One major reason is that I spend too much time in front of a computer already (15 or so hours so far today).
Aside from that, film is what I know, besides, it's not worth it to me to dump my collection of film gear for pennies on the dollar then spend hundreds or probably thousands more for digital gear that would be equivalent.
Try pricing a good 4x5 Digital back around $30,000.00
Now the number of photo pay for the back even at high price $10 each you will need to take 3,000 photo or more to pay for the back
Also film just looks better than digital photos
Last edited by smithdoor; 11-20-2013 at 12:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.
There's just something different about the results from Ilford HP5 400 (or Kodak Tmax 400) used with an Olympus OM1 and 50mm F1.8 with no batteries Let's not forget Portra 400 and Fuji Pro 400H's awesome look for portraiture!
I've tried recreating the look digitally (black and white and color) and it just LOOKS different no matter how I try. It's subtle but when you put it all together... there's just something about film.
I'm tempted to say that I use film because sheets of toilet paper
or "Kleenex" will neither fill the available 'room' in my film
holders.... or stand up to the constant agitation in my BTZS tubes....
..... but I shall refrain from so doing.
There are holes in the sky where the rain gets in,
But they're ever so small that's why rain is thin.