How can you choose between digital and film photography?

I've shot on film in the past and own a number of 35mm film cameras, and I really enjoyed parts of the process. But as film prices rose it became difficult for me to justify spending so much money on it when I could be using it to make trips to new places, or invest in other resources like books and workshops which I've found to be immensely beneficial in growing as a photographer. For me, learning the art of photography has been a process of constant trial and error, and I've really appreciated the flexibility of digital photography in allowing me the freedom to fail over and over again in a more cost-effective way.

I cannot think of a more trite topic pertaining to photography than this one. This discussion popped up in 2007 and it just keeps going. We’ve all figured it out. It’s not an issue anymore.

Today film photography combined with handmade vintage printing has real significance for art collectors and galleries. With announced limited quantity of prints one can get a return on investment, but it's hard to live on it. As usual, it's all about sales, useful acquaintances and tenacity. The idea is that analog technology, opposite to digital one, can’t provide two identical copies in principle, so an author's vintage print is always unique. Hybrid technology with taking photos on a film but then printing photos with some automated printer or scanning them to edit and then print digitally was more or less meaningful about 10 years ago when dynamic range of digital cameras was still under question. Now it's only an entertainment.

From a strictly environmental point of view, there's no reason to keep doing film photography, almost as much as the plastic industry should be extinguished for the most obvious consequences. Whatever excuses people use to justify their trade, their 'art', they're adding up more to an already polluted environment. Mind you, I had my own lab for many years. No matter how much we might have loved it then, a bit of awareness from each and every one of us now can make a difference. I switched to digital as early as I could. Imagine the amount of paper and chemicals we save. Little by little we can change our ways and have our perception guiding us towards new ways of expressing ourselves without wasting precious resources.

When I took film photography in college. The products to buy were even pricey back then. So I think it all honesty. It comes to quality and overall costs. You still have editing to do with either route.

Hours spent in a physical darkroom processing and printing black and white and monochrome images taught me how to create charm through the relationship between light, shadow and subject. Hours spent in a digital darkroom gave me infinitely more control over the image-making process, but I found myself simply trying to replicate the visual allure of film photography. Although not much difference can be detected by the naked eye, it’s like falling in love for the first time, and trying to orchestrate the same emotions with someone new.

I embrace the difference if people can’t notice or appreciated the difference then you have to question why are you working in that format. With film the imperfection sets it apart—experiment with toy cameras old lenses and out of date film. It’s an organic process and the unpredictability can create unique imagery.

I agree that digital photography has revolutionized the world. It still takes the skill of the photographer to capture the right image in the right lighting in the right way. Digital phones claim to answer all the photography need without a great processor. So many claims today. In the editing of images with digital photography, it is knowing how to transfer data (RAW) into something worth sharing. Film always “flowed”, but digital is pixels in finality. If one knows Kelvin Lighting, digital photography can open a whole new world to understand lighting. So far, I have not struggled with the digital photography except for the learning of new equipment.

Silver halide film, compared to digital imaging are two different animals. As such, they each have their own strengths and requirements. Film development is a process that requires expensive chemicals, and equipment to achieve. Printing the image requires another set of chemicals and equipment. The combination of this processing creates an organic tactile experience that you became part of. When you develop the film and it comes out of the bag, you see the image for the first time in negative, which you might have taken days before. When you print the image and see it develop before your eyes, its like having something magical happen. Film is a highly immersive process that includes mind and soul.

Film photography forces you to slow down and consider every image you make as it has a direct cost, whereas digital enables you to make as many images as your memory card can store, the cost only comes later when you need to continually upgrade your digital storage solutions.

As a photographer who learned my trade in the 80’s and then went on to produce work for campaigns and hone my skills & technical knowledge, film was the only option. Shooting on 5x4 & 10x8 (for campaigns that would need the extra detail and reproduction for large outdoor media) was the norm for most studio still life work. Shooting 6x7 was the fashion shoot format. This (fashion) was where I noticed the biggest change & not one for the better initially. The engagement and communication between model & photographer became ruptured when shooting tethered to a laptop. Imagery being immediately viewable by the client would cause breaks in the workflow and the process became fragmented. The artist turned (ironically) technician.

I spent the first 20-plus years of my photography career using and mastering film photography. I have been shooting digital primarily since 1996. I suppose I can be sentimental about the darkroom and all the magic that happened under a safelight’s amber glow. That being said I fully embrace digital which was a natural and logical progression. The tools of the trade are constantly evolving, and there are always new skills to master, which make a photography career so rich. What has not changed is my commitment to making images. Images that have visual impact, and that solve my client’s objective. No matter which tools you pull out of your toolbox the goal is to get the job done.

First 30 years of my career, Photoshop did not exist. I shot B&W , Kodachrome, and Velvia for 4x5 and 8x10 work. Yes, it does require a lot of expertise, but a camera with swings and tilts is still the most accurate way to record architecture and images requiring correct geometry. Also, a correctly-processed B&W neg will last 500 years, so it’s the only archival format. I’ve been shooting digital since 2004—much easier and Photoshop and Lightroom geometric corrections have in all practicality replaced swings and tilts. I just don’t know many practical applications for film these days in either journalism or commercial work.

There is a lot to be said for learning photography through shooting film, the process is much more hands on and slow. With that it forces photographers to really understand light and consider composition. It’s interesting seeing a lot of photographers having only shot digital now shooting film and developing as they get the experience that only film can give.

Whether you prefer film or digital, you should take time to learn each side of the coin. Photography is just the act of recorded light data on a medium. There's nothing magical about that. Your drivers license and passport are photography. What we really mean when we say photography is ART. By learning each side of photography we improve as artists.

Choose digital for convenience, cost-effectiveness, and versatility. Opt for film if you appreciate its unique aesthetics, enjoy a slower, more deliberate process, and are willing to invest in film and development costs.

If you truly want to decide between film or digital and you have never used a film camera, I would encourage you to consider photography with a film camera first. And if you’re daring, consider using slide film as well. Too many photo enthusiasts are convinced that exposure doesn’t matter, color balance can be changed later, composition isn’t critical and just about everything can be fixed with Photoshop. I transitioned to digital about twenty years ago after a near equal time using film. Shooting slide film teaches you very early on how critical your exposure needs to be. I’m not saying you need to stick with film, but film gives you a better appreciation for the evolution of photography that has taken place.

In the realm of photography, the choice between digital and film is a crossroads where pixels meet emulsion. It's a dance of modern convenience against timeless nostalgia. Digital photography shines with its sharp clarity, instant gratification, and cost-efficiency, perfect for those who crave the here and now of their images. Film, on the other hand, beckons with its enchanting, grainy allure, demanding patience and deliberation, a siren's call to those captivated by its old-world charm. Some photographers find themselves on this intersection, navigating both paths to capture the best of both worlds, while others follow their hearts down one, guided by their artistic desires and practical needs.

I shot with film exclusively outside of work (I did not own a digital camera) for a couple of years. I did the math of all the associated costs/expenses and calculated that each shot costs about one taco. That mindset definitely made me think a lot more before pressing the shutter button.

I believe digital suits genres like ; - Portrait Photography - Wedding Photography - Sports Photography - Photojournalism - Commercial and Product Photography All that need quick results, fast action shots, greater control over editing and processing / storing of files Having been an Hasselblad 503CW and a Nikon f4, FM2 shooter earlier film does a better job for; - Fine Art Photography - Experimental and Alternative Processes - Documentary and Street Photography (for a grainy look) But cameras like the Fuji X series now offer emulsions that mimic this too. So if I were to weigh the rising cost of film and processing charges now, unless I have a client that specifies 'I want it on film' - digital is my first choice.