It’s an old debate, one that for most folks now is irrelevant. Besides, there are probably photographers around these days that were never around when film was prevalent.

But for me, since I am still 100% a film shooter, I am often being tempted by the digital thing. You can do so much more, shoot in low light hand held for instance. My film cameras are rather bulky. So I’m often tempted.

But I’ve always found that the look of both mediums is different. Not better or worse, just different. And I like the look of my film images. And as the saying goes - “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Fuji Velvia vs Nikon D4s processed to make it look as close as possible to the Fuji Velvia image.

For my Mongolia project, I chose to bring a Nikon D4s along with me so I could shoot in the dark interiors of the Yurts. But this got me thinking as to whether I could make the digital files look more like my film files.

I have been here before, and I failed last time.

The above samples may convince you that it’s possible to get digital files to look like their analog equivalents, but I disagree. You see, the only way I was able to get the Nikon D4s files to look like my Velvia files was by having a Velvia file to compare against, and to use as a ‘target’ for where to aim with the editing.

I have found that Velvia and all films react differently under different conditions. There is no ‘find one Curve adjustment to fit all’ scenario. For instance, the adjustments used in the above sample will not work with other subjects. So I would always require to shoot some film files for reference.

Also, perhaps not evident in the samples above, but there is a different tonal scale roll-off happening with the highlights in film that is hard to reproduce digitally. I have always struggled to make the highlight look softer in digital because I tend to have to manipulate the file so extensively to get it close to the film image to begin with.

With photography, it’s always a compromise. You can’t get to shoot everything you see. You’re always missing things, and so I long ago learned that I had to accept that with film, there are times when it’s not possible to shoot something that is possible in digital.

I think I will remain a film shooter for the time being. I think that if I am to use digital in the future, it will be for certain projects where I can’t use a film camera, and sometimes to supplement portfolios where I need to with captures that weren’t possible any other way.

I do feel that I should be exploring digital a bit more. But not as a replacement. Just perhaps as another tool, that can be used when it suits, and can be integrated into my film photography.

I’ve never really enjoyed the look of digital files. I’ve often felt I’ve lost something of my film work when I’ve tried to use digital, but this is where I’ve perhaps gone wrong: looking at one as a replacement for the other is perhaps folly for me. I should still be playing around with digital, and exploring what it offers. But I suppose I’m always worried that it may affect my film photography. It’s the reason why I stayed away. I like what I do with film and I don’t want to mess with it.

I think we should use the mediums we like or simply enjoy shooting. For me, it’s always about how the final result looks and I’m happy to put up with the constraints and limitations of the film medium (and believe that limitations and constraints can be a good thing). Perhaps for others, the final aesthetic is not such a priority. Perhaps for others it’s more about whether the medium is inspiring to use. It’s really up to you. There are no rules.