>shoot film /p/ said, it will be fun /p/ said
Yeah shooting film is indeed fun but maaan, it is no way cheaper than shooting digital.
Someone should sticky this to inform new/p/hags that film is not cheaper than digital
Film camera: $100
Film (say $4 each): $4 x 52 rolls (one roll per week) = $208
Developing: $5 x 52 = $260
Put in CD: $3 x 52 = $156
= $774 for one year
and $1398 for two years (if the film camera and lightmeter is still working)
tl/dr you are a /p/hag if you shoot film
>When poorfags complain about the cost of shooting 135
There are people on this board that have more than that just into their actual film camera and glass, hell there's people here with more than that just on the body.
I've probably got that much into my Nikon F system if not more.
Quit yer bitchin and shoot film.
The point is not that it is expensive, the point is that it is not cheaper than buying a digital camera and shooting that.
It is not a condemnation of film for film's sake, it is a condemnation of shooting film because you can't afford to shoot digital.
I develop and scan film at home. Costs me about $1 in chemicals to do that. I also bulk roll my film. I can get 18 rolls out of $40
quit yer bitchen, it isn't that expensive. You're just doing it wrong, nigga.
Then what are you planning? Scan it with a dslr? Then that will jack up the cost to an additional $1000+ plus tripod, macro lens/macro extension etc.
Having it put on a cd is more economical than buying a dslr just for scanning negatives.
You just showed that you need to spend an additional $200 for that p&s to scan your negatives. If you are digitizing film why not shoot them with a digital camera in the first place?
Also scanning film cost time.
Tl/dr filmfags get told
>Quit yer bitchin and shoot film.
Remember that entire Summer you spent whining on this board about how hard life is without a job and how you couldn't wait to leave shitty Florida when you found one?
You're somehow both the most arrogant tripfaggot and the whiniest little bitch on this entire board, Jesse, and that's fucking saying something.
Nobody here likes you, your attitude, or least of all your "photography."
>Can't afford to shoot digital
>film camera: $100
I don't get this meme at all. You'd have to be a factory worker in a third world country to not be able to pick up a used rabal or point and shit for the same price as a semi decent 135 body.
Lightmeters are useful but not necessary if you take 5 minutes to learn the sunny 16 rule and judge exposure for yourself. Sure, get one if you're starting to use a flash.
>Film (say $4 each)
Not that expensive, you can even get cheaper film if you know where to look.
I can get C41 done here for $3.63, B&W I process at home because labs are terrible at it
>Put in CD: $3
They do that for free with the C41
If you're really, really, really poor and can't afford a DSLR rig to scan film, pick up a dirt cheap flatbed with a transparency light or frame. I got my first scanner for £7 That's the cost of getting 3 rolls developed.
I'd always recommend digital for a beginner though. It allows a degree of trial and error for those with short tempers.
>on of the meter leads me to think 93k pix is all we're getting. RIP my megapixel metering
Shooting a scene on film, and then "scanning" with a DSLR gives very very different results than shooting digital on the scene. I am a digital fag and even I understand this.
Toppest of KEKS.
>Film camera: $100
I got my AE-1 at a yard sale for $20, then got it repaired for $50, works perfectly.
Uh, no - decent camera's have one built in.
>Film (say $4 each): $4 x 52 rolls (one roll per week) = $208
One roll per week? Are you a full time proffesional film photographer? I can get a 5 pack of 36 exp Ilford FP4 for £20 on Amazon. It takes some time to get through it, so if I were to say realistically how much I'd spend on film, it'd be £80-100
>Developing: $5 x 52 = $260
Bullshit son. Buy a Patterson tank, or something similar and develop it yourself. I made my own dev and it costs 5c to develop a film. I also have stop solution ( 2% Acetic acid vinegar), that any chemical supply shops sells for next to nothing. It takes me 30 minutes to develop 2 rolls of film.
>Put in CD: $3 x 52 = $156
LOL, cut that shit out. Just scan your prints. The printing is what sucks the most in terms of cost, but it's fun and you create fucking masterpieces.
I've probably spent around £500 on my film photography hobby - which includes all of the gear, chemicals, darkroom time and so on.
If you live in the US or a decent European country you don't have an excuse really.
My favorite camera ever OP. Still have 2
light meter not needed, most cams have some type of needle meter. Otherwise you can get one cheap, or learn to gauge light. It's really not that hard.
Take slides/chromes and process yourself. Save much $
Bulk buy film and load yourself BUT you'll kick yourself in the ass the first time you end up scratching an entire roll
Film scanner. I can't recall the cost but it was under $400
Negatives of film
No instant gratification. You will miss some once-in-a-lifetime shots due to bad exposure.
No ability to quickly swap iso's or shoot b&w vs color.
HD does not work with film. With HD digital you can come closer to what the eye sees.
Both have their place. It's like mp3 vs vinyl. I use both of those as well.
Why do you care if people want to shoot film?
join local camera club, mine's got D76 as much as I need (I do pay 0,50e per hour for lab time. But ie. 5 films for 0,50 isn't that bad imho). Also paper liquids are on the house. There's few scanners also that you can use.
>DSLR is the only option for scanning at home
>Not knowing there are dedicated film scanners from Canon, Nikon, HP, Kodak, Plustek, Pacific Image, and literally everyone else and their grandma
When it comes to dealing with money, you're not very good, I guess. You could cut a lot of that cost by developing and scanning by yourself instead of sending it to a lab, or alternatively, developing and printing by yourself (this way you'd get prints as a bonus over digital). Also, you can buy bulk film if you're shooting 35mm. Heck, you could even buy loose ends of 5222, then the cost would be minimal.
If we are talking about MF or LF, where film really shines, the cost is a fraction of digital equivalent would be. You can buy a rz67 w/ lenses for cheaper than a Canon rabal. Also, the look is very different, and much more malleable than 35mm or FF.
i fucking print the photos i like, like a fucking man, instead of living on the internet like some shitty nerd
or, if you're a pussified half man, you could use a modern lab that fucking sends you a file instead of using TWO outdated forms of media
I love film but do realize it is expensive. I have a pretty crappy Minolta I've always carried with me secondary to my 5d but don't use it as much. I don't buy a lot of rolls either so I use it conservatively. If there's something I really want to capture on film I'll use it and if the situation permits I'll take the same pic digitally.
highly disagree. Had/have a 4ti and hated it, I mean hated it more than I can say. Should be a good camera but was never right. Ate batteries for breakfast lunch and dinner as well as a few more for snacks.
the 1n is in my opinion the best ever made.
Got a deal on an OM-1 and OM-4ti for 100 bucks. OM1 is much nicer to shoot.
I haven't shot with an MF, but between all my digital and film cameras, it's the one I like best.
Small, simple, good looking, a pleasure to use.
Sadly I don't see the point of using it since digital dynamic range isn't a problem anymore for me and I just can shoot as much as I want with the digital.
>Different films maybe? Also different light situations throughout the day?
No, chances are good he had the Leica on him, and just acquired the other three, and took the photo after he got back into his car. If I saw someone walking down the road with four 35mm cameras around his neck, I'd jump the curb and put him out of his misery.
>implying it doesn't meter differently as the battery gets depleted
>implying using alkaline won't damage the OM-1
OM-2 is much better. It got the looks that OM-1 is famed for but has more features and takes alkaline batteries.
>he actually fell for the film meme
shit nigga, what are you doing?
My Hasselblad equipment and my 35mm Nikon system has cost me at least $4000. MF also costs me about $2 per shot, to shoot - as I like to support a local lab for developing and scanning.
I'd still shoot film if this had all costed twice as much.