Timeline for What kind of photography is still better done with film cameras?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | MarcinWolny | And lack of electricity is mostly an advantage in terms of development - in 3rd world countries even now, in 21st century it's easier to develop a film and print it out than develop RAW from memory card and print it out (even if you'll remember to take an USB and won't relay on luck of finding the card reader). | |
| Mar 8, 2013 at 15:46 | comment | added | MarcinWolny | Nick Bedford - that assumes you'll shoot 66 rolls of film. I prefer to think before taking a photo, so I rarely take 2376 photographs in a single trip. I rarely exceed 100 shots per day, which is an equivalent of 3 films (if I'd shoot analogue) - that's still lighter than digital SLR. Especially because film SLRs are usually smaller and lighter than film. | |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 16:36 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Feb 21, 2012 at 2:11 | comment | added | Nick Bedford | P.S. I will add the cost of memory cards though helps even things out a bit. | |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 2:05 | comment | added | Nick Bedford | 66 rolls or 3 batteries though :) Then you also have 66 rolls to get developed (and buy in the first place), which will always cost something, manual or through a lab. I've got nothing against film, I'm just saying film's lack of electricity requirement is replaced with it's own set of costs. | |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 1:02 | comment | added | Steve Ross | But they don't need recharging :) | |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 0:08 | comment | added | Nick Bedford | I guess then you just have to carry a whole boat load of film canisters though. | |
| Feb 20, 2012 at 22:41 | history | answered | Steve Ross | CC BY-SA 3.0 |