Yes. I started several years ago with B&W film doing my own processing and printing. I also shot a lot of color neg and slide. I didn't own a digital camera until last August. My freezer still has a ton of film in it..

'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savage..

Interesting question!.

I would not be into photography if it weren't for digital cameras, I stumbled across it with my 1st point and shoot, and it grew from there..

However, knowing what I know now, and after all I've learned, and how much I enjoy it, I would definetely get into film if my digital for some reason was taken away. Does that make any sense?.

Http://www.amateurapertures.blogspot.comMy fully documented blunders in Photography..

I've enjoyed photography for years, but never had the freedom to 'waste' film before, so I'd do my darndest to get the shot right. But since going digital, I believe I have learned ever so much more about photography and having the freedom to 'waste' film has really helped me grow. I've been able to play around with composition and lighting and I keep trying to learn and improve..

Now I look back at my film days and think why on earth did I ever keep that! When I switched to slide film, I worked harder to get better shots...and did manage to get some keepers, but I felt free to dump the losers ... after paying for them! But now with digital.....I dump the losers easily and since I take more shots, I have more to choose from for that 'just right' look..

I love digital!LucyU ZI owner!Olympus C30-20Zhttp://www.pbase.com/lucyFCAS Member #98, Oly Division'Photography is the art of seeing what others do not.'.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Excellent question! I don't think I would have gotten back into photography if it weren't for digital. Years ago I was pretty into it (when I was 15 or so). Of course, I didn't get to shot as much as I would have liked because every shot cost money in terms of film and developing. And I probably didn't learn too much from my mistakes or successes since I didn't track anything. I would have a few rolls, get them developed, and see some bad ones and good ones but couldn't figure out mostly why. Didn't know what settings I had used for instance.

With digital you can experiment. You can shoot something that may or may not work or be interesting..

Before digital was within the reach of most people, I had considered getting back into it when I bought a house. I wanted to do it all: take the photos and develop. So I had planned that I would build a darkroom when I bought a home. Of course, by that time, digital was full force. It did take a while for me to decide to get back into it. But if we were still in the days of film, I doubt I would have gotten back into it.

You don't have the instant feedback with film as you do with digital, so you can snap something, see immediately if it works, and then change it up or whatever..

Probably the biggest thing I think is how people dealt with film speeds! Back when I was into photography, I wasn't too deep in it as I was still in middle school so had a time vs. money issue. But I *love* and take for granted the fact that I can switch ISO whenever I want. A press of a button and wham, got a diff. film speed..

Just trying to learn.

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..

I would be.....

Don't forget the thing about us pros is that the majority of us started off shooting film and that's how we got into it, because of the love of capturing light on flim (or Photography as it's known ).

The sad thing, I feel, is that for a lot of beginers you'll never experience the magic (and yes it is magic when you first see it) of seeing an image that you've taken appear on a blank piece of paper in a tray of developer. That's what got me hooked, that's what I love with a passion about this art form, it was the chemical reaction of light hitting silver halide crystals, and seeing the images I'd created first as negative, then as a hand prints...not it's all electronic...Shame really=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-http://grahamsnook.wordpress.com/..

I probably wouldn't be shooting stop-action during evening softball games as an unpaid gig it'd be rather painful to knowingly expend several rolls per game of what would probably have to be Tri-X pushed rather badly, and needing much time to salvage anything usable...

Graham is right about the "magic" of developing film on paper. Truly amazing. I was fortunate enough that my school in middle school had a week every year where you could do "open studies" type of thing. You picked two or three classes for that week and they taught you whatever you picked. One of the classes I picked was photography (along with cross-stitching, that's what happens when you show up late to sign up for classes! No offense to cross-stitching, but it wasn't necessarily hip for a 13 year old boy to be taking it! haha). Anyway, they taught us the basics of photography and also taught us how to develop our own film (B&W, not color).

It was awesome.Just trying to learn.

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..

Depends whether I was single or married. I did it with film when I was single but couldn't after I married. Digital lets me be involved and still married...

I was into photography before I got married, then I couldn't afford it. Now that I'm not married any more, I could afford to shoot film again, especially if I did it the way I always used to - carefully, thoughtfully and really 'needing' to make 'that' image. I try to shoot digitial the same way..

And very soon now, I'm setting up a darkroom for medium format film...Rob.

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no failure in failure, only in failing to learn...

Yes but not so much (for cost reasons) and I would not get so many good pictures, nor would I be as good as I am. I don't mean I'm particularly good - but I would be a lot worse without digital. the ability to try things out and get instant feedback, so you can see what works and what doesn't, for no extra cost, is a great incentive to play around and learn and provides a real stimulus to pick up the camera and take it iwth you when you might nother bother if it was a film camera..

I used to try out different settings on my film SLR to experiment... then when the photos came back I couldn't remember what setting I had used for each photo, so any learning was lost. Having embedded EXIF data so you can see exactly what the effect of your adjustment was is great for learning..

Best wishesMike..

I would not bothered with photography with a Film Camera (even if it was a Point and Shoot)...

The cost of film and processing is something I would not like to shell out..

RegardsThe Indian PhotoGrapherhttp://www.TheIndianPhotoGrapher.blogspot.com..

I probably wouldn't be shooting stop-action during evening softballgames as an unpaid gig it'd be rather painful to knowingly expendseveral rolls per game of what would probably have to be Tri-X pushedrather badly, and needing much time to salvage anything usable..

That takes me back. I used to push Ilford HP5 or Kodak Tri-X to 1600 ASA on my Pentax K1000 to take pictures of school plays under rather poor theatre lights. There were lots of tables and charts that came with different types of developer to tell you how much extra time to give in the developing tank according to how much you had pushed the film and what the temperature was. My parents always complained about the smell of the chemicals coming from the attic and got cross when I disposed of them down the bath plughole without rinsing them away properly. The results were good enough to publish in the school magazine.... just.



Best wishesMike..

When I was 16-25 or so, I was a dead keen photographer - film SLR, several lenses, my own darkroom etc. Then life took over, family etc, time and money were in shorter supply - and although I continued to be The Guy In The Family With The Fancy (but increasingly ageing!) Camera, and my "family snaps" are a cut above those of the non-photog, I haven't been quite the ensthusiast for some time..

9 months ago I bought my first DSLR. (And the D80 + 18-200 VR lens probably cost me about half (in real terms) what my original kit cost me 30 years ago.).

It has revitalised my interest in photography. I am taking more pictures - pictures for their own sake, not just happy snaps - than ever before, and it's not just because they cost nothing to take..

Digtial allows me to experiment, and learn, at zero cost.* I am learning and re-learning things I had forgotten. 9 months ago I was probably half the photographer (in terms of technique and knowledge) that I was 30 years ago. Now, I'm close to "back again". .

So - "would I still be doing this?" Probably not - at least, not to the same extent. The low cost and immediacy of digital has taken me back to the days when I had money to spare, to spend on my hobby!.

(Oh, and the VR lens has taken me back to the days when I could hand hold a 200mm at 1/4 second!).

I'm loving it..

* Actually, I am acutely aware that my camera is rated for "only" 50,000 shutter activations - this is a statistic that was never relevant in the days of film, but now, after over 6,000 shots in 9 months... .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

I never owned a film SLR camera, only a P&S. I took a lot photos with it compared to what other P&S shooters took, but no where near as many as I do with my digital SLR. It was expensive to develop and print..

In my last year of university, I took a photography course and had to borrow a camera from my instructor. I loved taking pictures with it and developing them in the darkroom. I may have bought a film SLR if it wasn't for the fact that I knew I was never going to be able to have the space or the money to set up my own darkroom..

When dSLRs came out, I was overjoyed at being able to get back to photography...

Yes, I would be this into photography, because I was when I had film..

There was an old saying 'Film is cheap', which of course wasn't always true. If anything, I was more careful and thoughtful with my film camera because I couldn't review images, or take 200 shots a day..

But then and now, I still find myself trying to find intersting shots by adjusting things like aperture and shutter speed. But by far, the most influential thing is composition IMHO..

Digital allows me more chances, and probably also allows me to slack off a little more than I did before. But a good image in digital or film still makes me feel good..

Everything I write is a personal opinion. Even when I quote facts, they are the facts I personally choose to accept.http://www.pbase.com/mariog..

Thanks for all the comments everyone.Mike.

Just starting out and having fun at it!.

Nikon D80 18-135mmNikon Coolpix 3100 (Hey, I had to start somewhere)..

I got into more 'serious' photography when I dug out my dads old Canon EOS650 and put a couple of films through, and realised how much difference there is between that and the digital point and shoots I had used already. So I only went digital (well, digital SLR) after putting a few films through the 35mm camera and figuring out how much easier for me digital would be..

Just the option to take as many shots as I want without the thought that every press of the shutter is costing me something appealed, and the chance to experiment with settings and subjects and get immediate feedback, then to try again or move on depending on how they come out. It lets me try things I would have never bothered with film, sometimes finding a cool new subject or method, others finding out that it just doesn't work..

I guess on the flipside to that I am more likely to just grab the camera and take some shots off the cuff, and won't always put the same time and thought into a picture as I would when working with film where every shot costs. I guess you have to just try and still take the time to think things through and not just take a load of pictures and cross your fingers..

Had I not got my 400d, I would still be out taking photos with the 35mm, but probably nowhere near the extent I do with digital..