Shoot black and white film and develop it yourself at home they said. You will save money.
OK boomer.
I just did the math today, I need $320 of equipment to do the developing, that classic old film camera that all the articles talk about being $20 are now all $300.
And yes the roll of film is $10 but I just spent $620 getting a camera and setup.

4 rolls of film per month at $10 each is $480 per year. O yeah also my developing chemicals only last one year so need replacing each year. So thats another $100 per year in the future to.

So in summary
year 1 costs $1100
year 2 costs $580 ($1680 total so far)
year 3 costs $580 each. ($2260 total so far).
and this just keeps on going and adding up.
All just to shoot 1 roll of 36 black and white photos per week.

Beware anons, their are no savings here whatsoever

now do the cost comparison shooting colour and sending it out for development. and if you can honestly look at those numbers and your OP and say you aren't saving money, then sure, you get a cookie.

film is just digital with extra steps

>>4416785 (OP)
Okay now do the math on being a digislug, who buy a new camera every 8 months because digital is soulless and awful, don't forget to factor in all the expansive lenses you'll buy chasing optical perfection.
You could shoot film for a 15 years and not spend as much as as a digislug does in 5

>>4416788
*expensive

cope, seethe, sneed and feed.

>>4416786

Sure

$300 for that camera all the articles say use to cost $20.
Lets just say $20 for a decent roll of color film and $10 for developing.
1 roll per week for a whole year.
$30*4*12=$1440

Year 1=$1740
Year 2=$1140 ($2880 so far)
Year 3=$1140 ($4020 so far)

Fuck I forgot you need to buy a scanner to, lets just grab a cheapish one so that's another $350

>>4416791

so in summary the cost difference of shooting 3 years of color film at a rate of 1 roll per week vs shooting it in black and white is:
4020-2260=$1760 savings.

Of course I could of just spent $1k on a digital camera...

>>4416786
Now do the cost comparison of a camera not made in the 80s (digital).

my maths
>OK camera $50
>Patterson tank $20
>rodinal 500ml $15
>fixer $10
fixer is enough for 50 rolls, rodinal depends on dilution but also a fuck ton

you only spend money on film really

>>4416788
I am still using 10-20 year old digital gear because 35mm film is less than 8mp and most film era lenses are poo. It does not take more than $300-500 to btfo inferior tech like film and amiga computers.

>>4416788
Back in reality the filmslug is buying new gear because their old shit sucks and keeps breaking, or they "need" a rangefinder and "need" "this classic before the scalpers buy them" and other general "just one more" shopping

You seem to have confused panasony people for everyone else (they buy new cameras every year because they know their old one will break soon)

>>4416849
Why would you admit to that? If you know the basics of film and don't suck at photography you can get far more than 8MP out of 35mm. Lol.

>>4416883
35mm is measurably 8mp. Any larger images just magnify existing detail. There is no more data to be recorded other than sharper grain and smoother curves - if you’re digitally scanning and therefore wasted your time and money shooting digital with extra steps, and getting the same result as putting a soft lens in front of that sensor. For optical enlargement it remains 8mp = 8x12".

For 99% of people the entire point of shooting film is it being lower resolution and less harsh/not jumping out at you.
Don’t be the 0.5% that believes fake resolution figures. Be the 0.5% that uses a fully analog workflow and crams an 8x12s worth of detail into a 4x6 for a shiny 3d look. Otherwise film has no point other than being softer than a 10mp camera.

>BUT IF I SHOOT ISO 50 SLIDES WITH A CANON L LENSE ITS…12MP!
Lol ok owned by a 5dii

>>4416885
Take a 35mm negative and print it at 11x14 or 16x20 with an enlarger. Do the same with an 8MP digital image.

You will be in for a very big suprise.

>>4416785 (OP)
"Save money" is a scammer phrase. You never save money in photography. It is an expense to about 97% of its practitioners, much like most art.

That said, if you can't figure out what your hobby is going to cost before getting fucked in the ass over it, you are an retard and deserve what you get.

>Shoot with a Praktica MTL3
>Shoot mainly Fomapan 100
>Develop everything in homemade rodinal and use homemade fixer
>scan with a m43 shitter with pixelshift

Life is good when you are not retarded

>>4416810
>>4416893

Now all the things you skipped adding in.
Change bag, thermometer, multiple measuring jugs, film canister opening tool, weighted clips for drying the film, buying other developers because you want to experiment, buying other films to try, buying a more expensive film camera than that $50 one because you eventually will.
You will still end up spending the figures I quoted as my figures were already understated by assuming only use $10 film and never buy more than 1 camera.

>>4416905
>needs a film canister opener

Sissy boy. You can get a full kit for like 100 bucks or less if you buy used. You don't need weighted clips either. You can just use paper clips.

You can bulk load cheap film/the best bw film 5222 for around 5 bucks a roll also. 1+100 rodinal costs pennies per roll for dev.

just dont be poor lmao. film has never been about maximising efficiency or price. is about being good at shooting, and producing photos that digitalfags could never, even after seeting on lightroom for 4 hours

>>4416888
You'll have very smooth low resolution softness vs jaggies, but the actual amount of detail resolved is the same. It's just the real low resolution of analog vs the sampling rate limits of digital.

Most people can buy a 20mp+ camera for peanuts these days which means 35mm film is obsolete. 42-61mp cameras outresolve medium format film. 100mp cameras outresolve 4x5 as it is shot in the real world and only fall behind in lab tests that attempt to avoid diffraction limits and pixel peep test charts shot with flash, which hides the fact that film's resolution drops significantly with detail contrast.

>>4416919
Thanks for agreeing with me. Film looks way better than digital at higher enlargement ratios. As you say this is what matters in the real world.

>>4416930
you mean theyll both look like blurry shit and waifu2x solves the pixellation problem anyways

learn to use a computer filmslug

>>4416938
Huh... Sounds like cope and a concession. Cheers, digi-dave.

>>4416885
>35mm is 12mp
>35mm is 10mp
>35mm is 8mp

sure bud
https://billrolph.com/wet-plate-resolution-1

>>4416945
>vastly overscan some black and white
>say film is 1000mp
much cope

>>4416946
Collodion wet plate has higher potential resolution than normal gelatin emulsion. It's similar to microfilm. Different process, different results. Too bad it is so inconvenient.

>>4416905
>Change bag
toilet with no windows
>thermometer
don't really need one for most bw development
>multiple measuring jugs
cost nothing cmon
>film canister opening tool
I use a bottle opener
>weighted clips
i use normal clips, and the shitty metal hanging rack from aliexpress is $3

>buying x because you want..
lol ok

idk who said film was cheaper than digital when 10yr old dslrs are cheap and plenty good, but you're being a bit retarded here

>>4416917
lmfao

>>4416785 (OP)
>posting in a bait thread
If B&W film is too expensive you simply don't value your own photos highly enough.
My film habit has barely cost me anything for years anyway. All of this shit is durable and easily available secondhand.
If I actually used my expensive digital camera the way I use film cameras (outdoors, swinging off a strap while climbing, hiking, in the rain, at the beach, sweating into it, dropping it, etc) I would have had to replace it 10 times over.
There's a hell of a lot to be said for a sensor that's brand new every time you use it in a camera that bounces and has nearly zero residual value.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiExposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.6ISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlash, Return Not DetectedFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibrated

>>4416785 (OP)
You don't need a Paterson tank. I don't know why stainless steel is not a more common option, since Paterson's literally never worked for me and stainless was always reliable, and theres a bunch of used tanks on the second hand market. No reason to buy new.

>>4417065
Digital cameras are more durable.

>>4417067
>Paterson's literally never worked for me and stainless was always reliable
i would recommend the opposite to people, duality of man i guess, steel reels have always been iffy for me and i've ruined rolls on them, paterson reels JUST WERKS. ebay has some good deals on used gear, i barely lost out on a 5 reel jobo with reels for like 40 bucks, it was nuts.

>>4417085
I tried paterson one time, and I was unable to get the film going at all. It just would jam and not accept the film.

Stainless steel is super easy and feels satisfying to do. It just adheres itself into the grooves, and has always worked for me.

I found a Paterson tank at a thrift store but I would never buy one new. I personally think what they are asking is crazy.

The steel ones I just bought in a lot along with a bunch of darkroom stuff.

>>4417088

I have got into developing my own black and white film at home recently. The worst part by far of the entire process is loading the film onto the reel for the paterson tank. It doesnt help you have to do it totally blind in the change bag.

Its definitely getting easier the more rolls I do though. To be honest, its actually really easy to develop black and white film at home. I should of done it earlier.

>>4417090
I concur. The first difficulty is finding the right orientation when putting it in. The tabs are not large enough imo and so its difficult to go just by feel.

You should get stainless steel a try anon. They look difficult to load, but they are keep on by friction and it's very obvious when you haven't loaded it correctly.

>>4417091
The omega universal film reels are well made and way easier to use. Get those your life will be so much easier.

>>4417067
>>4417079
>>4417085
>>4417088
back in high school (like 20+ years ago) our photo class had these weird plastic "reels" that just like sandwiched the film in place, picrel. worked pretty decent and pretty easy to load in the dark since you basically just rolled them up together. seems to have gone extinct as a method tho.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height900

Buy used stuff. Camera 5€, entire darkroom 40, chems very cheap in Germany. If you buy sepeatly you lose lots tho.

the cost of silver per year varies

>>4418792
I was curious so I looked this up a while back. There's typically less than 0.01ozt of silver per roll, so $0.25-0.50 per roll or $6 per 100' bulk roll. That's not where the cost comes from.

>>4416785 (OP)

congrats you figured out that analog is more expensive, which everyone already knows going into such a hobby

the cheapest way to do this hobby is to buy a m43 body and cheap used m43 lenses or an older full frame mirrorless and a pile of good vintage lenses. both these routes get you a good setup going for less than $1k these days, if you want to be a turbo kike you can do it for less than $500 buying something like an e-m1 or a first gen a7.

>>4418963

also a film camera does not cost $300 unless you buy an iconic one, theres plenty of entry level canon and nikon SLRs from the mid to late 90s in mint condition on ebay, keh, mpb that are less than $50 and work with the same mounts that their respective DSLR systems have.

>>4416785 (OP)
$320 is excessive. I got started developing B&W for around 100 freedom bucks or 150 maple dollars
- changing bag from Amazon ($40)
- Patterson Tank ($30)
- Ilfosol 3 and Ilford Rapid Fixer ($30)
- bottle opener from around the house (free)
- tap water ($0.002)
- Photo-Flo: $12
Total: $112.002

To scan,
- JJC kit: $30
- Macro tubes: $20
- Digital camera I already use (free)

Between the two, comes out to 160 canadian dollars more or less. The SLR I have been using is a KR-5 Super I got on marketplace with a few lenses for $60.

For B&W film, I have really liked Kentmere 400. Can be had for $6-$8 a roll, it looks great, and it pushes and pulls very well.

>>4418966
kent looks like shit if u shoot at box speed

>>4418963
No, the cheapest way is to get a DSLR or fixed lens PNS. Micro four thirds is too shit and the same price and size as fuji which is vastly superior unless you buy gutter trash with crappy everything like the em5ii. And if you did, you’d wish you went for a powershot s9 instead.

>>4416785 (OP)
What are you doing?
- bought a kr-5 on ebay for 25$
- 50mm lens for 50$
- lil box to develop b&w at home for 100$
-chemicals for 12 rolls 40$
-film 12$

so very far from what you are doing, don't be a nonce and do your research better

>>4418978
>$215 of equipment and a single roll of film
lmao you're worse than OP
At least OP intends (or at least claims to) to take more than 36 pictures.

>>4418966
Also wanted to add, I started because the only shop where I live that develops charges way too much. I broke even after 5 rolls.

Even if it was cheaper, it's still fun to learn something new, and you get more control over the process. If you want to do this for pragmatic reasons, you're fucking retarded. It would make much more sense to buy an older used crop sensor DSLR.

>>4418968
I have liked the results I have gotten from it but maybe what we are looking for is different. What speed do you suggest I push/pull to?

>>4418981
>>$215 of equipment and a single roll of film
>hurr durr I'm a retard who doesn't know what amortization is

>>4418995
i usually push it three stops to 1600. im a big fan of how it looks then!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5070Image Height7728Scene Capture TypeStandard

>>4419044
Such a violent religion. Why white people follow this?

>>4419041
Good point
If we amortize it over 3 years like in OP's calculation, that'll be about 1 picture per month. Better make it a good one.

>>4419044
Thanks anom I'll try that for my next roll. Picrel is from a roll of Kenmere 100 that I stand developed with Ilfosol 3.

>develop B&W film as reversal film
>cut and put in slide projector
why shouldn't i do this

$10 for the film
$20 for a 1 year supply of hydroquionine and sodium thiosulfate
my entire house is a dark room so I just leave the lights off
>but you can't just make your entire house into a darkroom that's not practical
fucking amateur