appeal of film over digital?

[Shadams]

Before this devolves into endless ROI analysis and a film vs digital argument with all its defenses and supporting arguments, it's important to remember that people do things (hopefully) because they enjoy something about the thing they're doing, or the way they're doing the thing. Not everybody enjoys Brussels sprouts but some like cooking them for others. The point is: there are as many reasons to like something in particular over something else in particular as there are people doing something.
It's okay.
For some it's all about making the image. For others it's how the image is made. The difference between Sally Mann's work and Ansel Adams's work is manifest yet they both use(d) view cameras, both in black and white, but one process, practically and philosophically, is vastly different than the other. Fascinating.
Takes all kinds to push the world.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Reading all of this ongoing thread, I think my answer is increasingly becoming "the appeal of shooting film over digital is laughing at old men trawling out the same tropes over and over about how they did all that years ago and don't see the point in doing it now".

I think @Erik van Straten and @Cascadilla have nailed it, though: people who shoot film consistently - not just as a brief flash-in-the-pan obsession with some poorly-defined "film look" - do it for the process. The final image is almost secondary to the process; any idiot can easily run a digital snapshot through a Lightroom preset (or even just choose a Fujifilm emulation in camera) and get the "film look". If all you cared about was that, it's far faster and easier to just use your iPhone. But to shoot film and be dedicated to it, there has to be something about the actual act of doing so that appeals to you - whether it's the lack of electronics, the sense of engaging with history, the tangibility of the development and printing processes, or just the wider variety of camera styles and formats.

That's what people who go on about how "digital has surpassed film" don't get. They'll never get it. Hardcore film shooters don't care that your multi-thousand-dollar camera can produce this fancy image without you even having to think about it. The thinking and the work is the point. That's where the enjoyment comes from. Any argument against that is moot and will always fall on deaf ears, because it completely misses the point.

(And before anyone says it: I'm not saying that all digital shooters don't care about the process, or don't take as much care in their work... but the ones who are most vocally anti-film tend to fit that description, I find.)

Some good thoughts here. And well expressed.

Now someone has to say it, and it might as well be me.

Let me now paraphrase (okay, misquote) your opener - "Reading all of this ongoing thread, I think my answer is increasingly becoming 'the appeal of shooting digital over film is laughing at young men trawling out the same tropes over and over about how they are doing now what the oldies did all that (those) years ago and don't see the point in doing it now.'"

Just another way of saying essentially the same thing.

This is all such fun, isn't it?

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (elmar 50mm f3.5) leica 1a from 1928

Amsterdam, 2019

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Part of the appeal of film for me is using a finely crafted mechanical camera. I find it very satisfying to use a camera like, for example, my old Pentax SL, that was made shortly before I was born and my father could have used to photograph me as a child. (Actually my dad shot Canon, which is a brand I've never cared for for completely irrational reasons, but let's not go there.) And I also like that these old mechanical cameras were built to last and still going strong after 50 years. Precious few other things we use in 2026 have endured and will endure that long; most of the plastic and electronic junk we buy today will be in a landfill within 10 years. In our consumerism-driven society, using a product that is 50 years old is an act of rebellion.

I used to say that shooting digital is just playing a video game about photography. That's what it feels like to me; not that there's anything wrong with playing video games about photography, But I thought about it further, and now I've amended that catch phrase to "If you're not making prints, you're just playing a video game about photography." Of course, I don't print every image I make, whether I capture it on film or digitally, so that is probably a bit hypocritical of me to say. I do process my images digitally (usually nothing more than leveling and slight cropping for my film scans) and then order prints online. I have prints made from both film and digital images. I like them both; I can't say one is better than the other.

And as far as playing video games about photography goes, I seem to find myself shooting most of my digital images with my iPhone and editing on my iPad. I don't enjoy shooting digital cameras that much (at least the ones I own or could afford). In fact, whenever I use my DSLR, I usually either wish I'd shot the images on film or think to myself "Why didn't I just shoot this on my phone?"

 

[armadsen]

I'm an amateur radio operator. Especially when I was younger (I started as a teenager), I'd often get people asking me why in the world I'd use a ham radio when I could just call people on a cell phone. I guess my reason was the same for that as it is for shooting film: the process itself is fun, challenging, takes skill, and leads me to learn things. I also like the gear (my career developed out of learning to build radios as a teenager). Same reason people hunt and fish when you can buy anything you'd want to eat at a store, really.

 

[Jacob Watrous]

For me, the appeal of film over digital is more about what film encourages. Film being so "final" pushes me to invest more in the setup, composition, and anticipation rather than fall back on "spray and pray" that digital makes so easy. It also, due to the fixed ISO of a roll, requires that I be very intentional with my plan from the moment I load the film.

It's a slower, more considered style of photography.

 

[Erik van Straten]

For me, the appeal of film over digital is more about what film encourages. Film being so "final" pushes me to invest more in the setup, composition, and anticipation rather than fall back on "spray and pray" that digital makes so easy. It also, due to the fixed ISO of a roll, requires that I be very intentional with my plan from the moment I load the film.

It's a slower, more considered style of photography.

And?

 

[Jacob Watrous]

And?

Fair question, Erik.

The 'And' is this: Intentionality isn't just a mood—it’s a diagnostic requirement. My background is 25 years of documentary photograph where 'slow' was never an option, but 'structural certainty' was a baseline for survival.

I've found that the fixed ISO and 'finality' of a roll are the best tools for practicing applying an OODA-loop to photography.

Beautiful print of Amsterdam, by the way. You and the Elmar handled the transition between shadows and midtones very well.

 

[Coldkennels]

This is all such fun, isn't it?

It IS fun. That first line was very much me "taking the mick" as we say in England; the criticisms of film are very, very tired and predictable, and as I said, completely miss the point.

But you're right in saying that the flip-side of that joke is also true; there's a lot of older folks who say "I don't understand why you'd want to do all that work. I did it for years and I'm so glad that I don't have to now." The counterpoint to that, however, is that said older folks did it because they had to. For some of them, there was no value in the process - it was a necessary evil to get to the final result (which was the bit they did care about), so they see no point in doing it now.

That's precisely the point I was making: the work involved in wet/traditional processes can now be bypassed, so the only reason to do them is if you find some value in the process itself. And that value could be enjoyment, intellectual curiosity, or some perceived (and, to be fair, somewhat delusional) idea of "authenticity" or "purity".

 

[Mcary]

Myself, I'm simply enjoying shooting film using a hybrid process and stop shooting digital not because I didn't enjoy shooting digital or the results I got but rather just felt like going back to film. For me it was never about what was better rather its always been about what I enjoyed and what worked for me at that time whither that be film or digital.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

But you're right in saying that the flip-side of that joke is also true; there's a lot of older folks who say "I don't understand why you'd want to do all that work. I did it for years and I'm so glad that I don't have to now." The counterpoint to that, however, is that said older folks did it because they had to. For some of them, there was no value in the process - it was a necessary evil to get to the final result (which was the bit they did care about), so they see no point in doing it now.

I would be one of those older folks who fall into that category of not ever, ever wanting or having to do anymore darkroom work. I worked for years and years for several publishing houses and printing companies- mainly developing film, making working prints, making half-tones, pre-press preparation, etc. I have literally processed thousands of rolls of film in my lifetime. And this does not count having my own personal darkroom at home.

When digital capture first came along, I firmly believed I would never convert. But, the first time I was able to get decent results with a digital camera, I immediately sold all my film gear, sold or gave away all my darkroom gear, and never looked back.

I admire folks who still shoot film and make their own prints. It is just not for me anymore.

 

[boojum]

The course of this thread seems to reveal that analog vs digital is personal choice, often couched in other reasons.

 

[steveyork]

Film still has it for me for B&W. Digital sensors capture too much detail and too hard contrast for my tastes. You can ameliorate digital a bit by using older sensor, single coated lenses, and I like that better, but it's not the same as film. I'm glad we still have the choice. Back in circa 2000 I figured I'd stick with film because someday I would be forced to go digital. Might as well enjoy it while it lasts, so I thought, but that day never came. Then using a mechanical, manual camera engages me more. At one point the quality of my photos was inversely proportional to the amount of electronics on board, even aperture priority made me a happy snapper; though pretty sure I could take decent photos today with any whizz-bang camera.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

For me, the appeal of film over digital is more about what film encourages. Film being so "final" pushes me to invest more in the setup, composition, and anticipation rather than fall back on "spray and pray" that digital makes so easy. It also, due to the fixed ISO of a roll, requires that I be very intentional with my plan from the moment I load the film.

It's a slower, more considered style of photography.

Exactly. Spot on.

This is what appeals most to, I'm convinced, a majority of photographers who still work with film.

That and at least for me, using a film camera, usually one from the golden period of film - from 1950 to the early 1980s when they went all 'AI' and did everything for you except make coffee - still evokes the happy thought that I'm doing something uniquely mine, artistic if you want to call it that, or creative. Give me a Leica LTM, a Rollei TLR, a Nikkormat, and I come to life, all the more so as I originally cut my teeth as a photography with those.

Artistic, creative, whatever. Which digital for all its good points, rarely achieves for me. Documentary, sure. Clinical, yes. Creative, huh. Sometimes.

Friends and fellow photographers nowadays give me expired film. Which I play with. I also have a stash of not quite as old film in my darkroom fridge. Plans are made to use it up in the next couple of years. After this my photography will be entirely digital, if I can still hand hold one of my Nikons Dz or Zs.

(Disclaimer: But that's just me!)

I will close this post with a long-cherished wish, or maybe better called a hope.

If China or Taiwan or some other forward-looking culture (surely from Asia as we in the West seem to be losing the plot on ejust about everything at an astoundingly fast pace) would only start manufacturing film to sell at retail prices we don't have to remortgage our home properties or sell a kidney to buy, film would see an almost immediate surge in popularity.

Oh, well. I can dream, can't I...

 

[bbutterfield]

My reason for preferring analog over digital is simple: I was a programmer for 35 years and I would estimate maybe 3% of all the code I created still exists in some form out there. I now work with physical materials, film and chemistry and stuff that I can touch, along with beautifully crafted machines that last and are a delight to use. Beats beating on a clicky keyboard to generate ideas destined for the memory hole.

 

[steveyork]

i cant afford color film photography. I have a few rolls in the freezer but wont be using them anytime soon. I can afford 15-20$ per roll processing, and the risk of shipping in hot weather, or stuff getting lost. And not all labs doing film give a shit.

I had a batch of black and white film go out, about 30 rolls of various brands and speeds, the film lab developed ALL of it as 400 iso. Ruined some beautiful kentmere 100 shots of deer fighting. that made me develop my own film.

Home development and bulk loading is the way to go for B&W film. Probably save yourself 65-75% on costs, and you ensure it gets done decently.

 

[steveyork]

bojum’s first paragraph is a good observation, IMO. I've mostly eased out of street photography, for which I feel digital is advantageous for its consistency and rendering of detail. I now shoot more like the pic below, which to me usually render in a more pleasing way on film. Maybe this photo would work in digital, but for me probably not. (Maybe you feel it doesn't work in film either 🙂, which is fine.)

Of course, the aesthetic of film is just one reason for preferring it. Some of us also feel film engages us with photography in a deeper, more satisfying way. We enjoy the cameras, the workflow, the extra element of craft.

View attachment 4888908

That's an interesting point you make. I often play with dof in my photography, shooting as fast and as wide as possible, and that would look pretty different with a digital sensor.

For the first time in 20 years I was actually seriously considering a digital camera for some bucket list type international traveling, but reading a thread on APUG it seems people have little problem getting film hand checked at airports. Thank all the young hipsters globe trotting with pockets full of film.

 

[Coldkennels]

For the first time in 20 years I was actually seriously considering a digital camera for some bucket list type international traveling, but reading a thread on APUG it seems people have little problem getting film hand checked at airports. Thank all the young hipsters globe trotting with pockets full of film.

I do a lot of travelling around Europe in the summer - including flying out of Heathrow, which always gets a bad rep for film checking. Things have improved a lot since the advent of CT scanners, even in Heathrow. The only question I've ever faced was "why are these so heavy?" when I handed them a bag full of brass FILCA cassettes. Once I showed them what was in the outer container and explained they were a very old camera, they understood.

 

[steveyork]

I do a lot of travelling around Europe in the summer - including flying out of Heathrow, which always gets a bad rep for film checking. Things have improved a lot since the advent of CT scanners, even in Heathrow. The only question I've ever faced was "why are these so heavy?" when I handed them a bag full of brass FILCA cassettes. Once I showed them what was in the outer container and explained they were a very old camera, they understood.

Never thought you could travel with bulk loaded film. IXMOO and FILCA look like firearm cartridges! I have enough IXMOO for 400' and a couple thousand feet in the fridge, but, as you say, heavy, and if I ever lost them, they cost too much now to replace.

 

[Dustfinder]

Part of the appeal of film for me is using a finely crafted mechanical camera. I find it very satisfying to use a camera like, for example, my old Pentax SL, that was made shortly before I was born and my father could have used to photograph me as a child. (Actually my dad shot Canon, which is a brand I've never cared for for completely irrational reasons, but let's not go there.) And I also like that these old mechanical cameras were built to last and still going strong after 50 years. Precious few other things we use in 2026 have endured and will endure that long; most of the plastic and electronic junk we buy today will be in a landfill within 10 years. In our consumerism-driven society, using a product that is 50 years old is an act of rebellion.

I second that.