Film photography made a big comeback over the past decade, but where does it stand today, in 2025? The journey of film's revival and its current relevance is something worth understanding, especially if you're considering picking up an analog camera.
Coming to you from Thomas Heaton, this insightful video explores how film photography shifted from near extinction to becoming a symbol of authenticity and individuality. Heaton recounts his personal journey with film, highlighting cameras like the Hasselblad XPan and the legendary Hasselblad 501cm, a camera series famously used by NASA on the moon. He points out that shooting film was once synonymous with being countercultural and cool, largely fueled by the hipster movement around 2010. This aesthetic was amplified by Instagram's early film-like filters, enabling digital photographers to mimic analog charm, contributing significantly to film's resurgence. However, Heaton notes that film's popularity has shifted from being explosively trendy to settling into a dedicated niche, and its cool factor has become more nuanced.
Heaton addresses the practical realities film enthusiasts face today. Prices for film stocks like Kodak Portra 400 and Ilford HP5 have surged due to increased demand and limited supply. Many indie film labs, which thrived during the height of the analog revival, are now closing their doors. Despite these obstacles, Heaton argues that these aren't entirely drawbacks. The slow, deliberate nature of film photography, something that digital shooters often criticize, is actually what makes it appealing. Film forces you to slow down and engage with your photography differently, turning limitations into advantages that enhance your craft and creativity.
Another compelling point Heaton raises is the rise of AI-driven software like Dehancer, capable of replicating the look of film to such a high degree that distinguishing real film from digital mimicry is nearly impossible. This technological advancement brings authenticity into question, potentially undermining film's appeal. Heaton suggests that while AI might make some photographers skeptical about images they encounter online, true authenticity remains valuable and achievable. He emphasizes that ultimately, trust and reputation depend more on personal integrity and transparency rather than the medium alone.
Reflecting further, Heaton notes the social dynamics around film photography have changed significantly. The novelty factor that made film so popular on social media around 2015 has diminished as digital filters and AI-generated effects saturate feeds. Today, film photography commands less automatic admiration online, yet out in the real world, it retains undeniable respect. Shooting landscapes with a classic Hasselblad, for instance, still earns genuine appreciation from fellow creatives and enthusiasts who value the meticulous nature and authenticity of film.
Heaton suggests that although film photography's explosive popularity may have leveled off, its fundamental appeal remains strong for those who care deeply about craft, process, and the tactile experience of creating images. AI may blur the lines between analog and digital aesthetics, but genuine enjoyment and satisfaction in photography come from the process itself. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Heaton.
Well, lets face it, in reality, whether you use film or digital doesn't matter but it does seem so many YouTubers want to join in the film vs digital debate. I personally love the look of film compared to digital but simply don't have the desire to go back to film processing or suffer the running costs of film. I do see plenty of videos and articles trashing digital and claiming film somehow is more 'real and meaningful' and 'digital just does all of the work for you and people spend all day on a computer photoshopping until the photo looks nothing like the photo they took.'
Just choose a camera, film or digital and go out and enjoy the process of taking photos. Lets get back to enjoying the photographs and stop obsessing over the gear.
I completely agree with your perspective! The camera choice ultimately doesn't matter as much as getting out and actually taking photos. At the end of the day, the best camera is the one that helps you create the images you want to make.
I agree: the genuine enjoyment and satisfaction in photography come from the process itself. But I have to admit there’s one aspect that makes me uneasy, and I don’t hear it talked about much:
The process itself is far from eco-friendly. Producing, transporting, developing, and disposing of film requires plastic canisters, chemical solutions, a lot of water, and quite a bit of energy to print (or to scan, — which, from a logical perspective, kind of removes the point).
This material reality often stays hidden behind the language of “honest” and “authentic” images. And let’s not forget that in 10–15 years, most prints fade anyway.
Sure, digital isn’t clean either — making cameras, batteries, storing gigabytes in the cloud, upgrading devices — all of that has its own footprint. But per image, film’s carbon impact is estimated to be 50–60 times higher (though of course these figures can be interpreted differently depending on the context).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t enjoy film, but it’s worth remembering the real cost behind the nostalgia.
You've raised an important point that doesn't get discussed enough in these conversations. There's also the fact that film has a layer of gelatin.
Still no vegan films ??? 😀
Alvin Greis; Reality speaking. The black and white film process is not ecologically damaging. All chemicals organic chemistry (not to be confused with so called organic food. They are derived using organic chemistry) are benign (with the exception of Pyro developers, which have a very minute market share among users) though they do taste very bad. Metol, the primary ingredient in most black and white film developers may be slightly toxic. but you would have to ingest huge amounts of it to get even sort of sick. Stop bath is a simple 1% solution of acetic acid, and we use restaurant grade Acetic acid as a stop bath diluted to a 1% solution, so a vinaigrette dressing is more toxic that photographic stop bath. The fixer is a salt, a sodium thiosulfate solution. Again, even a rapid fixer is so harmless that you could drink a quart or so of it, at working solution strength, with no damage. You would probably vomit because they taste so bad, but they are not an environmental issue. The only environmental contaminant would be the metallic silver that is dissolved out of the film, and a home darkrooms contribution is so negligible that you would never notice in being down stream of a home darkroom. The photographers I know that are hyper concerned about its "carbon footprint" (there is none, BTW) set the chem outside in trays, let the water evaporate off and then take the powdered residue to a hasmat disposal station. But iMHO, that is completely not an issue.
As to permanence, a properly processed and printed black and white print, on fiber based black and white paper, will last beyond an equivalent ink jet print. Even modern color processed prints like Kodak's RA-4 papers or Fuji Crystal Archive materials are extremely stable, and permanent when they are displayed in a correct manner.
The truth is that someone that prefers to use the "Old School" methods is probably not doing that to "look cool". Many of us have used that process for years and we use it because we like it, prefer it to digital and prefer the end product. In the end it comes down to what you prefer.
I'm shooting a quick restaurant job later this afternoon where the client asked me to crank off a roll of 35mm for fun.
Film, Lab, and Scans are going to be $55.75 in total. That's $1.54 a photo..! Of 35!!!!
OOF. Hope that went on the invoice.
That’s why I’m doing this all by myself. Developing a roll of film (color or bw) is really really easy! And scanning too. 55 bucks is a lot too, in my country (the netherlands) it’s 9 euro for developing and scanning at a lab.
It's still super cool. It's just also super expensive at a time when economic turmoil is in full swing.
Only express yourself with mediums considered cool. That will make you a better artist
I protest the notion that film was nearly extinct. Many of us never stopped using film. Granted it is slower, much slower than digital and visual gratification is delayed. It is interesting that neither Kodak or Ilford stopped research and development of their film products, so they always saw the commercial viability of film. I did stop using color film when Ilford stopped making their incedible Ilfochrome product. But I have always processed all my own black and white film in my own darkroom, and before that I processed it in a closet in my home, and in a makeshift darkroom in my basement. So film was never the product of a hipster wanting to look cool. It is a tool we use to make visual expressions of how we see the world around us.