For me, it's not the cost, it's the time. My motion graphic work has doubled in the last 24 months which allows me some financial freedom, but I just don't have time to spare on hobbies anymore. (unless it's health/exercise-related)
It's not the shooting part. I can make time for that. It's the developing and scanning that kills me.
Send it out, you say! Sure. That works. But a big part of the fun factor for me is coming home with a freshly shot roll and seeing the results hanging to dry an hour later. There's nothing more magical than watching those beautiful 6x9 (Fuji GW690III) E6 chromes come out of the tank... pure chills.
Scanning is also a PITA. I did it with a DSLR and a jury rigged tripod/lightbox/Lomo "DigitaLiza" setup for a few years. No matter how I taped sh*t down, perfected angles and nailed focus, SOME thing always shifted, or the film curled out of the holder, or dust mysteriously blanketed my perfectly cleaned negative. I'd eventually get the job done, but with a killer backache and headache. Haha. OMG.
I think IF (big if) I were to find the time to try film again, I'd have to invest in a better scanning setup. A Negative Supply kit or something. That would probably help a lot. Or maybe I'll just give in and send it out!!
Anyway, these days I'm enjoying my X100V and in camera film simulations!! :-)
I've still got 30 or so rolls in the freezer, including one or two Atia and Velvia. Will cut the cost down if I ever get round to using it, but untouched for at least 6 years. I think there is still a roll of Provia 400 in the M3.
You can’t mimic the look and feel of film with digital. And frankly, the target market of high end film shooters are people like me who don’t care what it costs. Actually all photography is moving in that direction. I’ve said for a long time that Leica is the future of cameras. It’s an experience for people that want to do it. But 99% of people are happy with their iPhone. Which, BTW, I’ve printed 20x30” prints off an 8 mp iPhone shot and it looks gorgeous.
But it depends on what you want. Some things like birds or sports require cameras with big lenses. Others, like the look of Velvia, can only be done the old fashioned way. For me, I use all the tools from an iPhone to a D500 to a F100. Just depends on what I’m trying to achieve.
jwolfe wrote:
You can’t mimic the look and feel of film with digital. And frankly, the target market of high end film shooters are people like me who don’t care what it costs. Actually all photography is moving in that direction. I’ve said for a long time that Leica is the future of cameras. It’s an experience for people that want to do it. But 99% of people are happy with their iPhone. Which, BTW, I’ve printed 20x30” prints off an 8 mp iPhone shot and it looks gorgeous.
But it depends on what you want. Some things like birds or sports require cameras with big lenses. Others, like the look of Velvia, can only be done the old fashioned way. For me, I use all the tools from an iPhone to a D500 to a F100. Just depends on what I’m trying to achieve....Show more →
Well I don't agree, and I've had the Leica experience for60 years ( and still own an M3 and a III), mechanical focusing systems prone to innacuracy and need for adjustment are as obsolete as using a rangefinderto aim the guns on your battleship. And using film is a preoccupation with the craft rather than producing pictures.
IMHO of course!
The cost of processing film was how I, and many others, were able to justify the cost of switching to digital imaging when the entry cost was comparatively high. My first professional quality full frame camera was the 16.7 Max Canon 1DsMk2, which ran around $8000 (about 12,000 in todays dollars) in 2005. Even as an "amateur" I was spending that much a year processing 35mm, MF, and large format film (Kodachrome, E-6, and B&W film), and as I recall that didn't include printing costs.
Remembering that, and seeing how much film costs now, I'm happy to upgrade a new digital camera body every 3, 4 or 5 years.
I definitely enjoy the process of developing & scanning myself, but unfortunately I don't have the space or primarily the time for it, so I farm most it out. I recently sent in 76 rolls for developing & scanning, basically all of my film from 2022, and it came to $2500 CDN. Add on, say, $15 CDN average per roll maybe, and we're up to $3640 CDN. (~$2600 USD)
While that is a fair chunk, and I am trying to curb that expense a bit, in the whole scheme of things that's not bad for a primary hobby really. I have friends that have boats, and that wouldn't even cover pulling it out of the water for an annual cleaning.
jwolfe wrote:
You can’t mimic the look and feel of film with digital.
In the the voice of Ozzy Man, "Yeah, nah."
Let me also say that during the pandemic, I built my 4th home darkroom, and after an abstinence from darkroom work for 10 years, am back to doing B&W prints from film and digital negatives.
With some Photoshop (or equivalent) experience, it's relatively easy to mimic the look and feel of film. I've been processing and printing both for 45 years. My goal in post is usually to make it as good an image as possible, and almost all my photographs are printed. I'm pretty sure that I could take side by side film/digital images and manipulate them to the point that prints or digital images (up to a certain size) would be indistinguishable. That said, it would take a lot of work to make a 16 x 20 inch print look the same from a 40-50 megapixel digital camera as from a 35 mm negative-and to do that you'll have to degrade the image quality on the digital camera. But a 4x5 or 6x9 negative at 16x20 inches is going to look very close as a print.
Will I get 12 stops dynamic range from an E-6 slide? Obviously not. I'll be lucky to get 6. I might be able to exaggerate that if I convert to digital for printing, but not by much. But I can compress the tonal range of a 12 stop digital image to 6 stops pretty easily if desired, and alter the tone balance to mimic Velvia. Besides a print will only have 8-9 stops with the best paper and printers.
Color negative, maybe I can get a lot more, I think I've read estimates of 16-17 stops with expert processing. My own experience is probably much more modest, I'm guessing a usable 12 stops. Again, will be limited in print medium. If you've not had the pleasure of burning and dodging prints from color negatives, I suggest recreational waterboarding as an alternative.
The one exception to the "can't mimic the look and feel" with digital is Cibachrome prints. But unless you're Chris Burkett, you're short on luck coming up with more paper. And I will say that I've printed digital positives on Cibachrome myself, and I don't think I can tell the difference between those and film.
jwolfe wrote:
You can’t mimic the look and feel of film with digital. And frankly, the target market of high end film shooters are people like me who don’t care what it costs. Actually all photography is moving in that direction. I’ve said for a long time that Leica is the future of cameras. It’s an experience for people that want to do it. But 99% of people are happy with their iPhone.
a first-gen Fuji XTrans camera does a pretty good job emulating the look and feel of film, much better than any digital CaNikon/Sony I've used. It's not perfect, but the sensor, processing, and awful AF does a pretty effective job of giving the user a "film experience" lol.
From 2009 to 2011 I was on a big film kick, shooting a mix of Nikon SLR (FE2, F, F2) and rangefinder (Canon P, Leica M2, Zeiss Ikon). Lots of E6 and Superia 100-800. I was buying most the film in bulk short-dated lots on ebay and some local stores here in Japan for $1-5/roll, and paying $10-15/roll for "scanveloping" from NCPS- Dev and Scan, files and film returned via USPS. It was an incredible amount spent on the film process, but I have a lot of beautiful images from that time, when FF options were still pretty limited.
When I was in Korea in 2014, i went on another small film binge, after finding a lab in Seoul that would "scanvelope" for me and upload the files to a server that I could download. Their cost and process was cheap and fast- 2hr turnaround and $8/roll, push process was a free option.
I miss those days. I've got an FE2 that I've not shot in almost a decade, and I would love to pick up another Canon P, but I know I'll probabaly never shoot another roll. The costs are just absurd.
ISO1600 wrote:
a first-gen Fuji XTrans camera does a pretty good job emulating the look and feel of film, much better than any digital CaNikon/Sony I've used. It's not perfect, but the sensor, processing, and awful AF does a pretty effective job of giving the user a "film experience" lol.
From 2009 to 2011 I was on a big film kick, shooting a mix of Nikon SLR (FE2, F, F2) and rangefinder (Canon P, Leica M2, Zeiss Ikon). Lots of E6 and Superia 100-800. I was buying most the film in bulk short-dated lots on ebay and some local stores here in Japan for $1-5/roll, and paying $10-15/roll for "scanveloping" from NCPS- Dev and Scan, files and film returned via USPS. It was an incredible amount spent on the film process, but I have a lot of beautiful images from that time, when FF options were still pretty limited.
When I was in Korea in 2014, i went on another small film binge, after finding a lab in Seoul that would "scanvelope" for me and upload the files to a server that I could download. Their cost and process was cheap and fast- 2hr turnaround and $8/roll, push process was a free option.
I miss those days. I've got an FE2 that I've not shot in almost a decade, and I would love to pick up another Canon P, but I know I'll probabaly never shoot another roll. The costs are just absurd....Show more →
Costs aren’t absurd if you already have a digital camera that you can scan film with. Or are willing to buy the digi gear to do it (as it can also be used as a camera!).
B&W is super cheap if u dev it yourself. But it has to be worth it to you of course.
Desmolicious wrote:
Costs aren’t absurd if you already have a digital camera that you can scan film with. Or are willing to buy the digi gear to do it (as it can also be used as a camera!).
B&W is super cheap if u dev it yourself. But it has to be worth it to you of course.
I developed neopan in my bathroom while I was in Korea, and I absolutely hate scanning lol. Now that I can't get neopan 400/1600, there's no b&w that I want to shoot.
As you know, I started shooting film again last year, and dove into medium format. I shot about 25 rolls last year. This year, I expect I'll shoot another 20 or so. $8-12 a roll....say $10 a roll, so for me around $250 in film cost. Now that my developing equipment is a sunk cost, it's just chems. My B&W developers will probably last me years, so that's a neglible cost. Maybe $0.10 a roll. Fixer maybe $0.50 a roll. Color's more expensive, but $30 in C41 chemicals lasts me 8-10 rolls (at the rate I shoot) before they go bad, so $3 a roll. Overall, probably an average of $1.75 split between all rolls....
So I'm fine with $200-$300 a year on film.
But also glad I shoot digital for most things because if I shot everything I shoot on film, I'd also be up in the insane cost range.
I scan with my R5, and I've gotten my setup and process for that down very well...I use a high CRI and uniform light tablet, a 120 Digitaliza for clamping the film flat, and I level everything with a bubble level, which I set on the rear screen, and it allows me to get it perfectly flat to the film really, really fast. I have a focus rail for getting my macro lens to focus so that it fills the frame with the negative. Use my little BT remote to take the shots, and the whole thing takes about 3-4 minutes to set up and about 5 minutes or less to fully scan the roll.
I shoot some 35mm and scan with Nikon film scanner (ls-4000 or ls-5000) which ICE helps when there is some dust.
As for the "film look" a "someone" said the grain structure is not possible to mimic. Not sure that is true with the right math? For me, vintage lenses on a digital camera offers more for getting a "look" than trying to do film.
Early digital camera EVF was poor compared to an OVF, but now that is reversed. My CV 110mm is so sharp I cannot live without focus magnifier. Still I have an OM-4T and film in the fridge. I don't try to justify any of my photography. Last year I bought some Provia 100F for $16/roll. It is now $33 at BH.
Today, you can use Photo AI to remove all that awful film look. Turn those grainy family photos into a plastic look.
wzok wrote:
As for the "film look" a "someone" said the grain structure is not possible to mimic. Not sure that is true with the right math? For me, vintage lenses on a digital camera offers more for getting a "look" than trying to do film.
according to cinema people, it is possible to fairly accurately mimic film grain, but it requires some powerful computing. It is not a simple "drop in some grain", as overexposed areas have different grain than underexposed (to make one example).
But the cinema industry has programs to do this (more) properly, as most productions are shot on digital, and then "need" a film-look added in post production.
Of course, with frames flying by at 24 per second, it is hard to see exactly what might be going on, grain-wise.
Oldwino wrote:
according to cinema people, it is possible to fairly accurately mimic film grain, but it requires some powerful computing. It is not a simple "drop in some grain", as overexposed areas have different grain than underexposed (to make one example).
But the cinema industry has programs to do this (more) properly, as most productions are shot on digital, and then "need" a film-look added in post production.
Of course, with frames flying by at 24 per second, it is hard to see exactly what might be going on, grain-wise.
That was what I was thinking also about intensity vs grain structure, but for a single image it should be doable considering how much processing goes into the latest denoise AI programs these days. My Topaz sharpen on A7Riv image size takes 1-1.5 minutes on my computer.
Of course film is more than grain and tonal emulation. It's an experience. And having experiences seems to be what my life is about these days.
As to film expense, I bought Provia 100F for $16/roll last year. BH price is now $33/roll.
ISO1600 wrote:
I developed neopan in my bathroom while I was in Korea, and I absolutely hate scanning lol. Now that I can't get neopan 400/1600, there's no b&w that I want to shoot.
I just got given bunch. I'll find out soon enough if it is still good.
ISO1600 wrote:
a first-gen Fuji XTrans camera does a pretty good job emulating the look and feel of film, much better than any digital CaNikon/Sony I've used. It's not perfect, but the sensor, processing, and awful AF does a pretty effective job of giving the user a "film experience" lol.
I've gone through 7 Fuji cameras and the only one I wish I still had was the X-E2. The size, the output, the horrible AF, and how much fun it was with small adapted lenses. I dropped that thing from 6' off the top of an SUV onto asphalt and it kept ticking.
The other camera, which always felt like a time bomb, but had the most filmic output was the M8.
Neither of these has all of film's characteristics but they have a lot of vibe.
Pretty sure I spend more than $1600 on coffee yearly, Huss, and I have nothing to show for it except a caffeine addiction...keep on shooting
One of the main reasons I'm getting out of 120 is purely the costs...because I no longer live in easy driving distance to my lab, I have to pay shipping both ways now too, so a 10 shot roll is $45 all in for processing/scan/print/shipping. I don't have enough personal time to dedicate to developing and scanning, so it's pay up or stop playing.
I don't know if I've ever taken a 120 shot that I felt was worth $4.50
RoamingScott wrote:
Pretty sure I spend more than $1600 on coffee yearly, Huss, and I have nothing to show for it except a caffeine addiction...keep on shooting
One of the main reasons I'm getting out of 120 is purely the costs...because I no longer live in easy driving distance to my lab, I have to pay shipping both ways now too, so a 10 shot roll is $45 all in for processing/scan/print/shipping. I don't have enough personal time to dedicate to developing and scanning, so it's pay up or stop playing.
I don't know if I've ever taken a 120 shot that I felt was worth $4.50 ...Show more →
Film prices certainly have now an impact on demand and usage of analog cameras. Film manufacturers - who easily more than doubled some film prices in a matter of few years - must have seen the current slowdown leading to recent announcements of sudden price drops for example in case of Kodak Alaris 120 films. This aligns with Black Friday times, and I am curious if the reduced pricing will hopefully remain after the holidays.
retrofocus wrote:
Film prices certainly have now an impact on demand and usage of analog cameras. Film manufacturers - who easily more than doubled some film prices in a matter of few years - must have seen the current slowdown leading to recent announcements of sudden price drops for example in case of Kodak Alaris 120 films. This aligns with Black Friday times, and I am curious if the reduced pricing will hopefully remain after the holidays.
I didn't even factor in the price of the film in that 45/roll
