Shooting film comes as a shock because there is no feedback after you have taken a shot....no chimping! I feel as if I am shooting blind and crossing my fingers until the film is developed and scanned. Plus I am used to taking several hundred shots at a typical portrait session on my digital camera. Film cameras don't shoot that fast which is a good thing because it would be extremely expensive. Actually, slowing down and planning a shot in detail first is not such a bad idea.
Let's talk about the cost of film and developing. A roll of film presently runs around $10. Some is cheaper and some is more expensive. I am mainly referring to 35mm film but a roll of 120 is much the same price. A roll of 35mm gets you 36 shots whereas a roll of 120 gets you 8 or 12 in the common formats. If you send your film out to be developed and scanned, you are looking at $15 to $20 depending on the quality of the scan, plus postage. So a roll of 36 shots can easily cost close to $1 per frame whether it is a good or bad frame. If only half of your shots are good, that amounts to $2 per good frame. So most people cannot afford to shoot without careful planning and execution. The cost to purchase and process a roll of 12 shots on 120 film are about the same but you only have 1/3 of the frames meaning that the cost per shot is three times as much as the 35mm frames....as much as $6 per shot at a 50% batting average.
So how about the colors and resolution? Film has distinctive colors depending on the brand and the particular film from the brand. Film also has grain which is visible in proportion to the film speed (ISO). 100 ISO has relatively fine grain compared to 400 or 800 ISO which can look very grainy indeed. Assuming you want the film scanned so the photos can be used on a computer, on-line, or on a digital printer, the scanning resolution can be chosen to produce digital files of various sizes, much like digital camera files that vary by megapixels. Which size do you need? Well, after spending the money for film and developing, it makes sense to choose a high quality scan. Scanners can also affect the color balance so some commercial scanners allow you to choose whether or not they perform a color balance for you. Again, it makes sense to get the best results unless it is a "test" roll. Should you scan your own negatives? Yes, if you have the time and the money to invest in a good scanner. Mine cost around $350 and it is very capable but quite slow. It is a plustek. If you scan your own film, you can get a roll developed for $8 or you can do it yourself at home if you want to mess with chemicals and fight dust.
Interesting truths....good digital cameras can produce far superior files than scanned film. If you look at a photo at the pixel level, you will see far more detail and sharpness in a digital camera photo than a 35mm film camera. How much does that matter when viewing or printing? Not much if you are talking an 8 1/2 x 11 print. Larger prints will definitely show the limits of film in terms of sharpness and grain. But larger prints are usually viewed from farther away so it is up to you whether it matters. On the other hand, the combination of film colors and grain makes for interesting photos that many find attractive.
On the good news side, quality film cameras can be purchased inexpensively. Although some favorites such as Leicas command high prices, a Nikon F SLR costs next to nothing.
So that is an overview of shooting on film. It is fun and I continue to do it on a small scale. Film cameras are simple compared to digital with only three basic adjustments - shutter speed, aperture and focus - compared to pages of menus on digital cameras. Pick your poison!
Colin Ward Photography
