>>3454120>Ilford Delta 3200Yeah, Ilford Delta 3200 is grainy as shit. Just like a point & shoot is noisy as shit at 3200.
>That is still way more MP than you need for web apps or to print somethingYep. But, as I mentioned in
>>3453803, I only brought that up because he specifically said "full frame for $10" and not "so I can have a camera for $10", which implied that he wanted the advantages of a full frame camera which (mostly) you don't get with 35mm film.
>It is like $3 per roll of c-41 to get developedFirst off, for most people, no it's not. It's more like $10-15 per roll if you take it to a lab. If you know somewhere I can get my C41 developed for $3 per roll, please give me a link, because I'd love to shoot more film.
If you're talking about developing it yourself, then you need to include the cost of all of the stuff you need to do at-home development. Tank, reels, changing bag (or whatever home improvement tools you need to get a room in your house darkroom-dark); ideally, graduated cylinders, air/light tight bottles, thermometer, film hanging clips; etc.
Assuming you want to actually look at positives of your photos, you'll need to include the cost of some way to view them. Film scanner at minimum, or maybe a full darkroom setup with enlarger and trays and include the cost of *those* developers and paper in your per-shot cost calculation.
And if you like to keep your photos after taking them, include the cost of negative sleeves and maybe binders to keep them in.
Second, your $3 development cost doesn't include THE COST OF THE FILM ITSELF. If you can find film for $3/roll that includes development cost, again, please send me a fucking link. The cheapest film I've been able to find is (a) $4 and (b) shitty.
Third, even ignoring the above, that's still a per-shot cost, which means the more photos you take the more money it costs you. So either you're just not going to take very many photos in your lifetime or digital will *eventually* win.
