I think film is overrated. Let me try to prove it to you.
Now, before you call me an ignorant millennial, I do want to mention that I started shooting film in high school, continued shooting film in college, and I shot and edited my own film in my grandfather's custom darkroom. I've personally never owned a medium format film camera, but I've assisted multiple photographers who shot with both medium and large format film cameras. I've compared film side by side with digital.
There's no doubt film has a certain "look," but most photographers continue to spread rumors about film cameras having better resolution and dynamic range. This was true when DSLRs shot 6 MP, but now, digital is better in almost every way. Even if film was higher resolution, most lenses made for film cameras are not nearly as sharp as today's lenses. Don't believe me? A few years ago, I had a meeting with one of the executives of Hasselblad. He explained that all of their lenses has to be completely redesigned to handle the increased resolution. He also pointed out that no matter how sharp a lens is, a roll of film will never lay as flat as a digital sensor, meaning that each shot will be slightly different on film.
The other strange argument that film shooters use is that they prefer shooting film because they don't have to edit their photos. This means one of two things: they are saying that the "look" of film is all of the editing their photos need, or they are saying that the lab is doing all of the post-processing for them. These arguments are silly to me, because you could easily do a batch effect on all of your digital images to make them have a "look," or you could hire someone to retouch your digital images.
I do still think there are reasons to shoot film. Lauren Jonas, who is in the above video, has used film to stand out in a saturated wedding photography market. High-end clients are willing to pay a premium for portions of their wedding to be shot on film. In a world where literally everyone owns a digital camera, you might have to do something "different" to stand out.
Perhaps the best reason to shoot film is simply because you like it. Most luxury items are technically "worse" than their more popular competitors. My buddy's luxury watch can't keep time as accurately as my phone, and he spent over $10k on it. Patrick Hall spent thousands of dollars on vinyl records that literally sound worse than digital files (don't me started on this).
But we're human; sometimes, we like to feel special, and we're willing to pay a premium for it. I'm sure I spend money on tons of things that would be ridiculous to you. I'm not mad at people who shoot film, but let's not pretend that it's better than current digital cameras.
I've been wanting to make a video for years where I try to make digital files look like film and I was always going to use Alien Skin's Exposure software. It's a coincidence that Alien Skin recently started sponsoring our videos and was also willing to sponsor this one. The software is 100% free to try, but you can use the code fstoppers at checkout to save 10% if you decide to buy.
I never sought out shooting on film because I was concerned about it being the sharpest, least grainy option. It came down to style preference. I was able to get a close match on a digital camera but it got to a point where I was spending hours behind a computer trying to make it look like film. Just like you can't imitate Coca-cola, you can't replicate film at a 100% match... so in 2013, I picked up a Contax 645 medium format camera.
It was something that made me feel... as Beyonce would say "drunk in love". I felt high the first time I got my images back from my lab. There is nothing like nailing a moment during a fast paced environment. It is one of the most gratifying part of shooting with film, especially at weddings. To this day, I still get that giddy feeling.
This argument of Film vs Digital is like trying to compare Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. They have a common goal but their styles are totally different. Lee and Pat have a commercial, studio lit look and I am over in the light, airy and romantic category of styles. BOTH are beautiful in their own way. With all of this said, I will forever be grateful to Lee and Pat for taking me under your wing and teaching me all the ways!! <3
If you want everything done for you and you just want to push a button than digital is the way to go. My wife loves her Nikon DSLR.
But if you want to really take pride in your photos you should use film. And if you want to have beautiful enlargements go to medium format or large format. With film you choose your film speed, shutter speed, exposure, and what specifically you want to focus on. Also forget scanning your negatives and using a computer. Use a darkroom like my idol Ansel Adams. I have 16x20 prints of Yosemite done in the darkroom myself. My wife’s Nikon could not even come close to the sharpness of my prints.
Photography is a hobby and a passion. Why would you want to cut you passion short
I use multiple medium format cameras but main guy is a Mamiya RB67 Pro S.
It’s all about fun and taking your time and enjoying your hobby.
Maybe I’m just too old to change myself I would never go to digital. How much skill do you really need to push a button and everything is done for you. Might as well use your phone.
And as far as your digital CD compared to vinyl I have CD’s and records of the same music. The CD’s can’t touch the quality of the vinyl and I played them for multiple persons and they all hear the difference
The most important reason to shoot film for me: The cameras are cheap and it doesn't matter if they get broken or stolen. I LOVE the freedom of that. My Minolta MD mount cameras all cost around $20, so I can leave it in my bag on the beach unsupervised, or bring it with me canoeing, etc. If something happens, I've only lost $20 and a few photos. I bought several of them specifically because that means that breaking or losing a camera would have little to no affect on my life or finances. That peace of mind is everything, and it means I *always* have a camera in my bag. And, most of my cheap <$20 film cameras are significantly smaller than most full frame digital cameras but they still have lovely fast prime lenses and take great photos. My favorite in a fanny pack is a plastic 1980s Minolta x-570 with a tiny 45mm f/2 pancake lens. If I owned a $2000 full frame digital camera I would never use it, because I would leave it at home for fear of damaging or losing it.
Fact Checking: "...photographers continue to spread "RUMORS" about film cameras having better resolution and dynamic range. This was true when DSLRs shot 6 MP, but now (up to 200MP @ 8bit), digital is better in almost every way." So you are saying a 4x5 scanned (which still can't be reproduced at 'full-film-res') equaling to 32000 x 40000 pix (=1280 MP) is higher than currently produced digital cameras? And the dynamic range of 24bit is higher than a 8bit digital camera? Also, "....one of the executives of Hasselblad. He explained that all of their lenses has to be completely redesigned to handle the increased resolution." You missed understood; Digital cameras are still about 30% of film res. Digital lenses have to be designed with their wavelengths focusing on different plains because CMOS sensors are "color stacked" on different plains ( film is on a single plain). Because of design limitations, digital cannot be sharper - ever. Do your research! "Educated" Photogs who do shoot digital will still argue that you are dead wrong. It's all retaliative to what your end-goal is; Print on a laser jet? A Lambda print? Or, a photo-dye print? The fact is, digital is more than a decade from reaching film res. So, if you are aiming to print digitally(?), then shoot using a digital camera or scan film at a lower dpi (like 1000dpi). I like to add: I've been avoiding articles from fstoppers because there is so much opinionated BS misleading young Photogs by making themselves sound like experts- and hardly from the truth. Now I understand why: The author of this article, Lee Morris, is the co-owner? Obviously he's not very much experienced in this ART, nor educated in the science of it too. Sorry but it's obvious.
I like the look of film to shot it professionally From 1981 to 2005. Had Top of Line Nikons, And Hassleblads, Mamiya RB67's. I'm not going to name anymore. To many to talk about. I have Nikon D850's and a Sony A7 3R and all of my old Nikkor manual focus lenses which are much sharper and better than today's G lenses. I'm not going to argue with anyone they are better. I would love to shoot film now but it just simply cost to much. 55 Dollars for a 5 - 36 exposure rolls. Then 20 dollars per roll to process into a digital image. Make any sense to you.