[baro-nite]

Last year I shot my first roll of film in about 12 years. Since starting digital photography with a borrowed point and shoot in 2002 I didn't see any reason to use film, until I got the Pentax LBA bug in 2011 and started acquiring old lenses, some of which came with cameras attached. And a desire to digitize old slides and negatives (my own stuff plus older family photos) got me to buy a v700. Reading the opinions and seeing the work of dedicated film shooters here and elsewhere made me realize that film still has its place, and not just in larger formats where there is no digital equivalent or the cost of digital gear is prohibitive. Still, it took me a while to work up the courage to try film again. That probably sounds silly, what's to lose but $20 or so for a roll and processing, but mainly I didn't want to try it and feel that I failed, that I can't do as well as I can with digital. I'm still taking it slowly, but I've shot another 4 rolls recently (my last two trips I've taken only film cameras) and have gotten to grips with getting reasonable 135 scans from the v700, and I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about film.

I loved photography as a teen (and since) but was never happy with my results. I had a friend who's dad had a darkroom and we were allowed to use it, so I learned some of the basics but never to the point of having an intuitive grasp of things, whether with the camera or in the darkroom. Later I would take family and vacation snapshots and would try to compose interesting images but my keeper rate (as I saw it) tended to one or two shots per roll, sometimes better but sometimes zero. I just never had the necessary period of really diving in and working hard to learn photography, until digital came along. So I thank the advent of accessible digital tools for getting me really interested in photography again, and that leaves me able to approach film with a new mindset. I am thinking seriously about trying medium format, and dream of trying a 4x5 view camera. But portability is a big concern for me, as I do much of my photography while traveling.

[alan_smithee_photos]

I am thinking seriously about trying medium format, and dream of trying a 4x5 view camera. But portability is a big concern for me, as I do much of my photography while traveling.

I recommend taking a look at the Fuji GA645 cameras. They're basically a medium format point and shoot (or maybe some kind of rangefinder/point and shoot hybrid). Ugly to look at and straight up plastic, but they're tough, have beautiful glass, compact (for MF) and make MF much more forgiving than other cameras.

I shoot all my MF on my Rolleiflex these days but got the bug from a GA645i.

[baro-nite]

I recommend taking a look at the Fuji GA645 cameras. They're basically a medium format point and shoot (or maybe some kind of rangefinder/point and shoot hybrid). Ugly to look at and straight up plastic, but they're tough, have beautiful glass, compact (for MF) and make MF much more forgiving than other cameras.

Thanks for the tip -- I had been intrigued by the newer Fuji 690, but the 645i looks like a good choice and a lot cheaper.

[ChristianRock]

With digital I shoot hundreds to over a thousand pictures a month but end up with about 10-20 that I really like. I can get about the same out of a 36-exposure film.
So I'm finding out the cost-benefit of film isn't quite as bad as people think... but digital is good for training and learning, you can make tons of mistakes. I do think as I grow as a photographer I'll probably shoot on film a higher percentage of my time.

[Clicker]

No, i just use my film stuff as box filler

[gofour3]

Because photography without a slide or negative, leaves me cold. Same holds true for music, I need a physical LP, CD or tape.

Having my photos or music stored on a computer is not an option for me.

Phil.

[p38arover]

I like both these photos but, to my eye, the film one on the right wins it (K1000, Lomo 800):

Yet, to me, the one on the left is the better one.

[carrrlangas]

I shoot 135 film because I can´t afford (money, weight and size) to carry another DSLR as a backup when mountaneering. Also, the film camera is much cheaper, battery isn´t affected by weather and if it gets really bad, it won´t be as bad as breaking a DSLR.
Extra benefit of Pentax: I can share almost all the lenses I carry with me, from M to DA series.
I´d love to shoot more film. even try medium format. But developing, scanning and processing (minimal or not) takes too much time and money to mee compared to digital. I rather spend that money printing.

[Dariusz]

I worry about the future with all these EVFs.

EVFs are pretty useful. They've got some serious advantages over traditional finders, like constant DOF preview

[Jamey777]

dariusz, i agree they are more useful, I just mean that if i hold my eye to them for any length of time i get blurred vision and can't see well. Never have that problem with an optical. At some point they will cram enough pixels in there so it won't matter.

[bibz]

EVFs suck for actually seeing the light. Its a poor, dotty, heavily processed representation. However after my year of 6x7/645/135 experimentation I no longer want a bigger viewfinder for digital. The light doesn't really matter when the sensor doesnt really capture it well. Film really really does.

With all the chatter about the minute differences in noise and dynamic range on the cmos's of late its incredible that people don't realise how much better the world of film can be. The results I've gotten from colour film, pos and neg, in 120, has colour that leaves digital waaaaaaay in the dust. Even digital representations of them. It captures light so much better to my eyes. Hybrid/figital (I love that phrase) is a really good, constantly updating way to get the best of both worlds. Black and white photography is absolutely stunning when done right. Digital bnw especially stands out on the web, but you just cannot print it as well as a lovely wet print. If you just want to get ideas down, theres digital. But the final product suffers. I consider digital b&w great for demos, but all wet makes it a proper studio recording.

Theres also the process. I get a real itch to shoot my 6x7. It's magic. I actually love the process of developing. I love how much care and attention you can put into creating something in the darkroom. Hands on. Digital is great if all you want to do is click and print. Both have their place. But after a lovely sunrise shoot at a very low tide, with my k30 and 645nII, the results and processes just pushed me into film even more. My k30 is very ragged after 18months, and I'm just not passionate about using it anymore. It's a tool. My film stuff is all a mechanical paradise. The engineering and manufacturing you can get for 15 bucks in a film camera is such a weirdly skewed value.

I'm currently deeply in love with all the different methods and experiences with film that I missed out growing up through. I just bought my second folder, am looking at TLR's. I'm still a ways off of getting into large format. That looks like it will be years of fun also. I already see scenes in film type. Some light yells portra, some ektar, some velvia. And when you see a great velvia shot, you know how the light must have been. You know the magic. You can't pick a sensor out of a lineup.

I could bash on for a lot longer, what can I say, this site has really pushed me into a deep deep love affair!

[OrangeKx]

I started shooting film again over the past year because I wanted to use my film cameras. Simple as that. As mentioned here already, I too enjoy the mechanical nature of the older cameras. IMO no DSLR will ever have the feel of an ME Super. I primarily shoot B&W mostly using Kodak Tri-X 400 but starting to branch out to other films. I bought the stuff needed to develop the B&W myself and it's a lot of fun. If I shoot color I take it to Blue Moon in Portland, OR. I went from 2 to 4 film cameras at home after my dad passed two on to me, and for some reason recently bought a ZX-5n because I wanted auto focus - so now I'm up to 5. Crazy. I still shoot mostly digital but when I go out to shoot film I leave the K-x home which forces me to concentrate on film only. I usually take a couple of B&W loaded bodies out with me. My ME Super is the go to film camera but enjoy the light weight of the two "ZX" series cameras for some outings.

[stevebrot]

I shoot 135 film because I can´t afford (money, weight and size) to carry another DSLR as a backup when mountaneering.

My little Olympus XA was a real lifesaver a few years back when my digital experienced abrupt battery failure many miles from the nearest source of power.


Steve

[dugrant153]

The tactile nature of film is one of the main reasons I still use film today and continue to use it even when doing client work. The old mechanical cameras have this feel to them that's more "involved" than my other cameras. Even with the more newer PZ-1 and MZ series, you get pretty large viewfinders (for the most part) and still a more tangible experience than with digital.
On top of that, there's a roll of film, which becomes a negative. A negative is something you can touch, smell and taste (the latter two only if you so desire to.... although I do not recommend it). I can't "touch" my RAW files. There's a disconnect there with the experience.

All that being said, I still use digital (and currently Totally Rad's Replichrome). But I always have film ready to go.

Oh let's not forget batteries. Digital cameras tend to suck more electricity than equivalent-type film cameras (and some film cameras). If I forget to charge my battery and can't get back to my hotel or find a power outlet or something, I'm done for the day (and because they're all proprietary batteries, short of finding a decent camera store, good luck!). My Olympus OM1n, an all manual film camera, will still keep on going as long as I have the film to load it.

In conclusion, I just find there to be so many reasons to shoot film for me. It works for me. It won't work for everyone... but for me, it does.

[Na Horuk]

I havent used film in a really long time.. but the viewfinder on a nice SLR is just so luxurious, compared to the tiny little pinhole we get on DSLRs.
And also the characteristics of film itself. Different films produce different colours, dynamic range, etc. This is something that digital sensors don't do. There is a reason why there are so many post processing tutorials on how to make digital photos "look like film" (and presets, and plugins, and software..). You can get a good film for landscapes, and a different one that is good for portraits, and then a black and white one, etc. I wish digital sensors would reach that kind of specialization

The main drawback of film is that those SLRs generally have less automation than modern DSLRs, and that you are limited by film. With digital, you can fit hundreds, thousands of photos on a single card. With film, you need to carry around rolls, store them, develop them,.. its more of a hassle