jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I thought I'd shoot a roll of film, so I looked on B&H to see what was available. I'm tempted to get a roll of film with an ISO of 1.6. "Film Photography Project Low ISO Color Negative Film (35mm Roll film, 24 Exposures)" for $11.99. It would probably be good for taking pictures of the sun at high noon.

Seriously, I might get a roll of CineStill ISO 50, 36 exposure for $14.99. So much of the film they list isn't in stock. Why stock up on something that doesn't sell fast? Considering the price of film and processing, I'm glad I'm shooting digital.

User ID

Film photography is long dead. Thaz what makes it very special as a hobby.

Many peeps are intrigued by antiques but only when its not about daily life. No one commutes to work in their antique vehicle or behind a steam locomotive, much as many of us love such old machinery.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Fortunately, my local camera store stocks a good supply of film. I generally shoot and process black and white. For color I can rely on digital and, if need be, emulate most any color film appearance. I could process color but the cost per the amount I'd shoot is considerably higher than I care to pay just for the experience.

Oddly, people still try to compare film and digital. They are two entirely different media that accomplish close to the same thing. I can do things in each that are difficult or impossible to accomplish in the other. I thoroughly enjoy the entire process of taking and processing film photographs.
--Bob

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"Considering the price of film and processing, I'm glad I'm shooting digital."

I doubt I would still be doing photography if it was still limited to film. I would choose to not spend that much money! One single roll of CineStill ISO 50 and some processing pays for a couple months of Lightroom and Photoshop! I shoot a lot more than 36 exposures in a couple months! An Adobe plan at $10 per month is cheap in comparison to film photography.

That said, I have a (very smart) granddaughter. She bought an old Nikon to shoot film. She sends the film out for processing and pays for digital copies along with the negatives. She puts the digital copies in her iPhone for processing and sharing. Grandpa does not get it.

Najataagihe

How much film can she shoot with the money it costs for a D7500 and lens?

How much money does she have on hand to buy that camera and the software to process it?

How long would she have to wait to save enough to get that D7500 rig?

She might not be quite as nuts as her Grandpa thinks she is!

anotherview Loc: California

Let me suggest that film photography has become passe. It now fits a small niche, occupied partly by diehards. Their view arises from strong sentiment for this visual artform. The field of photography has room for it, too.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

For color, you'd be better served with Kodak Ektar 100, or Kodak Portra 400 (or 160), both giving you more flexibility in two films that are virtually grain free, especially if you add some Exposure Compensation.

Some examples of Portra 400 shot as ISO-200 (+1 stop): Praise of Kodak Portra 400

Some examples of Ektar 100 shot usually with +1/3 stop: Praise of Kodak Ektar 100

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Old Dutch

I am a (great) grandpa who taught this trick to his granddaughter who loves to shoot with the Minolta XE-7 i bought her. There are a number of excellent labs that will do this for a reasonable price. No digital, and I mean NO digital no matter how much post screwing around you do duplicates a properly focused and exposed color negative. Film just has the look, which is why major Hollywood productions still produce in film. The "Max Headroom" thing with digital has its place, but film does not disappoint. And so far as cost goes, if you are serious about a project a few dollars will not matter. What would the Mona Lisa look like in crayon, or splashed on with a barn brush? Everybody has an opinion; This is mine.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

anotherview Loc: California

Agree that film has "a look." After all, film engineers have designed the film with its characteristic appearance.

Your post takes no direct account of the digital filters that reproduce these designed looks.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Considering the overall cost and the waiting involved, I've given up on that idea. It would really serve no purpose.

awesome14 Loc: UK

If she's very smart, why does she shoot film, have if digitized, and then transfer the images to her phone. She could just use the camera in the phone. That would be a lot less trouble, and ahe'd have the photos right away. I would never purchase an old film camera. WHY?, because film is obsolete. It's not even fun to shoot film. You might as well throw expermentation out the window, because you can't just shoot 300 frames and delete what you don't want.

That reminds me of another thing. I see many guys talking about flack from their wives when it comes to purchasing more camera gear! I have an agreement with my concubine, "I won't tell you how to have babies and keep house, and you won't tell me how to buy camera gear." It works great! I just want to buy what I want, because I need it, without all kinds of interference from my woman. I don't keep her around to listen to her talk! She understands that. Unless she wants to say something sexy.

MrPhotog

Working backwards on those three points:

3. You can easily shoot 300 frames of film and delete what you don’t want. It is a bit more expensive to do in 2022 than it was in 1999, but still very do-able.

Simplest way is to just shoot the negatives and scan those, or have the film’s processor do the scanning. By not getting paper prints you save a lot of money. The negatives are scanned anyways these days to make digital prints. Yes, it does cost more, but the negatives themselves have an artistic, and even archival, value.

If you are working in Black and White, using 35 mm film, processing the negatives (only) requires just a small investment in time, space, equipment, and chemicals. And the film is still available in long (bulk) rolls, which lowers the cost per frame. This is a wonderful introduction to chemistry, particularly, but not exclusively, silver-based processes.

- - - - -

2. Old cameras have a certain charm. I have been buying old cameras—usually ones that are broken and not worth fixing—when I can get them for $5 or so. I’m buying models that match what I already have so I’ll hopefully be able to use them for spare parts 20 years from now. And I tinker with them to see what made them work.

Surprisingly, I’ve been able to get a few working again. They were just jammed, or needed to be cleaned or lubed. Camera repair may become a new hobby for me! These days it is quite cheap because there are so many ‘projects’ available.

What has also become cheap is old lenses. I’ve been able to buy some lenses now that were unaffordable (for me) years ago. They fit on my Sony digital with readily available adapters. So one old lens is new fun with both the old film camera and the digital body. It is another incentive to carry two camera bodies and shoot film alongside digital.

Film ( and the associated cameras) may be Obsolete, but so are trains, and bicycles; Radio and vinyl records; and many more things still being used, and enjoyed daily. Musical performance goes back thousands of years, dramatic performance goes back to the ancient Greeks, so does Olympic sports. Horse racing is obsolete too. So is last year's computer and cell phone. I guess I may be too. But obsolete is not the same as useless.

1) It is the process. We can learn new things by going back over older things, looking at their history, and wondering: What if this had been a bit different at this point?

You see this now with the ‘Steampunk’ movement that shows how modern machines and concepts could have been made with more primitive processes (steam powered rather than electric, for example) if the idea had gone through a different origin process.

Even if we aren’t trying to reinvent things, there was a certain charm to the older photo process. You got to use your head to calculate exposure, or you gambled on it and then tried to get the best print you could from a less-than-optimum negative. The mental challenge is as addictive as playing with Sudoku or crossword puzzles, but it may involve other areas of the brain than those used in math, logic, or language. It can lead to as pleasurable an experience as a glass of wine. (and yeah, wine is obsolete too, but still well loved)