Why film photography

If you wax nostalgic about holding printed photos in your hands, you might understand why photographers are eager to relive a time before the instant gratification of the smartphone selfie. For people like Olivia Crumm , a photographer based in Mexico City, traditional photography never went out of style.

Digital, on the other hand, is new and is still in the process of being perfected. Micco Mazza, photographer. Photographers still control their work by manipulating the holy trinity of exposure: shutter speed, aperture and ISO sensitivity — they just do it manually instead of relying on digital tools to optimize these factors automatically.

One big disparity? Abdul Dremali , an astrophotographer based in Boston who mainly shoots views of the night sky and the cosmos, says he actually prefers the slower pace that shooting in film demands. Shooting film gives me no choice but to slow down, compose my shot, meter my light correctly and wait for the right moment.

Because film has limited exposures, photographers are also forced to use every frame judiciously. Because you have to think about every shot beforehand, it activates your creativity.

Along with the creative possibilities — and constraints — that come with film, its low-fi, real-world aesthetic also appeals to photographers. On the Instagram account called I Still Shoot Film , nostalgia seeps through in high-contrast colors, grainy sunbeams and tinges of sepia. Judith Walgren, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer and professor of photojournalism and new media at Michigan State University, says she tries to impart this message to her students.

Walgren practices what she preaches: In addition to her digital tech, she also shoots with four film cameras. The photography site PetaPixel shot some identical wedding photos with both formats and did a side-by-side comparison to see if their team could tell the difference.

The beauty of film is, for the most part, what you see is what you get. If you need proof that film is on the come-up, check out the FilmIsNotDead hashtag on Instagram, which has over 10 million mentions.

Most of them are stunning scans of images shot on film: everything from vivid schools of shimmying clownfish to powerful black-and-white portraits. Other tech, like the HP Sprocket 2nd Edition , captures the tangibility of a film print by letting you print out your digital frames and share them on the spot. Even analog technology is getting a makeover. The Reflex camera , billed as the first update on a manual 35mm SLR camera system in over 25 years, oversold its production goal on Kickstarter last year.

It blends the classic appeal of an old-school film camera with new technology like an interchangeable lens mount and smartphone connectivity. And major players like Nikon and Leica still sell brand new millimeter cameras.

With more photographers getting into film, film sales are seeing small, but not insignificant spikes.

The Harman Technology company reported a 5 percent year-on-year increase in sales in Fujifilm, the makers of the popular Instax instant camera, saw a big revenue spike in that it attributes not to its digital camera sales, but to sales of the film-based Instax camera. This year, Kodak also decided to bring back its Ektachrome film, a professional-grade slide film that was used for years in National Geographic before being discontinued in Just as corporations are benefiting from the film boom, Michigan State's Walgren says that for photographers, paper prints are also smart business.

Karen Thurman, owner of the U. She says that film prints pack an extra-special punch for her business, which is increasingly moving toward photographers who specialize in analog photographic processes. Learn how to meter by eye. Take it slow! Lean into the constraints of the medium. Consider developing your own prints. Get pro tips for shooting and framing your favorite photos. My HP account. Most digital cameras especially mirrorless are lighter — easy to carry around compared to film cameras.

Storage Digital cameras can store more images than a film camera. Memory cards used in digital cameras can store hundreds and thousands of photos. Large Prints Digital cameras, even the point-and-shoot variety, produce better large prints. In addition, they also make it easy for photographers to switch camera settings even while in the middle of a shoot. Likewise, you can edit the images directly on your digital camera. Better Photo Selection Digital photos can also be printed. Conclusion Film photography has a different appeal for every photographer.

Most of those who prefer to use it value the time they spend in creating the images. They shoot fewer pictures and they do not want to rush things. Most of them also love developing their own photos, so they usually have a darkroom at home or in the studio. Majority of film photographers find satisfaction in using film cameras to shoot, especially the most challenging scenes. Some actually use both film and digital.

It cannot be denied, though, that film photography is not dead — and will never really die. Michael Gabriel L. Sumastre is an experienced writer who loves to take pictures of the countryside as well as aerial photographs.

He maintains his professional writing portfolio at TheFinestWriter , and you can visit his photography portfolio at Sumastre Photography. Michael was hired by Booking. Liked this post?

Please share it:. I Sometimes shoot them side by side, film and digital. This is of course after processing both in photoshop. The DSLR images seem to have much less body to them, the film images seem to be more robust in nature.?? Hard to explain.

The DSLR is great for family stuff,weddings, birthdays etc. I keep trying but I always get the same results. The only file I could get my hands on was Kodachrome 25, or Kodachrome I took beautiful photos of archaeological sites such as Hatra, Nippur and Babylon.

My first camera was a Canon A1 purchased in I still have it. It still works. I will stick with film. Best wishes! I promise you…. I shoot digital now Nikon D with all Nikon lenses ranging from fisheye thru mm and macro prime Nikon mm. I post process in PS for many years and the digital bribgs beautiful images.

I still hold on to my Nikon F90x tho. I can explain. I pick my shots carefully. I execute with care. I put the film in fridge and store them for the rest of the year there.

I develop them in dark room at Xmas time. I love the surprises , the forgotten moments, the throwback in time. The surprises, the mood of developing, the ritual of taking photos with a thought and preparation, not taking thousands of shots and scrapping them after. The click with film counts, there is no other click and you only find out if you did it right or not in the red light.

Simple argument, if your in business and have many clients shoot digital. If your doing it for personal work shoot film and enjoy the good ol days of analog! I am not happy coz I will never get the detail back! I shoot all digital..

I think that people should stop comparing resolution, the popular Joker Movie was filmed on 35mm and then mastered in 4k. Film gives you a more artistic look, and less worry about settings like white balance, auto focus, raw or jpeg.

Film looks good if you know what you are doing right out of the camera. I like not worrying about anything but composition, and not needing batteries, or having to edit photos. Plus the cost of digital to get quality photos cost thousands or at the least hundreds of dollars if you are thrifty.

For the year with the cameras and development, I will spend under , and can always go to medium format, or large format. Try buying a cheap digital medium format camera, is about 60mm so ten under IMAX standards. Digital may look technically correct, or sharper edge definition, or colour rendition. But it is not as artistic, and post editing takes the art out of creation, editing numbers, and values, not air brushes, or toners, or even the film type.

Film is coming back in a big way, I would say higher than Vinyl records. Timothy Leary. Film is more artistic? Resolution is highly dependant on grain of film stock used. The recurring costs of film photography add up. Gear acquisition syndrome driving camera upgrades every 2 years only effects those who fall for it.

The D produces excellent quality images. To be clear, my point re the d is it can be acquired for very little these days. Even better example would be a used D or D or even an old Canon 20D.

I started my photogrphy journey with film and sold my SLR, lenses and tripods after a relatively short period of time. It was pre-photoshop, scanning and digital manipulation. The cost of film, cost of processing and zero control over how film was processed just made the hobby inaccessible to me. Not to mention my little M10 weighs nothing compared to my OM10 which always felt like a brick around my neck and a pain to carry. Very good comparison of a digital and film photo showing what can be achieved straight from the camera.

I have owned full frame digital nikon and now an xt2 but have always missed what I got from film back in the day so have just gone back to an F5 mainly for black and white. Does anyone really believes that this comparison I legit the person clearly shoot with a flat picture profile and used a canon 6d which does not have the IQ that other Digital camera have like the d S on this comparison.

I am good, very, very good at computers technologies and been in digital for over 10 solid years now. Still so much of the world is in digital, how can we really avoid it. Converting film, much less prints, to digital so that I have a digital version of what I did, is slow and costly as its not common today. With film I cannot go shoot and within minutes or less give somebody a jpg copy to check out. That ease of use has value.

The digital is not as good, but the effect of getting a draft into 20 peoples hands editors, etc 20 minutes after shooting it gets a some respect, not to mention high demand. Their values are a dichotomy to me, that neither can be brushed away or solved by the other.

No offense but what you describe is not digital vs film but a completely different matter. This is an endless debate, and one which will, by definition, divide us into different camps. Pretty low I would guess. Happy shooting to you all. For me, 35mm film connects me to my past. Also, I wanted my young daughter to have a physical photo album. Shooting with a film camera is also very satisfying. I love to hear the clockwork mechanism on slow speeds.

Also, yes the images just simply look nicer. I have been suggesting to Google that they include a mechanical shutter sound for their phone camera. Hey Jeffrey this is Stormie. Glad to see you are back. Very fun article to watch. The sword was my favorite. Hope you keep them coming. Happy New Year. Only in the hands of those with the patience, skill and dedication, will a film camera likely yield superior results to a digital one.

I was 10 when I got my first camera for Christmas in It was an Ansco Panda. I took a hiatus from film beginning in and am just getting back to it. A few years ago I jumped in fully with serious digital equipment. What really amazed me when I purchased and started using Vintage TLRs and folding 6x6s was how much photography — and me — had changed.

It took me awhile to remember to set the speed and aperture, focus, cock the shutter, shoot and advance the film. In all cases now my end product is digital — either direct from the camera or from scanned film. This gives me the chance to enhance, crop, manipulate any image. I love it. Keep in mind that film photography is more expensive, but the photos often look better.

See if […]. Great article. Not a professional by any means, but nothing beats film. That is, when in the hands of the right developer. I can use a digital to scout areas I want to shoot, and record comments. With a digital I can shoot, record comments about when I think will be the right time for that special composition.

For the most part, digital is the more common method of taking pictures, but there are benefits to […]. Whichever gives you the happiest experience. When it comes to commercial shooting the client needs will determine what platforms you are able to bring to the table, but when doing it for your own reward — try out all kinds and see what suits you.

I shoot both. I only use film when I want a slow day, ie. Heck trying to focus on them running around is enough to drive one to some bad habits. Point is, both has there place. Film photographers have to learn aperture, shutter speed etc. I want to see what my eye through the lens saw, not a manipulated Light room version of. She knew the beauty and soul of film. For me, this was a request I could keep.

In a day of photographing, two rolls of film would be considered a lot. I am a quiet photographer, and wait for the moment of connection with my subject, or when I let my own defenses down. I have nothing to compare film to digital aside from my iPhone, but will forever be an analog photographer. A few years ago I purchased a used Leica M 8.

Long story short, I spent lots of time learning how to process digital files, post-process, etc. Today, I use the digital M8. Some of these images find their way into work that I use … most do not. Having a relatively inexpensive and quick sketchpad has proven valuable to me.

For the bulk of what I do deliver, show, etc. I rely on films. Pure and simple. Of the two workflows, film is slower and more expensive but therein lies its hidden strength. I bought my first 35mm SLR while in high school. Got a mm telephoto lens for it as well. But could you enlarge the resulting photos to a huge size even after cropping and get super sharp and beautiful prints on glossy paper. Once married the wife wanted color so I mostly shot speed Kodak film.

Prints seemed to fade so did a lot of slides for many years. Most ended up stored for years in boxes I am just starting to go through now. Here is what I am finding out now. Many of the color prints are fading, etc. And professional photographers keep the negatives so there is no way for me to reprint them. So much for lasting for decades or even hundreds of years. I just opened a box of slides and discovered pictures of a day trip I remembered well but had forgotten I had taken pictures at it.

But the slides have deteriorated to the point that in many much of the image is just washed out, gone forever. Most likely the processing was poor but there is no way to know at the time that the lab cut corners.

Is film superior? Maybe, but I am 68 and at this point in my life i have other things to do than spend hours in a darkroom to get a few finished prints. Had that happen a few times…. Found myself not carrying the SLRs places because of the weight and bulk…. I have multiple backups including one external hard drive I store off site so even if my house burned down I still have them.

Hard drive even has scanned PDFs of all important financial, legal, etc documents. Try doing that practically with paper. I should be able to make new prints of any digital photos at any time in the future with no loss in quality from the original. Above this desk is a print measuring 20 x 30 inches of a stunning landscape taken out the window of our car while my wife was driving and where there was NO safe place to pull over.

Several others we decorated our house with are even larger. You are obviously selling a product, so your bias comes as no surprise. But nevertheless, yes, film is great, just like analog guitar pedals sound for the most part better than their digital counterparts.

However, picking on fuji for doing a bad job with their sims is really unwarranted, nobody else has even come close to providing something that looks just as great as analog than their Pro Neg Hi at iso Also, analog is really, really bad for the environment. Does it look exactly the same? Is it worse or better? Hard to say. I always find myself rolling my eyes when I see these debates, even more so on a site that has a clearly vested interested in one format over another.

The fact of the matter is that different tools work better for different people.