So film is too expensive huh?
I’m sure this will fuel the fires of those that think nothing better discussing the merits of Digital vs Film.
Personally, I made my mind up a few years ago which medium works well for my style of photography. We pay our money, we make our choices and I respect anyone else’s decision to go with whatever medium, be it digital or film.
But I’d like to talk about the false assumption that Film is expensive to shoot. I hear from a lot of people that they’re interested in moving to film, but the cost of buying the stock and processing it is cost-prohibitive for them. Add in the fact that you need to buy a decent film scanner, and the speed at which you can turn around your images – and it rapidly becomes a no-no for most.
I think there are really two arguments to this. One is, I’m a bit worried about it costing me money and the other is ‘I’m not committed enough to try film out’. Both are completely separate arguments.
I don’t think film is expensive, if you consider that buying a new DSLR every two to three years is a reality for a lot of people. I think it comes down to the fact that people like buying cameras, like buying the latest equipment. This has nothing to do with creating art.
If you want to get into film, then buying a film camera at the moment couldn’t be cheaper. Buying a decent film scanner will be a little harder as there are few to choose from and most keep good second hand prices on eBay. But I reckon if you stick with that cheap Medium Format outfit and a sub 1K film scanner for more than 3 years, you’ll be just as cheap as buying a new DSLR, and you get the chance to try different film stocks with their respective look and feel properties. You may even find that you love shooting Medium format, Large Format, and wonder why you never made the jump in the first place. You may discover that this has opened up a new creative path for you.
On the other hand, you may be happy buying the latest digital SLR every couple of years – which is fine. Just consider that the argument about film being expensive is a moot point. If you really wanted to try film out, there’d be no stopping you.
Hello Bruce – I know you will be disappointed to hear it, but I sold my Mamiya 645 Pro along with the 4 lenses I bought after a brief time because I was particularly under the impression that shooting film was very expensive, a lot more than I had anticipated. The costs of film, development and scanning (done professionally by a service) quickly added up. After just a few rolls of film, I could have bought a new lens for this amount of money. With an own scanner, you certainly can save money, if you use it often enough to justify its purchase. On top of that, I missed many shots due to technical reasons, because it needs a lot more experience to get the most out of film compared to digital. With digital, you get instant feedback on your LCD screen and can correct your settings on location, before it’s too late. I felt this to be one of the biggest drawbacks of film. In my case, film technology stood in the way of making good images. With digital, I can fire away without thinking much, just letting my creative juices flow freely and rely on the superior technology of the current crop of DSLRs. I love tweaking my RAW files and don’t feel the lack of Velvia colors to be a real drawback for my images. Peter (hopefully soon picking up where he left)
Comment by pboehi — 3 April, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Bruce, perhaps you can clarify it just a little bit better.
If you are talking about medium format only then I might agree with you. But 35mm film is really expensive.
My last roll of Velvia (cost of film, development, scanned for 20×30cm and postage) ended up costing around 30 euros. I was happy with 3 shots. That works out at 10 euros per shot.
Furthermore, I had the ones I liked rescanned – Sigma Durst and Coolscan 5000, to 8000×5300. No need to tell you that this is really expensive.
I compared them against the same images shot side by side on a D300, and the latter was still sharper. Sure, there’s more to an image than sharpness but we don’t need to go there.
I’ve tried to justify it to myself with the same arguments that you mentioned, but no matter how I look at it, 35mm film is really expensive.
The counter on my Hassleblad 500CM with Portra 160VC loaded has been sitting on 1 since last November. I also have rolls of film in a freezer which are now well and truly expired.
Like the poster above, I have to add that it’s now a lot more to do with the convenience and benefits of a DSLR, not to mention all the post processing possibilities and all the details recorded in the meta data.
The only reason why I shoot film from time to time is because I like it.
Comment by andy — 4 April, 2010 @ 7:31 am
Hi Andy and Peter,
Well, I guess you both saw what you wanted to see in my post. It would be great if you could read it again as I covered the fact that I believe:
1. The cost of a film scanner and film costs seem expensive – at first.
2. Peter – I know you bought a new DSLR, which I can imagine will cost what you paid for your film and processing over the next three years.
3. Buying a new DSLR every three years or so, or 2 for some people, is quite a bit of an outlay.
4. I never said film was cheap. Nor did I suggest you get it professionally scanned as this is REALLY expensive.
5. If people want to do film – they will do it. If you’re a convenience guy – then you’re going to stay with digital.
6. I never said you’d not screw up shots. But what I did say was that if you dot have the temperament to stick with it, it will be rewarding in an artistic way.
The convenience argument came up within the first posting. I wasn’t arguing. Sure, digital is more convenient. You can also shoot a lot more too. But this has nothing to do with my argument.
I don’t shoot 35mm film any more Andy. I think it works out as the same cost per image as medium format does. My rolls of MF are around £3.60 here in the UK, which gives me 10 shots. With 35mm, I get 3x the amount of shots.
If you can’t see the benefits in what film produces, then it’s not for you. Personally, I feel Peter didn’t give himself long enough with the medium to find out. I think he was initially put off by the cost per click and the lack of convenience.
It is a losing battle. That I know. Everyone who has shot digital for a few years, including people who shot film for a long time, and wish to recapture the colours and texture that you get with something like Velvia, hardly make the jump back. They are too used to the convenience of digital and the perceived cheapness of the medium also. I’ve had people on my workshops come along with film cameras, because they want to get back into it, but then leave the film camera in the bag for the entire workshop, always going straight for the digital camera.
It’s also a losing battle, because It’s not easy to get film anymore. Most shops don’t stock velvia. All the magazines are pushing digital, digital, digital. They’re also pushing ultra-wides on everyone too.
Film requires a lot more work than shooting digitally. You have to work blind so to speak, and your ability to nail a shot is not going to come overnight.
These are all immaterial to the main argument which is : digital is a pretty expensive business, it’s a hidden cost. If you tally up how much you spend every three years on gear, you’d be surprised. I wonder, for instance, who is onto their 1DSMk4 now and has upgraded from each other previous revision of the camera?
Comment by Bruce Percy — 4 April, 2010 @ 7:51 am
I fear this is turning into a ‘benefits of digital vs film’ debate.
It’s an ecomomic / convenience thing. I can only tell you what I believe. It’s my own point of view.
I don’t buy a new DSLR every three years. I bought my camera gear in 2001 and I’ve not bought anything since (except a Contax 645, which is a different sort of beast in 2009). All I spend money on is film and processing.
I’m aware that each time I get films processed and buy film, it’s costly. But I reckon I shoot around 300 rolls of film a year. It’s a different way of shooting.
The cost is fine for me, because I can’t get that look any other way. Admittedly, I’ve got my technique down to a pat, compared to a newbie to film.
I certainly know folk who have left digital for film, which was very surprising to me. I feel that if you really want to do it, see the benefits of it, there’s no going back. Regardless of cost. But as I say, I feel we trick ourselves – there are hidden costs with Digital – we tend to buy more gear, and often at elevated prices because the gear isn’t cheap when it’s new out.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 4 April, 2010 @ 7:58 am
Well, Bruce, what you talk seems to be true, but in a small part of the World – UK, Western Europe, Japan and US, Canada… But for the rest 80% of the world’s population the access to a good lab and slides is not so common, anymore.
Except the cost, which is about the same for digital and film, there is a question – is the film safe enough for my shots? I know it’s not the general topic of your post, but down you may see there is also and economical point in that:
When I’m not on photography trips, I live in Bulgaria and you may thin in a EU country wouldn’t be a problem to shoot on film – we have 2 labs able to process medium format slides. In one of them with sure they will damage your film. The other one works fine, just if there is enough work to keep the chemicals refreshed – but there isn’t such amount of customers. And I wouldn’t send my films by post to a German lab for example – in case of being package I may kill a postman on the street in my anger…
I kept shooting on film for landscapes until 3 years ago, then stopped – I can’t say to my sponsors “Well, the lab damaged the films from this trip, they look awful, I’m sorry”.
I’m not a camera rat, a camera as 5D satisfies me and my clients for prints up to 1 meter per 65 cm size. For 700 pounds second hand I get a way to have my shots safe enough – because if I spend 2 or 3 thousands pounds to go on a long trip and then get damaged films, that makes me loose much money, as well my time, efforts and something more important – the photographs.
I don’t even mention that I have to order my films from abroad and that there is not a good service for medium format cameras anymore, since it’s not a good business.
In this post I talk for myself, but from conversations with photographers from many countries I understood it’s reality at many places and with every new year it gets worse, since less people are using films.
So, I think if I move to live in an area with a good lab, then I may get a film camera again and this blog’s post will be a true one for me as weel.
Thanks for sharing, it’s nice to hear there are still places where it’s still safe to shoot on my favorite Velvias!
Comment by Vladimir Donkov — 4 April, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Hi Vladimir,
Yes, that’s a good point – processing is becoming harder to find as most places find it profit-prohibitive.
I’ve been toying with the idea of buying my own processing kit to do them in my home.
Like I say – the future isn’t bright for film, and in terms of market share – it’s a minority product now.
But I personally don’t want to shoot any other way. I wasn’t happy with what I got from my 5D and I feel there is a quality to the films I use that I can’t give up on.
For each of us, we have to make a choice.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 4 April, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Well, I did read it again and I agree with your arguments except that I don’t think that “cost” can be measured solely in $ terms.
My wife and I have only one car and she needs it for work. I’m the house husband.
The lab is 50km away and the amount of effort needed for me to go there and sit with the lab assistant is huge. We also have two kids in kindergarten that I have to deal with.
Buying a 1K scanner is not an option for me (I’m saving for an iPad), so I can only compare what it costs me right now.
So unfortunately, for me at least, the “cost” of shooting film as I measure it, is a lot more than shooting digital.
Comment by andy — 4 April, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
Hi Andy,
I guess you’re right :-) Each one of us has their own circumstances and in your case, the lab issue is a problem. I have the luxury of living in a major town so I kind of took that as an assumption on my part.
If we just spoke about costs – re film / processing, I feel my argument is still valid, but as you say – there are other costs that aren’t directly related to $.
I know a lot of pro’s who love film for instance, but they won’t shoot it for commercial work because time is money.
As for buying a 1K scanner. It would be an option for most if they passed on buying that delicious new DSLR. We all have our own standards, and for you an iPad is more important than a film scanner.
For me, I sold an expensive Waldorf Wave synthesizer to fund me buying a film scanner. I knew I had to go that route because it was going to open up my art for me in a way I couldn’t have done before.
Still Andy, I feel you’ve turned the argument around to fit your circumstances, and also your own set of standards. I still maintain that film is no more expensive than upgrading to a new DSLR – on those features alone. This was my argument – and it was coming from the point of view that when I discuss this with people, they argue about the cost of film, scanners, etc.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 4 April, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
Fine art landscape photography has never been about convenience. It has never been about cost. It has always been about color and quality. Film meets and exceeds both of those requirements.
Comment by Timothy Gray — 6 April, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
Like I’ve been saying…. if you want to shoot film, you will, no matter what boundaries you have in front of you.
My original argument was that people tell me that digital is less expensive than film. My original posting was put forward to try to nullify the argument. Unfortunately, people do measure art in a cost way, and the cost is not just in terms of how much $ they spend, but also in terms of how much time, convenience, and dare I say it – whether they really care about shooting film or not.
I have had many participants on my workshops ask how I get the colours I get. When I say ‘I shoot film’, it doesn’t seem to make a difference. I guess we all have our own limits of what is acceptable.
For me, I can’t shoot anything other than film. For others, convenience and buying new gadgets or a brand new £2,000 DSLR are more important.
But it’s not an argument for creating art is it?
Comment by Bruce Percy — 6 April, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
I guess there are two different audiences there, Bruce. I know of top photographers who only shoot Large Format, not becasue they are particularly keen on carrying it around, but that’s what it takes to get the resutls they need and to satisfy both themselves and their customers.
But what digital did, was to make it a lot more approacheable for people who wouldn’t otherwise take up on photography. Many of them are beginners (like me, for instance), and I still think digital is a more friendlier way to learn the basics of photography.
I now started shoot also film and is a very steep learning curve and becomes frustrating at times, but some of the results make it worth it. In a way, not having the convenience of Digital is a great help in making me work more and be more careful about what I shoot, and this is extremely beneficial. At the end of the day, I do think that film is a lot more expensive than digital, but is also in my opinion money better spent.
Comment by Dumitru — 6 April, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
Film shooting has quite a few prerequisites that make it a pleasurable experience, since it has gone into “boutique phase” in most countries.
Availability well stocked shops, of good processing labs, their locations, operating hours, prices, etc. – it all adds up.
If you’re lucky with all these – film could be fun, fast and not so expensive at all.
If you’re not – it becomes a time consuming nightmare of frustration: shooting “what they have in stock” slide and waiting for the lab to deliver the usual unpredictable results in good old “it will be ready when it’s ready” time frame.
I’m a “film guy”, but i just could not take this anymore. So now i shoot only BW film for my portrait work.
One thing i’ve noticed along numerous “film vs. digital” discussions and my transition to digital:
It works differently for most of us. Long time film shooters embrace digital, “digital age” photographers suddenly moving to large format film… it’s not about price or specific film/digital qualities.
It’s about us, how we feel about the act of creation, how we connect with the world. Some of us need to take their time, to think about the shot, the composition, exposure, filtering… some of us need the explosive burst of unrestricted experimentation and the immediate feedback. There’s no wrong or right in this…
Comment by Nikolay — 7 April, 2010 @ 1:15 am
Hi, it’s an interesting discussion.
i guess I went the other way, Digital to Film.
I have always loved photographs, and taking photographs, but I only got ‘into’ photography in 2004 during the digital era. After a few forays into DSLR’s I soon got fed up with my new camera becoming obsolete in no time at all!
I then, as you do, started reading books by photographers displaying their art rather than books about technical aspects, and that’s how I started experimenting with film, especially E6, and developing my own BW.
Now the only digital I use happens to be a Fuji Digital Compact, and since 2005 I’ve used my beloved Contax G2, almost exclusively, I love it!
I know how it works, and its limitations, I find more pleasure in using my G2 than any other camera I’ve ever used (I haven’t delved into MF yet – as I can’t afford a Contax 645, mamiya 7 or any other attractive camera, but time will tell, i might get myself a cheap TLR to try things out and experiment).
I love the look of Velvia, (and of e100vs) and the pleasure lies in finding a beautiful location, or ’seeing’ a photograph, composing in my minds eye, and then trying to capture that with my camera. I tend to be more careful with my shots using my G2, and shoot a great deal less than when I ever shoot digitally. I’m no pro, and simply photograph for my own pleasure, so costs are very low!!
I’ve also yet to see anyone shooting a 10 year old DSLR, or even one dating back from 2005, I think my G2 will be with me for a very long time to come.
Film processing (in the UK) of E6 isn’t particularly expensive, I use 35mm and it costs me around £5 developing.
Black and White (various sorts of film) costs me next to nothing, as I develop at home using ID11 which lasts a very long time!
And I scan using an Epson 4990.
Anyway, whether you shoot digital or film, who cares? As long as you enjoy it! :)
Comment by Ibraar Hussain — 7 April, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
Hi Bruce
I agree with you to a certain extent. Purchasing a 5dmk2 and L lenses costs a lot more than a second hand MF camera. But adding a scanner ontop.. its not going to be far off the price of the 5dmk2 and 1 lens.
I buy packs of 5 film rolls of 120, that costs about £15. Developing 1 roll of 120 slide is about £8. So thats £55 all in all. With negative its even more money if you chose to have contact sheets.
Also how many rolls does one take out is the next question? x2 every outing? Do that x2 a month and you can see it is a lot of money. This is money ontop of the camera purchase remember, which digital doesnt encure.
You earn a living doing photography.. maybe many who post to your blog or those that do photography just for a hobby don’t. I think there is a bigger picture here and many variables to take into consideration.
I have to say though one of the most wonderful things about film, apart from the diverse characteristics of many types of film out there.. is that the medium yields a perfect negative.. one that does not need tons of time spent on it in photoshop! You have so much more of a life with film. That was one of the reasons I gave up digtial. You pay all that money for a DSLR for a digital negative that still needs loads of work done to it. I think thats crazy.
Also there is the characteristics of the sensor and how it renders tone. Yes they may have better dynamic range than slide, but not colour neg or b+w. In some cases you can record 15 stops on film! Film also has the ability to beautifully render tone from dark to light very gradually. It wins every time against a digital sensor that basically cant handle big changes in tone. You are only dealing with 1s and 0’s remember! Analog medium will always be able to capture more tones. Also the digital camera may have a clarity to it, but it has so depth as far as I can see. Its souless.
For us film users, things will slowly get worse, as the digital dictactorship out there are doing all they can to push digital as the only picture taking medium. I really hope all the film photogs keep the film banner flying for a long time yet.
Comment by stevefrance — 14 May, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
Just a brief comment from recent personal experience. I’ve been lucky to find a reliable UK film processing lab but have had ‘consistency’ issues with having negatives scanned. I decided to take the plunge and to take control of the scanning by investing in a good flatbed scanner. I had already decided that a dedicated film scanner could not be supported by print sales. After research I went for the Epson V700 and I am delighted with the results. So I would rewrite the equation more in favour of Bruce’s position in that excellent results (with both 120 and 35mm) can be got with a scanner at £0.5k. I don’t bother with contact sheets as all this can be done with the scanner. At the same time I bought a near mint Bronica 150mm f4 for £70. For my 35 mm work, as well as my pre-existing Yashica FX3 /Ds I bought a Nikon F80 for £90 specifically to shoot a wedding where the client wanted ‘documentary film’ feel to it.
So on that basis, for specific work, not so expensive and a great pleasure!
Comment by IMSphotos — 21 April, 2011 @ 4:28 pm