Film Beats Digital - OR DOES IT?? 

Is film better than digital? Yes. Is digital better than film? Yes.

Thank to God, we can practice both ...

How much is nostalgia worth? Some pay $50 k for a classic car, people spend thousands to dress up for a civil war reinactment for me paying $5 for a roll of film and a couple of bucks per roll to develop it is worth it .i think it's the sense of accomplishment with film that I did it, not a computer I use both film and digital and the experience is different

Brought up on film loved it then digital kicked off no more darkroom chemicals no waiting time to see what I got no wasted time printing. For the last 22 years I’ve used digital almost every day I shoot for newspapers digital is an absolute necessity I love it to bits. About 5 years ago just for RU-vid content I dug out a few of my old film cameras but wow i fell back in love with film photography. Now I can honestly say when the job matters it’s digital every time but for pure nostalgic enjoyment gimme a film camera the older the better love ‘em. So make of that what you will I just love photography full stop. Great thoughts in this video thanks for sharing

Which ever gives the most satisfaction is the best for you. Having grown up shooting film I now shoot both film and digital in the same way - slowly, with very little repetition. It's all good! Keith

There are pros and cons. Depends on your personal preferences. I’m 77 years old now. I shoot digitally most of the times since 2005.

I love my old Nikon FM, its simplicity and it's low contrast lenses. I love the fact that a film grain is the world's first example of a digital-like bi-stable element and that digital circuits are made of analogue transistors, resistors and capacitors, and I love irony.

Watching that first home printed image come out on paper in the darkroom as a kid in 1959 was indeed magical, unless it didn't. I used to set up a makeshift darkroom in 1980's only to get called in to hospital for emergency so I gave up. With digital photography, we can break for dinner, grandkids, and return to it when we're ready. Old manual equipment can last long, but we seem impatient to get the newest digital system. Thanks for your thoughts.

It's all about glass photographic plates. Bring back the classics

An old fart here who have been deep into the photographic film era (even professionally). What a releif digital was - the ability to practice indefinitely and also get fast feedback as a bonus - without getting broke. Was fully into digital very early and have not looked back for a second. Digital all the way here - color slides, color negative and black&white and even more in every exposure. Wonderful... 😊

I found the happy medium is shooting with vintage lenses on my DSLR 😊

In the 1980's a "Fashion Photographer" became world famous simply by trying to duplicate the "Style" of portrait photography that was done way back in the middle of the 19th Century. He used plates and processes that required L-O-N-G ish exposures. From a few seconds up to one minute! With mainly b/w . And, even today, his prints of Famous Celebrities of his day hang in a dozen museums all around the World. So YES! There is still a place for "ORIGINAL" chemical Photography. Digital is fine for many applications. But film is still the very best at certain aspects of "The Art" . And it gives me hope for the future of our human species to see the current growing resurgence of interest (mainly by young people!) in "Photography" verses Digital Image Capture technology and processes.

I would always say that in practical terms digital is of course way better than film... BUT, photography is so much more than the practicality. It is an art. There is an aesthetic component. I am an artist and I see the difference between film and digital, is much like the difference between photography and doing a watercolor. One does not replace the other. They are just different. Each has a place. Each has value and advantages. Ultimately it is about the image, and sometimes there are many paths to arrive there, but sometimes the best path is a watercolor. Sometimes a digital image in difficult light is perfect. And sometimes the grain of film gives the perfect look. They are all good.

Always articulate , always informative , good on YOU sir once again !

I go through this thinking myself, all the time. I had a Leica M4 and a Leica M246 - one analog and one digital. I definitely preferred taking photos with the M4, due to the more tactical feeling, but I have to say the photos from the M246 looked better. And of course digital does not required messing around with chemicals in the evening.

Excellent video, Nigel! I’m just about to get back into film for more thoughtful work. I agree with your comments and would say that when my wife and I take picture of our Beagles, digital wins. When the dog is in position, I use the “spray and pray” method. We might take 100 or more shots of the dog and choose among them for the best shot, which may have an extremely small advantage over another frame. In the old days, you’d shoot a roll, got to “ one hour photo” and hope you got a decent shot or two. Keep up the great work, sir! Cheers!

I have an old Nikkormat for "slow" photography. And an old Asahi Pentax. And a couple of old roll film cameras. And a 4x5" Plaubel. And I'm building a 5x7" plate camera from a 130 years old wreck that ages ago was a camera. My main camera is a mirrorless Nikon with which I take most of my photography. It is a fantastic camera, but sometimes I need the feeling I get from old technology where you really have to work to get even one picture.

I use film-era lenses to shoot digitally - I still get the film look. It's the convenience and post production options that make digital 'better'. I used to shoot slide film or b&w but not anymore.

Which is best? A digital camera with a vintage lens. That's the true answer. 🤣

I enjoy both, I do shoot more b&w film than colour digital or film.

Exceptional monologue Nigel, once again you've made me think deeply. Of course I love digital for the instant availability of your shots. But, there's always a but, I also enjoy shooting film. I agree with everything you've said about film shooting, using incredibly engineered beautiful cameras. So the answer or answers to the question asked here is, like you, I love both film and digital. I particularly liked your answer too, 'I don't know', the simplicity and the imediacy of digital, or the philosophy process of film. Photography remains at the heart of both.

Power of digital is now days a phone cameras where you have almost everything under the finger. Film is nice if you never shoot any to try out. I just loaded my old Olympus XA to do some B&W film after almost 20 years of digital.

Agree 100% with your conclusion. Regardless of the chosen medium, it's the end result and the photographer that matters.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, although i use both , my mindset when using digital is very much similar to film , i still don't like wasting a shot ( i know weird)😊

You and I are the same (ish) age, and I think we're known as the last of the truly analogue generation. Also, digital is (daft as it sounds) still relatively new (25 years or so?) and longevity of storage is still unknown. Film images (and negatives) have survived for 150 years. Digital images probably will too, but we won't know for sure until that length of time has passed. Like @marcwl said - "thank God we can practice both".

Good discussion Nigel, have to say I tend to be a bit of a slave to digital, even though I have a few old film cameras. Like you I do like the mechanical quality and tactility of them, but really hate paying for developing film. I think maybe later on in a semi-retirement mode with more time I might set up a dark room and play around with Black and White, if you can do your own developing it does help with the cost side of things. Realistically, I find I can play around with the likes of the Fuji film simulations and get the look I'm after, add a bit of extra grain and it's pretty hard to tell the difference to scanned film. All the other conveniences move the digital quite a long way ahead from a practical perspective.

I think film is inspiring and frustrating in equal measure. If you are prepared to put up with the vagaries of shooting film it can be rewarding. I think very few of us would rely on it entirely though. For me it's all about the final image, and I will study both intensively to try and see what it is I am getting out of them. But that might change from day to day, and depend on the circumstances. In the end I honestly can't decide between them, and I suppose it's just lucky that we have that choice.

Excellent video! It depends on the sensor. Bayer sensors are not brilliant. But the Foveon sensor gets as close as possible. So please let’s develop more five on like sensor and drop the bayer.

Film is a format that warrants patience and strategic thinking -- almost to say an intelligence requirement. Cropping: with film, a person needs to frame the setting correctly prior to capturing the image. No electronic-cropping is available to adjust your oversights. Leveling the camera: with film, bringing a spirit-level or bubble-level to a shoot becomes very important. Otherwise, the prints are skewed to an angle. Fill-flash accessory: with film, there is no Shadow Fill electronic adjustment. Either get the lighting balanced in the field correctly, or the print comes out unbalanced. Lighting environment: with film, this requires evaluation prior to going out in the field. What time of day will it be, or the weather conditions (cloudy) -- should I bring along ISO 400/800, with my ISO 100 film? Film just necessitates a person with skill or intelligence to be successful. With film, an intelligent person may even frame a scene and then cancel capturing the shot, due to film cost or limited frame-counts available. This forces logical analysis and skill learning in the art of photography. Digital photography sure has a niche: low light and fast-action photography. However, film can surely make a digital photographer more successful due to acquired conditioning of forethought and skill.

CCD sensor digital cameras are the latest trend. Things always seem better looking back.

I learned how to develop my own film. It was interesting to go through the whole process. You had to plan your shots.. You had to carefully take your shots. You had to carefully develop your film. Then scan the negatives. The cost of film and chemicals ended the interest for me. Now we use picture styles to make our digital images look a little like film when printed. The one thing is that we have seen the change from film to digital.

There’s only one film camera that’s mechanically captivated me and it wasn’t a Hasselblad or a Rollei or a Leica. For me it was a Bronica I had on loan from the University a couple of times. I believe those don’t have leaf shutter lenses so more is moving in the camera instead of the lenses. Even with that said I have yet to really consider film over digital. So many benefits to digital. No dust particles and no stray hair on any final image is but one benefit.

You know, I thought digital was more "analog" back when you had digital SLRs. Back then, there were more mechanics inside the camera, and you looked through the lens rather than looking at a little screen. What is your own favorite digital SLR? How about that retro Nikon DSLR?

Very good Nigel I enjoyed that of course people sing about both film and digital to this day in a perfect world film would be cheep and plentiful and cost little to process but alas its not that way so most people have gone the way of digital photography of course even digital if one wants prints cost money to have them done both are beautiful to do both have charm of there own.......Tony

I just enjoy shooting my film cameras much more than digital. They feel so much better and have a simple control scheme without anything extra that I don't need. I like the process and I'm quite happy with the results. I also really dislike the upgrade cycle with digital, it's hard to form a connection with the camera when you know you're going to dump it in a few years for something with more automated features and a higher resolution that I'll never really need but FOMO makes me think I might. Meanwhile 35mm is more than enough for most things and 6x6 is great for larger prints.

It should be noted Mirrorless can adapt any lenses. DSLR is fairly limited in this aspect

I tell you had a British can in the 1970’s. Even when the weather was not cold there was a 50/50 chance that they would start. 😂

Good catalog of the pros and cons. No argument here, and neither can I say whether this or that is better for me. I do find the “film camera” analog experience enjoyable: physically lighter, too, when I just carry one other lens and a film or two in the pocket. But ouch, the costs. On which, when doing the Versus, I often hear that the digital outlay is “one and done” but I bet the Ouchness of: now I need a laptop, monthly subs to Adobe (eg and etc) would be an interesting reveal, if we’re honest about it. Having said that, my film develops and returns to me as scanned files, which then need to be… ouch, and etcetera! Keep up the good work.

I’ve been using the same 35mm SLR film cameras all my photography life. 40+ years. Two bodies, one fitted with a 28mm lens and one with an 85mm lens. I carry them ready for action both at the same time. I only ever use 400 iso black and white film. Metering is done with a hand held light metre. I have my own dark room. My photography subject is mainly the rougher side of street but will photograph whatever shouts take a photo of me. I have never had a reason to up grade my kit. It works just as well as any 35mm film camera. I know those who have upgraded their digital cameras for more mega pixels more than once. I much prefer a dark room print any day over an inkjet print. How do I come to that conclusion? I have two Sony full frame A7 whatever cameras. One fitted with a 24mm lens, the other with an 85mm lens and a photo dedicated printer. I will only use my digital cameras when going abroad as it lightens my load. Film in my opinion is best!! Love it!!!!

Everything said❗😊❤️

Speaking of downsides to film. I have a Canon AE-1. I have two types of film rolls, 400 asa black and white and 200 colour. I do not remember what I had put in the camera.

Define "better" - look at the few reddit groups dedicated to photography, every second question is "how can i get this old/vintage/film photo effect". My personal favorite is vintage lenses (love 50's, amazing era for lenses) combined with neo-vintage digital SLRs and mirrorless cameras (2005-2010)

Like me, you won't be here forever, so I hope you have put some thought into your videos staying on RU-vid after you can no longer do it yourself. The late great David Thorpe's family kept his hugely valuable body of work on RU-vid and I very much appreciate that that resource is still there. I do miss him, but he is there any time I want his advice. I see your videos as an equally treasured resource, which is why I hope you can make sure that the videos will remain here for as long as RU-vid is a thing.

From a technical point of view, digital is far superior to film unless you are using an 8x10 camera. It is a bit like vinyl and CD's. CD's are far superior to vinyl records from any objective view. However, the user experience of vinyl is far more tactile and fun. Similarly, film is more fun. The fact that you cannot see what you have done until it is too late, and also you are limited to how much you can do to fix it. But that makes it a challenge and that what makes it enjoyable, a good photo is much more difficult to get. It teaches you a discipline. But you really never need to take 30 or 40 images to get warmed up, you simply view and choose carefully when you press the button. It is about the experience, and using a Rolleiflex SL66 is a joy to use, it almost doesn't matter if there is any film in it. And the comparison with the car is a good one, but having owned a TR sports car, I can tell you the joy of driving it was amazing, but to drive to work each day, a modern car is my choice. It caught on mainly for the convenience. When the changeover happened, digital was only 5 mega pixels and 35mm film was far superior but convenience is always a winner, Compact Cassette is a case in point. Snap away and hope out of the 1000 you have got one good one, or enjoy the taking your time and thinking about things to make them work. If I was a professional photographer, I would be digital, for my holiday snaps I am digital but for enjoyment, I get the Rollei out.

🖇

I have family photos dating from the 1920s taken by small town photographers, developed and printed by themselves which are superb quality. JK

Esiste una fotocamera MIRRORLESS, FF, con CCD e massimo 20 MPX da utilizzare con opbiettivi vintage? Mi piacciono le fotocamere vintage e negli anni, ne ho conservate ed acquistate alcune. Ho acquistato alcune di quelle fotocamere che tanto avrei voluto da giovane ma che non mi sarei mai potuto permettere, questa è una soddisfazione. Ogni tanto ci scatto pure ma non rinuncerei mai alla digitale. Quindi la mia domanda iniziale riassumerebbe il massimo del compromesso per me accettabile e direi anche interessante.

Consider the point of origin.

FILM IS BEST

Film shots were printed. I think that’s a big thing

Better

Digital is ephemeral.

To me digital blows the highlights film doesn’t.

Film is far better .

I love the look of film but not much else anymore