Having a vintage camera cleaned and/repaired is easier said than done.
I found a Nikkormat FT3 that was in real good condition, all it needed was a cleaning(the focusing screen had some kind of black material on it around the edges. I took it to a camera repair shop but they refused to even look at it because they said they would be unable to find parts for it. I asked that they just clean it but still they refused. for the same reason. They would be unable to find a focusing screen for it. Its now part of my collection but I would have really liked to put a roll of film through it.

The author is correct stressing the unique look of film. But it seems some people are unable to see the qualitative differences of film to digital, as is obvious from their comments they even deny these qualities exist. Theirs is a useless exercise, they will never be artists.

As an old guy, it’s somewhat shocking to read an article about film cameras that includes the words “once upon a time…” Seriously, though, as a life-long camera collector and photographer who was slow to fully accept the transformation from film to digital, I can’t see why anyone would want to deal with the process and cost of shooting film now that digital is mainstream. Vinyl records regained popularity due to some strong aesthetic benefits they give the listener. But, I’m hard-pressed to see any benefit in shooting film vs. digital, especially considering the cost of film, processing, etc. I do still have a closet full of film Nikons and Pentaxes, but never shoot with any of them.

I’ve heard it before but really how many film photos have survived to this day? People throw away negatives because they don’t know what to do with them and photos get lost or damaged. Even if only 1% of digital photos survive from the number of photos taken I think it will be more than film photos. Really with proper backup, cloud storage, and the internet never forgetting there’s no reason for good photos to ever get lost. If you really want longevity then laser print your photos or if you’re nostalgic store them on CDs. Even if it gets damaged in fire it’s still theoretically possible to retrieve data from undamaged parts.

Except for perhaps technicolor there’s probably not a single film effect that can’t be achieved with digital and you can experiment more to get the desired effect. I don’t think any of the arguments hold any water. Photography, whether it’s digital or film, only gives you an approximation of the world and there’s never any correct photo so one thing I’ve learned it that there’s never a “better” photo and only one you like or don’t like.

Film, digital, it doesn’t matter. It is like painting with oil or acrylic paint, they are different mediums that produce the same end result. An artist will use that medium to create art not compare them against each other. On the other hand tech types, engineers and non artistic people are caught up in specs, numbers etc. I grew up with film and now take photos with a Ricoh GR3. To me it is just the same as shooting with film, the end result is a print. Neither is better than the other. Stop with this nonsense.