File :-(, x, )
35mm or Digital Anonymous
Okay, I want to get the real skinny. I've been interested in photography for a while now, and I think it might just be time to get serious about it. I need a hobby/something creative to do. Now, I honestly have no idea where to being. I assume one needs a camera, so that seemed like as good a place as any.

I was talking to a friend of mine how I was thinking about getting into it, and getting a digital SLR camera. She told me no, get a 35mm. She said it was more fun, and it felt more productive. That's great and all, I'm all for fun and productivity. However, it seems like buying film and getting it developed and scanning it in to my computer seems like a lot of hassle, not to mention costly.

What do you guys suggest? 35 or Digital? I would like to hear some objective truth as well as your preferences.
>> Anonymous
It really depends on personal preferance, borrow a friends or something, both dslr and 35mm, see which one you like more.

Personally, i prefer film because its an actual physical image. its a tangible thing that you can see and feel. makes it more fun for me really.
>> Anonymous
Get both, there are advantages and disadvantages to each and it all comes down to preference. I shoot film most of the time for recreational stuff, but sometimes you've just gotta go digital.
>> Anonymous
productive and film, lol
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
If you're on a tight budget digital is the way to go. Regardless of hassle or personal preference, it does get costly buying film and getting it developed, or even developing it yourself.
>> anon
depends. again. i personally do recreational work with film and professional work with digital.
>> Anonymous
Well I'd like to keep it inexpensive, at first at least, but it seems like you guys, for fun, like film more, correct? I'm not a professional photographer, and I don't want to be. Just something to mess around with and have fun with on the weekends and such.
>> Anonymous
>>135257

Listen to this man, after awhile film can get very pricey, and if oyu dont have darkroom access processing it can kick you in the nuts.

>>135276

For recreation I actually prefer digital just because its instant gratification, press a button have a picture. No need to process or anything. But any serious work I'm doing I always use film.
>> Anonymous
if you just want to mess around, digital

film is like masturbating and only have the orgasm a few days later and sometimes you just lose that orgasm altogether

and your female friend is a real cunt
>> Anonymous
I use both. I prefer digital for convenience, film because I like film cameras better. I think cameras pretty much went to shit after 1980. Plus nothing else has the look of a nice 6x6 transparency on the light table.
>> Anonymous
>>135248
Film has a steeper learning curve than digital. The only tools you have are your experiences and what others have written about it.

I noticed that once I got a feel for what it was I wanted to do, it was tons easier to do digitally. Very anticlimactic. But film continues to challenge me.

Film is a harsh mistress who gives you pleasure only if you get everything right.
>> Anonymous
So I've been looking around, doing some research, and I only have one question.

How much does film and processing really cost? Because to get a good DSLR set up, even on the cheap, is around $700. If I can get a used old 35mm for $30 or $40, how many photos do I really have to take to make it cheaper to buy a digital?

Why are they so freaking expensive?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135895
Okay, low estimate: $2/roll for the film, $6/roll for developing, for 36-shot rolls. That's about the cheapest you're gonna find it. Good film is more than two bucks a roll, and developing is usually more like $9. So, $8/36 shots or $.22/shot.

You can get a low-end digital SLR for about $500 nowadays. But let's go with your higher $700 estimate.

So the break even point, if you're using the absolute cheapest possible film and find someone who'll develop it really cheaply, is 3182 pictures. I've taken about 2000 so far in 2008 with my digital SLR.

Oh, and that break-even point doesn't take into account that you still have to buy a film SLR. And if you want to have digital copies of the pictures, you're going to either have to buy a film scanner (say about $75 for a cheap one) or get a photo CD with each development job (which is like $3 most places, I think, for really shitty low-res scans).

The reason digital SLRs cost so much more is because it costs a lot more to make a digital SLR. Notably, the LCD, the image processor, and (especially) the sensor are really expensive components.
>> Anonymous
>>135915
If you use off brand black and white film and process it yourself, you can get the total cost for 36 exposures to around $2.50.

Assuming you spend $100 on your film SLR, then it works out to around 8,000 photos you can take before you break even with a $700 DSLR.

There are two other things to consider. First, almost nobody shoots as much with a film camera as with a digital camera. You learn very quickly and cut down on your wasted shots, so it doesn't make sense to calculate cost for film based on how much some people shoot with their digital cameras.

Second, even if you end up spending more on a film SLR and film/processing than you would have on a DSLR, you're spreading it out over time. It's like making payments on your photography. Add that to the fact that you can buy a very good, high-end film SLR for very little money and you will not feel compelled to upgrade any time soon, whereas if you buy a cheap DSLR you will almost certainly find yourself wanting (or needing, when the cheap plastic piece of crap breaks) a new on within a year or so.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135923
Where are you finding this really cheap black and white film?

(This isn't me disagreeing with you. This is me looking for a bargain on black and white film because I really enjoy shooting black and white film)
>> Anonymous
>>135932
Neopan400 (around $3 per roll) or Lucky100($1.5 per roll)?
>> Anonymous
There is no way I could process it myself. I don't have a dark-room or lab or anything. I really don't know much about photography at all to be honest, except what I've been reading the last few weeks. Something I'm interested in and want to pursue.

I'm also kind of worried about investing a lot of money into a DSLR, and ending up not liking it. Even if I resell it, I'll loose a few hundred bucks.

Does all that make any sense?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135939
Get yourself a cheaper camera. Used Canon PowerShot A-series from eBay. I'm partial to the A95--it's reasonably cheap nowadays since it's been superceded by the A610, A620, A630, A640, and A650IS, but it's what I still use as my pocket camera for situations where an SLR is too much. You can learn photography with it and decide whether or not it's for you. If it's not, you're not out too much money. If it is, it'll still be a useful backup camera when you get an SLR of some sort.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135934
$3 > $2.50.

Also, I asked where, not what. I can't find this "lucky 100" of which you speak...
>> Anonymous
>>135941
Asia

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/bwf10.html
>> Anonymous
I suggest getting a film camera to see if photography is something you'd be interested in. If you like what you see, then consider investing in a DSLR, but getting one of those on a whim might not be the best idea.

I bought a Minolta SRT-100 with 35mm, 35 wide, 55, 135, and 85-205 lenses on eBay recently for $45. You might try buying someone's old setup on eBay to get you started.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135946
That doesn't actually appear to be for sale in 35mm. And not even for sale in 120 in the US.
>> Anonymous
>>135932
Arista, Adox, Efke, Foma, and a bunch of chinese shit. $2 per roll is normally pretty easy to find, and you can get it quite a bit below that if you bulk load. Check ebay or google. Also ebay is great for lots of expired mainstream films. Black and white film doesn't really go bad even if it's expired and was stored poorly, so it's generally a safe bet.

>>135939
You don't need a darkroom or a lab, you just need about 40 bucks worth of supplies and a sink. Developing film is extremely easy and extremely educational. Anyone who is serious about photography should learn to develop film.

>>135940
This is good advice. Even if you decide you're not interested in photography as a hobby, you'll still have a good compact digital to take family/friends pictures with. If you do decide you like it and get an SLR, you will still probably want something light and compact to carry around when it would be inconvenient to use an SLR.
>> Anonymous
Go with film, because it's cheaper (and I personally prefer film).

Yeah, a DSLR pays off over time, but if you're taking pictures for fun, film is the way to go. You can't really beat film prints, either.

Here's a fair cost comparison:
http://photography.about.com/od/filmvsdigital/qt/CostComparision.htm
Yes, it's from about.com, but I thought it seems somewhat reasonable (though it factors in that you're getting about 1125 digital prints in a year, what the hell?)
It's also factors in the money that you're getting a new 35mm.

TL;DR: Film is cheaper for a hobbyist, as long as you don't go shot-crazy.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Well guys, looks like I'm going film. I was talking to my stepdad about my growing interest in photography, and he told me that he has a Minolta XG-1 with my name on it. He said he has three lenses to go with it (a macro, a telephoto, and a normal one) All I need to do is get some film and maybe change the battery.

He said its in a box in the attic somewhere, and he'll dig it out tomorrow. I'm pretty excited.
>> Anonymous
>>135977
That's a good one. Have fun taking pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>135977He said its in a box in the attic somewhere, and he'll dig it out tomorrow.

Attic. Shit. Hopefully the lenses haven't grown fungus...
>> Anonymous
>>136010
Is that a realistic concern? How easily could they be cleaned?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>136010
Attic > Basement, I believe.

Hopefully not. Minolta manual-focus = Win.
>> Anonymous
>>136105
Well guys, it looks like its in good shape. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the lenses. It doesn't look like there's fungus. The lenses are clean and unscratched.

I can't wait to get some film and start taking pictures.
>> Anonymous
Have fun with film and if you get serious about it grab a 645, 6x6 or 6x7 next. There's some serious resolution and tonality compared to 35mm.