These are very important points to consider and remember. Clearly, digital has a place in the toolbox but one size still does not fit all. Most all the manipulation available with digital can also be done with film and you still have a solid, saveable negative. And for archiving, film will last..if not forever, it will be pretty close. For the most important projects, film is still the best choice.

VSco seems to be the most popular, though RNI is another that gets the colour palette balance to be close in emulating some films. Obviously some people go way beyond that, or add things just for the sake of adding them.

I think there is some perception that film is more difficult, though a somewhat modern autoexposure and autofocus film camera should be incredibly accurate. I once used Kodak E200 in a 1937 AGFA when I had some extra time on a paid shoot, and the accuracy was from a Sekonic L-358; that image ended up being used on an ad campaign for a financial services company. Once of my most popular, and often licensed, images was shot on a $10 6×9 folder that I restored, and it is super detailed without any toy camera look to it. I should point out that most of my paid shoots are shot on digital, either full frame or medium format, though I continue to do some work on medium format film.

There is not really much more skill involved in using any camera, once someone decides they will use it properly. Seems this is the sort of thing you are running into, with people trying to proclaim degree-of-difficulty in process, as a way to validate their images. This is a tendency amongst some enthusiasts, especially those heavily emphasizing equipment, whether that is film or digital.

Most successful professionals don’t talk about gear, unless they run workshops, because teaching and workshops seems to be mostly about gear. The over-emphasis on gear is what is killing photography, in a death by a million small cuts. While there are really good reasons to use very specific gear, someone with great ideas should be able to use anything to generate compelling images. When I do commissioned shoots for clients, they contract with me because I bring ideas, and not because I carry certain cameras or lighting. Besides, we can rent nearly anything today, so the gear we use should not be a matter of point in validating our images.

There is a warmth and tone with painting you don’t get with film. But that’s not good enough for me, I still prefer chipping images into rock tablets and cave walls. Paint, Film, and Digital are too mainstream.

I don’t really want random people seeing the 90% bads. She can go up in the attic and find my dusty prints of those awesome shots that ended up in shows and sales.
Then maybe goto the National Archives (who archive digital data) and see the tour of her famous Great-Great-Grandfather Photographer!

So maybe they only faced and deteriorated 5-10%.
Digital will still be 100% reproduction as long as you stick with the lossless formats.

Or convert your propriety formats to DNG with Adobe’s free tool (or natively in Lightroom).

People make it sound like you can’t back up files more than once. I have 3 RAW backups on 3 separate machines, in 2 separate locations, NOT counting online backups. I can duplicate any of these in about 1 hour if the drives start acting up or are suspicious or the technology advances.

What happens when your negatives burn in a fire, get caustic chemicals on them, or a 14 year old teen accidentally damages them? How easy in cost and time is it to backup all your negative archives with 1:1 reproductions (not prints, digital can make prints too)?

I’m sure someday DNG format will be replaced. I’m also sure that somebody will come up with a converter at the same time. As long as you upgrade the format your digital files will always be 100% reproductions for the next 30 years while your negatives fade, get lost, or burn in an accident.

I totally agree. Film days were very fun and educational but Digital beats it 100 times over. But I still like to whip out the old Film SLR for fun every now and then.

But If I need to do some real photography it’s digital.

I agree with everything you say here.
One point I will make though, regarding post processing. Yes many pros of the past and present do not do their own post processing, but in the past there was more understanding of the development process. Most pros of the past had at least dabbled in darkroom work. Lack of time or skill may have pushed the post processing into the hands of a trusted expert, but there was still an understanding of the process.

My problem with a lot of film shooters is that they brag about the fact that they shoot film. Most, if not all, film “looks*” can be duplicated with a good digital workflow.

Ironically, most of the film photographers I respect are not as concerned about the final image as the process of taking, developing and printing photographs. They do not care as much about the end result as the process they enjoy. I am the opposite. I don’t really care how I get to an image, but I am excited about my final images. It is similar to the cliche about the journey vs the destination.

*Most film looks I see are flat and grainy, or even in extreme cases show light leaks and other defects. My aesthetic has always been the opposite. contrasty and no grain/noise. Although lately I have been experimenting with higher ISO’s when needed with good results.

We have examples today in the professional world, and from the past, of photographers not doing their own post processing. I have over 20 years experience with Photoshop and choose to do my own post processing, though I know many pros today who have digital techs. Even Henri Cartier-Bresson decades ago had someone else printing his images, and he was far from an exception. Someone else doing the post is not something I view negatively, even if I do my own post on the majority of my assignments.

I’ll agree with you on the way some people explain things is daft, though that is also true of Instagram style filters used on digital files. Crap is crap, whether it began life on film or digital. In order to manipulate any image effectively, the results depend upon the original input image.

As far as one being better than the other, which was the premise of the article here, once again the technology is not what validates, nor invalidates, the images. Compelling images have existed on film for decades, and compelling images are being made today with (mostly) digital. The gear is the tools we use, and when someone tries to elevate the tools above the images, then they miss the reasoning behind photography entirely.

I bashed “many people” in the present who shoot film and brag that they do not do any post processing.
My point as I explained a few comments down is that both film and digital need post processing.
In fact I think the image is what counts. If the image cannot stand on its own unless you have to explain that it was done with film, or some other special process, you are awfully close to failure.
I also think that digital is much more versatile than film, and if you learn the tools, there is very little you cannot do, including emulating (most if not all) the look of film.

I would further propose that one of the big reasons you see more crap photos today is not because of digital, but because of the internet and the ease of sharing photos. Having worked in many one hour labs over the years, I can definitively say that there have always been crap photos.
There have always been some really good photos as well. The trick now is finding them…

No, you said “… many people … not very good …” which to me appears to bash a huge number of photographers who came before us. The implied message is that somehow you are a better photographer because you shoot digital. It’s not the technology that makes images memorable.

I shoot (120) film and upload the scans to Flickr. But 99% of the time I shoot digital. The economics are just too compelling.

Michael,
You cherry-pick your “facts”.
1.) Digital cameras don’t work in the extreme cold.
2.) Digital cameras don’t work in the extreme heat.
3.) Digital cameras don’t work without batteries.
4.) Digital cameras don’t work when their batteries “run out”.
5.) Digital cameras made since 2001 are generally built with circuit boards whose solder joints are rohs-compliant i.e. “lead-free” solder. After 10 years or so, these solder joints develop “tin whiskers” and the corresponding “resistive shorts”, disabling some or all of the circuit’s functionality, and by extension, your DSLR’s ability to function.
6.) When I shoot film, I have my negatives as archival back-up. DSLR and digital camera users have “nothing”, unless they back-up, and then constantly up-date their back-ups as storage formats change.
7.) As others on this thread have mentioned, if one is candid about appraising the “end result”, film beats digital every time.

This discussion is becoming pointless. Shoot any way you want. It’s pretty clear we don’t agree about what pre-visualization means. It’s not about using your GPS, it’s about looking at a scene and visualizing a photograph.

Sure you can! Kudos to you for not misusing the technology! How many other people do you suppose actually DO that? I heard one amateur photographer bragging about the fact that his new DSLR could fire continuously until the card was full.

Eventually you are “snapping” too but it depends, do you have control like over every aspect of the photo shoot? Or are you dealing with variables like weather, locations, models. Sometimes the situation changes and plans and pre-visualization is just a starting point that needs conform to the reality of the day.

I guess it depends on what you are shooting, sort of like comparing a 4wd pick up truck to a Corvette…both are fun but which is better?

Meanwhile? I have a SCSI hard drive in my closet full of MP3s. Good luck finding a way to read that drive, and that’s barely 10 year old technology. I bet you my negatives will still be fine in 2090. Will JPGs still be a thing in 70 years?

And in the 60s the guys shooting with grain free Speed Graphics dismissed the people using small cameras like TLRs and 35 as happy snappers shooting too many frames and fixing it in the darkroom.