Film is Better than Digital?!

After I posted my Digital is Better than Film post last week, I expected some amount of rebuttal… but this is outrageous! Those goobers over at had the nerve to mock me by posting a Film is Better than Digital article.

At any rate, I’m only posting the link here because I’m trying to be the bigger person in this situation. Feel free to go read it (I haven’t done so myself), but I’m assuming that it’s a load of crap and easily disputed.

Film is Better than Digital: 5 Situations

If anybody needs me, I’ll be outside burning some film and old cameras out of spite.

14 thoughts on “Film is Better than Digital?!

  1. Miguel Carvajal

    Brian, I’m not going to read the article you posted because I have the feeling it’s going to be just another bunch of idiotic ideas coming from those who cling to an old imaging medium that is all but dead.
    I started to takes photos using film back in 1984 and, for the next 14 years, I spent a ton of money, wasted a lot of time waiting for film to be developed, wasted a lot of film because the lighting conditions were less than ideal during a photo shoot, and wasting a lot of time requesting that my luggage be searched by hand at the airport after a batch of my exposed film had been ruined by X-rays, not to mention the fact that I despised carrying 50+ little boxes of film each time I traveled overseas.
    When digital came out, it was a less than perfect way to create images and I suffered through the initial grainy, contrasty, low-res images that I took using my first Ricoh digital camera. From there I moved up to a Fujifilm Finepix 4900Zoom and I immediately was hooked to digital. Needless to say, I was in 7th Heaven when I got my first DSLR, a Canon EOS 10D. The fact that I could immediately look at my photos, delete the bad ones and re-take them just blew me away and spoiled me forever from ever going back to film.
    On top of this, I could manipulate my digital files in a speedy, clean way, getting the same results I got from manipulating negatives and the enlarger that took me hours and lots of trial-and-error.
    Digital gave me the kind of flexibility that I needed to have to be more creative and it has also freed my time so that I may spend more time outdoors taking photos instead of locked up in a dark room full of foul-smelling chemicals.

  2. Eric

    Well you should read it, because they make some very valid points. Digital is certainly the best choice for the vast majority of users; I couldn’t imagine doing sports photography with film for example, but for my street and travel pics I simply enjoy using my Pentax LX more than any digital camera I’ve owned (and that is now a very long list that encompasses almost every major brand). There’s just a very visceral feeling I have when using it that none of my DSLR’s (or m4/3′s) cameras have managed to match. Film just forces you to take your time and think about what you’re doing because you can’t just blow through frame after frame.

    Most old manual cameras also have a noticeable viewfinder advantage. The LX’s viewfinder so large and bright that it puts every single DSLR on the market, full frame or otherwise to shame. The same can be said for a Nikon FE or Olympus OM. Again, that just adds to the experience.

    Finally, I think the largest problem is aside from Leica no one makes a purist digital camera. Every single DSLR is bombarded with controls most people don’t need and contain viewfinders that have dozens of blinking lights, icons, and numbers competing for your attention as you peer through. I find it all very cold and distracting. If someone were to make a digital Pentax LX, or Nikon FE, Olympus OM, etc I’d snap it up the week it came out.

  3. Flash

    Who cares? It’s obviously a personal preference thing. If you stay away from absolute statements, such as ‘film is dead’ and stick to your opinion, what does it matter what someone else thinks? You just come across as ‘oh noes, someone disagrees with me and that sucks.’ Get some balls.

  4. kim guanzon

    film is not dead… just smells funny. i have film, i have a scanner… i shoot digital… i just like to make my art and not fuss around… to each their own. just my 2c.

  5. Michael (R.)

    Salt is better than pepper. So what?
    Film involves a higher workload on the standard workflow. So it has a higher price as such.
    On the other hand, as stated above, it slow you down in a way, digital is unale to do.
    Sometimes you need the quick, convenient way digital offers to stay in flow. Sometimes you need the slowness of film to learn to act competently and take decisions seriously.
    We have the choice, we make the choice.

  6. CornDawg

    “Goobers” indeed.

    With 3 OM bodies and a bag full of lenses, I won’t be giving up my TriX, Diafine and Rodinal any time soon. Nor will I part with my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 super zoom for it’s functionality. I love them both for what they do and when money is available, I’ll pick up an DSLR body and adapter ring to use all my Zuiko lenses when I’m not using the AF kit lenses.

    Out here in Cornville, winters are really harsh and we spend 3-4 months coupled up in the farmhouse, where a hobby like film development and scanning the negs helps pass the time until we can get out in the yard and fields again. In summer, there’s no time for leisure photography since battling the weeds is a near full-time occupation, so digital is a blessing for its “shoot and post” simplicity.

    I also noticed recently, the old eyes and reflexes ain’t what they used to be, so I’m shooting the grandkids BBall games with the Lumix in winter ’cause I can’t keep up with the little buggers. And in summer, I do love shooting landscape with film. Guess my philosophy is whatever works and whatever is fun. It’s interesting to note that the photos people cite as faves on my Flickr account are most often the 120 B&W film shot in my Yashica D. That’s a fun one for trying to shoot using the Sunny 16 rule.

    Anyway – Can’t we all just get along? ;^)

    Signed, “Part time Goober”

  7. Larry Lubell

    This is a letter I wrote to Ms Goodman at Kodak.

    Message: Dear Ms, Goodman,

    I do have a 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR; so I understand the role that digital equipment can play in a 21st century, Facebook, Newsletter, and web based world. But imagine a world where Microsoft “Paint” replaced “Oil Paints”

    Where a person, hand on a mouse, was a substitute for an artist with a brush in one hand, a palette in the other.

    For all the ever improving quality of Digital, Film still has a magic. We might live in a digital world, but “People” are still analog. The Music industry switched form analog to digital, and in the end destroyed their industry.

    I fully understand the desire to build a medical scanner with a higher resolution, such equipment has the ability to save lives. I appreciate the every increasing number of MPs can have an important use.

    I also under stand that Ansel Adams and Henri Cartie-Bresson’s work needed no improvement. And no digital technology has allowed photographers to take better photos.

    Film is Eastman’s legacy. For Kodak to stop selling film would be as silly as Coca-Cola to stop making Coke and come out with called “COKE II ” ( Oh yea, they did that, it was a mistake)

    Please continue to sell film.

    Larry Lubell
    Here is Ms Goodman’s response:

    Greetings Mr. Lubell:

    We received your email and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

    Kodak is serious about feedback like yours and we act on it when we can. Your current comments are going to be seen by the right people and you can rest assured your voice has been heard.


    Deborah Coles
    Senior Customer Relations Specialist
    Worldwide Customer Care
    Eastman Kodak Company

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>