robscomputer wrote in post #9488334
I got started in photography in 1989, my high school class in black and white photography. From there I took film photography up until 2002 where I slowly switched over to digital, starting with a point and shoot, then a digital SLR in 2005. From there it's been entirely digital.
Just recently I've been searching medium format cameras as a bit of taking back to a slower method. I enjoy the older cameras, especially the manual focus SLR's and how they were built like tanks. Just how mechanical some of the older gear is, and how you're capturing images with something so simple.
I've been meaning to scan my old negatives so I'll purchase a flatbed scanner and just have a film processing lab developing. But after thinking about this, I seriously wonder does anyone go back to film even part time or just for fun?
I greatly enjoy digital, but I feel like shooting film is harder since you are flying by instruments instead of visual.
Film is only harder than digital if you don't understand your film equipment... much like many new photo enthusiasts don't understand their digital equipment.
If you take the time to set your exposure properly with film, your results should consistently be better than shooting digital for no other reason than film possessing a larger dynamic range than digital sensors currently do.
Things that make film "harder" ==> Perceived cost. Buy film, develop film, pay for prints, pay for enlargements... repeat, repeat, repeat... If you develop your own and print your own, you add another level of re-occurring expense to your process. While developing and printing your own film can be very enjoyable, chemical waste management and disposal will slowly become an issue adding additional costs to the process.
I still have a number of film bodies. All except one is ready to use at any given moment. I also still have undeveloped rolls of film for which developing has no immediate priority, the age of which I couldn't even begin to tell you.