Film vs Digital - image comparison (you’ve got to see this to believe it!) 

Excellent video 😮!

Film cameras & SLR's have a personality. Digital looks sharp & boring.

I am confused, did you process for that much grain? I shoot an old Agfa ambi sillette or my Kodak Hawkeye rainbow. I shoot FP4 or 5 and process at box speed in D-76. I don't get near the grain you do. I scan my negatives on an epson scanner at a moderate size as a jpeg. Until you enlarge it about 200 times it is difficult to tell from my Canon Rebel. Just curious.

What you’re really demonstrating is the technical inferiority of film. Had these film photos been taken on 6x7 MF film camera, the final image would have been indistinguishable (with exception to differences in DoF) from the digital capture. Fundamentally, if you limit negative enlargement to 3x linearly and less, the film image would be equally sharp, grainless and “souless” as digital.

I was a medium format film wedding photographer for a few years. I've also owned one sort of digital camera or another for a few decades. And as much as I truly love my digital cameras ... well, I must say that the image quality from film is SO far superior on a grand scale, especially when you expose your negatives precisely, when you use a low ISO film, and when you use a full quality professional lab for your final results. The only problems ... ? The cost of film and developing, and the inability to enhance with Photoshop when necessary if you have no way of scanning your negatives.

Unfair comparison, you keep pointing out the grain of the film but failed to say which film stock or developer you used, both of these are relevent. I have a Nikon D800 (36Mp) and a Canon A1, with a fine grain film I can easily take far sharper and more detailed photos with the A1 than the D800 is capable of achieving.

Ye gods! What sort of film were you using? Its got grain like lumps of coal. I cut my teeth on B&W film in the 1960s and the only way I could get that awful grain was by cropping and using high ISO film. To get around lumpy grain I used Ilford FP4 100 ASA and cooked it with Microphen or Promicrol developer.

Digital captures an image; film captures a mood. Every time.

Film quality all depends on what grain structure, how it is metered, how you use the results of metering in regard to what is important to you , shadows or highlights. What type of chemicals it processed in, I could go on. Film photography is a skill , a learning process and art which is sadly being killed by the digital era. Yes digital takes great photos, but in the hands of of a person who truely understands the film process, it cannot be beat.

Fun video thanks 👍. There is a place for film & there is a small film resurgence going on….i think digital & film have their place. Depends on the subject matter and what the photographer is going for. There are plenty of filters and you can fake old film looks but I don’t think that’s the point. I shoot film because it’s challenging and fun. I like the look of my old 120 40s-50s folders. Shooting on those non-zoom lens cameras has re-taught me patience. Before I got back into film i wud just machine gun my cell or a digital camera because it was easy and pixels are cheep. Now with vintage film camera I forced to walk around the subject. Take my time explore many more angels before I spend $2 on A Film picture. Often finding a better composition than i wud have with digital because I slowed down and walked around.

35mm is garbage. Every video i see comparing 35mm film to digital, the digital is way better. And your using a digital camera with a 2/3" (8.8mmx6.6mm) sensor which is around 4x smaller than the 35mm frame. So the film should have the advantage here.

I appreciate the comparison and I have to say, that from these pictures I prefer the digital ones in all the cases.

Thanks for making this video. Even with this rather grainy stock and format: film simply looks fantastic. Everything looks more precious, timeless and gorgeous.

the dynamic range and contrast from film is so pleasing at 2:12

To bad the guy shooting film doesn't know what he is doing. Looks almost like the combination of lens, film and developer were selected to create chalk and soot with boulder size grain. I shoot both digital and film and I can only get chalk and soot with film by making a monumental effort to get it. Tri-X shot at 400 and developed with Xtol and printed on #2 paper will give smooth tones and a full grey scale.

I think that this is a really interesting comparison of vintage versus modern photography, however I’m not sure that it is an accurate comparison of film versus digital. I think the true way to compare the two would be to use equally similar cameras. I shoot film on a canon élan seven and I also sometimes use a canon 40 D digital. I personally never shoot in anything but manual mode. I learned on a fully manual Pentax K 1000 years ago in college. I think to get a true comparison you would need to shoot both at the same shutter aperture and film speed. I personally find that film always wins for me artistically. It could be that it is the Celtic for me to really have to work for an image. Sometimes digitally I will take several pictures and look at them after. However when shooting film I really have to look at the scene see where the light is falling on the subject in the background. I recently did a show where I chose 12 of my favorite images that I’ve ever taken. I sat there looking at them trying to figure out why I had chosen those 12, and it suddenly occurred to me that they were all shot on film. I feel that as amazing as digital cameras art and an art form into themselves there is a lack of depth to that. I was looking at 90 year old pictures of my grandmother the other day and as I flipped the page it occurred to me the only reason those pictures were around was because of the silver they were processed . They were still wild slightly faded very much alive in my opinion while personally I do prefer felt it has a lot to do with my personal style and subject matter as well as The fact that it challenges me to not be lazy. I will say that there are digital photographers who have mastered all of the functions of their camera and it is an art form into itself. I think perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am never excited to get in front of the computer. However going into the dark room I am always ready to rely on technical skills as well as artistic skills. It really is a personal preference but again I feel to accurately compare the two they would need to be on similar cameras shot on the exact same settings. Well all of those pictures are beautiful I could create differences such as those with both film and digital. For me there is always something that comes alive when after all of your test strips you drop the first full print in and watch it appear before you. I will say though even in digital I rarely do more in editing than I could’ve done in a dark room.

The Nikon D3s and the D700 (In my opinion) combine the best of both. .. I shoot on a Fuji X-T2 and I just recently purchased a Nikon D3s .. the way they the Nikon handles light has absolutely blown me away. I mean REALLY blew me away. The D3s's secret weapon is in how it handles light. Same with the D700 .. I have yet to see ANY modern Digital camera that even comes close. People get caught up in image resolution which distracts from composition and light... The Images in the film camera capture emotion. There's something visceral about the Film images.. I have to pinch myself about the fact that I even bought the D3s. ..It's not something you can even put into words.

Wow grain the size of popcorn ? This comparison is flawed.

This is a HUGELY deceptive video. You've underexposed all the film images, the film camera looks like it is either damaging the rolls near the top of the screen by putting some weird marks there, the grain is super pronounced - I shoot Tri-X at 400 ISO and the images are far more clean. They're never going to be as crisp and highly resolved as digital - thankfully - but they're a lot better looking than these truly awful film shots, which are incorrectly exposed/or badly scanned and have the kind of grain you get from pushing B&W at least two stops.

What a totally stupid comparison. Of course there's a bloody difference when you use a very high ISO film as you have. You could at least have used a lower ISO film so the grain wasn't quite so obvious. Bonkers

If I was shooting people for character I would definately shoot film for a wedding where everyone wants to look pretty it has to be digital. Iwas thinking geez that is really grainy and thought it was the equipment cause my Nikon's from the 60's 70's don't do that. But I see your comment below and how you exagerated the difference.

A better comparison would be using a modern full frame against a 35mm and use the same vintage lens

You've pretty much shown why this concert photographer shoots 35 mm film. Film is vastly superior to digital for anything from weddings to low light concert photography. However, while most of my vintage cameras can shoot landscapes, they can't do anything like my 1995 Nikon N90s. You spent $6500 for your D6? I spent $50 for my N90s, and my photos look better than yours.

2024- Film is still alive! Long live film! (and there are professionals still shooting on film as well)

The digital monochrome is not as good as the best photochemical b/w as most digital cannot get as black or even white, depending not the stock and brand.

Hmmm, I think for someone with no experience in using film they would come away with the idea that digital is superior in every way. You are not demonstrating like for like, you are demonstrating a sensor versus film but implying that it is camera versus camera. What you are really demonstrating is how technology has advanced. I can assure you that any knowledgeable film photographer could choose a film AND DEVELOPER combination that would equal if not surpass the Fuji X10. It is an interesting exercise but not a valid comparison. I shoot with 3 different digitals (Fuji, Canon, Sony) and love them all. I also shoot 35 mm and medium format (Canon, Minolta, Zorki, Fed, Bronica, Mamiya, Pentax) and love them equally. A quality B&W film stock in say Spur Acurol N would show what film quality is really all about.

I do oddly miss film allot, mainly because I was a b/w mainly in the shade portrait shooter. I also miss the mistakes, all the darkroom tricks, special effects and toning. Still, I don't miss spotting. How did you get a square image with a 35mm?

As a subscriber I sadly have to offer some quick feedback. THIS IS RUBBISH! Even though you say "this is just for fun" you have completely misrepresented potential of some film stocks and modern lenses to equal or surpass some mid level prosumer cameras in clarity and character. First off, why not shoot something with low grain like Ilford Pan F 50 with a "modern" lens such as a Leica Summicron 50 or even a multicoated Nikon oe Canon lens. Secondly, your vintage Voigt lens simply CANNOT equal the resolution capabilities of modern lenses, even "kit" lenses. Thirdly, you say "no professional" photographer would shoot film....WHAT???? I cannot image why you would make such a misinformed blanket statement. It is still WIDELY agreed that a well exposed, low grain film, properly scanned, 120 film image is more than competitive with most digital images, even in 2020. Please do not do any more " lazy" videos on film. Next time if you shoot iso 400 film on a 60year old camera at LEAST bump the iso on the digital UP to 800-1600 to get a fair grain comparison. I like your channel but come on mate. Film is not dead yet but vids like this dont help. Be well.

Wow analog is beautiful but why your digital compositions/framings are poor? Also you could have recovered highlights in digital shots

I hate to join in with the criticism, but my concern is your claim to show photography newbies the difference between film and digital. By using different focal lengths, red and orange filters with the film camera, developing for high contrast and grain, etc, you have given a false impression. Some of the comments, expressing preferences for either film or digital, based on your images, show that such individuals have been misled. I have been a keen photographer since the mid seventies, occasionally even making some money from paid jobs. It took me a very long time to move to digital, mainly because I wasn't convinced and digital winning on resolution. I mostly used 35mm, but did have 6x6, and mostly Contax cameras with Zeiss glass. Eventually I started scanning on a Minolta Scan Elite 5400, which I still have. When I first moved to digital it was with Sony A900 with 24Mp sensor. Back in the day, most people couldn't tell if I took same shot on 35mm and digital and printed it to A3 size, which was digital and which was film. I'm not saying to the trained eye that there is no difference, but by creating obvious differences and then implying that that's the difference between film and digital, you are misleading the uninitiated. I have acquired quite a few high quality compact 35mm film cameras over recent years, because I really enjoy film. You can't on the one hand say that you created obvious differences as a bit of fun and on the other hand say that you were attempting to educate, guide newbies as to the differences. Sorry to be critical.

Great video however, I have to completely disagree with you. I shoot a lot of portraits using film and I use either my Rolleiflex model t with a Carl Zeiss 75mm or Mamyia 645 Super with the Seko 80mm f2.8 or the Sekor C 80mm f/1.9 which you will know are both 6x6 format. The grain is hardly noticeable if you are using film such as Kodak Portra400 or Kodak Tri-X it looks to me like you used Ilford HP5 for your pictures, but I could be wrong. Have a look at Tyler Shiels pictures, which I think over 95% are shot using mostly medium and large format, there is not a grain to be seen anywhere. Still love your channel though, keep up the good work.

Just stumbled on your videos. Judging from the pictures you're probably a digital photographer, because you'll have to expose them differently. Saw a comparison between Leica M Monochrom and Leica Tri-X just before and film pics did look better due to the grain. But in my opinion this is only for BW because I think in colour SOOC Jpegs (compacts don't do anything else) do look better than film.

SHooting film iget mto undrstand my workand what i get out of it..one try one shot prefer film but digital is long way second.. Mr Rileyphoto. ty .

Not a true comparison at all , why didn't you go the whole hog and find the grainiest film on the market ? and not getting it developed at a proper lab didn't help neither . I've noticed before with these digital and film comparisons, they alway manipulate the film to look inferior because they know that film would win.

Shooting digital is easier only in the sense that you don’t need to mess with chemicals. If you are not a caveman, you shoot RAW and you expose for the highlights- because digital blows highlights easily. That shot will look crap in camera. Then you process it. You apply the desired colour science etc. And you get what you want. I find methods like Darktable filmic gives me that film like look very well. I’m not advocating things like removing things and adding clouds etc. I’m talking about colour, contrast, tonality and of course removing or adding noise. Those are the tools at your disposal in digital and a stupid camera can never imagine what you have in mind when you take the shot, so use those tools.

Not only are you comparing film vs. digital; but you are also comparing images taken with different lighting, prime lens vs. zoom lens, and different foreground/background relationships. Also, @2:48 you say it is a photo of a corn field. Isn't that a wheat field?

I've never appreciated or liked film grain. The grain is dirty and distracting. It's not how the human eye sees the world.

I didn't catch it... what was the film speed and what was the ISO? I just wasn't sure how this compared.

Nice video! It's not one film look, there are several! My favourite is color slide film, and that's completely different.

Prefer the look of film everytime

I appreciate you're attempting here, but it's a very poor and unfair comparison. Forget the huge difference in camera, the film images are horribly under exposed, the grain has been pushed up. I've seen black&white images that while not able to do what a digital camera will do they are good enough to produce good quality, artistic images you're be happy to own.

This video is super confusing. If you went out of your way to make the film grainier for the look why didn’t you do the same on the Fuji? Black and white film can be way less grainier than that. This seems intentional and for no reason.

Looks as though the film images where heavily pushed or edited in post. Not even ASA 6400 looks that grainy

Digital hiding all imperfections

A very interesting video. The film images have brought back memories of figures in old hand-me-down encyclopedias in my childhood. I feel the film is more dramatic and atmospheric, but the digital delivers a crisper image that I am familiar with, since I own a Fuji X camera. Film is almost the visual equivalent of a musical instrument, whereas digital has a mathematical precision and silence.

To make it short...B&W digital is bull.....it. No matter how hard you try.

why the hell all these pics are in black and white Film camera also.take color photos

The digital looks great but most of the pictures taken with film looks more interesting. So wich is best? Great nice looking picture, or the more interesting one? Im not sure :-)

Digital is a movie watched on a netflix and film is a story told by your dad at the camp fire.

Film everyday all day.

Digital is just too sharp now. Too clinical and soulless. Film is much more natural and has a look about it, as if you are seeing it with your own eyes.

We like both according to our needs of the day

I love this. I shoot film for the artistic look it gives. I like that it’s less than digital.

With film you need to previsualise the final look of the image you want to create and make decisions that create good negatives that are flexible. On an overcast day I would be using the film with incident metering at iso 640. Meter for mid tones and detail. Possibly use a yellow filter for more sky tonality. Developer would be something like dilute ID11 or D76 to increase acutance and tonality then a better comparison could be made with the digital camera files. The resulting negatives can be scanned into Lightroom and digital post-production would have yielded excellent images. Your comparison would have been more interesting. You limited the tonal range and the resolution too much with your treatment. The results were far from the best that you could achieve with the equipment and materials you chose. Your approach hobbled the analogue images in reality. There’s much more to monochrome film capture and production than your results and conclusions suggest.

I still have a nice old Minolta SRT-101 film camera with regular, tele, wide and zoom lenses from the 70's when I was a lot younger and more enthused with family and hobby photography. I also have a couple of point and shoot digitals that are OK for casual shooting. After watching some YT videos about resurrecting "good ole" SLR film cameras and seeing the difference in film vs digital image quality, and considering the availability and cost of film and print processing vs digital photography, I'll probably sell my Minolta stuff and buy a nice used digital camera suitable for my modest needs. I also have a Minox C, but can't justify trying to use it. Thanks for this video.

film type & Iso? Focal length for the fuji?

I clearly prefer the film pictures. But of course I’m 64 years old. ❤

I love the clouds in the 2:30 image on the left (film). That grain makes them delicious 🤤

I recently digitalized many 100's of feet of 8mm Home Movie film shot mostly in the 60's. All the way through I kept commenting about the film sure not being up to video quality. Video and film cannot be fairly compared. They're two totally different modes of image preservation. Today video is all the rage and for good reason, it does the job better than film. Once a camera is purchased, it's almost free. The image quality is supremely superior in almost all applications. There are argumentatively those times when film outdoes video but that's all highly debatable. People like to hold on as long as possible to the past. There was something more secure in the "good old days." The fact that that's not true is beside the point. P.S. I love shooting and recovering film but then I'm 75 years old.

You can make your digital to look like film but cant make film to look like digital. That is 30sec you wont get back.

There’s really no comparison for me. Film wins

At least I know how photo's taken with this particular camera looks like. I wonder if its a similar case for alot of older cameras?

Quite useful and entertaining. Thanks for your efforts. The last one was Fuji. However, I think if you add grain in processing you would be very hard pressed to tell them apart, at least in a video. Film definitely has a place it is its own aesthetic and a different kind of tool. I have to admit though, it is unlikely I will ever use film to the extent I used to, mainly because it is quite involved to deal with the whole process. I noted the other day just how simple, easy, and good were the results from my phone. Easily out classing most films in almost every respect. But film is still an excellent thing to have and use; the more choices and tools the better. Besides there are such wonderful old film cameras and lenses that it would be a complete tragedy were film to become extinct, it would be a real loss to the world, like losing an entire genre of art open to all. That said, the Fuji did a most excellent job, BUT you and I both know IT IS NOT THE CAMERA OR SENSOR OR FIM, but it is the photographer who does the actual "excellent job"; tools do nothing by themselves. Although I know a few tools, mostly in politics, and they are tools of the devil. ;) Best wishes -thanks for your work, God bless!

Am I wrong to say that the video of the photos we are watching in this video are digital? 🧐

Best video I've seen so far on digital v film comparisons, thank you very much, you have a new subscriber.

I like the film ones best

Interesting comparison. I like the analog film look of the old voigtlaender very much, but I some cases the comparison is very difficuilt and not possible! Because: In the present we prefer more sharp technical good images. But the voigtlaender has more character in the present today. Sometimes the pictures were more exiting, interesting and dramatic. I hope my D3s has something in common with old film cameras. Thanks for this video!

Fuji X10? It has a tiny 8.8x6.6 mm sensor compared to the 36x24mm. The digital should have been a full frame. You also have to watch the D-Range setting on the X10, it can blow out the sky if on auto and the ISO is low. It would explain the sky being blown out on the shot with the couple. I can't recall if the X10 has D-Range bracketing, if it does then manually set the ISO to 800 and then bracket a shot to get the same image at DR100, DR200 and DR400. Also shoot RAW and play around with shadow and highlight tones. It's been a long time since I played around with the X10, now shooting an X-E3.

Image at 5:46: What can explain the highlights under the van (only!) on the film image?

film or digital?