Photographers Who Still Use Film


Photography: stitch

With even Polaroid dropping production of its instant film, it really does look like the end of the road for analog photography.

Or does it?

More than three-quarters of US-based professional photographers who took part in a survey at the end of 2007 said they would continue to use film photography for at least some projects, even while they used digital formats. The reasons quoted ranged from “film’s superiority in capturing more information on medium and large format film” to “archival storage.”

That survey was conducted by… erm, Kodak, so the figures might not be as scientific as they look. But there are still a number of photographers who insist on spending time in the darkroom instead of in front of Photoshop.

These are some of the biggest.

David Bailey
For David Bailey, the British fashion photographer who rose to fame in the 1960s, sticking with film might appear to have as much to do with nostalgia for Swinging London as a preference for the old way of shooting. But according to BBC journalist’s Nick Robinson’s blog, not only does Bailey still develop with chemicals, he skips the pixels because of the quality.

While taking a portrait of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently, Bailey was reportedly asked if he ever uses digital.

“Nah” he quipped in front of the Labour Party leader. “Digital’s like socialism – it flattens everything out and makes everything the same.”

Jack Dykinga
David Bailey uses film to shoot the famous; Pulitzer-Prize winning photographer Jack Dykinga uses film to capture the deserts of the southwest.

The subjects couldn’t be more different but the reasons for ignoring the benefits of digital photography are fairly similar. For Bailey, film photography brings greater depth to an image; for Dykinga, film beats digital images for the amount of information it can pack into a picture.

“There’s absolutely no better way for me to do landscape than large-format film, which in my case is 4×5 and Fuji-chrome Velvia film,” Dykinga told Outdoor Photographer magazine. “In terms of raw capture of information, if you want to look at it from a computer geek’s point of view, I’m capturing roughly 1,500 megabytes of information in a single sheet of film. That translates to about 500 megapixels.”

Sacha Dean Biyan
Sacha Dean Biyan is an award-winning fashion photographer and photojournalist who spends much of his time on the road either shooting for clients that have included Sony Music, the Gap and Lexus or collecting images for his Earth Pilgrim project.

Oddly for someone whose background was originally in aeronautical engineering, Biyan shoots entirely on film — although he might use digital manipulation in post-production. As he explains on his tech-heavy website:

“For now, despite the obvious advantages of digital, my obsession with quality always draws me back to traditional means. I use medium or large format cameras, and still prefer platinum palladium printing for my images, which unfortunately cannot be appreciated over the Internet.”

Nevada Weir
Nevada Weir is a travel photographer whose images have appeared in National Geographic, Smithsonian and Geo, sold through Getty and Corbis, and appeared in nine photography books.

Not all of her images are shot on film though and while Biyan waxes lyrical about the quality of palladium printing, for Weir, film cameras are simply more practical for the sort of photography she shoots.

“I could care less,” she told Shutterbug magazine, “film – digital; the only problem is that in many places I travel there is no electricity and that eliminates the digital camera.”

Richard Murai
Like Sasha Dean Biyan, Richard Murai, who specializes in shooting the world’s sacred sites, also uses film to capture his images but turns to digital technology when the shooting ends. For printing, he uses digital scanning and large-scale, dedicated grayscale digital printers.

According to his website, that combination of a traditional medium with high tech product gives him maximum control and quality without risking long-term storage problems.

“Photographers can now truly paint with light,” he told the Mowen Solinsky gallery.

If you’re still using film, you might want to check out the Analog Photography Users’ Group and tell us whether you think film beats digital.

46 comments for this post.

  1. CharlesP Said:

    I still love film, but it's largely nostalgia for those days in highschool and college spent in the darkroom. Which is why I mostly shoot with a DSLR now, and most of the time it's pictures of my kids. I still dream of my own darkroom in my next house, but it's largely just a dream.

  2. NithinK Said:

    Like most pro-photographers agree, film holds a whole lot more depth and color, not to mention the mood of the exposure, than digital. Some digital exposures are totally flattened due to inadequate depth, which most film exposures capture to a great extent. And then there's the fact that there is yet a digital camera to equally the resolution quality of film!

  3. DanK Said:

    I'm looking back at my old photos and slides and wondering why I was so quick to want a digital. OK, the cost effectiveness is there, but the quality of the final print... with a semi-pro 6.1mp you can print an 8x10. whoo hoo. with a 10mp ok, you can do 11x14. I've shot 35mm for years and years and I can do greater than 16x20. that's quality that is still hard to get from a digital. For people, I think I'll keep going with digital, but for bodyscapes, landscapes and the like, I think I'm heading back to my roots.

  4. Bob Carmichael Said:

    FILM: There is a REASON the top cinematographer in the world are exposing the wonder new Kodak films. Just shot my first digital project last night and with the amazing new NIKON D3 which shoots at 6400 ISO with little apparent noise BUT
    am I stoked with the images??? HARDLY. I think the digital revolution is largely the result of overzealous marketing campaigns that have overwhelmed the analog business. It is Largely HYPE and over promising. I running around trying to figure out how to put a film look on the digital files any ideas or suggestion.

    I LOVE FUJI film as well and particularly Pro800 120 film, 160 S and 400H and there is NO comparison in quality, communication, tonal range, color, FEEL, and LOOK of FILM. F6,F5 and Hasselblad H1 owner. I mourn the loss of Polaroid as well. The hardness of digital is just UPSETTING!!!

    I've got a lot to learn about it however. But I'm keeping my film equipment for SURE...

    Boulder, CO

  5. William Esdale Said:

    Film is very important for any photographer and this is something I and we (EVA) try to push with people starting out, this is mainly why this post is so interesting and to add greater depth here we are reading from the "next generation" of photographers.

    Film photography is all we use now for our major projects, the digital camera is for researching ideas and taking photographs of places and structures so we have something to go back on.

    Film is like Vinyl they will have to bring it back when they realize people what it and there is a market for it. It has greater depth, greater grain without the use of Photoshop and other photography software (which is all the rage now a days for amateur photographers).

    Anyone who loves photography should at least put down the digital camera and try film and then see what difference and what different film is and does to a photograph.


  6. Daniel Chamberlain Said:

    Aside from the differences in quality between film and digital, I find that digital has made many photographers 'lazy', so to speak. When I shoot digital I feel a slight carelessness knowing that Photoshop will fix any errors with exposure or adjust the tones, etc. (assuming I miss those errors on the display). But with film I find myself taking my time, checking things twice, and I get a rush of excitement when I shoot that one frame. Picking up my slides from the lab is equally exciting and satisfying.

  7. david Said:

    I've just bought the D3 and I expect it to be well used particularly in low light and creative situations requiring speed. But no matter what I see and shoot with it, I'll always be looking for the opportunity to capture the same image with film, simply because the quality in terms of color, depth and clarity remains vastly superior.

  8. Steg Stegsson Said:

    I got into digital just over a year ago and have found the medium has made me a very lazy photographer. I also have made very few photographs I'm proud of and I dislike handling the complex digital bodies.

    I'm glad I didn't sell off my film kit as it's getting more use than digital these days.

  9. Alex Said:

    Not to forget James Nachtwey!

  10. Donald Said:

    I “went digital” back in 2005 and spent the next three years spending money and time on computer equipment, hard drives, memory cards, expensive ink, expensive “photo” paper, expensive digital SLR’s and for what? To get images that were almost as good as 35mm film shot through my 22 year old F3. I certainly did not see any financial benefit to the digital revolution.

  11. frank Said:

    Even 35mm film is superior to any digital camera I've used. The best dslrs I've used include the Fuji S3/S5 and Nikon d2x/d300.

  12. Erick Said:

    The one thing I do know is digital photography makes me lazy. I get alot of photos but very few good ones . With film I take my time because I know I have but so many rolls left. You know that if you have only have five shots left you will make every shot count. I learned photography on film and I will still shoot film until the day I die!

  13. Frank Pages Said:

    I just purchased my first DSLR. Great camera however I prefer to shoot my 35mm Film SLR. I enjoy the simple things about shooting film for example loading the film, hearing it wind up, taking my time to get that great shot and most of all anticipating how that shot turned out. With digital its just to easy to shoot, shoot, and shoot, then veiw and delete, delete, delete. Inserting my memory card in my computer is not as fun as getting that roll developed.

  14. Rainer Lehmann Said:

    "Soñar no cuesta nada" is a Spanish saying and means: dreaming doesn't cost anything. I personally do not understand why people still imagine, film is never going away; in the last five years at least 80% or more has disappeared; does anybody really believe, that in twenty years there is still film around? It's only a question of profit making; if there is not enough sale to cover film making costs and allowing somne profit, film disappears, and it will, period. No whining interests econocmic interests and no company will ever produce something unprofitable.
    So stop whining and dreaming, reality is unavoidable. I am taking photos since half a century and am mighty happy to be able to live this only starting digital age, a huge advantage with tremendously more possiblities and advantages in photography, with ever better results - film already cannot match any quality factor of digital last generation cameras and this includes medium format (e.g. 50MB Hasselblad) the only exceptions are big formats yet (e.g. street posters) where you still have the size and resolution advantage of (big format) sheet film - but for how much time?
    In Germany they are developing sensors a 1000x times more sensitive than the actual used ones.
    Imagine the impact on cameras!

  15. Beatriz Said:

    It's true "Soñar no cuesta nada" but you know film will still be around very little, but it will be around, just like printmaking. It's a fine art.

    And besides with film you compose, you light, and you live with it, end of story. And you don't spend countless time in front of a computer trying to get the color right.

  16. Rusty Said:

    There still is a large group of people around the world that uses film. Lomography has people logging in from all around the world. Lomography is a website that sells film cameras and many rare and expired films. To me using a digital camera ruins all the fun when taking pictures because you already know what the picture looks like when you take it. But when you get your film developed, its a surprise everytime. To see if the picture came out and whats on the next frame is most exciting part and the digital cameras just ruin it.

  17. The Baldchemist Said:

    There is no doubt that the masterpieces of photography are almost all on film and in black and white.
    I have a photography manual with pictures made by Timelife photographers from 1975, all the pictures are shot on film and are outstanding examples of film art. I have yet to see any modern day photographer, using digital, who creates such atmosphere, mystery, wonder, depth and ( using a word I hate in its now daily use for everything) awe!
    Having said that, we run exclusively with a Nikon range of digital that meet all of our needs professionally, with alacrity.
    I can't see a change back happening; only that digital will go on improving. It is after all the person behind the camera not th equipment itself. If you have no eye for composition than no camera will help film or otherwise.
    Thanks for my negative comments to a positive enlightenment. The Baldchemist

  18. Journeys Said:

    The big change in my mindset came when National Geographic changed to digital photography. I now shoot film for fun/hobby but shoot digital professionally since there is so much at risk and human nature just forces clients to blink, twitch and create professional challenges. With digital, what you see is what you get and most people are satisfied with that in this busy world.

  19. DaCosta Said:

    I use both film and digital and found both to work well with me.

    I use digital for event work where time is of the essence and no one's looking for "fine art" quality images; and I use my digital point & shoot to take with me on the street and on holiday. This is where, to me, digital has it's strengths.

    Film is greater for fine-art or outdoor imagery where I have time to seriously compose and shoot. Eventhough I've used digital as well, film's more forgiving than digital and has greater density than what's on a sensor. Plus you still have greater resolution with higher speeds on film than with digital.

    I don't see the "demise" of film as many feel. Kodak and Fuji still have their yellow and green boxes. Toy cameras are still being made. Digital will get better in time, but not in the immediate future.

    The final analysis is really the person behind the camera; whether shooting digital and/or film. God gave you the best photographic gear you'll ever have: creativity with eyes and brain.

    'Nuff said!

  20. Craig Knapp Said:

    16 1350MAY2009

    Have been using Nikon F since mid 1970s, owned a Bronica ETRS system in the 80s, sold it..

    Went to Nikon D40 and D300 when they first came out. Shoot a few portraits and weddings now and then.

    Recently felt my work was missing something. Purchased a Bronica ETRS system on E-Bay, a Nikon N80, and a Beseler 23CII enlarger, all very cheap.

    I notice on a roll of 120mm with 15 shots I get about 10 keepers. My technique slows down when using film. After making my first "silver gelatin" prints on the enlarger I am again hooked again on black and white printing.

    I think after I retire from the Army next year, that I can differentiate my work from the digital competitors. I suspect I will shoot weddings mostly digital, with some MF film for the formals which are most likely to make 16x20 prints for hanging.

    Purchased a Seal 210M dry mount press from Craig's List, can now shoot, develop, print, and mat my own prints, very satisfying.

  21. Steven YOung Said:

    I have a Canon G10 and Nikon D3, and the quality generated by both of these cameras still does not compare to my trustworthy F100 Nikon film camera. I still shoot all of my weddings on film, and the quality of the shots cannot be compared to those shot on digital.

    I don't understand the mega pixel comparision with digital and film. Even the highest quality digital camera that produces 50mb images, is still only capable of capturing 256 colors, while film can capture millions. That right there should tell you something.

  22. Alf Roslund Said:

    I have been in the business going through years of darkroom work and shooting tons of film with Hasselblad, Nikon and Canon film cameras. For the benefit of keeping up with the speed my customers gradually expect I also turned to digital photography a decade ago.

    I think I've shot with and owned most of the proline Nikon SLR and DSLR cameras as well as "old and new" Hasselblads. I really don't think that film will vanish. In music business the market for vinyls and great vinyl players once again increases. I also find that for sheer voice the records on 78rpm records played on high quality Victrolas made a century ago, produce the true range of dynamics in a trained opera voice any vinyl or CD can't express.

    So, the same with photography. Yes, the sharpness of details produced by todays 25 megapixel DSLR can be astounding, yet even more with a medium format digital 50 mp back. But the recent Nikon and Canon DSLR, with sensors of 12mp and much more, give flatter and flatter pictures, as well as cleaner and cleaner colours. Well, that´s nice if you want pictures that look unnaturally clean and sharp.

    But if you want a picture to capture all the aspects that rock the viewers like creating deep emotion, depth of colors, true range from sharpness to blur, colors the way the eyes see them and not the simple range that make digital pictures look clean, then the simpliest way may be to use film, a great camera body and the best set of lenses. Today you can buy a Nikon F4 or F5 and a bag full of older "glass and metal" pro lenses for mere a bargain. Even the used Hasselblad V-cameras and lenses are cheaper than most good quality DSLRs.

    Well, there are a few digital cameras out there who give picture files quite similar to film in appearence. As I sad, I've tried 'em all, and for my purpose I use digital AND film, depending on how my customers want the pictures in their final output.

    And the digital cameras I use are: Nikon D2h and D2hs. Yes, just 4+ megapixels. But a digital sensor thats just marvellous! It collects all the "dirty colors" of film (or most of them), there is almost no moare and the noise look much the same as film grain. And its 4mp file collects much more details than most 10mp sensor on high res DSLR cameras. I sometimes get jobs that recuire 5 meter enlargements o more, and those 4mp look much better than a 12mp D300.

    Another great digital camera is the 6mp Kodak DCS 760 (which is essentially a Nikon F5 with a Kodak digital back). Though it can't be compared in detail resolution with the D2h 4 mp sensor, it endeed makes the most amazing portraits of them all. It doesn't collect medium contrast very well, so the final output for portrait is much like a Hasselblad with film and Softar soft filters. So for portrait jobs I often use the Kodak camera (without IR-filter).

    The final digital camera I use is a Kodak Digital Pro back for my Hasselblad H1 camera. With a 37x37mm large sensor and almost 17mp resolution it creates files that look very natural. The Kodak sensors used in DCS 760 and Pro Back are essentially the same, and produces almost identical colors and appearance (though the digital Pro Back with its 17mp collects much much more details). But the Kodak sensors of 2002-2004 produces almost 3-dimesional feelings, and give a high class style in the final output that I can't get with the newer 31, 39 or 50 mp backs.

    For film I use a Nikon F5, The Hasselblad H1 loaded with film and a Linhof Technica 4x5 large format with Velvia sheat film or blackwhite developed in my darkroom.

    If I want to present a slideshow on the wall or large prints for an exhibition I most often shoot film.

    But for most commercial work my customers need quick results so I use the Nikon D2h camera or Hasselblad H1 with Kodak back. I've owned Nikon D300, D3 and tried D3Dx, but I don't like the flat uninteresting pictures they give, so I stick to the "low res" D2h and film cameras even in commersial work.

    On the wall in my office I use to change pictures every month. And most of all it's a film capture that meets my customers...

  23. simon edward smith Said:

    You can not even begin to compare digital and film. Film is far superior in many ways simply because there is a material file , as with digital there is no material only a electronic image ' surely even the hardened digital users can see this . Photography is about painting with light ....not I quote digital imaging and manipulation?

  24. Roy Said:

    I run one of the Walgreens Photo labs. I have seen a tremendous decrease in film developing. Where we used to process 50 rolls a day from 2 years ago, we now process 5-7 rolls a day. One reason film is still around is the still popular use of the single use camera, especially for vacationers. However once (probably Kodak) comes out with a really good disposable digital camera (there are some out right now but they take terrible photos) then you will see film dissappear to the public. Professionals will probably be the only ones to still use film, but that will be it. If millions of consumers no longer buy a product, of course retailers will no longer carry a product. Why should Kodak, Fuji etc. continue to manufacture film if there will be no market for it. This is the 21st century. Things Change.

  25. Steve Young Said:

    As long as the movie industry still shoots on film, film will still be around. The line between digital and film is getting finer by the day. But like most photographers have said, film looks much more dramatic, emtional, than digital.

    Digital is great if you want sharp, flat, unemotional shots.... I shoot most of my weddings on film. You can take a look at them on my site at

  26. Jack Johnson Said:

    Even if folks disagree about quality in thr film vs digital debate, the one thing that's certain is that it turned lifelong customers from 2-3 purchases into 5-10 purchases as everyone chases the bleeding edge. Corporate camera development has no incentive to keep film alive with that kind of revenue at stake.

    Thankfully a handful of manufacturers have figured out the niche markets are deep and devout, and the best from years past still have half a lifetime ahead.

    I'm half-tempted to buy the new Fuji folder, just because it may be the last medium-format 100-year camera that will ever be produced.

  27. Robert Sixsmith Said:

    After 30 years of working with a system hardly changed since it's invention film has to take it's place in the world of "Art" or even "Nostalgic Novelty". I think it is important for all new scholars of our art, vocation, call it what you want, to learn about the "Old Ways" in order to understand the "New Ways".

    I think the Atari 1040 ST Computer was the best ever made but I can't see me trying to make a living swapping it for my mac! ...Can you?

    So David Baily still uses film! I wonder if he still tries to get to his appointments using a map or a satnav. The map will give a much better "User Experience" and maybe a better understanding of the journey you have made. For me give me the satnav anyday because I am only interested in the destination.

  28. Rob Oresteen Said:

    You guys who make the comparisons of the Atari vs. Mac (no comparison, duh) and of the old vinyls, are simply, and willfully, misguided.

    It is not a fait accompli that film is going away. Because MILLIONS of people world wide still use and love film every day, there is a healthy market for it. And it is profitable for Fuji and Kodak. They each made several 100 MILLIONS of real dollars selling the stuff last year.

    I don't understand this "come into the 21st century" mentality. What's there to come into? So-so imaging and long hours in front of Photoshop? Been there, done that. No thanks.

    There are many accomplished working pro's who use film not only for it's quality & aesthetics, but for economy. Film and processing costs are passed on to the clientele, and the images come back ready to go in a high-res scan from the lab. Most wedding shooters promise a 3 week turn around so getting your stuff turned inside 7 days is no big deal. See Jose Villa or Elizabeth Messina.

    Why spend 1-2 days processing your photos in Photoshop (or resorting to canned automated "actions" that everyone else uses) where you can be out and about shooting, creating, and getting paid for new images?

    I shoot both. I do love film, but love my digital for basic snaps in lower light where I can shoot 800 ISO kinda clean. digital has it's place.

    Here is my set of Velvia shot with a 57 year old Kodak Retina viewfinder camera. It has a focusing dial that you estimate distance (guess) and no way to meter light. I used "Sunny 16". You be the judge. I doubt a D3 would have taken a better picture that day. And this is nothing unusual. Film shooter rip off clean, dynamic images everyday for personal and professional use.

  29. Rob Oresteen Said:

    "Film shooters..."

  30. Mike Bruin Said:

    I am celebrating 25 years in photography this year and will use film until it is absolutely no longer possible.

    I have nothing against digital other than it is absolutely not up to my standard and the fact that a sheet of transparencies looks a lot better than an SD-Card. I can see, feel, touch and smell the images I create because they actually exist in the real world.

    Photography has always had a hard time being accepted as an ‘art’ and with the arrival of digital it will never be accepted, even in the most basic sense as an art form. (I am not an artist, but strictly full-on commercial).

    I like to originate on film and don’t see a problem scanning images into a PC where they then exist digitally. This is my optimal use of the digital era. It means I never have to send originals away to clients and thats great.

    I am really annoyed at the impact digital has had on my profession. Kodachrome, gone. Minolta, gone. Sunpak, gone. Metz, going. Film…?

    I have watched mainly through the dealers how the entire sales market has pushed digital onto the consumer market at the expense of the professional market with absolutely no concern for the realities or the effects. Greed.

    I am happy to use my laptop and photoshop, but it will be a cold day in hell the day I am forced to trade my beautiful transparencies for an SD-Card!

    Mike Bruin

  31. Nick Horton Said:

    I shot digital for several years, and decided to ditch it completely. I would spend hours upon hours in front of the computer trying the get the colors correct, or give the images some sort of "punch" or character. When I switched to film I instantly fell in love with the images, much more so than any digital image I'd ever shot. I have since sold all my digital gear (thousands of dollars) for a few hundred bucks worth of used film gear, and my pictures have never looked better. Its a shame that people just want everything instantly, despite the horrible decline in quality.

  32. Glenn Michalchuk Said:

    I have to agree that the "success" is largely due to intense marketing and the profitability it ensures. I have film carries that are 30 years old. They are solid and well made. As for digital who can believe any model will last more than a few years. If not because of their inherent "cheapness" (yes even the high end ones are cheaply made compared to a similar film camera) then the built in obsolesence inherent to this technology. Odd that digital cameras have been embraced by a generation that is often at odds with rampant consumerism.

  33. Peter Quiambao Said:

    After investing large sums of money to expand my Nikon digital camera equipment, which I think is top of the line, I recently decided to go back to film photography and loaded my Nikon F5 with black and white film. Then I discovered the "Film Photography Podcast", hosted by the informative and humorist, Michael Raso, and now I locked up my digital equipment and have been shooting film ever since. I beleive film make a photographer more creative and see things in a more dynamic light... in short you have to think twice before pushing the bottom (because of the cost)and since you cannot see the output on the back of the camera I tend to visualize what the output will be. And for all of you film enthuaist that haven't discover Film Photography Podcast, is great and entertain... you can find it on "the Google..."

  34. Paul Jenkin Said:

    I use (and love using) both digital and film. I see them as parallel technologies, each having strengths and weaknesses. I'm strictly amateur, so I feel I can afford to experiment maybe more than a professional. Right now, I'm shooting 6x6 in a Hasselblad 500c/m and also in a Voigtlander Perkeo folder.

    Because my output is mostly landscape and travel, film has helped me to slow digital my shooting down - to check and double check; to wait for the light rather than snatch what's there.

    Personally, I will never understand anyone who goes straight to digital and never tries film; worse still, those who "diss" film as obsolete, as it is anything but obsolete.

    For anyone wanting to see how much fun film - particularly at the "toy" and "experimental" end can be, check out as the members there are truly gifted and yet very supportive of new ideas. They're a lot less po-faced than the "must be critically sharp", "must use HDR to pull out all the shadow and highlight detail" brigade......

  35. James Said:

    Whenever I think of using digital there is a quote that always goes through my head that makes me realize film will always be the way to go for me.

    “That’s the disease you have to fight in any creative field: ease of use.”

  36. justinlorimer Said:

    I have always used film, recently a client who is a photographer insulted me by saying "you're trying to win the Indianapolis 500 with a model T." So I rented the latest and greatest digital and spent a week with it. I hated the results and especially hated staring at a computer. Why any professional would sacrifice their reputation for quick and easy is completely beyond me. Digital cameras are toys for people who aren't photographers, they train the user to take meaningless shots and the end result is ugly in comparison. I liken the difference to sunlight compared to flourescent light, yes they're both light but which would you prefer to be bathed in? I got into photography to produce beautiful, expressive images not to Photoshop ugly pictures for the internet. The problem is furthered by the internet where everything looks bad and comparisons are false. Digital photography is also far more expensive when you examine the long term reality of rebuying technology over and over. What will you do when the ink fades on your wedding inklets, or when the computer crashes? Ultimately, what matters is the print and I will always use film.

  37. Andre Noble Said:

    Film and Digital are two almost completely different processes.

    I vastly prefer the wet silver halide process: Cibachromes, E-6, C-41, Adox, Kodak Tri-X, Polaroid Type 55, Plus X, Wimberely Pyro etc. These processes have soul. They speak to me. they look better too.

    A digital camera is more like a computer or a TV.

    I have a Nikon D300. I rarely use it. On the other hand, one CREATES something with a film camera: One creates a negative or transparency. It is a 3 dimensional (fourth maybe?)creation.

    Black and white film will be here for at least another Century. Some Chinese companies will eventually pick up the color film market. Film will survive.

  38. fp Said:

    I used to use digital slrs: d300, 5D, S3, S5, etc...
    None of this equipment allowed me to do what I do with medium format film. Period.

  39. Guitardan Said:

    Digital cameras are great, I've been using one since 1997, to put pictures on ebay of all the junk i sell. For photographs, you need film!

  40. doubleaitch Said:

    I use both digital and film. I love the instant result of digital - when getting it right really matters. For my personal work, nothing comes close to the thrill of wandering a foreign city with an M6 Leica or an old Hasselblad and not knowing exactly what you have captured until you develop your film. One camera, one lens - liberating!!

  41. Danonino Said:

    Even though its 2011 and I own both a Nikon D3 and a D5000 Im still drawn back to film.. Its the tonality, the depth, its how film can capture the mood in the light.. digital cannot do this. It does not matter how much post processing.. there is just no comparison with film.. Do I really have to mention the dynamic range of negative colour films? 😉
    It just makes me sad that most people think digital is better.. those people will make film go away one day when its not profitable to produce any more.. 🙁

  42. Dave Said:

    Have been shooting mostly digital for last 5 years, and tomorrow, I start to build a new darkroom. My mostly dormant Minolta Maxxum 9, and Mamiya RB67 will get another life, and so will I.

  43. alex Said:

    We are photographers, not medium loyalists or camera enthusiasts. We want to live the “creative experience” and be proud of what we create. I started with digital and evolved through film but I still use both for different scenarios. They have their distinct advantages. I prefer the look of film. The film medium is richer in its own way and you often get that wow factor when you manage a good shot. It has more tonal variations so I get a little discouraged when some compare their 5dmk2 to a medium format film in terms of resolution and say it’s the same or better by comparing zoomed/cropped shots. Whilst they compare the definition of that little twig on the tree i look at the leaves and notice that the film picture has many shades and variations and the digital image is just one big blob. There is way more to a “picture” than contour sharpness. On the other hand a digital medium is very useful because you can get the image on the spot and are not limited to exposing the entire roll and developing it before seeing the film picture. It is cheap, so you can take thousands of images and be totally carefree. Perform tests with different lighting scenarios etc. Playing around with Photoshop is a must with digital and that is a problem…mostly because many overdo it and make their image a complete tacky garbage (ie HDR) or 360 or whatever. I did this too of try it and I hate those images now. Many clients now have a taste for superficial tacky garbage though…like airbrushed, hdr and fake this and that…I will never create such garbage again and as consequence will not make money with photography. I simply refuse to encourage it and I also fear it may unconsciously affect my real photography.

    I certainly fear the day film will be discontinued and replaced entirely by digital. This will be the end of a form a photography that is simple and pure art. Such a disastrous event would make me reflect alot on what society has preferred and consequently what superficial, manipulated and tasteless fools it’s made of. But if such a day does come by in my lifetime I hope digital imaging will have settled down to something better and photoshop cast into the depths of hell from where it spawned!! Lol there’s your drama! No photograph should be altered digitally. It is no longer photography when you do that. Otherwise why bother with the camera? Just create the stuff directly in the computer from scratch using imagination and software because really what’s the difference?

    So like I said, both mediums have their uses. For me film is unbeatable for the artistic side of photography but digital can be fun because it can do so much and that’s great for discovering new things.

  44. Magic Said:

    I spent too much time in front of my screen trying to get "that" film look.
    Now I shoot film I have more time to get out and make pictures lool.

  45. Miroslava Sotakova Said:

    I like the smooth transition between the color shades, acceptable outcome even if certain parts are over/underexposed, the moment of surprise and memories reemerging after the film is developed (I have a stronger attachment towards those photos than to the almost immediately processed digital ones), archiving independent of technology, and that shooting film makes me think more carefully of what I'm capturing. Also, perhaps because of the delay between shooting and looking at the result, as well as the price of the process, I'm more willing to forgive (myself and others) imperfections of the photograph. While I tend to regret if I haven't got something perfectly when shooting with a digital camera, in case of film, the treasured memory itself overrides the regrets.

  46. Alexandru Roibu Said:

    I am so glad that in 2012 there are still people talking about analogue photography, I wonder, the photographers featured in this article still use film? I must say that I am a noob in this art but I feel that film is the correct way for me, so recently i decided to sell my digital equipment and switch to film.

Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment

Leave a Comment

Copyright ©2017 New Media Entertainment, Ltd.