Some enthusiasts claim film offers qualities that digital simply can’t match, while others believe digital reigns supreme. The truth is, neither is better; they’re different, and understanding those differences can help you make the most of either medium.
Coming to you from Jason Row Photography, this informative video explores the unique characteristics of film and digital. Row, who has over 25 years of experience with film, makes a strong case for why neither format should be seen as superior. He highlights how 35mm film differs from APS-C and full-frame digital cameras in practical terms, particularly when it comes to cost. Film is undeniably expensive, with each roll costing around $8 to $10 for 36 exposures. Processing and scanning add more to the expense, making film a significant investment compared to digital photography, where you can shoot and experiment without worrying about costs adding up.
Another key difference is dynamic range. Row points out that film negatives lack the flexibility of digital raw files. In digital, you can recover details in highlights and shadows thanks to advanced dynamic range capabilities, which can reach up to 14 stops. With film, once you’ve captured the negative, the information is fixed. While direct printing from negatives allows for some control, most modern workflows involve scanning film into a digital format, which limits its advantages. Digital offers unparalleled consistency and control over your final image.
Film’s aesthetic appeal often draws people to the medium, but Row explains that digital can replicate much of that look with post-processing. Tools like Fuji’s film simulations or Lightroom adjustments allow you to create soft, film-like images from digital files. Digital’s flexibility in editing, combined with its ability to produce high-quality images without additional lab work, is a major advantage.
One of the most significant challenges with film is consistency. Row shares his experience working in photo labs, where slight variations in temperature or chemical freshness could drastically affect film development. Even with a skilled technician, achieving perfectly consistent results can be difficult. This unpredictability contrasts with digital photography, where files are consistent and reproducible across devices and software.
Despite its limitations, film offers a unique experience. Shooting with film teaches you to slow down and think critically about each shot. The tactile feel of winding film and the anticipation of waiting for your negatives adds a layer of satisfaction that digital cameras can’t replicate. Row emphasizes that these qualities make film special but don’t inherently make it better than digital. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Row.
Digital reigns supreme in this one way. you can shoot endless practice and learning shots !!! Film prohibitively limits the learning process. Simply by the fact that even before digital few people could afford to buy enough film to "practice" with. I bought a Canon 300D for 15 dollars with a lens , battery and charger off Face Book marketplace. That 15 dollar camera can provide untold hours of learning photography with no more money spent. Film photography is sill awesome. For folks who want to do that. So is polishing rocks. For people like me who like to do it. Like film photography polishing rocks has ongoing expenses. If you get a digital camera with manual controls you need not spend another dime to become a good if not great photographer. If like me you can land a cheap Interchangeable Lens Camera thats even better. Is the final product and process of Digital vs Film better? Nope. Its a matter of taste and desire. Can film photography compete with digital's lack of necessary ongoing expense? Nope , Nada , not at all......