Jump to content

Is shooting film still worth it in 2022 ?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Probably not the first time this question is asked in since the digital revolution. But with the new Kodak price increase, it's fair to ask again. Is it still worth it to shoot film in 2022? 

I'm a child of digital. I grew up with smartphones and digital cameras. Film is something I discovered a few years ago, after I started shooting with digital. At that time, it just made no sense. It was too limiting. I stopped. 

I got back into film when I got into Leica, two years ago. I have now fourteen M film bodies, and I love them so much. The feeling of using them is amazing, and I like the photos I get on film. I actually learn and practise my skills much more when I shoot a film M than a digital M. But film has become so expensive to shoot (if you think of making the joke to tell me to sell 13 of my M bodies to finance my film costs for the next 10 years, it's not the point of the conversation). 

This week, I shot 27 rolls of film. At around 15 euros per roll and 15 euros for the dev, I've spent 800+ euros just this week. At this pace, it's around 40k per year, not taking into consideration the 2022 Kodak price increase. 

Therefore, I ask myself, can digital make me happy enough ? There are definitely some advantages: No huge recurrent costs, no need to wait for the photos, no risk to lose or damage the rolls in airports when travelling, no extra weight to carry around all day, no low light limitations.... and with a camera such as the M10D, one can get close to the film shooting experience, although nothing will ever replace the feeling of advancing the film, and rewinding the roll. 

But the real question is, can the final result be the same ? I know, I'm not the first one to try to replicate the film look on digital. But that's what this thread is about. Can one copy the film look in a digital file? 

Will it ever be as satisfying ? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this photo last summer on an MP + Summilux Asph around F8 with Kodak Color Plus 200

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

At an another moment, I took this photo with my SL2S, with a different focal length, at a different aperture, at a different time of the day, and with a different light. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an attempt to make my digital shot as if it was taken on Kodak Colorplus 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

...

But the real question is, can the final result be the same ? I know, I'm not the first one to try to replicate the film look on digital. But that's what this thread is about. Can one copy the film look in a digital file? 

Will it ever be as satisfying ? 

@Steven   By "final result," are you referring to a photographic print, or to a digital file that will be viewed on a screen?

This is JMHO based on my own experience - what I think of as the final result would be a photographic print; I think digital can come close to replicating the look of film but perhaps will not produce the exact same result as film.  All is contingent on the level of skill of the person doing the digital processing.

I have come to think of film as a medium I would use to create a specific body of work with a specific visual fingerprint.  Digital would be my go to for day to day shooting, in the interest of convenience and monetary savings.  Film is still a viable medium, but it is much more labor intensive (developing and printing) than digital, and is more costly (film, paper and chemistry to develop both) compared to the production costs of  digital (SDHC cards).  Of course, film cameras are less costly than top of the line digital cameras that wear any camera maker's name, even when you compare the price of a new Leica MA to that of a new Leica M10-R or M10 Monochrom.  When you go looking for a nice used film M, the price gap grows even wider.

Again, this is JMHO based on my own experience and viewpoint.

And no, this is not a useless thread.  😉  Some questions are worth asking more than once.

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I know exactly where you are going with this and you are on a good path but you have answered your own question posed here numerous times.

Well, I admit I've largely been using LUF as an alternative to my shrink. It's a more affordable, and faster psychoanalyse.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Herr Barnack said:

By "final result," are you referring to a photographic print, or to a digital file that will be viewed on a screen?

This is JMHO based on my own experience - what I think of as the final result would be a photographic print; I think digital can come close to replicating the look of film but perhaps will not produce the exact same result as film.  All is contingent on the level of skill of the person doing the digital processing.

I have come to think of film as a medium I would use to create a specific body of work with a specific visual fingerprint.  Digital would be my go to for day to day shooting, in the interest of convenience and monetary savings.  Film is still a viable medium, but it is much more labor intensive (developing and printing) than digital, and is more costly (film, paper and chemistry to develop both) compared to the production costs of  digital (SDHC cards).  Of course, film cameras are less costly than top of the line digital cameras that wear any camera maker's name, even when you compare the price of a new Leica MA to that of a new Leica M10-R or M10 Monochrom.  When you go looking for a nice used film M, the price gap grows even wider.

Again, this is JMHO based on my own experience and viewpoint.

And no, this is not a useless thread.  😉

Good points, Herr Barnack. This helps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, different day, different light, different focal length, different aperture. Just browsing through my photo library to find digital and film files that look like they could be matched. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SL2S trying to become Kodak Vision 3 200T

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

Black and White with home processing remains accessible with plenty of choice beyond Kodak.

Small enlargers like the Intrepid re-open the door to small scale darkroom work, without a dedicated darkroom.

 

Yeah, but that solution doesn't work for someone who hates BW! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steven  Here are a couple of images made with a film MP, a 90/2 APO (the two monks) and a 50/1.4 Summilux pre-ASPH and Kodak Tri-X developed in D-76 (click on image for high res view).

I'm not so sure this visual fingerprint can be reproduced with a digital M to be 100% the same - perhaps close, but not 100%.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's JMHO. 

The prints that resulted from these negs were scanned and made by inkjet printer simply because my printer no longer maintains a wet darkroom.  Tri-X gives them a beautiful fingerprint that is reminiscent of charcoal and art paper. 

So my answer is yes - film is still worth the effort and cost in 2022, depending on the end result you want to achieve.  Unless it is for a specific project, I wouldn't shoot 50-100 rolls of film a week, though.  Developing that much film is a ton of work and I don't trust a lab to do it to the level of quality that I can do it at home.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 13
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

File is tactile, digital sterile.  And no, I'm not a purist just take a look at my signature but film is real photography. Digital is imaging with a computer, even if it's a really cool little computer (camera) it still feels sort of artificial.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I have now fourteen M film bodies, and I love them so much. The feeling of using them is amazing, and I like the photos I get on film. I actually learn and practise my skills much more when I shoot a film M than a digital M. But film has become so expensive to shoot (if you think of making the joke to tell me to sell 13 of my M bodies to finance my film costs for the next 10 years, it's not the point of the conversation). 

This week, I shot 27 rolls of film. At around 15 euros per roll and 15 euros for the dev, I've spent 800+ euros just this week. At this pace, it's around 40k per year, not taking into consideration the 2022 Kodak price increase. 

 

You seem to have enough cameras, lenses and seen enough results to easily pre-visualize what your are seeking. ... "your first 10,000 photographs are your worst"

 Pre-selection at the time of shooting sounds like a good old analog solution, compared to the digital mindset of selecting post shooting.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from philosophical aspects I keep it very simple - I just listen to my gut feeling. Am I in the mood for shooting film today? Or do I want to shoot digital? Most of the time I know pretty well which medium I want to use on a specific day.

And all in all I think that film and analog photography has of course its own value, its own workflow and its own quality when it comes to all the different types of film and the different ways we can use them.

@StevenFrom my very individual point of view your problem isn’t analog photography in 2022, it’s the way you do it😉. Please excuse my frank words, but sometimes I have the impression as if you are behaving like an addict. I try to use film like I drink a good whisky - every other day one or maybe two drinks in the evening. On the other hand you appear to be drinking a bottle each day … which would be, apart from the medical aspect, pretty expensive, too. Again - no insult intended!

So, of course I would never shoot 27 rolls of film in a week. That’s more than I shoot in an average year.

Edited by Knipsknecht
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...