You can’t argue that the world of film is making a comeback in a big way. This begs the question: Is shooting film an artistic and bold choice or just a trendy throwback?
Over the last several years, film growth has steadily increased within the photography community. Closets were full of old 35mm cameras several years ago, and you couldn’t give them away. Now, they are selling for an average of $150.00, and sometimes they are hard to find at an affordable price. Kodak shut down for a short time in 2024 to install machines to ramp up film production, and other brands release new films yearly. The question I have is: Why the change? They always said that film would never die, and they were right. With the digital age upon us, film is still alive—more than ever!
The Case for Film
Many praise film for its authenticity and artistry, while others argue it is an overhyped hipster trend. Any beginner stepping into the world of photography should start with film. There are two cases for starting with film. First, it creates thoughtfulness and patience. Shooting film is an art and a great way to learn the basics. You slow down, start looking at a scene, and think technically because every shot counts. It teaches you patience, which makes you a more intentional photographer. There is no LCD screen to show you the immediate results. You will make mistakes, and failure is often the best teacher. We have 24 exposures on a roll of film; as I said, every shot counts. I think shooting film is something many people have never had the chance to experience. They grew up in a digital age, whereas I grew up in both an analog and digital age, having seen the best of both worlds.
The second case for shooting film is that there is no mentality of spraying and praying. The digital world offers us convenience. At a time when thousands of images can fit onto a memory card, photographers tend to have a rapid-fire mentality, hoping one shot will stand out. We have also lost intentionality. We speed through the image-creation process at light speed, creating images to share. We are no longer thinking about each aspect of the image-making process.
Film pushes back on that mentality—spray and pray. With 24 to 36 exposures per roll, each frame becomes scarce. Photographers must slow down and think about composition and exposure, creating a more thoughtful process. Creating images has now become intentional. With this, the financial and time commitment encourages mindfulness. With digital, we can shoot hundreds of frames—literally in seconds these days—without consequences. Each frame costs money, curbing mindless shooting. Whether the images turn out or not, there is still an involved cost.
Many argue that this slows the photographer, and they start creating more meaningful work and telling a story. It's less about the volume of images created and more about storytelling and intentional photography. At a time when the world craves instant gratification, film is a reminder that the best things take time and skill, not volume.
Unique and Aesthetic Qualities
One of the biggest draws for photographers gravitating to film is its unique characteristics. Digital technologies have undoubtedly advanced significantly over the years, and many will argue that film offers unique aesthetics that digital cannot. It is not uncommon to see presets that advertise the look of film, such as Kodak Portra 400. Many of these presets come close but are not the real deal. I don’t think digital will fully replicate the look of film stocks.
Distinctive Grain: Unlike the distinctive noise in digital images, film grain has an organic and random look. It adds depth and a sense of timelessness. Each film stock offers a unique grain. Some provide a delicate and subtle look, while others add a coarse look to the image. You can add noise to your digital photos, but you can’t replicate the randomness of film grain.
Rendering Colors: Each film stock also creates its unique color palettes. Kodak Portra offers rich, warm tones, while Fujifilm offers more subdued colors. Film also provides variations of hues and contrast that digital sensors struggle to replicate in the final image.
Dynamic Range and Highlight Roll-Off
Negative film is renowned for its vast dynamic range, allowing photographers to capture details in both the darkest shadows and brightest highlights. Digital sensors can produce harsh clipping of the highlights, whereas film highlights provide a smooth and natural transition from highlights to shadows. This is particularly desirable in high-contrast scenes, such as those with harsh lighting, where digital sensors struggle to maintain detail in the highlights and require extensive editing. On the other hand, film retains detail in both highlights and shadows, which is ideal for complex lighting.
Happy Accidents
The unpredictability of film offers what Bob Ross would call a happy accident. In the digital world, images are tightly controlled, and the chances of a happy accident are rare. For many, unpredictability is another draw for photographers. Many aspects can cause unpredictability and happy accidents.
Expired Film: Expired film can cause a shift in colors, resulting in an unpredictable look that creates a one-of-a-kind image.
Light Leaks: Light leaks are a common issue with any old camera. Over time, the seals on the back of the camera begin to deteriorate, allowing light leaks.
Chemical Variability: Even the slightest variables in the developing process can subtly alter your images. Contrast, tonal balance, and texture can be changed; no two rolls will be the same.
Digital photography has become so tightly controlled and corrected that the happy accidents occurring while shooting film are a breath of fresh air for some and add to the creative process. Other photographers say it makes images more authentic.
I disagree with the first point. I think that if you're intent on learning the technical aspects of photography, the immediacy of the results and the metadata that documents the settings from a digital camera is far more helpful. To learn efficiently from film, you need to take notes on what that camera was set at to evaluate the resultant images that may not come back for a couple weeks. Mirrorless improves on this even further by being able to see the results before you even take the shot. It has been far more enjoyable returning to film thanks to shooting many years on digital...the film shots are now mostly technically good so now I can focus more on composition. Previously shooting on film before digital left me with half my shots being technically terrible without much insight on what I had done wrong.
Another draw to film, for me anyway, is medium format (and probably large format at some point). A medium format film camera is far more affordable than a digital medium format and provides an even bigger "sensor" size, especially with the 6x6 and above formats.
I agree with Jon, the first point is in the article is incorrect. Nothing hindered the learning of photography more for me than shooting film. The action/result delay of film processing is just killer. Being able to see the results of the camera settings in near real-time was a fantastic boost to understanding their interplay. Additionally, retaining all those settings in EXIF instead a little 3x5 spiral bound notebook (that I probably forgot make notes in anyway) is excellent for later review and comparison.
And while you can shoot faster on digital than film, film doesn't inherently make you "slow down" and shoot more conscientiously; that's just bs. I was perfectly able to shoot poorly and with wild abandon on film. It wasn't until I could able to see the junk shots in near real-time on my DSLR that I realized I needed to change my shooting habits.
…this article is 6 years late to the party. We’ve already gone through the revival, into luxury pricing territory, and two or three years ago the film resurgence started to give way to vintage digicams…