[solatic]

Film doesn't really make sense anymore outside the realm of luxury-budget art. And if so, why 35mm? Why not medium format / Hasselblads, or large format? Why not actually go for the format sizes where there's a reasonable argument that film can produce a better end result compared to DSLRs?

[alistairSH]

35mm wins by a mile on price per shot. And for web scans (where most photos end up), it's got more than enough resolution.

35mm film and 120 film are a similar cost per roll, but with 35mm you get 36 exposures vs 8-16 exposures on 120 film (6x12 and 6x4, with square 6x6 in the middle at 12 exposures). And if you shoot half-frame, the cost/shot really goes in the 35mm direction.

That said, I have a handful of of 35mm cameras (all fixed lens vintage rangefinder) and a post-war Zeiss Super Ikonta IV (6x6 120 format). The Olympus 35DC is my favorite of the bunch - it's automatic except focus - really sharp and fast lens - just a pleasure to use. And a Polaroid Go 2 because it's just dumb fun (way overpriced for the quality, and sensible people buy Instax cameras instead, but the Polaroid form-factor was just too much for me to pass up).

I shoot film because it makes me slow down and think a bit. With my mirrorless cameras, I'm too prone to spray and pray and sorting through hundreds of shots can kill the fun for me. That, and the film look is nostalgic for me - sometimes I just want rough snapshots - feels more like a memory vs the crystal clear high res digital output.

[solatic]

I don't feel like you really countered my argument. If you're concerned about cost/shot, digital beats 35mm, no question.

> I shoot film because it makes me slow down and think a bit.

100%, because of the higher cost per shot compared to digital. The higher still cost per shot of medium/large format enhances that effect.

[alistairSH]

Cost per shot and availability (far more 35mm stuff out there than larger format). That explains 35mm.

The look and the process explains film over digital.

[dghlsakjg]

> Why not medium format / Hasselblads, or large format?

That has also been superseded in the digital realm. I can use a top DSLR from the last decade to blow film medium format cameras away under most conditions, especially in low light. If I just use a digital medium format camera, it invalidates almost any rationale for film medium format (there is a minor, minor argument to be made about depth of field when the lens is wide open).

Large format can squeeze slightly more resolution out of an image, but the ability to actually use that extra resolution is rarely satisfied. Again, a MF digital subs in for almost every conceivable use case.

The reality is that people do this because it is fun, or a challenge, or for a feeling. Basically, its interesting. The technical excellence of the 'end result' is secondary.

There's tons of things that people do that don't make sense from a purely pragmatic point of view, and that's what makes the world so much more fun to live in.

[solatic]

> top DSLR / digital medium format

But these cost several thousand dollars, due to them still being relevant for contemporary professional applications. Medium format bodies can be found for hundreds of dollars on eBay. Even at $1/shot, if as a hobbyist even if you shot 4 rolls (48 shots total) in a weekend, you'd be shooting that much every weekend, every weekend straight for years before a top digital body would break even for you. And you would have more fun and a more meaningful time due to the more deliberative process.

[SoftTalker]

35mm is super cheap to get into if you just want to experiment. Old 35mm cameras and even home darkroom equipment are gathering dust in tens of thousands of households, cheap on FBM or thrift shops.

It's expensive compared to digital for snapshots, but if you enjoy working in the darkroom as a hobby, you can probably get everything you need for free or cheap.