These days, there aren't many people that are still shooting with film. For some people who used to shoot professionally with film, the idea of going back is simply unbearable — the chemicals, missed shots, and the hassle to finally produce an image that takes all but a simple click on a digital camera. Have we gotten to a point where film is finally dead?
In his latest video, Matt Granger discusses his thoughts on film photography. In order to illustrate his points more effectively, Granger also performs an extensive shootout, comparing several digital cameras along with a film camera. Shooting with nothing but Leica M series cameras, Granger levels the playing field in order to see if 35mm film offers anything significant over its digital counterparts
For many people, the most compelling argument is the cost of entry. Buying a film camera and lens costs significantly less than most "equivalent" digital cameras. For less than $100, you can purchase a film camera and lens here in the UK. The cost of individual film rolls are not much either, and this is what many people use as a way to justify the system.
Granger does discuss the cost of being a professional film photographer. Although the entry costs may be lower in comparison, long-term running costs could catch up pretty quickly. In my own experience, other points about aesthetics and the process could be used to discuss why film is still relevant; however, for many people in the industry, film might truly be dead.
Do you agree or do you think film is making a comeback?