Film Vs. Digital: The True Costs 

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

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

I agree with this. I just got an Agfa Optima II for $15.00 bought a roll of Ilford 125 B&W film shot it and developed it in Cinestill 96 one step developer and got magnificent negatives that scanned and printed very well. I have a digital but I love my film cameras because they force me to slow down and do it right the 1st time.

Can you possiby do a video on pushing and pulling B & W, And the developing proccess?

fantastic!! i just swap from digital to film because of your video!! im selling my digital gear right now and i cant wait for your next video!!

Can you give me the link for the film you bought. Do you have a suggestion on where to get cheap tri-x film

You are super right man bro.🤙Thanks for sharing this video.

Using 35mm cameras to take pictures is like those rich people who restore antique cars. Both groups have more money than brains. I just took 1000 pictures with my ($79.00) digital camera while visiting the Grand Canyon and downloaded the pictures into my computer. It cost me nothing to do this. The pictures are perfect and backed up on 4 different computers. I like to see the old cars at car shows, however because they lack all the safety of new cars I will not risk my life so others can see I am stupid driving an antique car with no way to protect my life in an accident.

I think I read somewhere that scanning a 35mm film slide can get up to nearly 100 mega pixels of resolution. Imagine a good old medium format camera. Check out Nick Carver's channel. One of the episodes he scans a medium format slide and it is something like 900 mega pixels.

I like your passion for real prints......but a bit unfair comparison, old secondhand film camera to brand new digital camera. Commercailly, if you reverted back to film, you would be out of business within the month. I don't want to sound rude, but without your RU-vid cannel making money, could you honestly say you could make a living shooting just film? I doubt it very much.

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.

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

"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?

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 .

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Is this dude for real??? Flawed argument.... and extremely bad math skills...

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

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!

Lol 😂 😂😂😂😂😂 If you are a novice like you say you and just staring you will waste at least 1 film x week for the first two years learning and using crap film like the one that you mentioned it will cost you 700 box per year before developing and printing , I started taking pictures in 1979... digital is a blessing, forget the fact that I shoot professionally, and by the time you wasted all the time with analog my digitals are already sold.... if you are after image quality 35mm is dead only large format 4x5 and above still have a place, and at 50+ box each exposure you do the maths.... Go to a camera shop get a second hand digital, anything 10 years old, learn how to take pictures, then buy second hand last year technology and you will be sorted for the next 10 years, on the long run you will have saved hundreds if not thousands.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

What you're saying is just not true. Couple years ago I bought a Canon DSLR with a lens for $110. Bought a couple of vintage lenses and adapter for about 80 bucks. So I have less than $200 invested and I used to shoot film and I would spend that much every month or two.

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

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

Film fanboy ;)..

Wow this is one of the worse comparisons I've seen. I love film, but digital is always cheaper. I admire that you found a way to somehow say the opposite haha

Just buy a Fuji XF10 for $300 or less and you'll get everything you need. And there will be no running costs. And the quality will be the same as 35mm film or better.

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.

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.

you talking bulshit man !!! A. professional people prefer using digital format because is much cheaper and you don't need to develop film . B. you can save all the photos and movies on the computers , and every ten years you making back up in hard disc . C. in digital format you never lose quality and films you lose quality . D. George lucas the film director using digital cameras because is much cheaper better quality , and you don't need to develop the film. E. no one today is stupid to buy films cameras today, people want to save money. F. welcome to digital world you have to get use to it !!!!

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.

A $150 scanner will not produce good quality results.

LOOOOOOOL... this comparison is so skewed. Comparing brand new to used! Come on man!... You can get used digital at the thrift store bro. It's call CEX, and they have a ton load of used digital cameras for same amount you can get a decent old film camera. Unless you've been living in a cave, most people already have a computer. In your comparison you claimed a noob would buy the latest camera recommended at the store; possibly; but then the noob buying a film camera would do the same. Advice would be to go for a quality Nikon F4 or Canon A1 or a Hassleblad like you mentioned. That would set you back the same one grand. A noob probably wouldn't know the best cheapest place to buy or process film. Shops that still sell film sell it at extortionate prices. If the noob had sense to go to ebay for film, then I'm sure they would have the same sense to go there for a much cheaper used digital camera. I don't know anyone who goes into photography to save money, but your conclusions of film v digital affordability are a bit bonkers. If noob photographers are thinking to go professional, those 5Ds will eventually pay for themselves, so they actually make money not lose it. I have four DSLRs, all crop bodies, none of which I have bought new, and they have all easily payed for themselves, some of them many times over. Digital CAN cost more than film, but like you said, that's if you keep upgrading to the latest and greatest every year, but guess what? Same for film cameras. When your noob buys a $19 dollar Practika, and decides it's not good enough, what are they going to do? That's right; Upgrade! They will still lose the same rate of money selling that old camera, particularly if they bring it to the exchange shop. Other than that, they'll keep it on the shelf taking up space. You have to accept the fact that when you shoot film seriously, those costs will just keep rising as you shoot, and in the end it all mounts up, and equalises up. Remember there's even a hidden cost of storing all that film in the fridge. LOL Nice try though.

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.

This should be called "How to take the piss and be a cliche." I turned it off at the first advert.How do these people get sponsored,. This cliched, bearded , tattooed, beany hatted child makes me embarrassed to shoot film. Damn Hipsters.

illogical points..

(Sorry for my bad English) I’m film photography lover. I was using film probably before you born. I don’t like digital photography, I do photography to enjoy and I shot film because I enjoy it much more than digital. So I will not fight to defend digital but must to say you are full wrong. First of all, this is not a war to win. It like all old rivalries between Canon/Nikon, Harley Davidson/Japanese bike, pop/rock, ... with the age I become to see they a little bit stupid. You compare half century old camera with a new brand one. Yes, bad news, there are no brand new film cameras. You must to buy an old camera and hope it’s not has seal problem, slow shutter issues, fungus, light meter maladjustment, batteries no available,... just all that a beginner need to love film photography. If you go to use to compare an old film camera, why not to buy an old digital camera? You can get something like a Nikon D70 for around 120~180€. It will equalize the comparison. About lose investment with digital camera, I must to ask about my 1200€ I paid for my Nikon F90 body that now you can get for 90~120€ (sometimes less). This is not because photography, it is our society/market rules (and we use to play). I don’t want to extend over other details, only say to people, enjoy photography. Try to find a club, association, group of friends to share experience and knowledge IN THE REAL WORLD. Like most of the activities in life, photography is enriched with human relationships. (after all, photography is made to be admired by humans).

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).

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.

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/

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!

This math is completely wrong. Cost of digital photography is centralised around digital camera cost. Price of Canon A1 at 1978. was about 625$ with 40mm/1.4 lens. Recalculated inflation today It would be around 2000$. It is similar to price range one can buy excellent digital camera and kit lens. However, I can show easy that person today don't need to spend a penny for camera, since mayoriti populaition already have sofisticated communication device in their pockets. Device which accidentaly has superb camera for dummies installed. Photos are automatically backuped into the cloud at leats once. Photograph may take a photo, edit it manually or let smart app do that for him, send it to anyone instantly. May pass by any print, photo lab and print copies as much as he need on photo paper. Let start from there, not from 2000$ expensive Z7. Today I have plenty film bodies I never able to aford in my student days. I am just fascinated with them. But back then I used to shoot 10 roles per month, film was bought in bulk of 10 and 30 meters , chemistry was cheap........ Today? No! Today is film much more expensive then it used to be. I was trying hard to shoot film, but it is mission impossible. Expensive or even worse: some components are just not available everywhere. Probably this is not the case in N.Y.

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

A COMPARABLE digital camera is not more expensive than a film camera. With an old camera, film, developing chemicals, flash, scanner, etc for let's say ~500 pictures is still like $500. For the same money, you could buy a 5D original (still am old but much newer camera), Canon 50mm 1.8, and a couple memory cards, and a spare battery, you're again looking at ~$500.

Don't buy a new digital camera! You pick one up used for 300-500 $ that does everything that an analog camera does(and than some) and it can still doe that in 10 years. And if you store your pics in the cloud you and whoever you want to, can see them whenever wherever it pleases. And you go to your binder and show me all pics form Rom 2010 with Linda in them(maybe you can, but the time it would cost you). And the environmental side of film would also to be considered!! If you say: I do Analog for fun - O.K. Or out of Nostalgia -O.K. Or even for the look - O.K. But trying to construct some Rational pro Film. I don't see that. And if it where only for geotagging, I'd switch anytime to digital.

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!

@Foresthillfilmlab....I like where you are coming from,but for people that use a camera for work like shooting weddings or events.My Fujifilm X-Pro2 $1500 and 23f/2 $400 gets the job done and with film this would be expensive and not very reliable and fast.Also you might want to look at Fujufilm X-t1 or x-pro1 they have all manuel dials very old school approach !! Cheers

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.

I don't understand the argument that you need to spend $900 to get into digital with manual control. That's completely disingenuous. There are more options out there. If you're trying to convince someone who is going to buy a brand-new digital camera to buy a used film camera you're making a comparison worthy of ridicule. You're also not considering a motordrive to shoot the multiple shots anyone shooting sports would have access to with a digital (and the additional film you'd chew through). I can't accept the rest of your argument when it's based on an absurd figure of $900 to start. Three years ago I bought a brand-new Canon Rebel T6i with two lenses for $350. I have it to my sister for Christmas and she has gone from beginner to quite good without having to spend a dime on film or processing or printing. Her digital camera got her through some financially difficult times. She-like most people-don't see printing as the natural output for all photos. Online via Instagram is perfectly convenient. And at the end of the year an inexpensive photo book can be had from Snapfish for $30. The reality is, film is great. Digital is great. They are different. Stop pitting them against each other.

Apples to Oranges. I love film and I love your channel, but digital does have several advantages, and you went out and bought an overpriced camera. A sony from 2012 can be had for less than $200, will take manual glass with a cheap adapter and will make video in addition to raw files which are superior to jpeg. You never have to deal with dust or chemicals, though I love developing. The other advantage is the much larger sensor of non-phone cameras. You are basically putting the equivalent of sub-mini cameras in the same league as rb67, plus you can take a wide range of focal lengths on d-camera

Nothing wrong with you video, Forrest, it is your opinion and you should be able to out it and for the general public to respect it or not. The only thing I find is not right is that you tend to exacerbate the goods of film and denigrate in a way the goods of digital. Why not take a neutral position and let people chose what they’d rather prefer? everybody knows that film, nowadays, 21st century is expensive. In europe where I live you pay for a normal film roll between 5 to 6 euros and if you go for special film, it can cost you more than 10€ a roll. Then you have the developing and the printing, if you can’t or don’t want to do this at home. The printing is also not cheap. I shoot digital and film and I’m happy with both. Up till now I haven’t had any problems with my external drives or computers. Doesn’t mean that I won’t have in the future but the same goes for problems with film. Something I don’t agree with you is that all scanners will do the trick if you want to scan your film at home. Definitely not with a scanner that costs about 100$ as you mention in your video. I’ve seen in one of your other video’s that you’ve got a very good one, one of the old Kodak’s. I have an Epson one and I have always a lot of trouble with dust, for instance, although I clean my glass pretty well al the time. Scanning can also be time consuming as editing in Lightroom although I wonder which part is more consuming. Anyways, as you say, would be better to say both sides are good for what they are and for what a user wants to get from. And let’s not forget, film is beautiful but digital can be pretty beautiful too. Ps: You’re a good RU-vidr with roots in Viking land 👍👍and I follow you for quite a while already. Keep the good work!

I will start saying that i have nothing against film, i learned on analog film camera when i was kid, and i plan to use also film along my digital photography. I didn't have time to look what many other people commented here, but i will explain why you are very wrong. First to start with the camera. You don't need to have latest tech camera, you also don't need to get top professional camera, and you don't really need to upgrade, and you don't need to buy new. If you are not a photographer who need professional workflow, you don't really need a professional camera, period. You give example entry level Canon, but you say nothing about mirror-less systems, m 4/3, crop or FF, where you can easily adapt all those awesome old lenses you talk about. You also can use speed-boosters to achieve full-frame on crop also making the lens faster for example. You can easily buy a Sony Alpha 5000 or 6000 under 400$, buy a collection of adapters, and you can use and experiment tons of old lenses on one camera. Again, if you are not a professional photographer working for advertising you don't really need huge megapixel camera. If you do artistic photography and you don't plan to do very large prints, then 12 - 18 - 24 megapixels are enough. The only really expensive digital cameras are the full frame ones and or higher format, but even FF is accessible used. The idea of upgrading to a higher tier of equipment is false is many cases, for an enthusiast photographer who is not working in the professional field of events, sports, publishing, advertising, there is no demand to change tier, it may be desirable to change camera in the same tier because obvious technological benefits, that are also optional, for example the increased ISO performance that usually come with newer sensors. But this issue of changing camera is also a matter of personal education to be aware of what you need, otherwise you fall in the trap of marketing, manufacturers want to sell, is in the nature of the production chain, it happened same way back in the times of film. Now few mentions about the obvious benefits of digital that simply help you achieve better results. You can preview your work instantly, and do corrections to improve results, also this is a invaluable tool for experimenting and learning, also help you be sure you did a good picture, it may happen you never get back to that location just to discover at home on the other side of the planet that some of your pictures are not well focused...; the tools that assist you to achieve good focus are also invaluable; as a transition to the film and sensor topic, i have to underline the benefits of dynamic range when shooting in raw file, that offer a huge creative flexibility and quality tools for the photographer in post-processing. Now about film and files. I won't comment about such matters related to personal and artistic taste, i will stay with the pure technical stuff... The fact you can shoot almost unlimited amount of pictures have obvious advantages, starting with the simple fact of amount. As a simple example, i was in a journey last September, i did almost 3000 pictures, artistic, documentary, also at the wedding of my cousin... that would be 86 rolls of film... obviously, not all are good pictures, but not all were meant to be good pictures, some are just documentary pictures with architectural details for example, and so on. Digital simply offer the benefit of doing unlimited pictures as you need, on the go. The number of pictures you can make is not a concern anymore, is a forgotten subject. You put emphasis on the physical form factor of the film as an advantage, well being physical and not needing electricity for them is an obvious fact that cannot be denied, same time those films are 1 copy, that are vulnerable to plenty of factors that can alter them, starting from physical scratches and any form of fatal damage like fire, fungus, humidity, etc. You can backup digital in as many copies you like and afford, on more mediums like more hard drives, in Raid, local cloud, online cloud, discs like M-Disc, you have similar to unlimited options and amounts of backup flexibility. The electricity factor is redundant as probably, excerpt the case of nuclear apocalypse, electricity will not be an issue, specially in the age when the means for independent electricity production democratise. Film you need to develop, then if you want to print them in traditional manner, larger you want the picture harder and more costly become the process, including the cost of equipment, cost of chemicals and the cost of special photo paper, including the cost of failures as no one is perfect we do mistakes; or you scan and digitize the pictures to print them with modern printers or for the use online. Quality scanning is not cheap either. Quality film is not as cheap either, being between 5-10 $ a roll of 36 shots, from wich only few will be good shots, not to mention the entire delay and uncertainty between the moment you make the picture and the moment you see the results. I know that some people enjoy the mystery involved in that process, but to be honest that is a matter of personal, subjective preference. The desire to see fast the picture is not a digital invention, as Polaroid was born because this desire. Also i have to underline that if you process film yourself and print them yourself in traditional manner, you need a special space dedicated for that process, with proper ventilation, that involve costs too, as i remember we pay taxes for each square meter we own, and not last but very important, working with the chemicals required represent a major hazard for your health, and eventually for your family. As a final word i have to underline that i am not against film photography, it can be rewarding, film have a special mood and expression, but the perception around the aesthetics of film photography is subjective and personal. Some people also love the process of working with film, and that is fine, but the message of this video is highly misleading and biased. One of the problems is that people compare too much some things in a competitive manner, and many times is not the case, sometimes involving some ideological beliefs. The benefits of digital are undeniable, without eliminating the choice of film. Thankfully we live in a free world where we can choose what is better for the results we want to achieve, and the feeling we look for in the process, the best choice is very personal in many cases. As a suggestion for those who explore the idea of working both digital and film, there are few options to simplify the process by using camera systems that use same mount and digital connections to lenses, for example you use Canon D(igital)SLR, you can also use same EF mount lenses on the EOS film SLR cameras, being able to use auto focus and other features or using it full manual, you can have in your bag another camera body with film, but same lenses, most EF-S Canon lenses will not work on EF mount, you can find more on this subject on the web.

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.

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.

Dude shooting film is an on going cost! Your cost in buying a digital is one time cost! You can buy a digital camera for around $300 and take amazing photos. You don't need to upgrade simply because a new more advanced camera came out! Did you upgrade your film camera as newer models came out? The initial cost is high but so was film cameras back in the day. Do you realize the thousands of digital photos you can save on a small card compared to actual prints! Don't get me wrong; I love film, that's how I started but your logic is so flawed.

Well, weird assumptions regarding people who shoot digital. Moreover, you don't find C200 at that price anymore on ebay in 2020. Same for many film cameras, the prices are much more expensive than 2 or 3 years ago. Digital and film cameras are complementary.

Add to the cost , the fact that Canon has changed mounting systems at least 3 times, and none are compatible with others in the line. I have 9 FD lenses, but the camera batteries require a Mercury battery, which are banned in North America. So, thousands of dollars that are wasted.

So i feel like you miss the point. Sure a Digital Camera is expensiv. The Canon EOS 2000D is 300€ right now. With the Lense. But what is the big point about a Digital Camera ? Well its just better in every way. The Pictures have more Informations. You dont need much light, you have AF, you have AV, TV and so on. You have the controll over every single aspect of the Camera. All the controls are in your hands. Colors, depth of field, Whitebalance, contrast etc. Not speaking of the Fact that the Lenses are more modern and give you great results for 100€ (Canon f1,8 50mm) Not even speaking of the fact that any Digital Camera can take Videos. My M50 will make better Videos and Pictures than any Analog Camera. And you can make any digital Picture look like an Analog Picture. Not in Photoshop, no in the Camera. You can change that. You also talk about upgrading. Which is not the Game. We all know by now that the Camera is not so important. The Lenses are. And you wont sell your Lenses. A Lense is something you keep. The Body itself dosnt get worse only because there is a new Camera. The Sensor is still the same and the Pictures will still look the same. You dont have to buy a new Camera. Hell i wont buy a new Camera for at least 5 Years. A Digital Camera, in my case a Mirrorless Camera, sure as hell cannot take Pictures LIKE an Analog camera. But you can edit them later on. The Digital Camera will give you mor stuff to do. What ? I want to make a short video ? Sure i have a Digital Camera. Hm ? Low Light Situation ? No Problem i have a Sensor that dosnt need much Light. The end it, a Digital Camera will give you more options to play with and the Pictures will end up better. You can have the results way fast. And idk about you but i print some Pictures i made. Some are just so good that you want them in a Physical form,.

why would you go to Best Buy I shoot both film and digital a camera is a tool doesn't matter what model you have as long as you learn how to use it the one thing that anyone should really consider investing in is glass. that's the most important part of the system. purchasing film and processing is a constant and recurring cost what can you buy with $744 dollars more film and processing truly and totally delusional

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.

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.

I hate how he used a teenage kid as an example. I started at 22 with a DSLR. Now I'm 26 starting out in film. why do people always think other people have to start at 15 just to be good at something?

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".

Jesus Christ. Didnt think i would be triggered by the end Of this video. Im tring to remember the last time I was able to use my canon ef lens on my phone without some stupid expensive phone case. Because my dslr is the same as my phone apparently.

I appreciate your opinions but you are very biased towards film. I enjoy shooting film but for my landscape photography where I need to blend exposures etc film is not suitable. I can usually take around a 100 photos a week and in the uk this would cost around 60 dollars in film, developing and prints. Over the course of a year that would come to over 3000 dollars. I bought a used D800 for around the equivalent of 1200 dollars and only print my best work.

Totally unrealistic. I have spent easily 20+k on analog photography gear over a few years including camera gear, film development gear, basic home darkroom, films, chemistry, film archival materials, print archival materials... a very expensive hobby.

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.

I am new to you and I am glad i found you. Do you have a list of the supplies you need to do black and white developing?

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!

No, just no. You have an obvious bias towards film cameras, and that's fine, use what you like. But you are making up some imaginary costs for digital cameras and misinforming people. A 5D? Really? Who *needs* a 5D? Here is what my DSLR cost me: 350€ for the Nikon D3300 body, which is enough for 99% of use cases, 30€ for a 64GB SD card that can hold something like a thousand raw files, 12€/month for Lightroom and Photoshop, which you don't *have* to pay, your camera comes with a RAW editing software, and that's it. Over the past 6 months, I have shot 6500 photos, how much would that cost to develop? When you shoot film, you have to develop everything, you pay for each shot. I am never going to print everything, only the reaaally good ones. Even if it's a thousand pictures it would only cost me 90€ to print them since you can order prints online for 9cents/photo. And you know what, I also have an old compact Samsung camera which you can get for 10€ on eBay (got it new for 120€ in 2010), and the pictures are completely fine, it has manual control and everything, the resolution is high enough to make decent prints. "You have to press a button to change your aperture"? What? If you want to use old lenses on your DSLR you absolutely can, 90% of my lenses have aperture rings. Don't get me wrong, I also shoot film, I use a Nikkormat FT2 with HP5 for B&W and Agfa Vista 200 for color, with the same lenses as my DSLR, and the cost is just not comparable. I have to buy film, paper and chemicals. I have to pay a membership to use my local darkroom (unless you want to set up your own lab which is super expensive, or want to pay someone to develop your stuff for you, which gives you ZERO control over what your pictures will look like). I love film, but at least I don't try to justify it with bullshit arguments. You can shoot film because it's fun, because it's retro, because it's original, because it's a challenge, because you like the "film look", whatever, but it *IS* more expensive than digital.

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.

In the days of film we also spent a lot of money on filters. There was no white balance.

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

And now is 2021 and films costs rised twice more in a few months...

What the. You can plug your camera into your cell phone. Ive been doing it since I got my dslr. Yes in raw.

If you look the other way : Leica says their digital cameras should at least work for 100 000 shutter clicks 100000/36 = 2777 rolls 1 roll is about 7euros, for hi res scans & developpement let's say 20€, Ok 15€ if you do everything yourself 15*2777 = 40 000 euros Leica M10 + Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 = 20 000 Mac + Lightroom = 2 000 So now you have about 18 000 € left. With that money you can print online all your 100 000 pictures.

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.

What a silly mess. I love film as much as the next guy but the notion that the pictures from my 5ds are "junk" while my Rollei shots on 120 are "real" is laughable. The cameras cost is the smallest part of the equation for anyone with any real workflow. I can, and do, get the same results with either. The difference is convenience. My time is money. I can take 100 quality shots, edit them and print them off while you are still in the darkroom. Obviously it's possible to work with film, we did it for years, and it isn't as expensive as some may think, but i would have to double my rates to justify using film again. There is nothing wrong with film, but a century ago you would have been the guy in the hardware claiming horses are better than any car out there... cheaper too!

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.

It's not so cheap if look at 8x10 large format :)

@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.

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.

it wil cost me 420 euro if i shoot film for 360 fotos.

"Make more videos for youu guys "🤮, really?

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.

Pure stupidity, i got aprox 90k keepers in my Lightroom catalog... Count the money only for The film... Not speaking bout development, boxes for storage and so on ... Buy a 100 Bucks fuji xe1 and the excelent Kit lens 18-55 (250 bucks) and fire away Even if you fill your memory cards just once and by a new one each time you would be better of... so stop that stupid claim. Each time you do a digital photo its going to be cheaper... do that with your analog camera....

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.

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.