TSchrief wrote in post #14945559
I occasionally shoot film. It is an analog medium and I prefer to leave it that way. I just print what comes out of the camera. If you want digital images, buy a digital camera. It will be cheaper in the long run.
Please allow me to elaborate. I suggest that buying a digital camera would be cheaper in the long run. For the price of one of the better scanners, about $500, you can get a really nice digital camera. Assuming you are going to use a Canon EOS film body, all of your EF lenses will work on either film or digital, so lenses cost you nothing extra. Once you have spent $500 on a decent scanner, you have to buy film - and pay for processing. I shot two rolls of my grandson's first trip to lake Michigan this summer. It cost me $26 to get it developed and double prints made. THAT will add up quickly. To save printing costs, I could have had them put on a CD. If you get that done at CVS, Walgreen's, Walmart and the like, you get such low-res scan you can't do anything with them. If I take the film to the local camera shop in order to get high-res scans I can actually work with, the scans (with developing) are $19 PER ROLL! For a 6 MP scan! The digital camera starts to sound really good after a few rolls at those prices.
Don't get me wrong. I still shoot film. I enjoy shooting film. I have 3 film bodies; two Yashica and an Elan 7NE. I still like shooting and anticipating the results, then having to wait a day or two for them. However, I mostly shoot film when I don't want to take my 60D into a potentially hostile environment. Like taking my 2-year-old grandson to the beach.
The only drawback to shooting film is that there is no PP, for me. I take what I get, which makes me think more about what I am doing. Which is not such a bad thing after all. Come to think of it, about half the shots I have hanging in my house are from film cameras. I bet less than 5% of the shots I take are on film. What does that mean? I may be on to something here....
