Why Film Photography Isn’t as Expensive as you Think
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 เม.ย. 2024
- My Royalty-Free Music is from Artlist! bit.ly/31BReir Get Two-Months FREE!
say hi on instagram! / tavakessler
Subscribe! th-cam.com/users/tavakessler...
Get $50 Off Motion Array with my Referral Link! motionarray.com/?artlist_aid=...
Check out my website: www.tavakessler.com
The Gear I Use: kit.co/kesslertava/tava-s-fil...
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.
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
Well produced video, looks great, however I'm sorry, but it's a shit take. Here's each argument you used somewhat dissected:
Pollution from developing each roll of film is priceless to everyone
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.
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.
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
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.
You: “A pretty nice film camera costs around $200”
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
I do like this video and its extremely well made but my bank account says otherwise.
Great video!
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.
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.
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.
Hey, what are some affordable and good analog cameras?
it is, i have both digital and film
nice try IRS
Like the video. You're completely wrong, but the video is really nice. 🙂
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.