As a hybrid film and digital photographer, I get a ton of questions regarding film photography. When I pull out my Contax 645 medium format film camera at weddings, you should see the looks I get! I’ve been told by well meaning wedding guests that “film is outdated”, “film is unreliable”, “digital is better than film”, etc.
Film is often seen as a dead medium, so not many people have much knowledge of how it works, and of the benefits of film over digital. Today, I’m here to clear up some myths, as well as confirm some truths about film photography. So let’s begin!
Myth: Digital is better than film.
I think a statement like this isn’t as cut and dry as it seems. Digital and film both have pros and cons, as with almost every competing thing on earth. For me, film beats digital hands down; no questions asked. And here’s why: Film creates a look that digital just can’t match. No matter what presets you buy, or how much time you spend editing your images to look like film, they can only get so close. The look that film creates for me as a fine art wedding photographer is very distinctive. It is light, airy, and romantic. It has amazing grain and bokeh that will make your heart flutter. Here is a side by side shot of a film scan and a digital file. The are both unedited, straight out of camera. The digital is on the left, and film is on the right. You can absolutely see the distinct difference in bokeh (the blurry background), color, and overall feel of the images. Both images were shot at F2 on 50mm lenses.
Digital definitely has it’s benefits, which is why I choose to shoot both for weddings. For starters, I can see the images I’m taking with digital. Obviously with film, I have to trust my skills and not an LCD screen. For the ceremony and family formals, this is definitely helpful, as everything moves fast and there is no time for error. Second, digital is much, much better in low light situations than film. Most receptions take place a night, in very dark venues. Digital has the means necessary to handle high ISOs, and well as off and on camera flash, without being super grainy like film would be.
But, I still have an affinity for film. Film pushes me to be a better photographer in that it forces you to learn. On a digital camera, you could just set it to Auto mode and shoot away. But you can’t do that with a film camera. You need to meter your scene with a handheld light meter. You have to know what the ratings mean on your meter (ISO, aperture, and shutter speed), and be able to transfer them to your film camera. Certain films need to be overexposed to create the light and airy look, so you need to be able to know the compensation for that on your meter. Also, film is rather expensive to develop and scan, so praying and spraying doesn’t work too well (unless you want to spend $1,000 on developing). On average, each film image I take costs $1.50. At that rate, you need to slow down, see and feel your lighting, and perfect your scene before you push the shutter button.
Here is another example for a side by side digital and film image. Again, unedited, straight out of camera. Digital on the left, film on the right.
Myth: “Film is unreliable”
Again, another myth. While I can’t tell you the statistics on fail rates of film vs SD or CF cards, in my personal experience, I haven’t had either fail. I’ve never had a roll of film that didn’t work, nor have I had a card fail. On occasion, if the battery in the film camera dies, I’ll get a double exposure. It’s maybe happened twice. But that can be avoided by replacing your battery before it dies.
Truth: “Film is expensive”
This is definitely a truth. If you’re like me, and don’t do your own processing and developing, film can get very expensive. The average cost for me for one roll of film is $7.40. There are 16 exposures on one roll of 120 film. My average process and scan cost for one roll of 16 exposures is $17.50. So total cost for one roll of film is almost $25. Obviously digital doesn’t have these added costs. You buy your camera, all your lenses and other gear, cards, and you’re set. Yes, you have to occasionally replace cards, but it’s not as expensive as film.
Myth: “You can’t edit film like you can digital”
Again, another myth. During the develop process, my film lab scans my film with my preference (color, contrast, brightness). When I receive my scans, I don’t typically have to edit them. But if needed, I can. Just like with digital files, I can pull my film scans in to Lightroom or Photoshop for editing.
In this film scan, the shadows were a little too dark for my liking, so I pulled it in to Lightroom and adjusted the shadows. Unedited scan on the left, edited on the right.
Myth: “Film is outdated”
A lot of people seem to think film is outdated, when in fact, it is making a huge comeback. Many of the world’s most revered wedding photographers exclusively shoot film. Every photographer that I totally adore and admire shoots film.
Truth: “Film is inconvenient”
Okay, so there is some truth to this. Reloading film can be a little bit of a pain. I have three inserts for my Contax that I try to keep loaded, but eventually I’m having to reload them throughout the day. When you’re in a rush, it can be a tiny but frustrating. And I do have to carry a billion rolls of film with me everywhere, so it can take up a bit of room in my bag. And on occasion, film stocks run low and end up backordered, so I’m forced to shoot a different film stock until the stock I normally use is off backorder. But for me, it’s most definitely worth the small bits of inconvenience.
I hope this post helps clear the waters a bit in the film v. digital debate. For me, film has been such a blessing. It has totally renewed my love and passion for my craft.
