Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

It is such a waste of knowledge (and equipment) gained over the years, not to use both.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Many reasons. For me nostalgia to get the F-1 out and use it at a slower and more deliberate pace.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Precisely yesterday, at a local park here in Miami, I met a gentleman who was shooting with a Leica rangefinder. He was shooting film while he kept a small digital Leica that he was also using. I was curious and I asked him why was he using the Leica. He told me he was new to photography and have just taken a class about "seeing the light." His photography teacher advised him to learn to see the light using film. I do not know how film can teach someone to see the light better than with digital.
I have not used film in sometime. It is a great experience if using a camera and a hand held exposure meter like in the old times. Lots of discipline needed to get good exposures that way. No instant feedback, we wait till the film is developed.
Like others I scan the negatives to work them digitally. In my humble opinion those negatives yield files that have an increased contrast and many times the original exposure is altered but I manage in post. We gain discipline for sure shooting film because we do not tend to shoot everything in sight but are more selective. That discipline is even more strict when shooting slide film due to its short dynamic range. Using b&w film is another experience because not all subjects do well with b&w. It is indeed of great satisfaction working a negative in the optical darkroom to perfect a print.
Many photographers are using film now along with digital.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

People still use film because they can. Just like folks still buy vinyl records because they can. Some folks prefer film to digital just like some folks prefer vinyl to digital.

ELNikkor

My son (21) says he likes NOT seeing the image right away. He likes the anticipation and discovery of the results days or weeks later.

ed2056 Loc: Warwick, RI

I agree whole-heartedly. There’s something about picking up an F100 and holding it to your eye and pressing the shutter.

ed2056 Loc: Warwick, RI

I’m often asked what it’s like to shoot film. I just tell them:
A. Get a 2 gig sd card, good for about 20-30 images.
B. Fill it up but don’t look at any images AT ALL!!!
C. Wait approximately one week to view.

That’s what it’s like to shoot film.

Ken Sloan

I've been using a Nikon D90 for about two years since I bought if off E-bay. Prior to that I used a N80, also purchased from E-bay which gave me great results. The D90, unfortunately, has been a disappointment. It seems to me I get better results with slide film, the saturated colors looking more vibrant. No so with digital images. Some images come out fine. Others just don't seem to that "omph." I had the camera checked out three times at seminars offering free check-up The unanimous opinion is the camera works fine. Maybe it's me. Or maybe it's just old technology. I can't get over the results I get with my I-phone. Trouble is, I can't put different lenses on an I-phone. It's not real photography unless I can look through a viewfinder in lieu of a LCD screen.

I'd like to use film again, since I have some Agfachrome in my freezer, but it processed may be a process. Duggal's, in NYC, where I've been taking my film for years is closed. And they did commercial work! Maybe I can send the film away somewhere, but don't know where just yet.

Old Dutch

We live in a digital world, and people are accustomed to seeing digital images of everything, and so they appear normal to most people's eyes. But digital images do not "look" like real life. The tonality, color transition, saturation and texture of post-processed images look to me like CG effects in the movies, looking more like Max Headroom than the person or, more often, creature they depict. Film, on the other hand is superior in all of these aspects, right out of the tank, and do not require "processing". I shoot film on an F4, and an old Zeiss Ikon Contessa (with its marvelous mid-century German glass) and a side by side comparison of identical images is rather startling. I also shoot digital on an S5, chosen because it more closely resembles film than any other razzle-dazzle (and over-priced) digital out there, especially when photographing people. Digital has its place, to be sure, especially in low-light, dynamic situations, but a real examination of prints from the two mediums will show the superiority of film every time, if how things actually look really matters to you. There is a reason why many Directors still shoot on film; Recent "Star Wars" movies for example and more than a few TV shows. The depth and richness of color and tones, fluidity of sharp-edge transition and how it makes you "feel" when viewing it are all superior. And yes, I listen to vinyl as well, mainly because I have seen live performances of most of them and can tell you how they actually sound. And it sure the heck is not like an MP3. In my 70 years I have learned a thing or two, and can tell you that something is not necessarily better just because it is new or modern. And in direct answer, one day your boy will already know what it "looks" like before he sees the print, as it will be in his head before he pressses the shutter release, and then he will be a photographer. THAT is another reason why film is better.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ken, you can adjust the colors and / or saturation in the digital camera. Try the Nikon Vivid setting in the camera or adjusting the saturation by +2 (or more) for the Standard picture control (see your manual for details). You can also shoot in RAW and more effectively and discretely adjust the image color saturation in post processing to whatever extent you desire.

I prefer color film types that have more color saturation similar to digital. When I 'returned' to film after about 10-years of digital only, the difficulty I found was that color film was not as saturated as my images from digital. Experimenting with several film types helped where Kodak Ektar is still on the market and expired rolls of Agfa and Portra Vivid Color (VC) also give similar results.

BebuLamar

I shoot film because I still can. I was enjoying shooting film then digital came along which I didn't care until film manufacturers stop making a lot of film and raise the price of whatever they still make.

Bill 45

Why not? Yes digital camera can make life a lot easy, But I for one can't afford a digital camera that equal what I can do with a film camera with lenses. Also the history that goes with a film camera. When I using my Leica IIIb I can feel a lot of history that goes with a camera like that. All the pictures from Life Magazine over the years.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I have recently returned to film. With the amazing display of wildflowers this spring, I've been out shooting a lot. I went out one day with the digi and shot about 700 images in 4.5 hours. Friday I went out with two film cameras (one 35mm, the other medium format) and shot only about 100 frames. (I can't wait to see how I did!). I had to think about what I was doing. I had to carefully select my shots, not shoot randomly. Without a light meter (the battery apparently has died in mine), I had to remember and to think about the metering and settings. It made me a better photographer because I was in total control, not the camera. If my shots are good, I will be very proud of them!

Old Dutch

Most any film you may want or need is available at B&H out of NYC, bhphotovideo.com, much of it surprisingly cheap, as little as $3.00 a roll for Kodak Gold, a very underrated color film. And The Darkroom in CA, at thedarkroom.com does a fantastic job, and provides very hi res scans as well as part of their service, as well as online storage of digital files as part of your free account. I recommend them highly.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Simple. Because I still like film, especially MF Chromes. Best of luck.