Film vs Digital: my considerations

Alex Munoz released a video and I think is a good excuse to write my considerations about the debate film vs digital

I want to clarify that I will answer on my personal experience and the conditions in which I live photography in this phase of my life.

FILM VS DIGITAL

1 - VISUAL QUALITY

In general terms the visual quality is, in my opinion, to be given to film photography. This is because even today in digital times many photographers who have historical knowledge still have film photography as a reference, which is different. And the proof is that otherwise we still wouldn't have film simulations offered inside the latest cameras. I am an example of this: even with digital photography I try to have a result that is as similar as possible to film, also the settings of my digital cameras aim to that.

I don't develop my rolls of film. This puts me in a position of having to trust my lab. The consistency of my work as a film photographer is mostly reflected in the black and white photography, using ILFORD XP2 400 SUPER as the roll of choice which stands for process 41 for the developer. I dabble in color using different films and this makes the results different. Fun but lacking in stylistic coherence.

The negative digitalization is also a topic: very good scanners are pricy. I have one of those that can be considered just a toy. I should configure a camera to make the digitalization. This is another issue that dampen enthusiasm.

I certainly go against the tide but speaking for myself, with digital I can obtain superb results in aesthetic terms which are the thing that counts. I have printed a selection of my erotic photography work in black and white and I assure you many think it is film. If I can achieve this, should I feel less devoted to digital?

WINNER: DIGITAL

2 - COST

“Ilford XP2 400 costs 345 pesos/16 euros per roll. Tomorrow I set the camera to black and white and save. Sorry but this is and will be until the prices drop.” This is what I written, frustrated, on my facebook recently. The prices have become crazy to the point that now really film photography is a bourgeois concept. To the cost of the rolls I have to add that of the development. And then prints… Before the pandemic, the world was more beautiful, even for us photographers. I don't know even if I suspect there is a mainstream will to definitively bury the film. I say this because I was confronted at the time with executives. Only Leica and Pentax seem to go against the tide. Kodak raised up the prices, and Ilford is going after it.

I can buy cheap digital cameras, maybe in the second hand market, and virtually having no other cost.

WINNER: DIGITAL

3 - CONVENIENCE

This is deeply related with the previous topic. Digital cameras are not convenient if you want new cameras released on the market. And if you don’t pretend the Leica M6 with its price raised mad in this pandemic era, certainly influenced by a trend driven by youtube videos (sorry guys), to the point that Leica decided to release a new edition of that camera, we can find many cheap film cameras that are very cool to use. Recently in a local market I purchased a Canon EOS-1 for 5 US$. To find a film camera fitting your need is not a big deal, the problem is the cost of film as I said above.

Convenient is the choice to buy in the second hand market, some refurbished camera or without the original box. Convenient can be now to purchase a DSLR because they are discontinued by the main camera manufacturers. By applying this policy you have a huge territory where you can find the digital camera for you.

WINNER: BOTH

4 - STORAGE

This is a pain in the ass. I've lost a lot of work in the past, and I guess I'm not the only one. Between burned computers and external drives that suddenly decided to die, system obsolescence and incompatibility between different systems the storage is a sort of nightmare. I am a boomer so…I don’t use the cloud and I am not even so sure that is so safe and overall so easy especially when you have a huge amount of images. For sure is not convenient in terms of costs.

But, hey, also the pshysical is not always safe. I lost archives of my photos made when I was just a kid. That time we printed any photo developed to the lab. Today I don’t have a big film archive: a shoes box is currently sufficient. But the film storage is physical and anything that is in the real world is better to manage.

WINNER: FILM

5 - DANGERS

It doesn't matter how skilled you are: bad things can happen whether it's film or digital. A camera died just by connecting it to the computer with the data cable. If you want to know what camera was: Fujifilm X100S. But I know colleagues that thought they had done everything on film and at the time of development they found all black or all white.

There is not an activity that is not risky.

WINNER: NOBODY

6 - PRINTING/END LIFE

Let’s start with a consideration: a photograph exists only when printed. Before it can be just an image, maybe a virtual image, but if you don’t print it is not a photograph. With this statement the NFT supporters are settled.

I consider to be the print the the final goal for a photographer. Again the real world wins. To make books, in this sense, is fundamental and even more important than making an exhibition. Books, publications, can truly represent our legacy.

In Italy, many reportage photographers have found themselves faced with the problem of managing archives. A complex subject and not at all easy. A lot of money is needed, including creating a foundation aimed at preserving these documents. Difficult, very difficult, to rely on the institutions.

WINNER: NOBODY

7 - LEGITIMACY/SKILL

Am I a less good photographer if I am essentially a digital photographer? I don’t think so, of course. But let me say that I consider film photography the best school for anyone interested to make important things with/in photography.

In a world where everything moves on being seen, more superficial than the 80s but with pretensions to be better, also photography world is influenced. In how many videos do photographers using film have to show us how they load a roll of film? Are you skilled for that or for the photos you make? What if the photos of a film photographer are not better of a digital photographer? What gives you legitimacy and credibility? What about a photographer knowing anything about digital and nothing about film or viceversa? I think anything depends by your goals. And the results are the only things very important.

WINNER: BOTH

8 - PERSONAL PREFERENCE

The preference is pretty clear: I shoot the most with my digital cameras so I am a digital photographer most of the time. The high cost of film rolls are a big issue these times and the reason why I stopped to shoot film despite last year I made 5 rolls. The fact I purchased a film camera recently says a lot about the fact I am still interested to shoot film in future, but at the moment I just say no, thanks.

If you ask me what I prefer, film or digital I have to be honest: despite the experience with film is fascinating and always generating a great fun, I prefer digital because I feel to control more my workflow. By using digital cameras I have total control from the shooting experience to the editing process. I dont deny the big importance of the film photography experience as a school, a training and even a more meditate activity, able to make you more slow and with more attention to any shot, but past that stage, you being an already capable photographer, you don’t need really of that to have a confirmation. With digital I know exactly what I can produce and this is a big advantage when working for clients.

I don’t believe that certain vibes are only a film thing. Actually I thoroughly enjoy the process of shooting with a DSLR to the point that I feel the same emotions as when I shoot with one of my film cameras. We often tend to forget all the benefits that digital has brought, but I can change certain parameters in my digital camera that any film camera dreams of. I know that this difference is exactly why most of film photographers prefer analog photography, I know and I believe in less is more and, hey, I can achieve certain more organic results even with a digital camera.

I don’t pursue, I never pursued the perfect photo. I don’t even believe that sharpness means great photography. I exhibited my digital photos alongside my film ones. I have never feared from this that my photos, printed, were less than those of others. Sometimes I find my digital photographs to be more film-like than many film photos that seem to me to be more digital. Becuase I believe that the most important thing is the mindset. And maybe our mindset influences more that what we can think the final result.

Digital doesn't even necessarily mean going after all the news that the market offers. I am a proof of that with my small, old, cheap and entry-level cameras used to achieve professional results. The only mirrorless that I have at the moment is a camera that is considered also by the camera manufacturer as a camera for creators, good to make some video for YouTube. And I am using it for my Street Photography. That street photography that so many of you tell me you appreciate, with many who write me privately telling me they really appreciate the new work proposed for a year now.

WINNER: DIGITAL

AND THE WINNER IS…

Is there really a winner? I tried to make sense of my preferences. Today I clearly say digital. But I love film, guys.

Let me say a thing more: I don’t shoot something to be cool. I don’t wear cameras, I use cameras as instruments that allow me to have the work done. As a commercial photographer clearly the answer is digital for me. This is the way it works to have the client satisfied. As a visual artist and street photographer I enjoy to shoot sometimes with my film cameras, although most of the time I will go out with a digital one. I feel that I have always been very alternative to the mass. My way of experiencing photography is not what I see around and is not a pose, is just how I am. I think this thing is accentuated even more conspicuously today. Nobody credits my cameras. Today Fujifilm's film simulations are in fashion and between us I think they are real crappy for results worthy of photography. The problem is that many don't realize it now, we'll talk about it again in a few years. Then if you like the plastic result, go ahead with that. I've always looked for more organic results and I'm a photographer who shoots directly in jpg. By making my experience with several brand cameras I can say that Leica, Ricoh and Canon are top in my opinion for jpgs. I don’t know Sony from that point of view (I achieved to work with a dslr a lot of years ago and only shooting RAW) so I can’t express about it.

If something doesn't change with the prices, I will rather remain tied to digital.