Downsview 108 Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 It's probably more expensive now but I find I like owning actual prints than digital pictures (which, if you think about it, don't really exist). Slides and prints are more colectable and really can last you as long as you take care of them. 10,000 digital shots on a DVD can be lost if you get one scratch on the disc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
septa_kid Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 I store my digital pics on my HD, and Film cameras are harder to take care of and then the pictures take forever to come out, sometimes, you don't even find out whether a certain shot you wanted came out right until you get your "film" developed... with a digital camera, there's a preview screen on most of them, so you'll know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T6H-5307N Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 I still shoot film Digital takes a lot of the challenge out, as you can click away then delete stuff afterward. With film you have a set number of shots with no deleting, plus you must pay to get them developed. Kinda forces you to be extra careful! I do shoot mostly digital however, as it it simply more convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I still shoot film Digital takes a lot of the challenge out, as you can click away then delete stuff afterward. With film you have a set number of shots with no deleting, plus you must pay to get them developed. Kinda forces you to be extra careful! I do shoot mostly digital however, as it it simply more convenient. I agree totally. It's more expensive to screw up with a film camera. Although I'd rather use a digital for everyday point and shoot general stuff that's disposable. Film cameras aren't that hard to take care of. A lot of those made between 1967 or so and the early 80's are very robust. I am currently using a 1973 konica and it works perfectly. Winter cold though is a problem for mechanical cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OC8792 Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 i have a digital camera ( broken now) but i also have a portable printer so you just plug it in and i print my photo's and for 35$ i can print roughly 120 picture's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T6H-5307N Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I agree totally. It's more expensive to screw up with a film camera. Although I'd rather use a digital for everyday point and shoot general stuff that's disposable.Film cameras aren't that hard to take care of. A lot of those made between 1967 or so and the early 80's are very robust. I am currently using a 1973 konica and it works perfectly. Winter cold though is a problem for mechanical cameras. I'm using a recently acquired 1994 Minolta, so I've yet to see it's winter performance. It should be ok as doesn't have a big color LCD to freeze up like on my DSLR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I'm using a recently acquired 1994 Minolta, so I've yet to see it's winter performance. It should be ok as doesn't have a big color LCD to freeze up like on my DSLR Later mechanical SLR's with the electonically controlled shutters (probably like yours, unless you use a rangefinder in which case they should stand up fine)aren't really affected by the cold. It's the 100% mechanical ones that can become dodgy because of condensation. A well insulated bag should deter this. I like the idea of printing your own photos as long as the resolution is as good as low grain film. Right now I use Ilford 125 and 50 which are the lowest grain b&w film available. There are other subtle nuances to film that I don't think digital can capture. But I guess it's better now than a decade ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buswizard Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I hate film with a passion. It costs an arm and a leg to buy a one-time-use roll/camera and then it costs an arm and a leg to develop it (I am not spending more than $15 for 27 pictures that I never know will turn out HORRIBLE). With digital I can keep going forever with previews at my disposal. And I can always store photos on photo hosting sites, on flash drives, etc. I do not like using delicate equipment such as CDs and DVDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailBus63 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I hate film with a passion. It costs an arm and a leg to buy a one-time-use roll/camera and then it costs an arm and a leg to develop it (I am not spending more than $15 for 27 pictures that I never know will turn out HORRIBLE). With digital I can keep going forever with previews at my disposal. And I can always store photos on photo hosting sites, on flash drives, etc. I do not like using delicate equipment such as CDs and DVDs. Digital does indeed have many advantages over film, but cost is not necessarily one of them. If you shop carefully, you can pick up 3-pack or 4-packs of film at many stores in the U.S. for $8 to $10 (I personally recommend CVS store-brand 200 speed film, which is actually made by Fuji), then send it out to a place such as York Photo to be developed for $3.85 per roll (for an additional $1, you can also have your images scanned). This works out to 22 cents per photo, which is competitive with the cost to have a digital photo printed at many stores. I also have to respond to your comment about 'I never know will turn out HORRIBLE'. If a photographer learns how to use their camera, it does not matter whether it is film or digital. When I'm shooting bus or rail images, the vehicle is in motion the majority of the time, so I often have only one chance to get the optimum photo. Know how to 'read' a scene and make the necessary adjustments in aperture, shutter speed and (for digital) ISO. I came to digital after 30 years of using film cameras, and I still use a film mentality when I'm out taking pictures - I work on getting that one perfect shot. Yes, I review the image afterwards and make adjustments when necessary, but often these are minor adjustments which could be made post-processing even on film images. Jim D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Digital does indeed have many advantages over film, but cost is not necessarily one of them. If you shop carefully, you can pick up 3-pack or 4-packs of film at many stores in the U.S. for $8 to $10 (I personally recommend CVS store-brand 200 speed film, which is actually made by Fuji), then send it out to a place such as York Photo to be developed for $3.85 per roll (for an additional $1, you can also have your images scanned). This works out to 22 cents per photo, which is competitive with the cost to have a digital photo printed at many stores.I also have to respond to your comment about 'I never know will turn out HORRIBLE'. If a photographer learns how to use their camera, it does not matter whether it is film or digital. When I'm shooting bus or rail images, the vehicle is in motion the majority of the time, so I often have only one chance to get the optimum photo. Know how to 'read' a scene and make the necessary adjustments in aperture, shutter speed and (for digital) ISO. I came to digital after 30 years of using film cameras, and I still use a film mentality when I'm out taking pictures - I work on getting that one perfect shot. Yes, I review the image afterwards and make adjustments when necessary, but often these are minor adjustments which could be made post-processing even on film images. Jim D. Good points. You can't really point and shoot with a digital SLR either. I also hate the rising costs of developing film. I used to be able to get a roll done for 5 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T6H-5307N Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I can get film pretty cheap around here (about $10.00 for a five pack of 200 or 400), but it costs around $10.00 to get a roll developed (although it comes out to a bit less when you get a volume discount for taking in more than one roll). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted August 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I can get film pretty cheap around here (about $10.00 for a five pack of 200 or 400), but it costs around $10.00 to get a roll developed (although it comes out to a bit less when you get a volume discount for taking in more than one roll). That's less than the cost of developing alone (no prints) downtown. Prints are about 1.75 per 4x6 print at some stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCW Metrobus Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Just got back two set of prints I shot in the past month, a project I started while my 5D spent a couple of days in the shop getting serviced. The verdict: I think from now on when I shoot airplanes, I will use film exclusively! Those shots turned out much, much better than my digital aviation photos. Working on getting a couple of them scanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
323 Surrey Ctrl Stn Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Call me whatever you want but I am buying a filmy Right now I've got two options being tossed up. I've got a Nikon F65 and battery grip for $60, or a Nikon F65 and 28-80mm lens for $140. Here's my logic: 1) The F65 can use all new AF/AF-S/G ect. lenses. Which will be great because when I get my 24-120mm VR in a few months It will also work on the F65 (I own a D60) 2) I'm leaning towards the one with the lens because, it has a lens My 18-55mm VR would work on the camera, but the corners would be blacked out (DX lens) 3) Film is something I've never used, and something I've always wanted. Right now I've got some good deals on the table and the funds to use. So? Chris Cassidy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
306 Carlton Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Call me whatever you want but I am buying a filmy Right now I've got two options being tossed up. I've got a Nikon F65 and battery grip for $60, or a Nikon F65 and 28-80mm lens for $140. Here's my logic: 1) The F65 can use all new AF/AF-S/G ect. lenses. Which will be great because when I get my 24-120mm VR in a few months It will also work on the F65 (I own a D60) 2) I'm leaning towards the one with the lens because, it has a lens My 18-55mm VR would work on the camera, but the corners would be blacked out (DX lens) 3) Film is something I've never used, and something I've always wanted. Right now I've got some good deals on the table and the funds to use. So? Chris Cassidy Ask 120 for the one with the lens. I personally use a Nikon EM. Happy Shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted August 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 When I was younger I desperately wanted an F65 but it was out of reach. They cost hundreds. Another good reason to use film is that the cameras, lenses and accessories are DIRT CHEAP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T6H-5307N Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Another good reason to use film is that the cameras, lenses and accessories are DIRT CHEAP! And my film can use all the same lenses as my digital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buswizard Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Do any film cameras in this world have preview screens??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Do any film cameras in this world have preview screens??? Sadly no. But do digital cameras have the copyright protection of owning your own negatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. DeLarge Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Sadly no.But do digital cameras have the copyright protection of owning your own negatives? Yes, it's called not posting the full resolution photos on the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripta42 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I agree totally. It's more expensive to screw up with a film camera. Although I'd rather use a digital for everyday point and shoot general stuff that's disposable.Film cameras aren't that hard to take care of. A lot of those made between 1967 or so and the early 80's are very robust. I am currently using a 1973 konica and it works perfectly. Winter cold though is a problem for mechanical cameras. Nice! I shoot with a '73 Nikon FTn, plus I have an Argus C-3 "brick" for fun. I usually go digital for transit, though, since I do a lot more volume and don't want to pay for developing. I agree about wintertime. The light meter on the Nikon gets really unpredictable below 40°F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now