[akpa1]

I'm a rather frequent photographer myself, but I shoot solely 35mm film and Fujifilm instant photos. There's still a thriving market for film and there are plenty of labs around to develop your films at. You can pick up various old cameras and lenses for fairly small amounts of money on eBay and similar (or you can spend a ridiculous amount, your call haha).

Film has a certain quality to it that I adore. You don't get insanely crisp images like you describe, you don't get to edit your photos, you just get what you pointed your camera at. And you get something meaningful and physical that you can pick up and hold when you're done. It's wonderful.

[Springtime]

> you don't get to edit your photos, you just get what you pointed your camera at

There's still the whole aspect of developing and printing film, which itself can be an artform and very much change the end result. See for example how much the analog dodging and burning were used to change the tonality of an image, drawing attention to some aspects and reducing others. These final results are typically what we think of when we see classic film photography.

[snapetom]

I have three cameras that I use - a Canon R5, Canon FT QL, and a Zenza Bronica S2A.

The first one is a joy for many reasons and I use it for the things the later two can't do very well - action and very low light. However, the later two offer an incredible experience to shoot. They're not forgiving, and film gives you a hazy look that is still poorly reproduced by software.