Reflections on shooting film

I recently took part in a film photography workshop, where the starter question was 'So why do you shoot on film?'. We were also warned, that the wrong answer is that 'it looks kool'.

My original answer was that the artificial scarcity imposed by the number of frames on a film roll makes me more careful about composition, and on choosing what to shoot. And while this is true, I later realized that the true reason I have a film camera is not this.

The true reason is probably even more controversial than the koolness argument.

It's actually cheap!

I know, I know. The usual argument against shooting on film, that it is expensive. But for a digital camera, you have to put down a significantly higher sum at start. Then each lens will run you more. If you take enough photos, then the per-photo cost will diminish, as each photo costs zero on a digital system.

With a film camera, your entry is dirt cheap. I got mine for 25 euros, with a nice 50 mil, f1.8 lens, that I would happily pay 25 euros for on its own. It's a simple Chinon, with a Pentax K mount, and a working light-meter. There are a ton of lens for this mount online in the 25-100 euro range to experiment with. Buying additional lens for my digital camera (which has a Micro 4/3 system) would be around double/triple the cost.

And even though the per-photo cost of a digital camera at some point becomes favorable, "financing" film photography still has an advantage: it's effect on cash-flow.

Once I'm travelling somewhere, the cost of 1-2 rolls is not a huge addition. It's in the range of a meal. Spending hundreds of euros while trying to find a digital camera one likes is a lot harder to justify.

In summary

Overall, I think it's best to find a camera that you are happy with. All argument on the superior look of film are snake oil, just as the supposedly superior sound quality of vinyl is (which I might mathematically prove in a followup post).

Happy shooting!