Boston Photographer - Pros and Cons of Shooting with Digital and Film
When I tell people I use both digital and film cameras, they almost always ask why. So let's start from the beginning! Once I started photographing portraits and weddings, pretty early on, I realized that almost every single image I was drawn to was taken with a film camera. All the photographs seemed so effortless and timeless. The edges of objects were soft yet sharp, skin tones were deep and rich and the white balance always seemed perfect. What stood out to me the most was that they all had the most creamy background blur, which I later found out is created by the iconic Zeiss 80 2.0 lens made for the Contax 645. That's when I knew I had to buy a film camera and I've been hooked ever since. I incorporate film into my client work as much as possible, but there are certainly cons that come with it as well. With that said, here are my pros and cons to both mediums.
Film - Pros
Overall aesthetic. This is the most important one. For me, I'm drawn to the film aesthetic, especially Fuji film, which I touched on a bit above. I'm always trying to get my digital photos to look like Fuji 400 film, which is practically impossible to do but I still try. Film renders light better, the color tones are more true to life and the high dynamic range is better straight out of the camera (SOOC). With that said, if you put two images side by side, one shot on a film camera and the other shot with a digital camera, most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference — one might have a personal preference, but not really understand why. Even though there's definitely a "film aesthetic" not all film photographers photos look the same... far from. There are many different types of film stocks and a variety of techniques film photographers use to get to their desired result. Lastly, film is just like any other tool; it's only as good as the person who's using it. Photography is so much more than your chosen tool to take photographs.
Minimal editing. This one is huge for me. When I shoot digital, I personally spend hours editing every single photo I send to my clients. I don't simply apply a preset and call it a day. With film, after you have a good relationship with your film lab, as long as you do everything properly as the photographer, there should be little to no editing required once you get your scans back. The amount of hours I save editing my film images is well worth the wait.
Process / shooting with intent. So much of film photography is about the process in which you get to that desired result — it’s just as much about the journey, as it is about the finish line. Because you only have a few shots per roll (36 on 35mm film and 16 on 120mm film) you have to think strategically. A lot of film photographers, including myself, will argue film allows them to slow down and really shoot with intent — making sure each frame is perfect before releasing the shutter.
No chromatic aberration ‘CA’. I don’t know the technicalities behind why, but film images don’t contain nearly as much chromatic aberration, if any. Digital cameras cause a lot of chromatic aberration…even on some of the best lenses. It’s one of the easiest ways to spot a digital image v. a film image.
It’s fun. Any film shooter will tell you it’s like Christmas when you receive an email saying your scans are ready to view!
Film - Cons
Cost. Film is very expensive. I leverage both 35mm and medium form film, which comes in 120mm and 220mm. 35mm gets 36 images per roll and120mm gets 16 images per roll. Each roll can cost around $8-$10 and development costs around $18-$22 per roll. On average, a wedding photographer who shoots primarily with film will spend $1,500 - $2,000 on rolls, development, scans, film loader/assistant and shipping costs to the lab. In addition, now that film cameras aren't really being made, people/companies have hiked up the prices for equipment.
Old technology. The camera I use to shoot MF film, the Contax 645, was released in 1999 and discontinued in 2005. My current digital camera, the Sony A7iii, was released in 2018. You can imagine how much technology has changed in 19 years. Unlike digital, when there's something mechanically wrong with your camera, most times you won't know it until you get your scans back. This has personally happened to me. Regular check-ups and testing are required, especially if you're shooting weddings or situations where you only have one chance to get it right.
Getting lost in the mail. Most of us ship our film to a lab for development and scanning, so there's always that slight chance your package could get lost in the mail.
Technical limitations. Film cameras can't even compete with digital cameras when it comes to technical capabilities. The biggest one for me is learning to shoot in manual focus. Most film photographers will shoot in manual simply because auto-focus in film cameras are not reliable anymore. It's also necessary to have an external light meter to properly meter light, because the light meters in film cameras are (for the most part) not accurate. There are also just certain realms of photography that are simply not meant for film. I'd argue interior/architecture photography is one of them.
Digital - Pros
Speed. This one may be the most obvious, but any professional camera is going to be really fast. There is no beating the speed factor if you have a full-sensor body coupled with an extremely fast prime lens and killer autofocus.
Shooting in RAW. Without getting into the technicalities of file types, the ability to shoot in RAW is a huge pro for digital photographers. RAW files carry the most information you can possibly have in an image and makes the ability for editing seamless. For example, if you completely underexpose an image shot with film (usually scanned and sent back to you as a JPG), you're most likely not going to be able to save that image by simply bumping up the exposure and shadows in any photo editing software like Lightroom (LR). However, if you greatly underexpose the RAW file from your digital camera, there's actually a lot you can do to save your image in post process.
Low light situations. All professional cameras have amazing capabilities in low light situations, even without flash.
Digital - Cons
Culling time. Generally speaking, when I use my digital camera I’ll take 2-3x as many images as I would with my film camera because there’s simply no cost in being “trigger happy.” The down side is having to review all your images afterwards and pick out the best ones. The more images you take, the more you have to review afterwards.
Editing time. I don't care how many presets you have or how well you've mastered your editing techniques. If you're a good photographer you're touching every single picture in some capacity before sending it off to your clients. For example, let’s say on average, I'll spend 3 mins per image and I'll send 1,000 final images to my wedding client. That's 50 hours of editing time! In comparison, with film, when I get my scans back, I'll probably spend 30 seconds. At 30 seconds an image, that's 8.3 hours of editing time. That's a huge difference when I'm juggling multiple projects.
What do you think?! Do you agree or disagree? Anything I missed? Write me and let me know your thoughts!