[alaxsxaq]

I've shot tons of film over a great many years and I have a sizeable collection of cheap and expensive 35mm and 120mm film cameras covering the period from the late 1800's to the 1980's. I stuck to film well after digital cameras got cheap enough for my tastes and I still love to shoot film - I have about 25 rolls of exposed color film in my office waiting for me to develop, so I still shoot a fair amount on film. I also feel more of a connection to my film cameras since they have a personal history and are works of art.

One regret I have about the film era is that, starting out as a teenager, I scraped to afford film and, recently, it struck me how large the gap is between the memories I have now and the memories I captured on film back then. Once I had a job and could afford to take more photos, I seemed to have decided that photography was for travel and special occasions and I, sadly, took photos of little else.

Now I shoot a full-frame mirrorless digital (mostly so I can use my old lenses and also, I hate cell-phone photography ergonomics). I carry my camera everywhere and shoot quite a few photos on any given day. I am learning so much more about photography now that I can freely experiment and the equipment allows me to capture things that were only rarely possible before.

That being said, I encourage everyone to try film for whatever reasons strikes your fancy. The more people into film, the more options we'll have for film stock, chemicals, and cameras.

[pathartl]

This is also really common in the audio space. Sampling, amp modelers, etc. are really great for rapidly prototyping without either requiring the full band or a money/time sink to get the right sound.

Personally, I don't shoot enough to justify new equipment. Photography is a minor hobby of mine, and I actually really enjoy the limitations of film. Just the other day I was on shot 33 of my last 35mm roll. It hits a bit different to say "well, I've got three shots left, I better make them count." I was doing a shoot with some friends and another photographer was there shooting on continuous, snapping a dozen frames while I took one. Their shots were partially edited by the end of the night and I'm trying to find time to get to the lab.

It's just a different experience. Like I said, I like the limitation that requires more planning and intention. Things don't always work out. I'll have a whole roll that's massively under or overexposed. I'll have rolls that never loaded properly and get nothing but a clear negative after development. It's all part of the story for me.

[mattparmett]

Would you mind going into a bit more detail about your late 1800s-early 1900s cameras? I’ve recently gotten into film photography, first with a cheap, slightly broken AE-1 and more recently with a family member’s passed-down Canon F-1. Even though this equipment is more than sufficient, I find myself lusting after 1930s-1940s Barnack Leicas and the wide array of Barnack clones from that era. I’m curious what it’s like to actually shoot with those cameras.