More Film Mumbo Jumbo

I keep talking about shooting film. I like the fact that not many people shoot film anymore. I think that makes me more unique, even if I do have to work harder and spend more $$ to achieve something others can do magically on the computer.

I found this wonderful tongue in cheek article on a blog: 10 Things I Hate About Film

If you're too time constrained (or lazy) to hit the link I especially like number three:

"3. COST OF FILM

Yikes, that stuff is outrageously expensive! The cost per photo skyrockets compared to digital, and the price of film makes you have second thoughts about taking useless photos. I think we’re definitely better off spending all that money on new digital bodies, super-fast glass, new computers, software licenses, and backup hard drives. Because you know that $3 to $5 per roll can add up really fast — especially since we all love to grab about 500 photos each time we go out with the camera."

I saw a comment on someone's Flickr stream where someone asked a photographer, who started in photography digitally, then moved exclusively film "I bet that without the digital experience you gathered, playing with real film would've been much more expensive and entirely too frustrating." to which he replied "I think you're right again."

Comments on his other photos indicated someone thought he was a film snob. Hardly. He started with digital! I hope I don't come across as a film snob. As I write this I lament about 90% of my photography is digital. And I love the flexibility it provides. But there's just nothing like holding a print or watching the image appear on paper in a darkroom.

On the other hand for most high volume professionals these days it makes no sense to shoot film. Check out Vincent Laforet's "After Action Report" from the Bejing Olympics. "In Beijing, with a total of 6 cameras, I shot: 28,444 files for a total of a whopping 480 Gigabytes of Images!" Silly. Just silly. In terms of film "...shooting this much volume equates to shooting 790 rolls of 35mm 36 exposure rolls of film." For my last wedding, I shot at least 1000 pictures in an 8 hour span. That's about 28 rolls of film. At $20 per roll for the film, processing and prints, that's over $550 added expense.

For art, portraits and other low volume shoots, I'll still take film. Can I have my film cake and eat digital too?

By the way, I just found my new favorite photographer: Mark Tucker