Film and Digital in 2021.

[Ko.Fe.]

My true introduction to film was around 2012. I looked at negatives scan of one of the family picture and I liked it look more than digital.
I learned developing and printing after it. Purchased, fixed and sold many film cameras. Dozens. Tried film formats from Minox to LF. And matching enlargers.
By 2020 it winded down. I still like film by it looks. I like film cameras I have, more than digital cameras I use. But after looking at some great examples here at RFF and on the internet and due to lockdown, I realized I still like to get some content.
I'm not this genius to have one shot and it is masterpiece. With film prices in 2021 and on darkroom paper (even RC) film photography became luxury. By now those prices went up more than twice since 2012, but my salary didn't.

We have purchased very popular IKEA glass cabinets to have film cameras on display. But digital cameras aren't display, feeling good items to me. They are next to boring tools, to get the content without thinking how much I have paid for this roll and how I'm going to find money for fresh darkroom paper.

Ansel Adams prints are art of exposure, developing and printing and Dmitry Markov photos with mobile phone are the content.

 

[oldwino]

I hear you, KoFe. I am struggling with this a lot since the Covid lockdown(s). I love my film cameras (been a film shooter since the mid-1970s), but if I have to be honest, digital is everything I wanted back then but couldn't afford, in terms of image quality. Back then, all of us 35mm shooters wanted to shoot medium format because it was markedly "better", but it was also unaffordable for us non-professionals. Now, we have that quality with a simple compact digital-cam.

My head and my heart are going in different directions. I enjoy using my film cameras much much more than my digitals, but I don't enjoy scanning and dust and film curl, etc etc. I have no interest in setting up my darkroom again - my wife would NOT enjoy me disappearing every evening to make a print or two. Sitting together on the sofa and running a few digital files through Snapseed is fine however.

I should sell everything and just buy a Ricoh GRIII and be happy.

 

[Horatio]

IDK. There are pros and cons to each, but I think film is no more expensive than it ever was. Just priced a roll of TMax400 135-36 at $7.99. Same roll 21 years ago was $5.99. The $2 increase is well below the cost of inflation in the last 20 years, certainly not twice the cost. I haven't compared prices of photo paper now vs. then, but there are economical offerings out there. Archival inkjet systems for digital printing are very costly, IMHO. If you just look at the images on a device or screen, the cost of digital is really low these days.

 

[Dogman]

Well, I was one of those anti-digital Luddites for a very long time. But the fact is that digital, at that time, wasn't much to be proud of. You had to learn a whole new skill set and work system to achieve some pretty awful results. In mid-2000 digital began to improve enough to interest me and I bought my first digital camera in 2007. I wasn't real impressed with using it but that improved with my learning how to use the software. After a while I was shooting digital color and B&W on film. Then everything went to digital because, first, I knew what I was doing and I began to like the fact that I could make my B&W pictures look the way I wanted without the waste involved with scrapped prints and exhausted chemicals. And I also began to like the look of digital photos--well done digital photos--as much or more than most of the darkroom printed photos I was seeing online.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I hear you, KoFe. I am struggling with this a lot since the Covid lockdown(s). I love my film cameras (been a film shooter since the mid-1970s), but if I have to be honest, digital is everything I wanted back then but couldn't afford, in terms of image quality. Back then, all of us 35mm shooters wanted to shoot medium format because it was markedly "better", but it was also unaffordable for us non-professionals. Now, we have that quality with a simple compact digital-cam.

My head and my heart are going in different directions. I enjoy using my film cameras much much more than my digitals, but I don't enjoy scanning and dust and film curl, etc etc. I have no interest in setting up my darkroom again - my wife would NOT enjoy me disappearing every evening to make a print or two. Sitting together on the sofa and running a few digital files through Snapseed is fine however.

I should sell everything and just buy a Ricoh GRIII and be happy.

Wife is major factor .
Mine never let me give away something. She wants to keep it or sell. Yet, film is only exemption. She is telling to give away my enlargers, trays and else to another maniac. .

 

[helen.HH]

Poor Ko.fe,

Not just decisions but the wife too... wink,wink

 

[Godfrey]

My true introduction to film was around 2012.
...
But digital cameras aren't display, feeling good items to me.
...
Ansel Adams prints are art of exposure, developing and printing and Dmitry Markov photos with mobile phone are the content.

My "true introduction to film" happened somewhere around 1965: that's when I started processing and printing my own photographs, not just taking them to the camera shop or the local pharmacy to process them.

None of my cameras are on display, other than a couple of cute old junkers I've found over the years. All of my cameras are things to use, when I feel like it. I do like some of them a lot, but I spend very little time looking at them ... I'd rather look through them and make photographs with them.

Ansel was a good photographer who overcame whatever deficiencies his equipment had. I don't know who Dmitry Markov is at all, although I bet I can look him up on the internet.

With respect to "Film and Digital in 2021", well, I just bought what will likely be most of my 2021 supply of Polaroid film, a half dozen rolls of Washi-120, and a 25 sheet box of Ilford 4x5" direct positive paper that will be cut down to 6x9cm for use in my Mamiya Press 23 Super. There are plenty of good film cameras of all different types in good order to use in my cabinet. My current digital cameras are more than enough already, although I will order the third lens I want for the Hasselblad 907x once I figure out whether I want the 65, 80, 90, or 120 Macro (the 65 and 90 are the current top picks, I'll make a decision soon). I've got fresh developer and fixer in stock too. I'll need more ink and paper for my printer at some point. My computers, etc, are all ready to go.

I intend to spend a good bit of time making photographs with both film and digital capture this year, and not buying much more gear or media.



G

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Poor Ko.fe,

Not just decisions but the wife too... wink,wink

I met local resident who is also ex soviet, same as me, from Moscow, but was working as photo correspondent. Moved here and took around 500 weddings on film. Then I told him about about going film, he told me - say goodbye to family time.

 

[Ste_S]

I absolutely enjoy using my Lecia M5, Canon P, Nikon F or Mamiya 645 far more than digital. However I (and my wallet) prefer the results from my humble Fuji X-E2 and 18-55 every time.

I'm essentially up to £30 for film/dev/high res scan on Portra 400 now, which isn't sustainable to shoot on a daily basis.

 

[DougK]

I love shooting film. The cameras are so much fun to use and there's always the uncertainty of what exactly got captured, sometimes in a good way and sometimes not. From a practical standpoint, I simply don't have a good place in my house to make prints (developing is easy, especially because I have a Rondinax, but finding space for an enlarger is something else), so I'm OK with shooting digital.

I work with computers for a living; because of that, I have very little desire to sit in front of a computer and edit photos in my free time. With some of my older digital cameras, it really was necessary to shoot RAW and edit later so that you could get the best out of the technology. Now, my Canon EOS M50 can apply all of the same adjustments that I would make to a RAW file and create the JPEG in fractions of a second. Why bother shooting RAW? I can tell the camera what adjustments I want to apply, get a good JPEG, and move on...almost like shooting slide film.

 

[Finglas]

Still only using film cameras and manual focus at that, despite aging eyes.
I haven't even gone to auto-focus !! Nor do I use mobile phones.
So with Luddite credentials intact I still only use 35mm film for over 40+ years

2021 - cant get to the shops, restricted to 5km from house. The shops in town (Dublin) that sell film are also closed. The prices for film are getting too high.
The choice too of film is getting poorer or scarce.
But Dublin still has good places to get film developed.
So in spite of all the obstacles I will stay with film in 2021, maybe even get a new lens for the Leica.

 

[ascu75]

I love digital

I love digital

I have several digital cameras 📸 I use my camera a Panasonic TZ80 almost everyday. I can’t use my DSLR’s anymore they are just to heavy. I have MS and am in a wheelchair and getting weaker But I have just bought a Rangefinder. A model nearly as old as I am, it’s a 1961 Agfa Ambi Silette rangefinder and it weighs a ton. I intend putting just the one film through it getting it printed and digitally scanned and then shoving it back on eBay. The reason for all this is I only ever had point and shoot film cameras. Digital photography gave me the ability to ‘learn’ photography at zero cost. To develop and print the amount of photos I have taken in the last 15 years I would need to be a millionaire. I love photography but film 🎞 is a luxury i cannot afford Don

 

[Doug A]

Using film doesn't have to cost a lot. I shoot 12-exposure rolls of 35mm B&W, develop them with Rodinal and scan them with a digital camera. I calculated the marginal cost* of shooting, developing and scanning a 12-exposure roll of 35mm HP5 Plus in my blog a year or two ago. It comes to about $2.10. Each additional frame on a longer roll would add seven and a half cents. For example, a developed 24-exposure roll of HP5+ would be about $3.00.

Considering the 12-exposure rolls that I actually shoot, and assuming one roll a week which is optimistic considering my output this last year, my annual cost would be about $112.

The sunk cost** of shooting film is pretty much what you want it to be. All of my cameras, lenses and developing gear, except for a new changing bag, were bought 50+ years ago when, along with thousands of others, I was shooting Tri-X in the NYC streets and had a darkroom in our apartment. The annualized cost is insignificant.

*Marginal cost is the future cost of producing one additional piece once you are up and running.

**Sunk cost is a cost already incurred that cannot be recovered, unlike a future cost, which is either a cost not yet incurred or a cost already incurred but which can be recovered.

 

[stuart_115]

For the coming years I will still shoot film. I mainly shoot print film, with an occiasional black and white. Slide film is for now reserved for cameras with good meters (my Nikons and Canons from after 1995), just to get most out of the film.

Regarding print film, I love Kodak Portra, but the way it looks at the moment I use it for special occasions and I use other cheaper ones for "daily snapshots". I shoot about 1 max 2 rolls per month and I have just refreshed my film stock. So for the coming 2-3 years I'll be ok.

For black and white I stick to Kodak TMAX or Ilford Delta. For me the price is still what I'm willing to pay. I looked at cheaper alternatives, but I haven't made the switch. I just like the look these films give me.

 

[Cyriljay]

All my cameras are film camera except one digital Leica M.
All of those cameras are still loaded with films and they are in different camera bags.
This digital M camera is the only camera I always like to have in my daily shooting camera bag. Although I am carrying a M6 ( loaded ) in the same bag it never come out of the bag.

I understand three a problem here and is it due to the digital media is the new comfort zone for every photographer now a days !!!

As I grew up into photography through Analogue and learnt the digital media later . So I use both in different aspect of doing my projects and it is a good way of managing your time and cost in doing your photo projects effectively.

 

[agentlossing]

The enlarger and other stuff for making prints seems like the most bulky and inconvenient part of the equation. I have a Pacific Image XAs scanner and that's pretty much it beyond the paterson tank with two reels and some measuring jugs and chemicals. Fits in one medium sized cardboard box, besides the scanner. I know it's not as much fun without doing the prints yourself, but may be worth it.

 

[albireo]

I suppose the true film luddites are the ones who insist that film and film cameras 'only make sense if you wet print'. Otherwise, they go, 'why would you even shoot film'.

Utter boll**ks. I shoot film, I love developing, I love using film cameras, but I seek a digital end-product. The fulcrum of my process is a well exposed and developed negative, not a wet print. I love to scan my negatives. So in this sense I'm a hybrid photographer. Exploring the ergonomics, the mechanics, the optics of my beautiful TLRs...This I find exciting. Seeing the image on the negative when development is done: fantastic.

And not expensive at all either. I shoot mainly Foma film in 120. It's affordable, and can give world-class results if handled with care. I process using mainly Adox Rodinal at 1+50. Super cheap. I scan with a 15 year old 200$ worth film scanner that works perfectly, and does wonders.

Digital cameras? You don't need one for 'scanning' your film if you don't have one. In fact, I don't need those expensive, bulky digital cameras anymore at all for my photography. Selling my Nikon D300 and my Fujifilm XT-10 with the associated paraphernalia was the best thing I could do to my photography.

Who needs all those menus, all those buttons to press, huge batteries, huge prime lenses? Not me. My Olympus OM2n is tiny, and it's a thing of wonder. For digital snapshots of my family my Android phone is more than adequate.

 

[Ste_S]

I suppose the true film luddites are the ones who insist that film and film cameras 'only make sense if you wet print'. Otherwise, they go, 'why would you even shoot film'.

Utter boll**ks. I shoot film, I love developing, I love using film cameras, but I seek a digital end-product. The fulcrum of my process is a well exposed and developed negative, not a wet print. I love to scan my negatives. So in this sense I'm a hybrid photographer. Exploring the ergonomics, the mechanics, the optics of my beautiful TLRs...This I find exciting. Seeing the image on the negative when development is done: fantastic.

And not expensive at all either. I shoot mainly Foma film in 120. It's affordable, and can give world-class results if handled with care. I process using mainly Adox Rodinal at 1+50. Super cheap. I scan with a 15 year old 200$ worth film scanner that works perfectly, and does wonders.

Digital cameras? You don't need one for 'scanning' your film if you don't have one. In fact, I don't need those expensive, bulky digital cameras anymore at all for my photography. Selling my Nikon D300 and my Fujifilm XT-10 with the associated paraphernalia was the best thing I could do to my photography.

Who needs all those menus, all those buttons to press, huge batteries, huge prime lenses? Not me. My Olympus OM2n is tiny, and it's a thing of wonder. For digital snapshots of my family my Android phone is more than adequate.

Lens size isn't really a film/digital thing, for batteries, substitute film canisters and menus are only as complicated as you need them. I never touch the menus on my digital cameras after initial setup, perhaps only to re-format the card.

 

[agentlossing]

I suppose the true film luddites are the ones who insist that film and film cameras 'only make sense if you wet print'. Otherwise, they go, 'why would you even shoot film'.

Utter boll**ks. I shoot film, I love developing, I love using film cameras, but I seek a digital end-product. The fulcrum of my process is a well exposed and developed negative, not a wet print. I love to scan my negatives. So in this sense I'm a hybrid photographer. Exploring the ergonomics, the mechanics, the optics of my beautiful TLRs...This I find exciting. Seeing the image on the negative when development is done: fantastic.

And not expensive at all either. I shoot mainly Foma film in 120. It's affordable, and can give world-class results if handled with care. I process using mainly Adox Rodinal at 1+50. Super cheap. I scan with a 15 year old 200$ worth film scanner that works perfectly, and does wonders.

Digital cameras? You don't need one for 'scanning' your film if you don't have one. In fact, I don't need those expensive, bulky digital cameras anymore at all for my photography. Selling my Nikon D300 and my Fujifilm XT-10 with the associated paraphernalia was the best thing I could do to my photography.

Who needs all those menus, all those buttons to press, huge batteries, huge prime lenses? Not me. My Olympus OM2n is tiny, and it's a thing of wonder. For digital snapshots of my family my Android phone is more than adequate.

I largely agree with you, although it's funny you mention the Olympus film camera as being tiny, and digital cameras as being expensive and bulky. My current digital system camera is also an Olympus, and the EM5 Mark II is a tad smaller than the OM2, with smaller lenses as well. And cost me under $300.

 

[albireo]

Lens size isn't really a film/digital thing, for batteries, substitute film canisters and menus are only as complicated as you need them. I never touch the menus on my digital cameras after initial setup, perhaps only to re-format the card.

I mean you're not wrong, and I realise it's very personal. But that's just the way I like it. I find the complete lack of displays, buttons, menus etc on the back of my Rolleiflex liberating. That's how I am. If I see buttons, if I have the chance to waste time tinkering with settings before the shot, I will do it. Again, very personal, but I've found all I need, and nothing I don't, in film cameras.