbished years ago. Also have an Argus C-3 (not sure if it works. I had one years ago that was disassembled to see HOW it worked and could never reassemble.) The C-3 I have now was purchased at a use camera store for about $10 as nostalgia.