Interesting read on F295 website regarding film vs digital photography. Will post a link but if it is removed google this top: The Merits of Shooting Film in the Digital World.

http://www.f295.org/site/?p=2057

Sorry RicD but evidently you believe that film cameras were created out of thin air and find more creditable sources of information.

Production of film cameras and film was much larger than digital. Can we say disposable cameras? Not to mention millions upon millions of miles of film used each year for advertising, tv, movies, news media and personal use that was all developed using mixtures of chemicals. All printed on paper that was made and treated with even more chemicals. There are over 100 highly toxic chemicals that needed to be disposed of almost none of which, could be recycled. Kodachrome was discontinued in part because of the price of silver and because the chemicals used in processing were so toxic they could no longer be used.

Not to imply the chemicals used in plastics are any better, but pails in comparison the literally 1,000's of disposable cameras (all plastic) a company I worked for sent out each week for instillation proof. That was done by 1,000's of companies all over the world.

I don't believe you will find any photographer that really looks at these small environmental reasons in the big picture of things for the choice between the two.

If you like film, that is enough. You don't need to try to justify your choice by something that obviously had no part in your choice.

@RicD In a single word (and I'm being kind here): Rubbish.

-1 towards your perspective of our "digital world."

@Spy Black,
The negative environmental impact of film use over digital is not there. Have you given thought to:
The disposal rate of digital cameras in our landfills
The chemicals and resources used making silicon chips, and electronic components inside the gazillion new digital cameras
The overall quantity of digital cameras being created, gazillion times more than film cameras, depleting resources to make them.
The resources used making new or adding on to factories that make the digital cameras.
The resources used making the digital chips, electronics, and the like for the digital cameras.
The created software with packaging, and hardware such as HDD, storage devices etc, to handle those digital files all take much more resources than film. Thus they create industries that add to polluting our environment.

Many more items can be added to the above list that will show digital has a much higher negative environmental impact.
Of the above there is a long domino effect of related and non related industries causing pollution, using non renewable resources, industries that have a negative effect caused by digital cameras. Though the same applies to other digital devices we are talking film vs digital cameras.

Studies I have read show an overall net negative environmental impact caused by digital cameras than their counterpart, film. So, there is not in ones wildest stretch of imagination a positive environmental gained moving to digital, quite the contrary.

Film vs digital is all about convenience. Myself, I grew up with film, then in 2000 embraced digital becoming a seven year digital bigot, a true digital chest thumper. Around 2008 I became to realize I enjoyed film more. Though I am both, digital and film, 90% is film.

Film or digital regardless of the attributes of either is a personal choice nothing more. Much like a car with a auto or manual transmission. The auto transmission is much more convenient easier to drive, still folks drive a stick shift. Personal choice.

I myself used pro labs for all my critical work. An outfit like ABC Photo and Imaging in Manassas, VA was so far beyond what I could do and I was pretty good at chem lab stuff. I also worked with Meisel Photochrome earlier. Very few labs are that good. This situation with film photo labs will continue to erode as film subsides. Digital is environmentally friendlier and that is fact. However our worldwide demand for copper threatens some of the best commercial and sport fishery populations that have ever existed on this planet. I wish that this demand for resources were not so true as the better our photography gets the better we can see what we may lose!

I have never had the opportunity to learn to develop film nor have the area for it. I'm sure I would have messed it up way worse then they could have.

Im surprised you didn't just order your own chemistry online and do it right yourself instead of trusting someone else. I think you may have been off track from the start when you decided to make your objective one of quickness. I go the exact oposite direction with the film that I shoot. Whether its with the Hassy or the F100 I only pull the trigger when its a real gem of a shot and I want to take a really nice long exposure with really low ISO b&w film to capture as much detail and tonality as possible. All that is only after something looks worthy enough through the viewfinder of a DSLR. So, for me its just a way of making a film alternate of what Im already shooting on digital, and that just allows me to have and observe the very quantifiable differences between the two mediums. Especially so in b&w.

Thanks for all the comments!

-JJump
I used full manual or "auto" cameras and just shot around friends. I was having fun taking snapshots, and not terribly concerned with "getting the photo" as I am with most of my stuff nor did I use a flash at all. This was just fun time, not work or "concentrate on the Image" time. Looking back I probably should have pulled out the N75 and Oly IS more but that wasn't my focus - I wanted to force myself into making quick decisions. If I had those with me Or took my time, I too, probably would have had similar numbers (but not that high) to you as well. I could used more, but my definition of "usable" is quite persnickety. A friend's father who shot professionally for 40 years and retired rather than go to digital, would get damn near every shot usable as well. He said maybe 1 out of a 1000 would be off. He also shot only MF film so missing images was much more expensive. After 6 years of digital, I have lost what touch I used to have that is for sure.

Finding a good lab that you can trust (or better, get the worker who you can trust) is very difficult. The local lab pushed my film constantly when I ask them not too, (wanted darker images) which pulls in a ton of grain at times and it blew many images out of range. They did that with 10 roll on 5 separate occasions and it drove me insane.

I am struck by the % of usable images that TaoTeJared actually got from J Jump's guessed at almost all keepers out of 700 images that he MIGHT shoot. I think the 200 useful images out of 700 photos is more probable. When I used big view cameras at pretty expensive per individual shot I was good at calculating exposure on film. I actually backed off on using chrome film as it was not as forgiving. Digital is a better deal and it is that simple. I actually was one of the slowest pros to switch to digital.

One of the facts which MOST caused me to switch to digital was looking back at my spot metering versus 35mm camera metering results on film then trying the digital Nikons. Now that I am using digital on an everyday basis I am certain film is going byebye.

I do not mean this as an attack on J Jump's post at all. His point that there aren't local labs to process is accurate and insightful and I am going to guess that is enough to cause you to go to digital. Despite the fact that I THINK I am very good at metering....J Jump must be better at that than I am. I do feel that looking back at images just shot keep me on the race track. That review does not slow me down at all. It does keep me from wasting memory space and gets me much closer to the proper exposure. Another fact pointed out is that film cameras do not sell for much at all. Why not keep your best as a piece of your own history?

Good topic and all posts good ones. And I do not want my post to be a negative one. One comment on chromes versus negatives....when you go back to the BOXES of exposed film....the negatives are pretty hard to appreciate compared to chrome images. Just a thought.

Not everyone has similar film experiences, Tao. The only reason I no longer shoot film is because there are no more local labs that develop or print them anymore.

You said you took 700 images, got 200 usable images, and only 5 great images. When I shot film, if I were to shoot 700, I would get approximately 680 usable images, and probably 692 of those would be properly exposed on the one little ISO I chose at the time. To push things even further, this is my estimation for transparencies. If I shot 700 shots on negative film, everything would rise. I could get 695 usable images and about 698 of those properly exposed.

This is no exaggeration. Film was quite usable and workable for many, many years, and when you knew how to handle everything (exposure, ISO, lens/body combination, printing, developing) you could be easily as successful with your shots as you are with digital. You became familiar with cropping in camera, exposing, bracketing, or whatever you had to to do get the right shots. I could confidently burn 21 shots on one roll with my old Pentax 67II and be 100% confident that all 21 were spot on, in every aspect.

As far as slowing down, I am stuck in the bad "digital" habit of looking at the last few shots I took on the LCD (even though I don't really need to) and that slows my shoots down more than I ever did with film.

Funny, at the PDN Photo Expo both Fuji and Kodak were giving away film for free. I decided/managed to grab myself a 5-pack of Velvia 100 120, 2 rolls of Velvia 50 120, 1 roll of Velvia 50 135, and two rolls of Ektar 100 120.

I haven't thought much about shooting film lately, but with the freebies available I figured why not to pull out my old F2, Fuji 645, and Mamiya C33 and have some fun?

I think film is becoming a fine art medium, an oddity that may or may not last. While there are some things I love about film, one thing I never liked was the environmental impact it had on the planet, especially color development. I remember when I used yo work at a service bureau in the film days the incredible amount of chemistry from C-41, E-6, Cibachrome, C-paper, and B&W going down the drain from just our lab alone, never mind the hundreds of other labs in Manhattan, and never mind all the labs outstretching from there!

Although there's plenty of other industries still viciously polluting the planet, at least film has seen it's day in that nasty contribution.

It is, of course, a personal choice. Film versus digital. Strange that I saw this thread today. I was rearranging my cameras, lenses, lights, etc., looking at the F5 and the Leica M4-2, and actually threw away a film point & shoot camera. Just threw it into the trash can. I'm sure it would work, but who would want it?

I gave away a dozen nice film cameras last year. Couldn't find anyone who would buy them, and finally found a school which would take them. I shot my first photos for publication with a Rollieflex TLR in 1964, and I've owned 50+ film cameras in various formats. I have 50,000+ transparencies and thousands of b/w negs and prints in storage. I've made a lot of money with photos shot on film, but . . .

About three years ago I realized that I actually was slow to figure out just how much better digital is than film. The D200 didn't do it for me, but when I got my hands on the D700, I was sold. I use the D7000 mostly for shooting television, but it's delightful for stills. I prefer the D700, though.

The old cameras are wonderful pieces of machinery, and they are fun to play with. But if I want to be productive, get better photos, and make the whole process 10 times faster, it's digital all the way.

I can't force myself to sell the last of my film cameras, but I doubt I'll ever expose another roll of film.

I too had planned a "film project" for this summer. Last winter I noticed Nikon auto focus film camera were selling dirt cheap, so I bought a few for $30 to $45 and a well used Nikon F5. I was going to see if I could produce a result with a $44.00 Nikon film camera body which would compare well with the result from a Nikon F5 body using the same lens. That was my project. However, I never shot a single frame because I became distracted by another project; a digital comparison.

I had a Nikon D80 for years and had just bought a Nikon D7000: then a D3100 for my wife: a reconditioned D90 and a used D40. Now I could do the same comparison with digital I had been planning for film and that became my new summer project. It is now October and I am still switching between those different digital cameras and have come to the same conclusions as the OP traveling down the opposite path.

- There is no longer any need for film for anyone but a specialist who wants to use film for some particular effect. A 10 or 13 megapixel sensor produces a sharp enough image for any reasonable print size.
- Whether printed on a laser printer or printed chemically with true light sensitive photo paper, the quality is sufficient that I don't think film would have anything important to add.
- Being able to edit and adjust your image in your computer before it is printed is a tremendous advantage.
- Being able to evaluate your image on the LCD screen immediately after taking it is a tremendous advantage because you can make adjustments and re-shoot while you are in that spot at that time.
- Variable ISO is magic. 30 years ago I did nature photography with Kodachrome 25. 25 ISO (or ASA as we called it then). Imagine such a handicap.
- Variable Picture Control from Vivid to Soft to Standard colors and more is amazing. All the flavors of many different types of film at your disposal for each single image.
- Adequate family "snapshots" can be produced with an old used Nikon D40 costing about $250.
- Adequate 8x10 portraits can be produced by a D80 or D90 costing from $500 to $800 or by a new D3100 for the about the same price.
- Film truly is dead. It just offers no real advantage to justify putting up with its many limitations and inconveniences compared to digital. There is a good reason why high quality used film camera are priced so cheap! I can shoot 100 portrait images, edit them down to 20, post process the 20 to take out skin imperfections, e-mail the images to an on-line photo shop all in one sitting on one afternoon. Then I just wait for the prints to arrive by mail in a week or so.

I might just never do that "film project" now because it seems it would be a waste of time.

Very Interesting and a very well done post. I for sure do not miss the film days for me. I even sold my 8x10 and 10x30 film holders with the last sheets of exposed film in them. I now only have a batch of rolls of exposed medium format negative and chrome that I have never felt a great urge to develop. Those medium format exposed images range from Hasselblad XPan to 617 from my sold Fuji GX617 and Linhof 617 cameras. Using a camera with only one ISO no longer has any appeal for me. I kept my Nikon F5 and glass as that was the fastest, and most business like. The 617 format was maybe my single format favorite. In terms of the camera I would have loved to keep as an art object it would be the Zone VI 8x10 and the Schneider Super Symar 210mm lens

TaoTeJared said:
Like R8R, I probably should have collected a bunch of point and shoots instead of tinkering around with manual controls.

Oh I shoot film 100% manual now. I don't even use the A or P mode on the FG, I just chase the meter in the VF till I get in the ball park.

:)

You guys are being nice today! And you didn't even know it was my birthday. I thought I would get tar and feathered!

kyoshinikon said:
Some consumers Just love it because of its simplicity and emotional aspect. Even though I know they will come out I am anxious to see my shots every time I shoot a roll of film. It allows me to slow down and look at the photos because of it. This is the aspect that goes beyond artists or pros/serious shooters. Some of my non serious photog friends love it just for that.

I couldn't agree more. Kind of why I picked this project. That's what I really enjoy about film - the wait. Like R8R, I probably should have collected a bunch of point and shoots instead of tinkering around with manual controls.

The kicker out of this - I started to think of the e-bay prices I could get for my film cameras and thought... If I sold everything I could get a used M6 but no lens...and that might be ok. ;)

@TaoTeJared -as much as I love film, this time I have to agree with Your post - 100%. I have pretty much the same keepers ratio as You so for me it's just too expensive to go with film right now.

NikoDoby said:
Don't have time to read your book, I mean post, but send me all of you film gear. I will give it a good home.

LOL, I'll take anything you end up not using.

I used a lousy point and shoot Vivitar for years. It was my only camera and often it made a Holga look glamorous. (black gaffer's tape held in the battery and sealed the film door)

I got into digital about 5-6 years ago and just recently went back to shoot some film. If you approach it with zero expectations it is indeed tons of fun. Low contrast? Grain? Limited by ISO? Awesome! I love it for what it is.

Some recent stuff I scanned. (from an Nikon FG with a 50mm f/1.8 AIS)

I just get the rolls developed and scan the negs at home on the old flatbed Epson. It doesn't do perfect scans but I don't really care...it adds to the character.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3889&page=4#post-67580

Don't worry though, I'll be back!

NikoDoby said:
Don't have time to read your book, I mean post, but send me all of you film gear. I will give it a good home.

anyone noticed, terminator is gone

"FAT BOY SUPER ZOOM"

any thoughts on what this really means?

Fat Boy ?

Super Zoom, I thought this was a family oriented forum.................smile

Don't have time to read your book, I mean post, but send me all of you film gear. I will give it a good home.

Just a thought... My local Sam's Club will develop a roll of 24 35mm C41 negs for under $2 and a roll of 36 for under $3. Add a little bit for tax. I scan them myself...

Must take this roll of Kodak Max I completed last week in too....

There are some really cheap deals online for film, if you don't mind not using big brands or getting it short and just out dated...

Hey TaoTeJared great post and a nice idea for summer. I like some of the shots there are nice tones and details showing. I have become comfortable enough with digital now to have it fully replace film for my work now. I still like the color and background details I get with slide film for landscape work and also some of the B&W films like Ilford and Tmax 400 will also have a place for me in photography especially when used in such a perfect film body like a F100. So for me film is not completely dead. Great work and idea though and sorry to hear about the Leica M3/M4 change of heart.

Just edit your first post and it will let you change the title, TTJ.

Thanks for the insights. You had me laughing a bit and pitying you. ;-) Next time I have the itch to do this, I'll just put the money toward a future lens. I should probably send you a cut of the money, too.

Negative film is still more forgiving with high tonal ranges than E-6 or Digital so it already has a benefit.

I agree with your first point in that 99% of digital photos will never get printed (not that they need to be). Many people still enjoy seeing and holding a printed image though. Also the fact that it is tangible means that people who don't care for digital or haven't adapted can get photos to share straight from a lab like digital.

I wouldn't say film as a whole is pricey as around here you can still find rolls in the 99cent only stores for $1 and target sells a pack of 3 for $6... Im just a sucker for nicer film at $7 a roll. As to Iso's you can buy Iso Independent film(That is probably the traditionalist in me coming out as I never change my ISO on my DSLR's unless I have to)...

Some consumers Just love it because of its simplicity and emotional aspect. Even though I know they will come out I am anxious to see my shots every time I shoot a roll of film. It allows me to slow down and look at the photos because of it. This is the aspect that goes beyond artists or pros/serious shooters. Some of my non serious photog friends love it just for that.

I personally shoot tons of film and process at least half of it personally (B&W & C-41) The fact that it doesn't give instant gratification keeps me on my toes so I don't become contempt in my skill. (I still shoot a minium of 6000 digital shots a week anyway...)