Film Vs. Digital: The True Costs

In this video i explain why shooting film is always the most affordable way to get involved in photography.
For 35mm Film processing and high quality scans visit:
www.foresthillf...
/ killindreams
/ foresthillfi. .
/ travis.mortz
[e-mail]

[@massmanute]

Ken Rockwell once made the argument that the least expensive way to do photography is to shoot with a 4x5 view camera. Part of the reason is that you don't machine gun with a 4x5. One takes relatively few shots, making each one count, so the film and development cost is typically actually less than using a 35mm camera. And of course, the quality potential with a 4x5 is simply light years ahead of that of a digital camera.

[@peterp2626]

This should be called "Why digital is more expensive if you make every stupid decision possible."

[@nickfanzo]

Peter P how many digital cameras have you gotten in twenty years?

[@ufukkiblat]

@@nickfanzo How many film cameras have you gotten in twenty years? And how many film rolls?

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

And the First stupid mistake of many would be buying a digital camera.

[@nerwanisnoone1937]

This is the truth. I shoot both film and digital and enjoy both. My DSLR was bought second hand and cost me 200 pounds. In the last 12 months I've taken 10,000 images (a number bumped up by a few time lapses and astro adventures) and I've decided to keep 1500 images. Given that I probably wouldn't keep all my film images either, I think it's fair to assume that's somewhere between 70-100 rolls of film. I've just started home development, but that still costs 8 pounds per roll. Before that I was developing at a lab and that was costing me roughly 16 pounds per roll (and this is entry level film). So, if I'd done the same with film that'd be anywhere from 800 - 1600 pounds worth of film costs. So 4 - 8 times more expensive just in the first 12 months. (And this is assuming the film camera was free, my lovely Pentax Spotmatic with the 1.4 lens cost me 120 pounds because I wasn't lucky enough to find one that good in a thrift store, hence the price of the camera's wasn't even that different because I had to pay the going rate on ebay)

[@arricammarques1955]

Digital breaks down. Also 35mm negatives reliable archive. Cameras last for DECADES : )

[@1989Goodspeed]

Hey Travis. Thank you for recommending this film. A few months back my parents went on a trip to Sardinia (Italian island) and I was at home watching over the house (and the cat) so I wanted to give them a gift for the trip… So I snuck my Nikon EM loaded with a roll of Fujifilm C200 and the Nikon series E 50mm f1.8 into my dad’s luggage, when they came to the hotel they phoned me to say the hade arrived and I told them to look under my dad’s baseball caps were the camera was hidden. I told my parents that they had 36 images to take and I would scan them when they got home and hade the roll developed. Now I have scanned the negatives and the result was insane, that X-factor of film almost brought tears to my eyes. One image in perticuler was a portrait of my mom taking by my dad while she was taking a landscape shot with her smartphone… That just summed it all up so beautifully: the sterility of digital vs. the organic X-factor of film. All the best Tobias Go 1989 ;-)

[@jonjanson8021]

Film is pay as you go . Small amounts of money spent over time . No need to get big credit card bill. Runs on clockwork, no electricity bill. Developing is easy. kitchen sink and a tap. About as difficult as making a good cup of coffee. Well done Travis you talk a lot of sense.

[@jonjanson8021]

Most photographers are hobbyists.

[@jonjanson8021]

Most photographers never become pro. Most photographers never want to be a pro. They do it for the love of the art. The new will follow for a pro when it makes economic sense to invest tens of thousands in new pro equipment. Being a pro is about making money, not spending it.

[@DC-mm3wy]

Hello . Dave from Ireland here :). I'm a professional camera operator working with HD digital professional cameras . I'm really liking your vids and how it's evolving . I shoot film outside of work. My main 35mm cameras are my Nikon f100 and my Olympus OM1 . I have medium format cameras and other film cameras.The big digital camera companies have swamped the market with cameras and now are having problems maintaining there ridiculous revolving door system of releasing a new camera ever few months. Sony Nikon and canon have all had problems recently and had slow downs in profits margins . Nikon letting lots of staff go . My point is they have suckered the consumer into a cycle of constant upgrading that's just not needed. Yes it's true it happened with film cameras when they where the latest thing . However back in the film days companies put there best work there best innovation into there latest camera now they hold back technology just to create more cameras to flood the market . Same crap with phones and cars etc... I shoot film outside of work 90% of time and my digital I carry around is a nine year old Ricoh GR . Don't buy into the hype .... Shoot film . Love the channel I'm def a fan .

[@johnrflinn]

I like the Olympus OM1 as it has mirror lockup and it totally manual. It only needs batteries for its light meter. So nice to get away from plastic fantastics that are out of date in 6 months and cost thousands of dollars.

[@merkury06]

I bought a used F100 in 2010 for $225, they still sell for around $200 and I honestly can say I have not missed a shot. Low light, within a stop or two the lab can still give me a great image. Plus all my film is scanned at the lab and digitized. I still want to get a DSLR but I always passed because I just could not justify the cost versus the amount of shooting I do. Great video.

[@the92project]

I love your passion for film Travis, I love film too and I shoot as much of it as time allows me. Time being the keyword there. I think Digital is a great way to cut down the time needed to think-shoot-develop(process) an image. My rule is simple, when I need to shoot fast I shoot digital, when I am lucky to plan my shoot and think about what I want to do I use film. Im no pro, Im married with a 2 year old, and a job in a cubicle. I would never tell people (regular folks) that film is cheaper, I don't think it is. Because in addition to a film camera, film, development, there is TIME and time for most people is scarce and too valuable - I know it is for me, extremely. I think that's why digital is cheaper, it cuts down the cost of TIME. Of course my opinion is based on the experience of MOST people that go and buy a reasonably priced dslr with a kit lens. good video!

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

The Cantrell Project a photo only takes a fraction of a second to take. Film or digital. You can always have a camera on you and have time to shoot. I just wonder how you have time to sort through hundreds of digital photos but don't have time to mail a few rolls of film out once a month? Our photos of family are gonna be most valuable in the future so do we really NEED to see them right this second? For commercial and paid shit digital is certainly the best route. For photos that matter to YOU film is the safest bet.

[@slater1949]

The Cantrell Project Hello, I just read your old comment and I wanted to ask, since you have a family, what you shoot your kids with? In other words, your important family photos are shot with digital or film? Do you carry both always? Thanks!

[@the92project]

Marvin S. i use film and digital in the warmer months (portra , ektar) and digital mostly in the winter, with a little bit of film home indoors (trix at 1600)

[@skymedic48]

You should be taking time with digital too. Otherwise, you end up taking a bunch of shitty photos, that you have take TIME fixing in lightroom or photoshop. I have a job where I'm gone 24 hrs on shift, 10 shifts a month. I have a family, and multiple other responsibilities and still manage to carve an hour out a couple times a month to shoot film. it's all about choices.

[@Homelessuser3351]

@@skymedic48 get fujifilm camera then, lol...

[@ibsoarin]

No matter what others say, they have to admit that you are entertaining and you promote discussion about analog film photography. Keep the videos coming.

[@ssthapit]

I don't know what he is talking about. I bought Canon 10D brand new in 2003 and used it for 7 years. Even then going digital seemed cheaper in the long run than film. Then I bought the 50D brand new in 2010. Since then the digital camera specifications have exceeded my needs and I recently got a used full frame Canon 5D Mark II for $400. So shooting digital has gotten cheaper and cheaper. These people keep comparing the cost of the latest and greatest digital cameras with cheap old film cameras. A fair comparison is to compare used pro digital gear with used film cameras + film cost and then digital makes much more sense in terms of cost. Now if you enjoy shooting film then by all means do it. But justifying it in terms of cost is bizzare.

[@eakishway]

I have similar thoughts when watching the video. Shooting digitals do have other costs, for example Lightroom subscription costs about 10 USD every month and a fast computer. Also the cost to ensure that photos are backed up properly for several decades. But for cameras, film cameras are not necessarily cheaper than digital cameras. One will buy old film cameras but only buy new digital cameras and upgrade to the latest ones every year? This assumption is uncommon. If uncommon assumptions are allowed, I can assume that one wants a native black and white photos, then compare the price of Pentax K-3 Mark III monochrome to cheap old SLRs with B&W film, or Leica M11 Monochrom to cheap old range finders with B&W film.

[@jaidamann8365]

I shoot both film and digital. For me, digital is a lot less expensive. The chemicals for film has an expiration date, and gets weaker after every use causing me to buy more chemicals. Then if I want a print (if not using a computer or scanner) will cost extra for the equipment needed. Having said that, film is so much fun to use/shoot. But the facts presented in this video is not entirely accurate. Plus if you’re using a computer and scanner for film, why would I need another computer for my digital images?

[@Homelessuser3351]

So, you are rich. You shoot film "and" digital. Cost is not an issue here. I buy it all!!!!

[@averykerr3328]

I would respect this video more if the actual owner of this channel would regard their audience with higher esteem. The replies are condescending and the content irrelevant to the arguments. Like others viewing this video, I am curious to see success stories or failures of film and/or digital to better gauge which is right for me. Personally, after seeing 48 items in my cart on B&h, when buying the items needed for my personal film setup at home, I became a little discouraged of the many components needed for film and the actual time spent rolling film, shooting, processing, developing, scanning, editing, etc vs. digital. Doing it all yourself in the darkroom, to reduce costs, may work well for some people in photography, but it is a lot of time spent to consider. Anyways, please respect others who spent the time to click your video.

[@DethronerX]

Thats true, but youre also sacrificing some results you get on film. If your subject is strong then every second and dime spent will be bought back. Hard work pays off, if it goes perfect with your idea. If you're shooting a movie about a lost VHS camera, you can't shoot it on digital or film, both mediums are wrong, so you buy the VHS camera the movie is about and not try to look for cheap alternatives to achieve that look, which you can only do, if you totally have no money, but also remember, to achieve those looks, you have to actually Buy the software, like After Effects, Premier, DaVinci Resolve, FilmConvert and so on and not download free torrents, which is theft? So basically, a lot of cheap alternatives are achieved with stolen software, that we all do. Even my windows is cracked, because in our country, we dont have a single shop i found with an original windows flash drive, no one has it. The computer shops are installing cracked software. So, you have to spend in both, the only thing the people are afraid of, is the whole hassle of developing, scanning and not knowing how its going to turn out, because digital makes it easy for you to see the results right away, but that has also made us work less, like in films, your actors dont need to be too prepared, because you're not losing any film, but with a film camera, your performances have to be 100% because every frame is being lost. This is the main reason we have lost quality in digital art, although some of the digital works are beautiful and thats where digital is used the right way and not as an easy way out and a quick buck making business

[@dmacrolens]

Yawn.

[@ufukkiblat]

"this images don't stop working" Until you lost it or it's damaged by fire or something else. Meanwhile the digital files can be backed up and......*drum roll*....printed! Are you gonna say that you could scan your film and back them up? then all you have is digital file which then..why not shoot digital in the first place right?

[@theoldgranddude]

I use to shoot film and now digital. My question is this. How much does it cost you to shoot and develop 1000 pictures? Between film purchase in bulk and development. I calculate around $687.00. I know because I used to shoot weddings on the cheap and for 3 rolls of and development I spent well over 125.00 dollars and that was in the 1980's. Once I make my initial investment in my camera, I can shoot a thousand pictures a day with zero cost. This is just a no brainer. And by the way cameras where just as costly back then or more than they are now.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

Glen Wood well. 1000 frames would be approximately 27 rolls of film. Based on the cheap Fuji film I showed here that would cost me $77. One color chemical kit costs $25 and can develop all of those rolls for me. So. To answer your question. It costs me about $102 to shoot and develop 1000 frames of film. And then I'll have 1000 more images then you have.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

Glen Wood how much does it cost YOU to make 1000 tangible photographs? Because shooting a 1000 files a day doesn't mean shit to me. You aren't done yet just making 1000 images in a day. Those images don't exist in the world yet. Your hard drive is not a binder of images sorry.

[@davidwarren7279]

@@ForesthillFilmLab You said that it costs you $7 for a pack of 10 rolls, but where I live, my local camera house charges $15 per single roll to buy (I can't recall the cost of developing).

[@pilsplease7561]

@@ForesthillFilmLab Film is fantastic. I love film, It looks better , is a superior medium and you are connecting on a physical level to your images. They arent on some piece of shit hardrive that can die and take all your work with it. I just hope film lasts another 100 years. Or ill be deeply depressed. I couldnt live in a time where i couldnt shoot film

[@germangonzalezlamas4848]

@@davidwarren7279 you’ve been ripped off. Don’t support local stores because they are not supporting you. Unless is an emergency, although amazon or any other webpage will provide better prices at all.

[@JimSamuel267]

So much false logic here.... Why the assumption that a beginner should buy a new digital camera because he or she does not know enough to buy used, but then assume that the same buyer would buy a used film camera in a thrift shop? Does a beginner know to check out a used film camera for light leaks, to make sure the aperture and shutter speeds work correctly? If the film camera is powered by a battery, can you even get the batteries any more? WIll beginners even know to check the battery before they buy? Why not compare new and new? B&H sells the Nikon FM10 film camera for $510.00 with a 35-70 lens. Compare that to the Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $547.00. That kind of changes the cost comparison. Also, it is faulty logic to say that you can't use a digital camera without a computer. You also cannot use a film camera without film and processing.

[@luzi439]

$50 or less for chemicals and tank. let me know how well a $50 computer handles your files. if i spend $30 on a used film camera an it doesn't work no big loss, if i spend $300 on a used digital and it doesn't work, thats a bit of a bigger deal. plus if you are truly trying to be accurate compare a full frame sensor camera to a film camera. because your $550 digital is not full frame.

[@JimSamuel267]

Your argument falls flat on several fronts. First, $50 for chemicals and a tank will not let you develop unlimited rolls of film. There is a continuing charge for chemicals. Second, a tank and chemicals serve only one purpose. A computer can do many things. If you are buying a used digital camera, it is much easier to fire off some test shots to see if it works than it is to shoot a test roll of film and process it to see if it works.

[@luzi439]

a liter of hc110 is $30, and will develop 167 rolls of film, thats 4000 images, i'd never shoot that in a year, i actually like to take my time and make sure i get it right instead of taking the same photo 18 times. again, tell me more about your $50 computer. tell me how external hard drives aren't needed to store all those "free" images. because you $50 computer has less memory than a sd card. tell me more about how its free to have photoshop or lightroom to make sure you can see those "free" pictures, and make them look like something, instead of looking at a memory card.

[@luzi439]

btw, how many photos, can you still view off of a memory stick (that came in pretty much every one of the cameras in the early 2000's)? how many of those photos are of any quality. i bet that film from 1938 still looks pretty damn good today and can still reproduce a great photo.

[@billbradleymusic]

Jim Samuel Im pretty sure there were no assumptions thrown around. Merely personal experience.

[@Ruud_Brouwer]

10 years, 130 rolls of film. So only one roll a month? 5d all of a sudden seems cheap ;)

[@ogslayer]

My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because your video gave me cancer anyway.

[@johnrflinn]

If it's brain cancer it is probably the cell phone you are holding up to your ear for 3 hours a day. I love to hear different viewpoints and I am not going to blame my trick knee on any of the contributors.

[@Darkslide99]

Film is more expensive than digital hands down! I shoot both and I definitely don’t always buy up when I buy digital. But digital photographers don’t have to spend 20 to 40 or more dollars to see their pictures..... Film does.

[@darrenbutler1765]

I am the biggest film geek alive and this simply isn't true. I have done everything I can to minimise my per frame cost. I process my own black and white film, Scan my own film and I spend at least $2000 a year on film and processing.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

wow thats so freaking awesome.....you may spend $2000 a year on film and processing but so is the next guy and i know he doesn't have as many negatives in his binder as you do. i probably spend the same but i am actually paying for SOMETHING something i can point at and say "those are my photos thats why I'm broke" hahaha

[@Raevenswood]

​@@ForesthillFilmLab I totally agree ... in the end those hard drives fail, get lost, mislabeled, reformatted, images get lost in there and there is no reason of nostalgia to go digging through a data base to take a trip down memory lane. opening up a photo album with your negative sleeves and proof sheets and your final prints you made with your hands is priceless.

[@erikhall1146]

@@ForesthillFilmLab And i payed 750€ and dont need to spend any money anymore.

[@johnrflinn]

@@Raevenswood Remember the state of the art 250 mb zip drive? The nature of electronics is planned obsolescence. I still take my 100 year old 5x7 cameras on hikes and get negatives that be printed up to 40 x 60 inches at 300 dpi or a 5x7 contact print. The negatives will last 100 years with or without an emp. There will always be scanners 100 years from now but the memory devices will have changed drastically. When I go on a hike people stop and ask to take pictures of my vintage cameras they find to be so beautifully made.

[@billbadger9479]

With film, you only pay for what you use. You can spend $2000 a year for development. Or you can just spend $500 and you'll produce pictures either way. With digital, there's just so much BS. Storage for example, you're going to have to spend like $50 for a class 10 8GB or so SD card. You can't spend any less if you want reliability. Then you'd better have a PC already or an external harddisk to store it so you can re-use your SD card. Or you can print them but you're going to need a printer and a computer(again, and this doesn't include the cost for papers and inks). Now if you're going to post-process your own image, you'll need a powerful PC and a good screen that can reproduce your photos accurately and they're costly. Worse, all these hardware are going to get obsolete very soon. Now I get that these hardwares are all multi-purpose tools so in the big picture, they're probably not that expensive. But imagine if you can ignore all that BS and spend the cash for dedicated photography equipments. You can get some great cameras, fantastic lenses, multiple studio strobes/speedlights, light modifiers, professional light meter, backdrops, tripods, monopods, straps, all sort of filters you can imagine etc for that amount of money. Even better, these won't get obsolete and will last you for a long time if you use them responsibly.

[@echtvergoldet]

You don't even factor in that the 4k $ for the Hasselblad in 1989 were way more worth than today.

[@prosperity-gospel]

This looks like a divisive subject. I just started getting into film photography, so I have a good idea of what it costs in 2018. These were my approximate costs. Up front costs of a used film camera and simple at-home development tools: Cheap film camera + 50mm lens (Pentax k1000) $100 Cheap negative scanner $200 Changing bag, development tank, & accessories $100 Cheap water bath temp regulator $100 TOTAL: $500 On-going costs per 20 rolls: 20 rolls of Portra 400 $160 2L worth of c-41 chemistry $50 Negative sleeves/binder $50 BUT is enough for 100 rolls so we'll say $10 per 20 rolls TOTAL: $220 for 720 shots (or approximately $0.30 a shot) This is all to get to the same workflow endpoint as a digital camera, where you have taken a shot and have it saved as a digital file. I think it's clear that digital would be cheaper for the same entry level equipment (say a Nikon D3500 for $600) with almost no ongoing costs. I choose analog because I don't have to do it for a job, so the extra time spent developing and the extra care taken to make each shot count is just bonus time that I get to fiddle with a new hobby. Also, I enjoy science and it's more interesting to me to be able to see chemistry working in a hands-on sort of way instead of behind a computer screen. My point of saying all of that is this: film photography is great for a whole lot of reasons, and can certainly be affordable enough. BUT, there's no reason to pretend like it's so much cheaper than digital, when it really clearly is not given any kind of fair comparison. There's a reason that #staybrokeshootfilm is a really popular hashtag on photography social media (2m+ uses on instagram).

[@ssthapit]

Absolutely.

[@shethatgirlll]

Uhmmm i bought my canon eos 100D including 2 lenses for 170€ on ebay and have been shooting on it for 1.5 years, about 3000 images. Ive been shooting film on my grandpas olympus om2 for 6 months now and have already spent more on film and developing than on the canon (mind you i am scanning at home). There are soooo many weird assumptions about shooting digital in this video, I dont know a single amateur photographer who upgrades gear every year for example.

[@ArthurSadowsky]

Hey, Travis, please don't listen to anybody - and please keep up doing your very talented work! Good luck to you, brother!

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

Arthur Sadowsky thank you so much! Don't worry these digital guys won't soften me up! I'm here for the real photographers!

[@ArthurSadowsky]

Also, your vids are just super - all works great, the format, the B&W presentation, the casual noise on the back of the audio track. All just works! I truly enjoy your channel!

[@cwbaldwin61]

Found your feed recently while researching the Minolta X700. Great channel you have here and you are "bang on" with this particular edition. The figures don't lie - shooting film IS cheaper in all respects and the results aren't "digital bits" which are inevitably lost but something tangible - right out the gate. I'm an engineer and can tell you that takes a lot of attention, effort, and know-how to continually execute a sound file management plan. The continual evolution of technology makes it VERY difficult and I know few people who do it well. The "average Joe", well - it's above their head, so the loss of these images is inevitable. And even if you do it right - one CANNOT pass these images down to the family. I know you only touched on it lightly, but there is an aspect of film I truly enjoy (I bulk roll & develop, and am building a darkroom); it is the organic pleasure of film, the reward of seeing contrast on a roll fresh out of the can! Digital can't touch it. Thanks for a terrific post.

[@kameratiks]

I've compared years ago the cost of per shot or image made from a digital and film. Yes, you can say it is costlier to use film. Just keep it simple and reasonable and in the long run cost would not matter anymore. I support the notion of film photography for a hobby or for the enthusiast and this is a good justification of the costs. The comparison can be flawed but it does not take away that it always boil down to a choice. Film is ours.

[@steveg8322]

New models in film cameras were continually coming out back in the day also.Business needs something to sell all the time to remain in business.The hope is the new model has enough improvements to make its purchase worthwhile.Labors of love are rarely cost effective.

[@777millertime777]

Love it man. After my first entry level film SLR I bought a leica M6 which I eventually traded for an XPAN kit, then for a Hasselblad 500cm kit, then for a Mamiya 6 kit, and now I'm trading back to my M6 because I miss it. All the trades were straight deals so I've spent nothing since the original purchase of the leica and have been able to shoot and use some of the best cameras ever made. I mostly shoot bulk-rolled black and white and develop and scan all my B&W, C41, and have the chemistry for E6 so my consumable cost has been pennies per roll of film. Meanwhile my D7100 I bought new sits on the shelf and loses more and more value everyday

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

777millertime777 you're fuckin killing it. It's hard for me to tell people "just develop it all yourself" but that's what I do and it virtually costs me nothing to shoot film haha it's the best! Camera trades are awesome!

[@justk9775]

Note to TRAVIS .....Embrace Change! Nothing stay the same. Change creates energy and excitement. Be inspired by both the challenge and the possibilities that change brings. The better and faster we are at adapting to change, the strong and more successful we become as a people. Digital awaits you Travis!

[@ConanTroutman0]

I guess my main point of disagreement would be developing/scanning. Depending on where you live it can add up incredibly quickly. I live in Canada and for a 36exp roll of 35mm I'm looking at ~$25/roll before prints after everything's said and done since I don't have any local options for developing. It could be much cheaper if I developed on my own but then I'm having to make more upfront investments into a scanner and developing gear/chemicals plus the time I'm having to commit to developing them myself. Not disagreeing entirely though, I prefer film personally, but I think the cost argument may depend on some additional factors and how much effort you're comfortable putting in to get a finished product. I also think it can vary whether you're shooting photos at the volume of a working professional who's also making money off their gear vs the volume of shooting and lack of ROI you would expect from a hobbyist. Great video though!

[@69_MK]

What if you shot jpeg and took the sd card to your local shop to get printed on the same day???

[@tomwd.2825]

Exactly

[@davidwarren7279]

I'm pretty sure printing's pretty cheap!

[@vikmanphotography7984]

@@davidwarren7279 printing small is really really cheap if you don't mind the weird color shifts of cheap printing services. (Walgreens/Sam's/CVS don't calibrate their printers ever but honestly, starting it in film color film printing, they'll still do better than you.)

[@derekcrook3723]

You should open a film camera on line store . You would be able sell me one except I used to shoot film back in the 70's and the downside to film is still engrained in my mind . Now if you could preview your shots somehow in camera and shoot over the same roll ..some kind of delete function built into it then I think that is how and why digital photography was invented . You are totally right when it comes to cost and the fact that with digital you only have files . But taking a photo and sending it anywhere in the world to millions of viewers can never be matched by prints in a photo album. I have stacks of photo albums that i might look at once every 20 years . The last thing I think anyone wants is stacking more albums into an already crowded storage space . Love your enthusiasm and I hope you learn and enjoy the benifits of digital photography as much as I for one do !

[@SarahKchannel]

I am on analog since 40+ years, digital since the first ones came out, still own all the analog camera from back then - yet I disagree. Learning curve on analog is way ways more expensive the pen digital. Digital has no penalty on mistakes. By now I am using 10+ mega pixel cameras from well over 10 years ago, so they fall into the same box as a analog from back then.

[@robiulahmed]

Well, if you assume someone isn't savvy enough to buy a used digital camera, then they're sure as hell not savvy enough to buy a used film camera. Nikon and Leica will sell you brand new film cameras for thousands of dollars. Then of course, one film camera isn't enough. This guy on the internet has a Hassleblad, so you have to get a Hasselblad..

[@johnrflinn]

The best all manual 35mm camera in my opinion is the Nikon FM2n. The cost for a decent body is about $250 used. The best deal for a medium format camera is the Mamiya Press Super 23 with the 100mm F 2.8 lens and the 6x9 back. Cost about $500. The Mamiya Press backs are famous for their flat film holding. Having a vintage camera is a great way to meet people. Total strangers come up to you and ask you about your camera and take pictures of it with their digital cameras. This is especially apparent when you have a camera from the early 1900's or the folders from the 30's.

[@walterlodzinski6847]

Man this was tough to watch lol...you made a lot of assumptions about the way people use digital equipment.

[@vikmanphotography7984]

Ikr.... It's called "buy an older digital camera". A person starting in film photography shouldn't go out and buy a brand new digital Canon R or a brand new film Nikon F6. You could just as easily buy a 5D original for $200 and a yonguno 50mm 1.8 for $45. Throw in a spare battery and an SD card and your looking at less than $300 total. That's the same cost as a free camera that you could probably get from a family friend and 15 rolls of Portra+ developing before you've even scanned anything.

[@frankanderson5012]

@@vikmanphotography7984 You could buy a 13 year old 5D for $200 but then there's the reality which you missed out. A camera that old is likely not to be in particularly good condition, if nothing else the shutter is likely to be about to die. And how long will it be before it does die or the person decides they want something better - THAT'S when it starts. Most film camera's are on a level playing film and it's down to the film. Digital cameras are at the whim of technology. How many people are still using old digital cameras of more than even 5 years?

[@vikmanphotography7984]

@@frankanderson5012 the shutter on your average original 5D is probably about the same as the average F3 for example... Tbh, the 5D might be a little better off, just because newer shutters have longer life spans. There aren't a ton of people using old digital cameras (who frequently use their cameras at least) but there also aren't a ton who use film cameras. If someone is content with a 35 year old film camera, they're probably be fine with a 10 year old digital camera (so long as the analog/digital debate isn't their hangup)

[@adamstreetboyzz]

Very true. My first camer was a Sony A6000 for $505 and bought Minolta 50mm 1.8 to adapt to it. For $40

[@mnchaser]

Always love this argument, but it's a bit like comparing someone who plants their own garden vs. someone that shops at Costco. Is the person that shops at Costco denying the fact that his/her food (potentially) costs more? Nope, it's about the convenience for them. The comparison should be measured as "total cost per keeper image as a function of time and expertise desired by the photographer". That way each person can apply his/her own shooting style and justify what is best for them. On my 4x5, I keep 99.9% of the exposures I take. However, it has a massive learning curve. I slow down and make the best exposure I can each time. 2 hrs = 1 photo. Could I do the same on digital?? Absolutely! I enjoy the process of making something through the analog process. Others appreciate convenience of sharing photos with family and could care less about their camera every leaving Program mode.

[@anthonypearson4056]

I love digital, and I love film. And I print from both. I used to pay £1 for film from the pound shop and £2 to develop - special deal from my local photo shop, bless. Since the pound shop stopped stocking film I now have to pay around £2 for a roll of C200. So still only £4 a film all in. I use all sorts of film cameras, many of them costing only a few quid. So yes, film can be affordable. I shoot 3 or 4 rolls a month, on average. There is something wonderful about a physical negative that is the direct product of the light it collected in that time and place. But I also shoot between 500 and 1000 digital shots a month. Film is never going to be cheap enough for me to do that. And very often I'm using digital cameras to make images you just can't make with film. The large amounts of money I've paid for digital equipment seems like good value to me given the number of pics I take. So... film is good and can be cost effective. Digital is good and can be cost effective. If you have a passion for taking, processing and displaying images, both are great. www.dankspangle.com/

[@anonanon7822]

Sadly Travis abandoned his channel but i’m still going there from time to time as it was one of the channels that inspired me to go almost full analog. Watching this in 2023 after all the film price climbs are kinda fun, but bulk loaded fomapan is still like 2-4 eur per roll, vision3 isn’t much more pricier(6-7), and ektachrome is for special occasions. I also started shooting polaroids, sx70 became my “medium format camera”. 20 for 8 shot pack may seem like a lot but it’s actually not that much more expensive (maybe cheaper) than 120 velvia/provia/ektar with dev and scans and prints and slide mounts. And i love polaroid colors and dreamy look for my landscape and nature photography. And modern polaroid became amazingly good, i guess we’re close to og 2000s polaroid quality levels

[@oceandrew]

What nonsense. That JOBO you got back behind you costs $3000 new and that's only to develop film, the Saunders enlarger is another $5000 + (new). The space for the darkroom can cost you $1-$30 /sq.ft./month depending on location and the set up for the darkroom can cost you several thousands too, again depending on where and how much you can do yourself. Yeah it's easy to trash digital when you're a dedicated film shooter but don't pretend to be unbiased or able to give a fair and balanced appraisal which is what I thought this was going to be.

[@oliverhancock2240]

you say this yet for me (i live in England) it can either cost me £3 per roll to have it developed or £119 for a full darkroom including the first batch of chemicals. that's including chemicals, thermometers, developing tank, measuring cylinder, heck it even includes clips to hold to film, when you can use a bloody paper clip. whilst yes if you want an incredible, top end developing dark room it will cost a lot, but so will buying a top end computer, a top end digital medium format along with the obscene cost of high-end autofocus lenses.

[@soxrox4093]

If taking film photos is fun , than by all means , use film cameras. But don't tell me it's cheaper than digital. I recently bought an almost brand new Nikon d3200 for 150 usd on eBay. Similar quality film cameras cost more. Used digital cameras can be just as cheap as film cameras. This whole video doesn't make sense. Billions of people who use digital can't be wrong.

[@soxrox4093]

@Isaac Dweck Doesn't really matter what you or I think. 35mm film photography will soon be totally dead. New cameras and parts are not manufactured anymore. The people who fixes them or used them will die out soon. Films are becoming more and more expensive. Even now refurbished ,tested film cameras cost hundreds of dollars. They are not cheap. If you love the film colors and the bigger format, you will have to go for medium or large format film photography. That make sense. Expensive but it's fun. But 35 mm? No way. I still have my old 35 mm film prints. It's crap. Even a cellphone camera does better.

[@soxrox4093]

@Isaac Dweck Back in the days I had an olympus trip 35 film camera. I loved it. It was a great camera. Reliable, simple, no battery was needed. I stil got it somewhere. I shot hundreds of family photos with it but the truth is that I never needed to print them larger than 5-7 imches. In these days, even a cheap 5 mp phone camera gives at least same or better quality pictures at this print size. Sorry. For 99 percent of the people of this planet 35mm film photography is dead!!!!!! And will stay dead for forever except maybe a few weirdos. Sorry. I cant be nicer than this. You have to face the truth soon or later. Thank you.

[@johnrflinn]

Bought my Omega 4x5 enlarger for $120 and the trays and accessories for another $100. The 135mm and the 90mm El Nikkor lenses another $180. I use my bathroom as a darkroom. No real drain to the savings account.

[@ScottyO79]

Don’t forget to buy memory cards to write your photos to, and a way to store them, and a way to view your images.

[@lonniepaulson7031]

Yes, I have to agree with you. I started photography as a hobby in 1969. Now days digital is getting better so fast that you feel you have to buy the next camera that has replaced your recent DSLR. If you shoot professionally to compete with other pros you have to keep up to date with digital and the usual choice is full frame digital which for on the low end is about under $2500 for a body. If for your work you need the speed of fast action you may be spending over $5000 for a camera body. The lenses of full frame cameras cost more than the slower kit lenses of crop sensor cameras. You can also save money with 35mm film by bulk loading your own film. I used to bulk load both Ektachrome and black and white film. I have worked for a company that used several bulk loaders with various films. If you are shooting your own film I recommend processing your own film to save money. You then have full control over your images just like your RAW digital photos in Lightroom or Photoshop. I also recommend Epson flat bed scanners. You don't need a dedicated film scanner. Epsons are the best flat bet scanners for film you can buy. I have the V550 which I can scan medium format film on. Epson also makes flat bet scanners for 4x5." However, I just photograph my 4x5" negs and chromes on a LED light box with my digital camera and macro lens on a copy stand. HAVE FUN WITH FILM.

[@andre_pikes]

entry level DSLR could cost much less than 900 usd. try 300 -600 usd. pentax have great DSLR's

[@dougs1723]

Love your channel! After watching several videos I purchased a Nikon F100 and a Nikkor 50mm pancake 1.8 for less than $250. Shot and developed my first roll of Acros (of my Grandchildren) and all I can say is WOW. The photos are beautiful with a quality I couldn't get from digital. Thanks for the inspiration and the best thing is my daughter has the negatives of her babies that will last forever.

[@SaypheZonE]

Shooting digital clearly demonstrates people's fascination with instant gratification and the idea of infinite. As a result, quality and the human touch tends to suffer. People spend less time correcting their mistakes and more time picking the best photo as opposed to taking the best photo.

[@johnrflinn]

Reminds me of a quote from The Little Prince..."People start out in express trains, but they no longer know what they're looking for. Then they get all excited and rush around in circles"

[@r.a.8590]

That Pentax Spotmatic camera is a dope camera for the price !!! Damn. Anyway, I only shoot film but for me it has nothing to do with spending or saving money; I much prefer the experience over digital photography. However, if I were a working professional photographer, I would likely own a digital camera as well.

[@CalumetVideo]

I shoot film and digital, but truthful in the long run digital is much cheaper than film. With the film prices rising, developing chemicals costing more, sleeves for negatives, scanning equipment, film is no cheap affair costing at least 10 cents a frame. With digital that cost is around 1 cent per photo (2,000,00 with 150,000 shutter actuations). But in the end I do love film, especially medium format which to me is worth shooting!

[@aows]

There are plenty of reasons to shoot film. I do it, too. But my main system is still digital *because* of the cost alone. There's no comparison, period. The misleading line here is the "thousands of pictures" argument, not everyone does that. I certainly do take more photos than I do with film, but I discard most of them and just keep the good ones. For example my wife has a tendency to close her eyes when I take a photo of her. I'm sorry but I'm not going to waste half a roll of film to get one decent picture of her. I can shoot 20 in a burst with my digital camera and keep the good one, *and* print it. And by the way, I can and I actually do copy my photos directly from my SD card to my iPhone and from there to Lightroom. You can edit them on the phone too, and have them wirelessly printed on your printer or at your local store. So no need for a computer.

[@aows]

And by the way! Saying that you can always develop film in the future is also misleading. Look at the example of Kodachrome, which chemicals were very specific. I'm not saying that is going to happen to C-41, but... who knows! You can make that argument if we make one against... USB?

[@aows]

Or film scanners. There are not too many, and they are rather old and clunky. Are they going to keep making them? No one knows...

[@jaeAre200]

New Sub!! I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm!! It's awesome. I've been shooting digitally for a few years and recently JUST bought my first film camera. It's in the mail. I'm f*&%ing stoked! And I wanna sloooowwly turn my streetphotography channel into film. So kudos to you for all the tips and having me reconsider my digital upgrades.

[@Mr2vivid]

Thank god for this video.... i just traded in my 5D mk iv for 240 disposable cameras

[@teresashinkansen9402]

Now you are a real photographer and you can touch your photos! (careful, avoid light exposure and humidity the image on the film deteriorates just by touching it) isnt that awesome?

[@BrianNguyenIHASDACANSER]

So do you not have a computer? How did you edit this? How did you upload this? And for all the filmmaker out their digital is the way to go by far!

[@charlesvail2443]

I've been shopping Ebay and good online used camera stores and found used Nikon and Pentax film camera bodies for under $20. Lenses add a speck more but getting newly started in film is dirt cheap these days. Relatives and friends often have unused film cameras also. Processing for B&W with a plastic tank and two chemicals is also super cheap and you can develop more negatives than I ever shot as a young photographer back in the 70's. The thing with digital (for art & pleasure) is that you tend to make more redundant images. I have at least 15,000 in my HD. In my film days I had maybe 1000 negatives max before turning pro. When you shoot film you slow down and do less "spray and pray" You become more like a sniper , shoot less and score more with your best images! I saw a meme recently..."120 roll film (6 great images), 35mm 36 exp. (6 great images) SD card 2000+ jpgs (6 great images) I've experienced this and I am getting back to enjoying shooting film and making fewer but hopefully better & more memorable images. -keep on truckin

[@lewislootes2014]

Very biased in my opinion, I use both film and digital

[@jimmyhinAK]

I agree.

[@unsungphotographer3412]

Wow! you certainly kicked the wasp nest here. What you say is 150% true. There are a number of folks that don't appreciate the film process. They want instant results for an instant satisfaction world. They will never be convinced. It doesn't matter to the that your physical archive will be here long after all the digital stuff has vanished into the void. Thank you. I am enjoying the channel. It is encouraging to see a young photographer who gets it.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

Unsung Photographer thank you! I'm trying my best to deliver this info without hurting too many digital hearts but sometimes you just gotta tell it like it is! I'll have more videos coming soon that should make you happy to watch 👌🏻

[@JimSamuel267]

I do appreciate the film process. I shot with film for many years and am now looking for a decent film SLR so I can shoot Tri-X again. My objection to this video was that it compares buying a new digital with a used film camera, then concludes that the film is less expensive in the long run. Film is great and has its place. So does digital. But they are different processes for different purposes, and to make a faulty comparison of the cost is misguided.

[@WilliamKearns]

Jim Samuel for a pro doing pro work. I agree. However, for a student, hobbiest, artist, or enthusiast this is a perfectly valid comparison and dispels some of the negative nonsense spread about being a film shooter.

[@JimSamuel267]

It is not negative nonsense, even for a hobbyist. And this is not a valid comparison. In the beginning of the video, he says that beginners should not buy used digital gear because they might not know what they are doing. But then he compares the cost of new digital to film cameras purchased at thrift stores. Would a beginner know how to evaluate a film camera purchased at thrift store? Why would a beginner not know enough to buy a used digital camera but would know to evaluate a film camera for light leaks, aperture rings that work correct, a shutter that works correctly, film advance that works correctly, etc. The apt comparison would be a new digital SLR to a Nikon FM10 available with 35-70mm lens for $595 at B&H. I like film. I am looking for a good film camera now to shoot Tri-X. I think film has its place. Just don't try to tell me it is cheaper than digital based on this comparison. Now, a video that said that shooting film is not as expensive as you think and here's why -- without the comparison -- would have made more sense to me.

[@unsungphotographer3412]

So heres how you evaluate. Put in batteries. Shoot, Develop, look. So thats taken care of. Oops. Doesn't work. Trash. Try again. If you are experimenting and learning then spending hundreds on digital and all the support required is expensive. Wether you believe it or not. A used film camera and some effort can be a lot of fun and cheaper. Done arguing. This gent spends is effort on shooting and supporting what can be done with film today. Good for him. I applaud his effort.

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

So true,back in film days you could get a professional 35mm camera New for around 1200.00,The digital professional full frame cameras now cost 6000.00.The cost with pictures is not even a comparison since the cost with photos is in the printing.If you were to print digital files it would cost about the same.

[@rubenbaez]

I love digital and I love film. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Digital is way cheaper, faster and gives you instant feedback on the exposure and way more control in post, especially when shooting Raw. Film is more calming and reflective and will make you into a better photographer cause it will cause you to think twice about taking a shot because you a limited number of shots on a roll. I got back into film because of the beauty of vintage film cameras. Some of these professional models 20-30 years back cost a fortune and back then, I would drool over them but I could never afford them. Now, I am fortunate they are a very good value and I get to shoot with film cameras that I always wanted to shoot with. The trick is to get a good working film camera is to buy one that is in near Mint condition or one that has been reconditioned by the seller. I am Nikon shooter, so one of the advantages with Nikon is that all my newer lenses fit the older film cameras and vice-versa. But whichever format you shoot, the idea is to go out and have fun and make great pictures.

[@ZeldagigafanMatthew]

Upfront, digital is going to be more expensive, but in terms of operating costs (how much you have to spend for a shoot) film/analog is more expensive as digital really doesn't have any operating costs outside of the battery(s). SD card, one time purchase, can be used in damn near everything, and tend to last a long time. Lens, take proper care of them and they too will last a long time, you do have to keep the mounting class in mind though, possibly buying adapters, among other things. The body: Contrary to what some may say, you don't have to upgrade. Yes, newer cameras are likely to have better hardware in them, but year to year, this doesn't amount to anything that really says "hey, you need to upgrade".

[@impugkee3244]

Congratulation for your new camera !! I am very glad that you buy it because of us.

[@andrewwalmsley2314]

dude, love your videos and your knowledge. I'm currently doing a shoot film for 180 days to see how i get on. My concerns are always the same, developing myself and scanning. Tried deveoping once and made a mess, im so conscious about wasting my my time on shots. I have no way of scanning and no money 2buy something quality, tried using my dslr but lens are not macro enough.

[@lamap45]

I share your entusiam for film photography, but at least here in Portugal, film photography is much more expensive.

[@echtvergoldet]

Ofc its a bit bias towards film, but: The beginning with the "always buying up" and so on is so true. The only thing you can do against that is buy smart. I did buy a Sony A77II for 829€ and sold it two years later on ebay for 899 with some stuff, made a total loss of about 90€ ( because i sold spare batteries etc with it). 2 years and 20.000 photos later I can say I'm fine with that loss.

[@rustyhands8179]

Would be great to see a video on buying a film scanner for 35 and 120

[@VictorReynolds]

I've shot both film and digital, and unfortunately I have to differ. I did a analysis of film related expenses from January 2020 to April 2021 ( film-roll and instant); processing and scanning; and camera bodies). I put out $1802.99. That same period I purchased 3 manual focus lenses for my Micro Four-Thirds camera and a digital point and shoot for work, which came out to LESS THAN HALF of my film costs. The camera already paid for itself. And with the balance after the digital items, I could have purchased a new digital body with warranty. I understand the argument of film being cheaper, however in the long run it costs more. Film prices will keep rising, as will film cameras as repairs and maintenance go up. Save for my Fuji Instax Wide, my film gear is being retired and given to others. For anyone who wants "all in" for film, remember the words of Jesus, consider the costs.

[@ZommBleed]

Ha ha, Travis. I was watching some of your older videos. At 25:10 you talked about saving money by buying "used film." It just dawned on me after having watched this video I don't know how many times, that used film has been exposed. I thought I would give a "hipster" a hard time. Miss your online presence, Travis. I hope to see you back with some new videos soon when you have time.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

ZommBleed hahaha did I say used?! That’s awesome. I do all my videos freestyle in one take so sometimes I say funny things and just let it ride. I’ve got a new video uploading right now!

[@ZommBleed]

ForesthillFilmLab Good timing? Coincidental? How about that. I'm going to look for some used film. Maybe I'll find some undiscovered Dorothy Lange images. ha ha.

[@martinslattery2363]

You speak about the whole process. The negative is the real key. Buying used manual lenses is almost as expensive as af. equivalents.

[@richardazar22]

Great video Travis! Not to mention that there is no digital camera made, not even the $50,000 Phase One 100MP digital back that has as good of image quality or look that film has. Film just has a rich deep look while digital looks thin, at least to me it does.

[@gaijinguide9017]

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!

[@mannolitto2196]

Glad you're back I almost unsubscribed after your long inactivity. I agree film will always be with me.

[@guillermolastra]

I love this video , thanks!!!!

[@deancummings586]

Very informative video. One of the other points to make is that many film cameras are so well made that parents pass them onto their kids and they are just as functional as when they were originally purchased. In my case, my dad just gifted me his 1978 Nikon FE a few months ago and since then I shot about six rolls of film and was blown away by the quality. How many digital cameras can be passed down even ten years after purchase...much less 40 years later! I do shoot digital for some "immediate need" purposes...but I'm in LOVE with the Nikon I inherited from my dad. Just the experience of hearing that titanium shutter "clunk" is amazingly satisfying in itself!

[@jenethompsonart]

I couldn’t agree more! My medium format film camera (Pentax 645) cost me $350.00 with the 75mm lens! The digital version is about $6,000.00, no lens! The picture quality blows my crop sensor dslr out the box. Trading my dslr setup to get new glass for my film camera.

[@BrianNguyenIHASDACANSER]

I actually bought down. My t5i is 18 mp and my Fuji is like a 12 mp. Also it's a lot easier to learn digital, and Leica film cameras are still so freaking expansive.

[@johnrflinn]

Warning: Leica's will not fit in the overhead passenger compartment because they are so freaking expansive :)

[@肩不换]

Totally agree. I have bought a Nikon FG-20 with 50mm f1.8 lens set from amazon just spent about 160 dollars.

[@willapanews9761]

I taught myself how to manually set camera settings with digital camera and various KZbin videos. I now feel comfortable enough with my skills to try and shoot with film and get a reasonable amount of good photos in a roll of film while shooting manually. Instead of viewing film and digital as adversarial ways of making photos I look at each as tools that if used with skill and combined can make each other better. For instance I like using vintage film camera lenses on my digital camera and you use a digital scanner for your film photography and a digital camera to make your videos. You can also get an attachment for your lens to use your digital camera to make digital files of your slides. I am interested in using both film and digital and think it is a waste of time to hate on one or the other.

[@mrbrent62]

He makes some good points. Also the lens size makes a difference.... technology advances but you can't change the laws of physics. However as a wedding photographer.... I have to use a digital camera to stay in the game. I shoot well over 1000 shots per wedding and cull down to 350 to 500. I deal with a mostly under 35 age group who probably have never used film. Also the way a modern bride looks at her pictures is online, her phone, computer. Even high end wedding albums are digital. I like the look of old school film shots personally. Especially large format tin-type. It really depends of what type of photography you do as to using film or digital.

[@brianmccutcheon3205]

I have downloaded all your video, well I think all of them. Miss you my friend, always enjoyed your videos. Hope life is treating you well.

[@digitallocker1626]

I shoot both film and digital. I shoot digital for commercial work, process photos, backup and studio work (although it's a split). Using film for some of this stuff would be stupid. I don't do weddings but if I did I wouldn't even consider film as an option because it would add unnecessary stress. I shoot film because it's magic and I have an (unhealthy) obsession with it. If I can shoot a project on film, I will because nobody gets to bug me about checking the images in real time and I become a wizard picture-man they have to trust and blindly follow. Gah! Marvellous! The Cheap: Over the past year and a half I have acquired a couple of film cameras for which I've paid little to nothing. An example would be a Nikon F90X with a 70-210 f4-5.6 that I quite literally pulled out of a recycling bin. It works, believe it or not. The point here is that the initial purchase cost of the camera is negligible. Again, NEGLIGIBLE, hence there is minimal commitment. You can pick one up and put a roll per year through it without fearing depreciation. A huge point to make here is that I will fearlessly go out with my Nikon and focus on the shots more than the safety of the gear. If I take out my A7R I feel like I need a perimeter set up around my tripod. Film, indeed does cost money and it costs money to develop. However in the case of black an white costs can be kept low by using, among others, Rodinal with TF5 as a fixer. "Full frame": Not really a huge point to the film world because really the difference between APS and 35 is small(1.5x) however for wide angle shooters it might mean the world. Prohibitive costs of digital full frame cameras also factor in here. Projectors: One of my favourite things to do with black and white: I'll shot a couple of rolls, select my favourites, get a copy-stand and duplicate the negatives on negative film to create positives. PanF works well for this. I'll mount the slides and put them through my $5 Zeiss projector. An added plus is that film cameras have a much longer life span if not abused. Cameras from the 80s are very relevant today while you'd be hard-pressed to see someone using a dslr from 2005 today.

[@Pseudopsychosis]

While I myself have a huge bias towards film it is decidedly not cheaper, here's why: after processing negative film you are left with a tiny negative image on a film base that needs to be further processed in order to be useable. This either means buying an enlarger, photo paper, chemicals, and setting up an appropriate space or buying a scanner or having your film lab-scanned. Keep in mind that most scanners under a considerable amount of money are shit. Lab scanners are good but to achieve decent results, again, a considerable amount of money has to be paid. If you shoot slide film it is fairly cheaper to display images at the end because all you need is a slide projector, however that does not solve the issue of digitizing. That does not mean you should abandon the idea of shooting film, just don't do it for the bargain. Do it because it's a good investment, do it because you love it, do it because it will teach you infinitely more than using digital.

[@johnrflinn]

My photo lab (Citizen's Photo in Portland) gives you the option of making hi res jpg files of your pictures on a CD and prints in addition to just developing your print or slide film. This way you can have the best of both worlds. I am sure there are other labs that do the same.

[@pilsplease7561]

@@johnrflinn You can scan on cheap home scanners at the same quality as in labs easily. Just gotta know what your doing

[@johnrflinn]

@@pilsplease7561 I really like my Epson V600 for scanning my medium format negatives and slides. With a 4x5 film holder it can scan my 4x5 prints as 3.25" x 5" images. It cuts off a bit of the width but this is worth the $400 in savings compared to the V750.

[@pilsplease7561]

@@johnrflinn I may buy one I have a medium format camera 645 format. Would it work with that format or would i have issues?

[@johnrflinn]

@@pilsplease7561 The Epson V600 should work fine with the 645 format. I always use the professional mode not auto, and be sure to have it on label and not thumbnail so you can outline the area of the transparency after you do the preview. I always buy scanners new in order to have really clean glass. For 35mm slides I like the Nikon Cool Scan.

[@dangerpowers123]

The cost of external hard drives and digital lenses was a big factor in why I switched to film. Love my nikon F2, F3 and rollei flex. And yes film and development is a cost I spend each month. But I enjoy the process of photography more and my negatives will last far longer than a laptop hard disc or external drive. But you know it's nice to take a break and shoot digital, if you already own one, then switch back and forth between film and digital as they both have positives and negatives.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

They don't both have negatives....haha! great comment good to hear you are enjoying some nikon classics.

[@manwhalejoe6962]

To the people arguing about the details... I think his main point is that a typical photography enthusiast looking at instagram and online reviews might be convinced to pay $1000-2000 on a Fuji XPro2 or XH-1 or even $3000 on a Canon 5D mark IV because of all the marketing hype and the drive to constantly upgrade, in the mistaken belief that they will be able to pay for improved photography skills. And in comparison, entry into 35mm film shooting is considerably lower and (most likely) will cost a lot less, considering most photog hobbyists I know end up buying a lot more lenses than they need (myself included in all of the above).

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

M Dat yes exactly. The point of my video was that entering into film photography is cheaper. Really it’s cheaper across the board but people think digital photography is “free pictures” which is true but the equipment is much more expensive making it so they aren’t actually free at all

[@manwhalejoe6962]

Thanks for the videos man! I have fujifilm digital cameras but I've always loved how my instax wide gives me actual beautiful prints. Recently a friend gave me a garage-sale Pentax K 1000 (for free, $0) so I shot my first roll of film ($4 a roll) and am going to develop them at a local lab here in Baltimore ($12) so I am currently living the argument you made in this video! Your sunny 16 video was really helpful! (I got some cheap Fuji Superia 800 and Kodak Colorplus 200, I figured I'd fumble my way through a few packs before experimenting with Portra 400!))

[@Guramaki]

Great to hear that you will be putting out more videos. How about doing a video on the different types of color and monochrome film out there and which ones you prefer?

[@cws_dp]

Shannon Trainer also completely fucking untrue. Who are you? He literally used 10 rolls of Fuji 200 color film as an example in this video.

[@cws_dp]

do you have anything of value to say? or is this it?

[@krazyspartanodst]

I'm confused, i just want to shoot photos as a hobby, having fun with it, I'm new to this and I don't know if film or digital would best suit me, it's kinda discouraging

[@ThatCanonGuysReviews]

$19 is a steal on that spotmatic lol with the 50mm F1.4 lens it would be around $150 on ebay in good shape. I don't agree with the video but it's your opinion:) I shoot professionally with a Canon 1Ds Mark II and 5dc. I also collect older digital camera and use them often for between $10-50 for DSLR cameras from the 00s-2010s. I bought my 1Ds mark II for $200 and 5dc for $75 and have shot over 150k photos in the last 5 years with no problems. Going to eventually upgrade but there are numerous great digital cameras that have hit their depreciation curve and just as many deals to be had. Getting a lot more into film lately and It's a different feel than digital and I love that.

[@erinmontoya1128]

This video and your other one about why you should shoot film convinced me to use film for the photos I care about. My family lost around 5000 files (over 10 years worth) on a back up hard drive. We plugged it into an extension cord and it fried the hardware. We had a lot of important photos there, my first baptism, some of the last photos of my late grandmother, and tons of family trips and memories we'll never get to see again because our hardware couldn't handle a little bit more voltage.

[@teresashinkansen9402]

A sad fact, many people do not really think about backing their files. My friend lost his grandpa's memories, lost many hundreds if not thousands of pictures in negatives, almost a lifetime in a fire. Same shit happens, in fact digital enables you to do exact copies and so you can have perfect back ups. Ill recommend to do the same with your analog, make copies and store them in different locations, with digital do back ups in drives or disks and store them in different places as well, also you can use cloud services. Always have redundancy regardless if digital or analog!

[@GoA7250]

Interesting. The issue we have in Australia is the number of outlets that process film. I got a DianaF+ Mini for $20 a development talk for $25, use Caffinol-C for developing so cheap. Fixer $15, had the computer, had the scanner, got bulk film for $85 = over 2000 shots @ half frame 24 x 14 or 1300 24 x 24 shots... Bulk film loader with re-loadable film cans for $50 and having more fun than snapping picks with my DSLR with lenses that cost much much more. Don't forget the quality of smart phone photo's.. Some apps shoot Raw. So yeah, you want more for less, go film. Go for cheap camera's of various types. Best place isn't online, go to second hand stores or boots sales etc. I got a Minolota SRT 303a with a 50mm f1.8 lens for $85. Shoots great pictures and it's "full frame" something to consider. Almost forgot, a analogue light meter for $35.. So all in all, film is the go. Yeah, also still listen to vinyl, 33, 45 & play 12inch 78's on a windup gramophone. During storm season when the powers out, listen to some old time rock & roll. Old shit rocks. Seriously, getting into photography and learning what taking good photo's is about, go film for great looking shots you can't get from a preset for 2/5th of f-all.

[@user-zl5gi8sv7u]

About to drop $400 dollars on my next batch of film and this video came up. Digital is FAR cheaper than shooting film. My a7rii and lens were less than 2k. So basically in a year and a half the expense of film surpassed the digital. My sony is paid off, my 4x5 will never be paid off since I will always be dumping money into it to use it. Film is far more expensive. The only time it wouldn't be is if you shoot 35mm with the cheapest camera and don't use it very often.

[@larrymorris8060]

I agree, I just recently got TWO, TWO...Nikon f4s one for parts and one working body in great condition but the DP-20 on the good one was trash so I swapped it with the parts body and Bam! for $121.00 I have a fully functional F4s with minimal lcd bleed and no corrosion. Plus a spare body for parts or as a back up. and now I shoot with my F4s and D7000 actively. Next step is to get a negative scanner and to start developing my own film. Also I don't Own any Dx glass, this way I can move up to a fx body for digital and keep investing on glass. Btw I've been shooting film forever, I now have a yahsika electro 35 gsn, a canon canonet ql17, the f4s and the d7000. when the time is right i'll grab a nikon d810 or d750 when the time is right.

[@richardhale9664]

I think that some of the digital hardware costs here are over-stated, but the general point is still valid. Also Travis makes the point that if you are interested in getting to learn more about photography assuming you currently only use a smartphone , its more cost effective to start with film. If you get the bug you can, like me indulge in a decent DSLR or CSC. I have and use both film and digital as a hobbyist. I don't find them mutually exclusive. For general walk around photography I prefer film 35mm . For specific uses say telephoto or macro shots I prefer digital as you can waste a lot of frames before you get the right one. For studied landscapes or city scenes I prefer film, preferably MF. I like my Pentax K3 and use it a lot, but I love my film gear. Its better made and more fun to shoot, well at least for my taste anyway.

[@vinyljunkie64]

great video & channel! I started with film long ago. Got into digital, but it soon left me very cold. Now back to film and having same fun I had as a teenager

[@35mmlove_eric]

I shoot 300 rolls a year (36ex) roughly. I haven't bought a new camera in 4 years. There's no way digital would be cheaper for me. developing color negatives only costs $4 here, too.

[@Superbustr]

@ForesthillFilmLab Very good video. I just want to note that many excellent film cameras have either maintained their value or gone up in price due to greedy collectors. Cameras like the Minolta CLE, Zeiss Contax T2, Zeiss Contax T3, the Konica Hexar, most Leica cameras, any Rollie medium format tlr camera and some end of production cameras like the Nikon FM3a. It would be cool if you could do an episode solely on cheap pro model film cameras. Maybe talk about the Nikon F3, Nikon F100, and other professional film cameras.

[@journeyquest1]

My1st camera was a Minolta xe5 w 1.4 50mm when new. Now have xe7s, x700, srt 102 and a med format Bronica ETRSI w speed grip, finder ect. All fairly cheap. Also d7000 for any digital work. I like both.

[@JETZcorp]

I decided to skip digital and get into film, about equally for aesthetic and cost reasons. The film camera I just bought was $137, which would be a tiny budget for digital (basically relegating me to point-and-shoot options). I hear many people say that a higher-end cell phone takes such good pictures that they don't have a "real" camera anymore. Well, my mid-range phone with a dumpster fire of a camera was $450; upgrading from that to a flagship phone would be serious DSLR money. If you could still find metal-frame SLRs for $30 it would be a total blow-out, but even still I'd have to shoot a kajillion photos (and never replace my digital camera) for digital to be cheaper.

[@jonathanfairchild833]

I bought a cheap obsolete Nikon DSLR so I can shoot meetings and fundraisers and other events for my company. That way, I can just transfer the files to a thumbdrive and pass them on. It's nearly impossible to shoot the thing in manual. An actual manual film camera makes creative control so much more of a pleasure. I'm more than happy to use the DSLR as a glorified point and shoot and use the scene modes.

[@mjl1958]

A $150 scanner will not produce good quality results.

[@nickfanzo]

MJ L what do you use?

[@fdauerbach]

I have a Canon T5i and a I believe you are absolutely right. I've being shooting it for a little while and I already feel like I need to upgrade it. So I'm moving to a Minolta X-700 film camera ;)

[@Dd_chill]

There should be no discussion about costs , shoot what you like most. After saying this, I think that if you add the cost of everything you will buy after a few years of being a photographer the result will be close between film or digital. You will spend a lot of money in both. I love film, it's my favourite, but I love digital too although I'm not a techy guy, so I stick with my old pentax k10d because the results that I get are good enough for me. I prefer shooting film because the expierence of doing it is more satisfying for me. And that's what I look for when I shoot. Thanks for the videos and for all the things I'm learning with them. Sorry for my bad English, and greetings from Spain Gracias amigo

[@durtcannon]

Its not cheaper in the long run. I would rather print a good photo from my phone than a bad picture from a film roll.

[@nickfanzo]

DurtCannon lenses on film cameras are far superior to a phone, especially a Leica lens or something from an sl66 camera. Your argument is flawed

[@durtcannon]

@@nickfanzo ofc it's superior quality wise. But a lense won't be make the photo "better".

[@nickfanzo]

DurtCannon no that’s my job and the subjective viewer’s opinion. I would also much rather make art with my hands, move the items, the supplies and work them to make an end result. Much like when I draw and work on my sculptures. I wouldn’t want to draw or work on sculpting through a computer

[@pawog04youtube3]

He never said get rid of your phone, most phone cameras are really good. They do there job. He is strictly talking about normal cameras.

[@PaulVanCaesbroeck]

Nice comparaison, but you forgot to add the cost of a computer when it comes to scanning. You can also ask the shop where you have your films developed to deliver the images on cd so you don't have to scan them.

[@matchat86]

The Pentax Spotmatic isn't a 'cheap' camera in the sense that when it was made it would have been one of the higher quality cameras available to purchase. The 50mm f1.4 lens that you got with it would have been considered a serious amateur/ semi professional level lens at the time also. Certainly not the entry level kit lens that most amateurs would have bought. $19 is a great price for a camera that will likely carry on working for the rest of your life if you give it a little TLC every now and again to keep it running smoothly. But yes I see your point that it's cheap compared with the professional level cameras that you compare it to like the Hasselblad.

[@datfly3034]

ForesthillFilmLab - So true, and film cameras will not be obsolete in 2-5 years - my Canon A-1 is 30+ years old and going strong. Digital is okay - I don't think it needs to be either one or the other - but I prefer the overall process of film photography - it's much more hands-on! Awesome work. Love your videos.

[@ShahShaha]

Thank you for all your videos so far! I've really enjoyed them. I've been shooting film for 6 years now and I think it's time to develop films on my own (started a new job where there's no lab around and thought that buying chemicals would be costly but you proved me wrong). I was wondering if you could explain the relation between film ISO and developing time? You've posted a video already on how to develop film but I'm not sure how to go about developing films with a higher or lower ISO.

[@ForesthillFilmLab]

Shah Shaha awesome! I'm on it I'll make something soon!

[@ShahShaha]

Great thank you! Looking forward to it!

[@surfindaddio]

Right with you Forest. I got caught up in the digital upgrade conveyor and wasted thousands of pounds. Now shooting Agfa 100 film at £1 per roll from Poundland and £5.10 for developing. The cost of 1 digital lens I have could buy me a Leica M6 and a lifetime of fun shooting. My Nikon FM3A is also an awesome camera mated with a 50mm lens and is more fun to shoot than my D7200 which is worth about 50% what I paid for it. Just wished I'd turned to film sooner....

[@Dd_chill]

You own the best nikon ever! So do I ( the fm3a, of course)