Film vs Digital Photography: it’s complicated.
Nowadays, if we see something beautiful or worth documenting, it is so easy to whip out our phones and snap a picture, so much so that we find ourselves with a gallery of 60k photos that we’ll never look back on (I'm talking about me, I’m guilty of this)
But there was once a time when all you had was 36 shots per roll of film, so capturing something was way more of a gamble and a selective process. This is why pictures from the 90s just seem to… hit different. People seem like people, the flash immortalising them for decades to come.
But hey! Don't think I'm dissing digital photos, I shoot mostly digital nowadays and here is why: I am a pedantic perfectionist, it’s just who I am, ok? I love getting it perfect and knowing on the spot that the shot is perfect. I do fear the mystery of film, where you wonder, “That really felt like THE shot, but did I miss it?” and then you end up paying 30 dollars to reveal the film, only to find it’s out of focus, overexposed, etc.
BUT sometimes it dawns on me that happy accidents are what make film so sought after, blurry, grainy perhaps unexpected - it is so REAL in a way that perfectly HD 4k photos just can't be. There is texture, light flares, and colours that are like eye candy to look at. Film looks like what memories look like in our heads.
I had this experience recently when I discovered a roll of film that I had left to catch dust in the corner of my room, took it to the lab and discovered the most incredible pictures from a visit to Schloss Neusweinstein in Germany, it is a castle on top of a hill that I've visited twice now, and I cannot wait to visit again (& again). It is so beautiful and you best believe im doing the hike with heels in my backpack (lifehack) so I can take some cute pics in front of it (Shoutout to my husband Henry for enduring so much pain learning how to take photos of his photographer wife, he is now very good at it)
I got to compare the film shots and the film simulation shots from the Fujifilm XT-50. Side by side, yes, they are similar, but…
There is something that just makes real film, well… real. The simulation still doesn't look exactly like a real film. And yes, you could argue that there is a million overlays we can play around with on Photoshop and give it that exact look… but it won't ever be it! I'm sorry.
I have asked some photographer friends, and here are some of their takes:
“As someone who started on digital, I'm far more comfortable using digital instead of film; film rolls cost a lot, so I felt like there is no room for mistakes, and you need to have more patience with it. But I believe anyone who started on film would be bomb ass with digital. Meanwhile, I started digital, trying to do digital. I'm struggling.”
- Putri @gitdep Photographer in Adelaide, SA
"I always thought I'm a bit of a hippie when it comes to film vs digital, I like how the grain looks on film. But then I also like how film's camera feels compared to the digital, how solid it is, like it's made of a better material, and how everything is mechanical instead of electronic"
- Cooper @Coob919 Photographer in Adelaide, SA
I would love to know more opinions on this. I won't get into AI too much because that is another can of worms… but in a world where you can produce almost any image as easily as writing a prompt to Claude or Gemini, what makes photography a timeless art that is still desirable in the market?
Is it the human eye holding the camera and framing the shot? Are those little “flaws” the ones that subconsciously tell us, “Oh, this was created by human hands”? I feel like storytelling, art directing and those human signs keep photography great.
So which one is better? My answer? They are both individually great for different reasons - digital for the pedantic perfectionist photographer in me and film for when I need to let go of control for a minute and allow myself to capture moments candidly, knowing I won't see the final shot until the film is developed.
