Why Film Photography Isn’t as Expensive as you Think

My Royalty-Free Music is from Artlist! bit.ly/31BReir Get Two-Months FREE!
say hi on instagram! / tavakessler
Subscribe! www.youtube.co...
Get $50 Off Motion Array with my Referral Link! motionarray.co...
Check out my website: www.tavakessle...
The Gear I Use: kit.co/kessler...

[@tavakessler]

Okay okay, you guys got me, this video was sponsored by the film companies (just kidding). This turned into a bit of a hot take, but I want to rephrase my thought process a little. Obviously you can buy a very cheap digital camera and you can spend a ton on film. But I wanted to highlight that the difference between the two isn’t as extreme as many people seem to believe it is.

[@ivonamlakic1267]

You didn’t highlight that the difference is not that big, you simply said film is cheaper than digital 💀

[@retarlil1909]

This is such a shit comparison 💀 there are good, cheaper, digital cameras, using $1200 as a comparison is truly insane going up against a $200 film camera, and even then the math isn’t great, film is great, but trying to say it’s more/just as affordable than digital is just never gonna be correct

[@osprey_8864]

Yeah, plenty of great full-frame digital cameras hovering at, or even well under, $300...

[@Campake]

Well produced video, looks great, however I'm sorry, but it's a shit take. Here's each argument you used somewhat dissected: "A decent modern digital camera will cost you around $1200" You can also find an incredibly good fairly modern used digital camera for a few hundred dollars. You're taking the prices of new cameras and comparing it to a market where most things you buy will not be new out of the box, they will also be used most of the time, even the super nice ones. "[1200 photos is] equivalent to shooting a photo every single day for over 3 years" Sorry, but this is definitely the worst offender. First of all, who takes one singular photo whenever they go out to shoot? Secondly, Let's say you buy a used digital camera that dies after 100k photos and let's say when you bought it, the previous owner took around 28k photos. With that you could shoot those 1200 photos EVERY MONTH for FIVE YEARS. "If you're just shooting recklessly and taking a ton of shots with no real intention..." - You can do the exact same things while shooting on digital. That isn't something tied to film. Yes, film encourages you to go slower, but that is something completely up to you and you can take those same good photos on digital purely by changing our own mind rather than the medium. "Digital photography can also be really expensive - you can buy a $10 000 camera so you gotta put it in context" - You can do the exact same thing with film cameras! You can buy leicas, you can buy hasselblads, you can buy all sorts of premium lenses and different cameras, does that necessarily make the form more expensive for every single person? Nah, just for those who are willing to spend those tens of thousands of dollars. I believe your arguments come from the love for film - which indeed is a beautiful art form, however I believe it's important to recognize its downsides as well without pretending they do not exist. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, this was a well made video, good job on that front :) I don't mean to leave this comment purely to be negative or whatever, I just believe that you can enjoy things even by admitting that they definitely are not cheap or cheaper than the alternatives, have a great day :)

[@GimmeSomeAdventure]

nobody buys used digital camera, and i'd say he's being generous on 1200, if you wanted a x100vi your sitting at 2500 with taxes in, in canada, nobody is buying a d7000 from 2010 anymore, old digital cameras are paperweights at this point, im not saying thats the way it should be, but its realistic nobody buys used and if they do they buy a 1-2 year old camera and still pay over 1200 bones. i do agree with the 1200 photos part and film photography can be as expensive as you make it, i buy film and develop and scan myself so im saving huge money in that department. but it aint cheap.

[@Campake]

@@GimmeSomeAdventure I'd definitely disagree with that nobody buys used cameras. I don't mean cameras from the early 2000s, I mean people who just wanna take photos for fun can EASILY get pretty great used cameras. Even ones that are like 7 years old now or whatever still shoot great. An x100vi I'd say is a bad example as it's a very hyped camera that's been popularized by youtube lol, there are loads of other options for the 1200 he provided (at least in euros). Nonetheless, I believe that cameras like the now 9 year old fuji xt10 still remain a good and affordable way to shoot great looking images and you can get it for a couple hundred.

[@Sea0fTime]

That's completely untrue. There are many people including me that regularly but used digital cameras for many different reasons. Cameras that have CCD sensors are especially popular right now. ​@@GimmeSomeAdventure

[@retarlil1909]

@@GimmeSomeAdventure mf you are so out of touch💀

[@true4795]

Pollution from developing each roll of film is priceless to everyone

[@Gracjan38]

im sorry but ive heard this a million times and its just not a good take. A decent digital camera can be had for as little as 100 (lets even say 200) euro or dollars or whatever and thats with a shutter count of lets say 30k. Thats still 70k shots to go until the camera potentially shits the bed. If someones just starting out theyre not gonna be spending a thousand or two an a digital camera and even then the math just isnt in your favour. A new digital camera can easily do over 100k shots in its lifetime and possibly a lot more. A thousand dollars in film and developement "Is like taking a photo every day for three years". Really? One picture a day? It sounds like you try really hard to defend the logic of it but the reality is film is just not a viable option for those on a tight budget or lets call it what it is- struggling financially. Film is a nice medium but dont come here preaching analog and pretending young people dont live on the edge of poverty. And thats my take

[@ivonamlakic1267]

You’re objectively right

[@GimmeSomeAdventure]

maybe its different in north america that europe but people aren't buying digital camera for 100-200, nobody wants some 2007 or 2010 camera, sure they still shoot fine, but most people who want a digital camera now adays will buy a 1500-3k camera. but there are broke as people out there shooting lecia's people have money (credit cards) to use when want to.

[@Gracjan38]

@@GimmeSomeAdventure what are you even talking about. I literally just paid 200 euro for a Fuji xe1 and sold a 2016 Olympus pen for like 150. Not even mentioning the mountains of cheap dslrs that can be had for not a lot of money

[@j.k5654]

You are correct. As someone who only shoots film (35mm) I bought a digital camera (12mp) for 30$ and am very happy with it. I still choose to shoot film because it’s therapeutic to me and it’s my main artistic medium. 99% of my work is shot on film and my clients love it. Film will always be more expensive over time.

[@itsjusttravis692]

I mean I get what you're saying but my Canon EOS cost $250 (with kit lens) and I've taken well over 3000 photos since like fall 2023. Film is more expensive because you have to pay every time you wanna do it, and then pay again after you take the pics to have them developed. So $250 for the camera, and then like $40 every time you use it. With digital you pay $250 once and then take 10,000 photos and then maybe $50 for a lens off eBay

[@athmaid]

And you can eliminate the shitty photos right then and there, you don't have to pay to even evaluate them

[@shannontrainer5857]

Hipsters got to hipster.

[@GimmeSomeAdventure]

just shoot medium format waist level finder on a tripod, sure you only get 15 shots a roll but it literally takes me a week or two to shoot a roll cause i plan each shot, at the end of the day thats why i got into film, nothing to do with money, it was about slowing the process down and taking my time, i don't want to just click a button and get 100 hundred shots, i want to sit there and plan the composition and line it up, and focus and use a spot meter to get my proper fstop, then take in the scene and then take the photo, thats why i got into film.

[@bornanikolic3130]

Really bad, disingenuous take. Analog photography is only cheaper in the begining, but every film you shoot, you add to the cost. Digital, on the other hand, has almost 0 running cost. At some point analog cost outpaces digital and just keeps growing... There is a reason why digital is prevalent on practically all levels of photography. In the long run it's just objectively cheaper.

[@THEjoelivingstone]

Yeah, I stopped about 5 seconds in. This is such a bad take. Film photography wasn't profitable 15 years ago. I've got drawers of cameras whose only value is selling them to idiot rich kids. You have to be spoiled or dumb to keep going with film. Or really good, and this dude isn't.

[@osprey_8864]

@@THEjoelivingstone You've met his bad take with your own, damn. Consider people who bulk roll B&W and home develop, that is where the true film experience is at. For some people it is not meant to be profitable, it is meant to be fun. Btw, plenty of folks shooting digital are very spoiled and dumb if you wanna go that route.

[@mattiascastillo9458]

@@THEjoelivingstoneIt’s important to note that some formats of film are completely unsurpassed by digital. The control and detail you get from large format is superior to digital cameras. It’s not even close. Is it just expensive? Sure. Is it necessary for most? Nope. But there’s also no digital alternative. No, not even with a PhaseOne camera.

[@THEjoelivingstone]

@@osprey_8864 Trust me, I've been through the bulk roll game. For the most part these days, film is for trust fund kidies. Nobody without a name is making a living off film photography. I've spent ages in darkrooms, and at this point it's a total waste of time and the business of hobbyists. Digital is the the new analog. The looming new digital is AI, at which point we're all hobbyists. The only value in film is keeping old glass and finding a mount for a new rig. I held on for 15 years, and can say I'm glad I never have to smell sodium thiosulfate ever again. I'll sell you my Hexar AF though, if you want it.

[@THEjoelivingstone]

@@mattiascastillo9458 Large and MF is completely different. I have a Rolleiflex and a Graflex Crown that I rarely use. And if I use the Graf, it's only for the Polaroid back. I mostly am keeping them to upsell to idiot hipsters in the future. E: also adding that if something seems "unsurpassed", you haven't learned enough. Unless you're rocking the big boys, there is nothing that you can't do with a micro 4/3 and skill. I mostly run OM lenses on mine, and there is no way you could tell it wasn't film. Since I'm going on and on, I've also gutted an original Soviet L-CA (not the LOMO remakes) and am building a mount to convert it to digital. So if you're looking for reverence to film, you will not find it here.

[@terrybrooks395]

Hmm, talking about context, maybe the comparison should be with buying a used digital camera, there's some fantastic bargains out there like a used Canon 5D II or a Fujifilm X-T2 Film is far more expensive than digital, you have to absolutely love the format to use film long term

[@KoenRH2803]

To me it has been about dedication to the medium. It has taken a while and a lot of investments but I’m starting to get to a point where I have my own dslr scanning set-up and I’m planning to start developing my own film (at least b/w, which makes push processing a lot more affordable). I’m also developing a style that works with cheaper film stocks like gold 200 and ultramax. Don’t get me wrong it has been super expensive to also get some good cameras but last few years they have only increased in value, so that has made it so it was a little easier to switch systems over time. So yeah, it can be very expensive to start with if you want to take film seriously (especially if you don’t already have a digital camera to scan with), but once you’re set, it gets very doable.

[@OttosTheName]

A decent digital camera is 1200 dollars? Gtfo. That's one way to justify it, lmao. You can just get a Nex5 or an a5000 for 60-120 usd. Or if you want something 'more filmic' get a DSLR from the CCD era like my Nikon d40x that I see available for 40. All of these examples is lens included. I'd challenge anybody here to find a flaw with those. Unless you really want to shoot 6400 iso and up at night or you do high speed sports photography. But even then you're still better off with a mediocre mirrorless system than you'd be with film.

[@sotosxboxakias]

I really wanted to like this video and convice me i was wrong all these years BUT you are just not corret and you see the things like you want them to see it. Yeah if you have a ferrari and drive it only once per month for a few miles, you will need fewer gas than a normal car you use everyday but that does not make the ferrari more affordable just because you pay less per month. Your facts are just incorrect. Also you can buy a really really decent digital camera with a lens for 500 dollars. I don't understand why you wanted to make this point that film is not expensive. Film is what it is and tha't's fine but for sure is more expensive than digital.

[@miguellee3]

You: “A pretty nice film camera costs around $200” Leica: Hold my beer 😂

[@Sea0fTime]

Almost nothing in your comparison makes sense. You start from the perspective of buying your camera whether it's a film or digital camera and then going from there but you are very misleading in stating the price of digital cameras. You dont need to pay $1000 or more for a "decent" digital camera. Any good digital camera made from about 2005 on can compete more than favorably with 35mm film, so buy used. You most likely be doing that to get a film camera as well. I still use my Pentax K10d dslr from 2006 and it still works great. You can easily buy that camera for between $100 to $200 used, often with a couple lenses on ebay or used camera shops. There are dozens of other used digital camera models you could choose from in the same price range. I haven't even needed to replace it's original battery or sd card. The camera has made many thousands of exposures. If you want to buy new, you can get a new digital camera from most brands in a kit with body and lens for about $500 in the U.S. and these will all give you better image quality and vastly more capability than almost any film camera. So, there is almost no difference in price between the film or digital camera. Now add in the additional costs. The one photo per day you mentioned is barely doing photography. If you're only taking one photo you aren't exploring your subject. Even sticking to that however you will hit a point where you will keep paying for film and development whereas the digital camera is going to have almost no more cost unless you buy additional items for it like extra batteries or memory cards. Plus, you dont have to limit yourself with taking barely any photos. You will save many thousands of dollars by going with digital over film over the life of the camera. I love shooting film and still do it. I've got film cameras in 110, half frame 35mm, 35mm, 120, and 4x5. They're all fun, and the tactile experience of loading the film, the smell of it, the feel of it, the sounds of the film advance, mirrors clacking, shutters clicking, it's so enjoyable and satisfying. I love film grain. I love seeing my image form in the darkroom. I love seeing my images projected using an actual slide projector and hearing the kachunk it makes when advancing to the next slide. What I don't love is the cost of shooting film, which is why I and many other photographers old enough to have started with film switched to digital in the first place, and that was when film was still much more affordable than it is now. There are many reasons to shoot film, it not costing more than digital is not one of them. It's much much more expensive to shoot film.

[@jasperrasmuson5707]

No matter how you look at it, film photography ends up being more expensive. We shoot on film because of the experience and how it makes is feel. And we accept the price tag that comes with it.

[@laika25]

The math doesn't work for me. 1 pic a day? Are you serious???? I could stop right there, but if you really need to know... .........I need AT LEAST 100 (pix a day), AT LEAST.

[@ralphacosta3891]

No. you're placing that each images that you'll take has equal portion of value, then you haven't taken accounted for the misfired and missed shots, then the development of the skill to producing quality image per shot, and if you're producing quality images, this requires quality film. Quality film is 75 for 5 rolles, 36 shots, 180 shots for 175 when processing is included. It is expensive, but it's the worth the expense when we are talking about quality of the color, dynamic range, print, image... And we are only discussing 35mm not the 120. Film has its place, and so does digital, there is place for both.

[@chickenpasta7359]

So true (I now have to pay for overpriced mid film from niche companies and buy from scalpers because film is becoming overly commodified and film cameras themselves are growing ever expensive)

[@GimmeSomeAdventure]

just like record collecting all over again, to many people get into it a (dying product) and the companies that have been hanging on just getting by the last two decades are cashing in by raising prices and ebay is creating an artificial influencer camera inflation.

[@jkingwhistler]

I get the point you are trying to get across but if I buy a new or used digital (to use your example) for $1000, after shooting 1200 shots (your example again) my camera may still be worth the same amount (if bought used) or slightly less if purchased new due to depreciation or whatever. I still hold equity in the digital camera though. Cost of purchase minus resale value. Therefore the costs are nowhere near the same.

[@canibanoglu9643]

What a ridiculous take. "A digital camera starts at 1200 but can go up to 2-3-4-5 thousand dollars": Guess what, film cameras do that too. Presenting second hand economincs as a way of justifying the price difference is ridiculous. You can easily find very capable digital cameras for less than a hundred dollars. "Shooting recklessly with no real intention" being compared to "intentionally framing your shot and taking that single perfect exposure" - This is such hipster "feel good about film" nonsense. You're not Ansel Adams, you need to take multiple shots to work your subject and explore different ideas. You develop your film, you look at your results, you go back and you do it all over again. And again. Until you're satisfied. You might end up taking hundreds of shots to get there. Guess what, digital costs nothing extra to do this. If you're not developing and scanning at home, every roll you shoot comes to around 20 dollars each time. If you shoot 1 picture a day maybe you don't worry about the costs too much. I tend to go through 2-3 rolls in a single area that I find curious/interesting. That's 60 dollars' worth of sketches of an idea. If you do develop at home, you can halve that cost, but it's still a considerable amount of money. I'm not even talking about color, just black and white. Film is fantastic, it's a lot of fun and exploration. But one thing it's not is cheap. It's fucking expensive.

[@areelguy]

I do like this video and its extremely well made but my bank account says otherwise.

[@Phoyographer]

No thanks. I'd rather buy coffee and stick with my digital camera

[@francischang]

I'm a dad. I take somewhere between 200-1000 shots every month 😂

[@JasonLeto]

Like the video. You're completely wrong, but the video is really nice. 🙂

[@TheNewBruno69]

Even if I am in the massive crew that this is a shit take I have a fujifilm x-T1 that I got for literally 150 euros, no lens so with a kit lens it all got to 300 or a bit more I shoot mainly film and I love it, I have multiple cameras for different use and condition, I develop myself b&w and own a dark room where I do print with an enlarger (all b&w I am not that fool. And not rich enough either) and I agree that starting film photography is not as expensive as most of the people think but the comparison and example are very horribly made. You should had count to just find whatever camera you have without buying one or buy a very cheap one and then also. You shoot B&W or color? Because the price can go fromm6 euros or dollars to 20 of the same currency It’s just inconsistent overall but I get the point. Also love how some people just hate film photography in general apparently so who cares I guess everyone does what they want

[@Everythingupsidedown]

it is, i have both digital and film

[@ryanclouse299]

I know I've taken way more than 1200 photos in the past year with my camera that cost me $550. I use my canon p only when I want to shoot film Because I know how expensive it is. You can buy so many decent digital cameras for cheap. You can get some great used FF or crop dslrs or crop censor mirrorless and adapt old lenses or use chinese Mf lenses. I'm sorry but film really is expensive...

[@sharkpyro93]

its way more expensive and its going to get worse in the future

[@hengfongchye2946]

nice try IRS

[@sovograf]

true, digital medium format will cost you a kidney and film will cost probably $300 or so

[@peruperu-jj8zs]

Where do you even find 10 dollar roll of film? Is this 2012??

[@dennyrulos7370]

Just bulk load foma and dev it at home if you want to be cheap.

[@sharkpyro93]

still more expensive, even the dev tools and chemicals require an initial investment and as if it wasnt enough they expire

[@piotrlason1641]

Basically a film subscription lol

[@starkerrobert]

Hey, what are some affordable and good analog cameras?

[@GimmeSomeAdventure]

just get a point and shoot to start like a nikon l35af or something, find them cheap and they do all the work for you with autofocus and exposure, but gives you that classic grain and nostalgic feel when you get the film back,

[@starkerrobert]

@@GimmeSomeAdventure Thanks!

[@averymiritello]

Great video!

[@phil_aesthetics]

Just get both and remortgage your house like i did

[@luisfilms]

this is so good dude!

[@JHurrenPhotography]

I've been saying this for a long time. The fact that all the below comments miss, is that your shiny new digital camera in five years time will have a rather shoddy resale value. Half what you paid, if you're lucky in the model you bought. All the film cameras I've bought are now worth more than when I bought them.

[@shannontrainer5857]

Film cameras also depreciate in value over time.

[@mattyteerifles2863]

If you bulk load and develop at home, it can come out to as little as $5 a roll. Then again to do that it takes a much higher initial investment, but it would still be comparable to the initial cost of a digital system so pick your poison I guess.

[@canibanoglu9643]

The cost of developing at home is very low indeed but you then have the cost of setting up a scanning system, which (surprise, surpise) comes back to digital. And there you can end up spending a considerable amount.

[@sharkpyro93]

it still requires you to do an initial investment on that part, no matter whay everyone says, its way more expensive, period, and as the other guy said if you're going to scan its just digital photography with extra steps to get a shittier quality images...i like film and i shoot and dev myself once in a while but im not delusional i know the cons

[@132indo]

you have to replace a digital camera every 3-5 years. over a 20 year period you would have to buy 4-5 digital cameras at around 1-2k each. Thats roughly several thousand dollars unless you buy Leicas and triple it. With film I been using a Mamiya 7 for that long. Or a cheap Pentax k100 or canon film camera. All the cost is film and processing essentially which you would think would be too cost prohibitive over time for the average hobbyist. However, it's not when you add up all the ancillary expenses in digital like extra batteries, sd cards, multi chargers, ssd storage space etc. I have negatives I've had printed that I still haven't scanned from back in the day. And I never have to worry if the hard drive will fail with negatives. With scanners available cheaply to costumers now. makes film very convenient and built in redundancy assuming you can do some basic care for your negatives.

[@LadyBovine]

Locking at these comments I guess I don't actually need to tell you how wrong you are :D

[@ExpiredBren]

I totally agree with your argument here! The threshold for film ‘beginners’ can be much lower than for those starting to shoot digital it would seem. Also your b-roll was mesmerizing haha

[@tavakessler]

Thanks! Also helps when you have friends who develop film 😉

[@LadyBovine]

How is it lower for film in any way. You can get an older model great quality used digital camera with a lens and SD card for under 200 bucks too, and you can start taking photo and see the results Immediately, and improve your skills by the same evening, because you can learn through quick trial and error, with no added cost. Both film cost and film wait make it VASTLY higher threshold for beginners both in cost and feedback time and complication.

[@j.k5654]

Not it’s NOT cheaper. As a beginner, I can buy a digital camera for 200$ and shoot 10000s of images. I remember my first digital camera, I had like 7000 images in 3 weeks. Calculate that in film. Film is worse for photography beginners. Now I only shoot like 50 rolls a year bulk loaded. I only shoot film

[@shannontrainer5857]

Great... another film-only hipster.

[@shannontrainer5857]

@@j.k5654 Keep in mind that @ExpiredBen is a hipster that shoots only film.