In my conversations with other photographers, I find that very few know how to use film or have used it in the last 10 years or so. The common answer to why is "because it's only for flighty fine art work but has no real use since digital has taken over." I would agree to a certain extent, especially when it comes to commercial, but I do find it hard to believe that the only people shooting film roamed with the dinosaurs.
Does anyone have practical uses for film? Are there any reasons a person might choose to shoot film rather than digital?
I'll go first...
One surprising use for film that most people don't know is any photograph submitted to the National Archives must be shot in medium format film. It's written into federal law and would take an actual act of Congress to change it. The reason is that 300 years from now the digital format may have changed but a physical negative will remain. No one is anticipating the digital file formats will be converted or would be cost efficient to do so as digital evolves. Work that might be submitted to the National Archives are documentary photographs of the national and/or state parks, historic buildings (it's common to document restoration and renovations), and archaeological sites.
Because once you see a portrait shot on MF, digital is simply out...
My favorite use for film has to be for travel. And it's because it gets out of the way and lets you experience your travels and not keep your nose stuck in the back of a camera. For instance this short mountain trip I went on some time ago...All I took was my Pentax MX and two rolls of Fuji Superia 200... and I never missed digital and got decent shots (or so i like to think I think)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjJ2f6SU
Amen. Each print is unique.
Negative film kicks digital's tail for wedding photography. White dress plus sunlight and bright days are a nightmare for even the best sensors. A negative's latitude in the highlights is ridiculous
Digital has its uses but is ephemeral. Shoot with a film Rolleiflex and you can "only" take 12 photos before having to reload. Some people need/want to slow down. Some film cameras take fabulous photos and are very inexpensive these days like the aforementioned Rollei. Personally I happen to enjoy working with film. I have a picture over my couch in my living room and it is not an oil painting. It is a silkscreen. A silkscreen is a different way of expressing art from the oil painting but it is not the redheadded stepsister of oil paintings. It is a viable alternative to oil paintings and one can make many copies from the original. Film is a viable alternative to digital, it is just another vehicle for one to express oneself.
Since I've gotten back into film, I've just decided that I'm going to use it for everything right now. Of course, if I have a job, like if I had to crank out school portraits or group photos, I'd use digital, but I don't have anything like that planned for the next year. And it's only been maybe ten years since I've last shot film, so it's not completely out of my system. Shooting film (in either my EOS-1v, or Nikon F2, or Bronco SQ) is just such a satisfying process of really determining what I put in the frame, that I'm happy to report that even on a 12-shot roll of 120, all of them were keepers, and each one was different because I was thinking the whole time. That's the practical application of film for me, it makes me think. It's the best shot in the arm to my complacency with digital. I've not yet delved into developing my own yet, but I'm slowly piecing the proper gear to develop some Tri-X when the time comes. But the colors, and the b&w just trounce my digital files, and I want to be able to look at GOOD stuff 20 years from now ;)
Digital IS handy and so is MacDonalds but if you want real food...there are lots of photogs who still use film. My 60-year-old Rolleiflex renders better images than most digitals out there and you don't get the dates with the pretty models carrying a Canon rebel around....