Is there a reason why would you still choose to shoot on film over digital?

[Dennis Toeppen]

Not a pro...

 

I shoot film because I know my images will likely be around in 50+ years even if they are subject to benign neglect - like this stuff

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUsphXqvbYQ

 

A-Minima on its way up the Grand Teton in July:

 

http://www.suburbs.com/images/teton_aminima.jpg

 

(Backpack is a LowePro from B&H)

Edited August 12, 2015 by Dennis Toeppen

[Tyler Purcell]

Man, I'd love to have an A-Minima in a backpack for "anytime" use! WOW how cool is that. :D

[Jay Young]

I'm trying to find a Filmo, or other cheap, tiny windup 16mm camera I can throw in my pocket and have a motion picture camera whenever I want.

This is the second sort of discussion of this nature in the past few months, and I can't help but wonder if the people asking are really trolling,

OR if they truly don't understand the film process but WANT to understand.

 

Sometimes trolling questions can be teachable moments, but the internet thinks everyone is a troll.

 

 

IMHO at this point, 35mm professional workflow aside, DIY can keep film (s16, u16, s8, 35mm) relevant ,but it's all about how cheap you can do it. processing at a lab + scans are still cost-prohibitive compared to buying a digital Camera which will generally slaughter it at resolution and image quality.

 

I'm not sure why the belief that film scanning can be beat simply by purchasing a digital camera still prevails. A crap image on either medium is still crap. If I buy a 35mm camera today, I'll still be able to get professional results out of the camera if I put professional results IN FRONT of the camera. Resolution and Image Quality should no longer be an argument.