I Don’t Hate Film…but I Hate One Reason Why Photographers Like To Use It

Let’s clear the air on two points. One, I don’t hate film photography. I grew up shooting film. And two, I’m not advising anyone to never shoot film. In fact, if you’re curious about it or if that’s what you love to do, who is anyone to stand in the way of such curiosity or passion? Try film. Shoot film. Discover for yourself if it’s for you.

But there’s one little tidbit that’s always bothered me with the way that many photographers these days justify using film. And this reason alone shouldn’t be a reason to ditch one form of photography and trade it for another, i.e. switching from digital to film.

“Shooting Film Is More Intentional”

This idea stems from the fact that shooting film — and paying for each and every frame — is a fantastic pain in the ass. You have to buy a roll of film (if you can find it), and load it into your camera — all three dozen frames max. Then you have to be very intentional about what you shoot. Because you don’t want to waste film, right?

To be fair, not every film shooter believes that you can only be intentional if you’re shooting film as opposed to shooting digital. Many go out of their way to state just that. But I can’t help but be a little bit concerned for a slice of the beginner audience out there who may have a digital camera and watch someone spout off about intentionality and then go out and purchase an expensive film camera and start to have regrets almost immediately.

Let’s face it. Photography isn’t exactly a cheap hobby or profession to get into. The most advanced mirrorless systems cost thousands of dollars alone for just the camera body. The lenses aren’t any less daunting if you’re going after the best of the best. And because film cameras are in such high demand, they aren’t exactly cheap either. Nor is setting up your own dark room. Nor is developing. Nor is printing. Nor is scanning your negatives so you can edit your pictures like a regular human using digital software.

My word of warning to those out there who may find the intentionality argument plausible is don’t believe the hype!

But on the other hand…

Have photographers really thought this cost thing through? Is film photography really more expensive than shooting digital? In all cases?

“Shooting Film Is More Expensive Than Shooting Digital”

I’d like to see film photographers stop using price as a justification for pushing intentionality. I think the argument is bullshit, anyway. Once again, look at the price of a mirrorless camera and all the lenses and accessories you might need. if you’re buying new, you could be set back thousands of dollars right at the start before you even take one picture. So to say that film is more expensive than shooting digital is a bit misleading and may not be accurate in the long term when you consider upgrading equipment and software along the way.

It’s only because shooting a single frame of film has an immediate cost of X right off the bat is why film photographers are feeling the need to slow down and be more intentional. Fair enough. I look at it this way. Film photography is like a pay-as-you-go model while digital photography is like a subscription model where you pay upfront and then continue to pay in other ways (think memory cards, batteries, computer upgrades to host larger file sizes, hard drives, cloud storage, etc.).

If I switched to film photography, I would eventually save money! I fall into the camp of a professional photographer who invested thousands of dollars upfront and who continues to have to pay for the maintenance of shooting all-digital. And I bet that my average cost per click is higher than most film photographers out there when you consider all the costs associated with the craft of digital photography.

So who needs to be more intentional, more careful with their photography, a film shooter or a digital shooter?

Digital Photography Takes Time and a Lot of Money!

Allow me to flip the intentionality argument around on film shooters who believe that shooting film is more intentional than shooting digital. Yes. I may be dwelling on this point too much but I don’t see anyone talking about it.

Digital photography takes time and a lot of money!

• Time is money and money is time. I have to edit every single Raw file that I shoot. Why? Because Raw files require it.

• I’m a fine art photographer and my editing workflow takes a lot of time. Even my non-artsy pictures are edited with a lot of care.

• I’m acutely aware of the finite amount of space on my computer’s hard drive to store images. I shoot thousands of images per month.

• They say storage is cheap but hard drives do cost a lot of money if you shoot a lot.

• Cloud storage, for hosting Raw files (think DropBox) has monthly subscription costs or large annual fees.

• Storage for my edited JPEGS (Flickr) has an annual cost.

• I also use a computer backup service that backs up my computer on the cloud daily (another annual fee).

• I have to purchase new memory cards occasionally for trips and to replace old ones.

• I have to regularly replace desktops and laptops to keep up with larger file sizes and photo editing software requirements.

• I have an Adobe Photography subscription that I pay annually for.

• I also use other photo editors like Luminar Neo and pay for certain third-party plugins for Photoshop (annual or one-time license purchases)

• I have web hosting (Squarespace) and domain charges associated with my website

Now, I’m sure that film photographers have to cover some of these same costs as well if they’re sharing their work online. But let’s dispel this notion that digital photography is cheaper than shooting film. Because it simply isn’t true for everyone.

Intentionality Is Key Regardless of Format

I’ll address the process of film photography really quick because I risk running a straw man argument if I don’t. The process of shooting film does take more time than shooting digital in most cases. There are notable exceptions though, right? Astrophotography and other long-exposure shots can take a hell of a lot longer than framing up and clicking a picture on a film camera. This alone dispels the notion that all film photography takes longer to shoot than any digital frame. Once again, this hasn’t been thought through.

There’s also the fact that film photographers, again in most cases, won’t be able to see their results until after they process their film. This fact has also been used to push the intentionality argument in favor of film shooters. It’s hard to argue this point. But it’s always been this way though. And just because film shooters have to wait to see their results doesn’t conversely mean that digital photographers must always check their photos after they take a shot or rush home to edit all their photos. I know a lot of active digital photographers who are years behind in checking their photos from past travels and general photo sessions. For whatever reasons, they simply can’t get caught up. I’ve found myself in this situation as well, especially after a photography trip.

The more I shoot digitally, the less likely I am to immediately edit, store, and share my images. There’s a lot of time involved no matter how you slice it.

Intentionality is one of the most important aspects of my digital photography. The more years I gather under my belt, the less likely I am to want to use my high-end cameras whimsically. I take my time. It doesn’t matter that I’m able to take more shots than a film shooter. I still have to deal with all those images! And that costs money, for every image. And it takes just as much time during those spells when I get backlogged and have thousands of shots to cull and edit.

But here’s the most important thing about intentionality. It’s about creating an image, intentionally! It’s about the art of photography. It’s about caring enough to want to set up the frame correctly to bring about the desired results. Just because I shoot digitally doesn’t mean I get a pass to rush through the whole process. This is a gross mischaracterization of the digital photography workflow as portrayed by a few film shooters who send the completely wrong message.

My point is, if you like shooting film, go for it! But don’t tell me that you have to be more intentional than a digital shooter. It’s simply not true. Intentionality trumps format. Intentionality is one of the few factors that separates us as photographers and artists. Intentionality helps make each and every one of us unique in our photographic pursuits. It’s not a mere justification to shoot one format over another. Intentionality, your intentionality, could arguably be the most important quality required to stand out against a world of online photography where intentionality is not held in high regard or practiced in any real sense of the word. Shoot intentionally. Intentionally shoot.

Be it film or digital.