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.
So what you are saying is that the digital capture of the film is what makes the image? So, if you are capturing the captured image digitally why not just start digitally to begin with? Unless you are comparing film prints to digital then you are just comparing 2 digital images.
And the luxury might be not sitting in front of the computer but if you are actually developing and printing your own work you are standing in a darkroom and in front of an enlarger. If you are not developing your own film and then printing you could do the same with digital...either shoot jpeg or send your files out for processing.
Who shoots on a 6Mp camera these days? My phone has a higher resolution than that!
The average has gotta be at least 20Mp now and that looks great at A3
They both have positives and negatives (pun intended). I always bring a 35mm with me in my digital camera bag. For me, I've found a return to film slows down my approach and helps me to enjoy the moment I'm capturing far more than digital ever does. I wouldn't shoot with film for a multi-thousand frame commercial shoot because it isn't practical. But, when I'm feeling a need for a simpler machine and deeper connection to my subject matter (or a more organic look), I opt for film. I think they both serve a purpose in the capturing of art and our work - they shouldn't be at odds with each other.
Lee Morris is obviously suffering from insecurity and feelings of inadequacy so much so that he has to put down anyone who does things differently from him. I shoot film and digital and I enjoy both for different reasons. I really wish idiots like this would not be given the space to spew their trash and just let people do what they enjoy! I’m certain his next article with be that mirrorless technology is a fad and that anyone who is not packing a 10lb full frame Nikon is a fool.
Yeah, well I will have a chat with Lee about who he allows to write articles for his website.
Must be a slow news day. Is other people shooting film hurting what you're doing? I'm stoked on the resurgence of film. I hope people don't buy into this article too much or one day there won't be film for anyone to shoot. (look at where Fuji FP100C is headed.) Live and let live.
I do not understand many of these comments.
«One can do things with X that one cannot do with Y»
Almost entirely untrue. The one or two exceptions are simply because I haven´t tried hard enough.
«Film has a certain “look” which digital cannot achieve.»
Untrue. …And I do not need a filter or preset to achieve it, either. Once one understands the response curve of ones favorite emulsion, (and your silicon of choice) it can easily be mimicked in DarkTable, or RawTherapee, (or Lightroom, if that´s what floats your boat), with silicon, (assuming one understands ones raw developer of choice).
«X is always cheaper than Y.»
Nope. I am a systems analyst. I did an analysis. It varies. Emulsion can be cheaper, and silicon can be cheaper.
«Emulsion forces you to slow down.»
True. Absolutely true. …But silicon allows one to go fast, (and one can always take ones time with silicon, if one likes).
«X saves time, but Y is time consuming.»
Depends on how one processes X or Y. It can go either way.
Personally, I will continue to shoot professionally with silicon, because when working for clients, I like to sit down and relax. …But I LOOOOOOVE going to the darkroom with chemistry. [INSERT OLD JOKE HERE]“I know we have chemistry. Let´s go into the darkroom and see what develops.”[/INSERT] So for fun I would grab a film camera and experiment. I remember when I did my first B&W slides. Loved it. [I need a projector].
It is just the feeling of achievement from building something with ones own hands. I could buy a shed from Ted´s Sheds, and have them install it, or I can buy some concrete, lumber, siding, fasteners, roofing material and hardware from Home Depot, and build my own. (Don´t forget the home owner´s permit). Yep. That was fun. Custom designed. Ted has nothing on me!
Who gives a shit. I was shooting film probably before you were on planet earth. I'm full-fledged digital but my film camera collection is growing.
Gets popcorn
If film's not for you, it's not for you. So what? Why would I care that your prefer digital? People who shoot film don't sit on the fence debating it while looking at their bank balance. They do it because they like it, and they likely shoot digital as well, so you're not exactly "enlightening" ignorant film shooters about the magical world of digital. If you don't like film, don't shoot it. No need to alert the media about your preferences.
"High-end clients are willing to pay a premium for portions of their wedding to be shot on film. "
That's one reason. Convince the client that it is a special luxury item and they will pay more for it.
Others do it for the process (pun intended) sort of like a Japanese tea ceremony, there are easier ways to make tea but that's not really the goal.
Film will out look any digital editing .. the only difference is digital is business oriented in terms of fast delivery.. You can grab a great film camer .. EG: F3 Nikon and a lens for about 300$ £350. Ain’t giving it up
Haha my vinyl records don’t sound worse than digital copies unless of course they are scratched or have dust on them. I agree that most of the time if you A/B them the difference is negligible but I like the art, the physical copy, the idea of listening to 25 mins at a time, and of course the physical display of having a record collection. Plus if I ever have kids, it’s kind of cool to pass down your favorite music to them.
That being said, film def doesn’t hold up to digital in my opinion. I see why people enjoy using film as a hobby but the idea that it’s “easier” than digital is ridiculous. It also drives me crazy when people say “learn to master film before moving to digital” or “I like that digital forces me to slow down because I only have 24 frames!” Buy a 128 MB card fool!
Shooting film today (most of the time with a Leica…) is pure snobbism…
I think digital (plus photoshop) is fauxtography.
And you think we weren't retouching the photos before Photoshop?
When I graduated in photography, in 1977, I also took the photo retouching exam.
Photoshop arrived only 11 years later
o_O
Using the film today is a bit like sending your mail with pigeons... yes, it can be fun...
Yes, you try dropping in that new sky in the darkroom on a colour print.
Have you an idea of what it was possible to do before the advent of Photoshop?
https://mashable.com/2015/02/19/before-photoshop/
Yes, gone through all this so many times its boring. Now try dropping in a new sky on a colour print in the darkroom.
I have done it. Granted, with Cibachrome, and it was not the sky, but other background, but the technique is not any different.
Most of the terminology used in Ps comes straight from darkroom techniques.
True, but much, much, much easier and quicker in PS. Or maybe because my printing stills were not very good. I did make some good RA4 and BW prints straight from the film, prolly because I aimed to get everything right in-camera.
Since most "film" shooters are viewing their work digitally they are still shooting digital. They just add another step in the process and instead of using a camera to capture the image they rely on the quality of the scanner for the result.
Makes me wonder if a better comparison would be taking a film negative and a digital file printed as a negative and scanning them. Wonder that digitally captured "film look" would be the same on both.
Lee, completely agree with everything you’ve written! I’d expand on processing of the film to say that nearly all labs scan the film in the printing process, and unless custom printed, their machines will make an evaluative decisions of that scan. Only a few offer DNG or TIFF files from the scans. But at least they do it on calibrated monitors🤣🤭.
"DEPENDS" ... many use cases digital is better ... and there are use cases that film is better. I do both.
My PhaseOne is the only thing that can get close to equal to my Large Format Sinar, film 4x5 , drum scanned. However my Nikon D850 cannot. And then my Hassey 120 film just the 3-D pop of people on film looks better than Nikon D-850! It does ... but yeah there are scenarios like a wedding that I cannot risk/afford to shoot film, so I shoot it digital .
She says that she "spent" $20k on film, but she also used it and marked up the prints so hopefully the $20k brought in more than $60k in prints. Even back in the film days the mark up was 50-100%.
Today if you are selling shooting on film as a magical, artisanal, one of a kind, luxury item to high rollers, name your price.
50-100%?!?
When I did B&W portraits, on film in Jamaica, my “markup” was considerably more. I was not charging for my gear, film, chemistry, and paper. I was charging for my skill and talent. The cost of film, chemistry and paper were inconsequential when compared to my time and effort. My total cost for material was much less than ten bucks, and I charged US$300 as starting costs. That was when everyone shot on film.
Yes, I sold to high rollers, but that is not the point. The point is that a markup of 50-100% won't pay the bills. (Bills exceed value of materials. There is much overhead in maintaining a darkroom and chemistry).
I am a photographer and a surfer with a dog so I have a devotion with the outdoors, as a result I am obsessed with vans. I own 2, a 1985 westfalia and a 2016 camper built out large Ford Transit. In every possible efficiency category from fuel to comfort to safety the New ford Destroys the old rusty VW van. However, during trips with the VW and when we get to a campsite or a beach everyone always loves the VW much more noticeabley. I personally FEEL happier in the VW.
I guess what I am trying to say is that you can always use technology to make things “better” and more “efficient” but it doesn’t necessarily make the “way you feel” doing the thing or using the thing more successful or more right.
Best film I enjoy shooting with is Polaroid
I enjoy photography. It is not a vocation for me; computer programming is. Photography for me is a creative release. I got my first SLR camera in 1980, so I started when there was only film. I enjoy photography and it doesn't matter if I'm shooting film or digital. July 2013, I added a used Canon New F-1 with the AE Finder FN and AE Motor Drive FN for $400; the value of the F-1 kit has held its value and even increasing in value. With my A-1 and F-1, I've solved the conundrum of shooting color or B&W. In 2012, I photographed the entire year in B&W; I used various B&W contrast filters during the year: yellow, orange, red, and green. It took about three months before I was able to visualize in B&W. December 2013, I bought a new Canon 5D III kit (24-105L) for $2500. I don't know what using a B&W filter on my 5D would do, but I don't convert color to B&W. I will shoot film alongside digital on occasion.
I'm sure that if film and its processing costs Lauren $20,000 per year, that she passes the costs onto her clients. Lauren didn't mention how much post processing she does on her film images, but Lee, it looks like you took some time to get the "film look" from digital. How much time would you spend to nail the "film look" since time is money. Sure, with practice on nailing the film look, that will shorten the post processing time.
It is not hard to reproduce. spend the time to do it once, you got it nailed. Next time, apply the settings, and you are done.
I admire people who want to learn and are intrigued by film. I can see why they get attracted. Personally, after 35 years in photography I have zero intention on going back. Last piece of film exposed was about 17 years ago.
If your working professionally you need to keep up with the latest styles in most cases. As a TV cinematographer going digital is not only a requirement but keeps you current with looks you could never get with film. Film still has its place but more and more for love and art, very limiting media. BTW very little content in this article, but great add
for Alien Skin
The difference in quality is marginal, film is a lot more work and the results less immediate.
But film can be fun and the deliberation can help the aesthetic.
It's horses for courses and personal taste.
Cheers, Nick
meh. people and opinions are two things I never cared for.
Well if you look to a backlit 6x7 color transparency and don't feel nothing special then is a waste of money and time :)
It's really simple: as a pro, you don't have a choice but shooting digital, unless you're being paid an extreme premium to do otherwise. I've learned on film in the 70s and 80s, shot medium and large format, and like the craftmanship. Digital is the only way to go to make money in todays economy. However, I'm circling all the way around to my roots, and I'm enjoying the hobby the way it made sense to me back then. Crafting one print at a time. Sweating the details of developing and exposure. ON MY TIME. Because it's a hobby again, thirty-plus years later. So, it's really a non-issue.
The fact that you're even discussing image quality, means you are missing the point of shooting analog.
You either appreciate the mechanics and design that go into a tool your using or you don't.
When I'm shooing for money I use digital because it's always going to get the job done. When I leave the house for any other reason, I always reach for one of my film cameras.
Everyone gives their reasons for liking to shoot film, so here are some of mine:
1. The cameras are all so different compared to digital. Each one is a unique experience to shoot with.
2. Using different films (and sometimes expired film on purpose) is fun, not knowing exactly what you are going to get in terms of colors etc.
3. I like spending less time on the computer editing images.
4. I usually wait until I have a lot of film before developing, which means I often forget what I shot 2 months ago and love picking up my film to find out.
5. I'm finding that if you're into street photography, people are often much more open to letting you take their photo if you start out the conversation with: "I'm just trying out some new film..."
6. It's a freaking challenge. It has given me a huge appreciation for some photographers of the past knowing how much harder it is to shoot street, action or photojournalism photography on film.
If you haven't tried film yet, ask yourself this question: Would you rather do a lap around the Nurburgring in a 2019 Lamborghini Aventador or a 1965 Shelby Cobra.
Cobra - go pick up a film camera tomorrow.
Lamborghini - don't bother
What is underrated is darkroom work. Actually getting out of the computer chair and moving around, mixing chemicals and creating something on paper for once that is not created from a computer. And having it be made from silver dyes and not inkjet drops or pixels. Also still using the same camera from 1988 for film while I've been through about 20 digitals since (that aint cheap and neither is all of the ink cartridges which drone out the same exact print time after time...kinda boring imo)....
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.