Film Photography Is Not Better Than Digital

[@michaelmygind5061]

I’ve shot film since 1976 and I still love it for the tactile feeling of having a physical media in the hand, and for the simplicity of my SLR’s . I own 70 film cameras and 8 digital cameras, and most of the time it’s the film cameras I reach for. You are completely right the two media’s are very different. Both have their strength and weaknesses. Fine video. ❤❤

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you so much

[@MastaKeahi]

I am new to the film scene and photography in general. The main reason I shoot film is because I have a film camera. I’m not good at it and my phone takes better quality photos than what I can. However I think it’s neat and I’m having fun learning.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Film is a good way to learn photography

[@dct124]

Make sure to figure out what you primarily want to shoot. Having a real distinct focus can really help accelerate your skill set. Also try imagining taking images with just your eyes without your cameras. Once you figure out your genre, even if it's macro or product. See your subject, then immediately look at the background, and work your way back to your camera composing the layers. You can breakdown the layers in the traditional 3x layer (foreground, middle ground, background) or you can add more layers. You can add more elements, like framing (placing your subject inside real world frame like a window or between two trees. Being new is actually really great, because you don't have bad habits. Composition & Light are your best two friends. Forget the camera, lens, or whatever. Composing and lighting are the two master keys. Everything is in support of those two critical areas. Have fun learning, and DO NOT get caught up in the information/news of photography. Be part of the DOER crowd. Not the chatter crowd.

[@chrischristenson]

I take film pictures of my vinyl records, my microbrews, and my typewriter collection…

[@stevew1487]

You're a GOD!

[@JasonRowPhotography]

But do you post them on Instagram? 😜

[@TL-xw6fh]

Well said. I shoot film for over 30 years before changing to digital. I'll never ever go back to film as digital is so much better and much more flexible for me to adjust and process the image to the way I want or see it.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you

[@Caballeroshot]

I shoot film because its how I learned photography nearly 30 years ago. It's nostalgia sure but its tactile nature is far more rewarding to me to achieve a good image than pointing a digital camera that will auto focus, auto expose, auto iso, auto-think-for-me! Shooting digital has become all too easy, I can get the results I want with very little effort and get rewards instantly. Film makes you wait, makes you work for it, it makes you think about your intentions before you fire that shutter. Cost aside, we all pay for our hobbies, why shouldn't film photography be the same way. ✌🏽

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I agree, I do like the tactile feel of film and digital is definitely not cheap

[@fintonmainz7845]

Is it too difficult to switch to manual mode on digital?

[@Cracky003]

I've never used or bought a modern autofocus lens for my mirrorless. Lol. Have you seen what they charge for those? I looooove being able to magnify the live image for focusing vs film. It's insane. Still have to be intentional. Not like my cost savings has me using anything newer than about a decade old on the body front either. I'm basically saying I agree with your ideas about your process, but it's just not really cost effective for number of exposures I do a year. So I've hybridized.

[@ironmonkey1512]

I shoot all manual on my Nikon ZF. The results are quite striking...

[@Caballeroshot]

@@ironmonkey1512 I sold one of my voigtlander lenses to a guy shooting it on his Nikon Z body. Interesting combination and the results were impressive.

[@joshmcdzz6925]

Man! You just echoed my thoughts and arguments I have had on some channels where they get head over heels on film.. I am like "Am I missing something or.. ?" We shot this back in the days and the entry of digital was such a new breath of innovation that produced FAR more superior quality than film. I am saying even full frame digital produces far better results than 6x9 medium format film.. I have shot both 6x7 and digital and the result is obvious with digital looking way better, easier to achieve, less stressful and way way cheaper

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I agree and this video was inspired by some of the film evangelists, many of whom have little to show for all their shouting. Good film photographers just show good work without proclaiming that its better than digital

[@kevinattig6689]

Digital sensors have improved so much that you can shoot in low light with almost any size sensor and get reasonable images and many sensors will give you clear images at ISO 400 or 800 where film will be grainy at these ISO's. Yes I do miss film, Kodachrome was one of the finest films you just couldn't beat it for the color saturation.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, just got a roll of HP5 back and was shocked at how much grain there is at 400ASA even with the exposure bang on

[@kevinattig6689]

@JasonRowPhotography this is why most pro photographers were working with film that was around ASA 100 or so. Flash lightning was very important in the film days.

[@gavinjenkins6761]

None of your 35mm handheld digital cameras have 14 stops of dynamic range, because the data pipeline is bottlenecked by definition at 12 for all consumer cameras I've ever heard of. But that is still higher than most cheap films. Not necessarily meaningfully higher than Vision3 film or Portra or fancy t-grain black and whites like delta. Additionally, you can get more dynamic range out of any piece of film by using HDR and multiple photos of the film while scanning. Unlike most real life scenes where you can't bring a tripod and do HDR on site, film sits there still for you allowing you to always HDR a film negative.

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

I agree. Most of the film snobs have no understanding of how a digital image works. I shot film 50 years ago. No thank you. You are spot on about scanning film. Shoot RAW and you can do anything in digital. You can make film like results, or you can make clean clinical results. But you have to bother learning your medium

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, this is what I am seeing. There are many very good film photographers then there are those buying off a camera off eBay, processing at a Snappy Snaps and telling the world film is better.

[@SmallerLives]

Anyone who says that film can do things that digital cannot has never spent two minutes with a digital camera or editing software. Great video, great insight and very well said.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thanks so much

[@toke7560]

I couldn't and wouldn't go back to film, even though i loved it at the time. The only thing i miss are the lovely simple cameras. Manual/apeture. ONLY.

[@adamp3223]

Yeah, echoing what others are saying: I shoot film because I really like my film cameras. That's it. I love the advance/arming lever on my Pentax. I love judging all my shots by informed guess while shooting "blind" through the viewfinder on my Pony and actually capturing a useable image. It's play. It's all play.

[@mkaestn]

I started shooting 35mm film in the early 70s with a Canon SLR, but with my first Coolpix 2 mega pixel in 1999, I could see the end of film. I learned more about what works and what does not by being able to delete instantly the bad shots. I shoot some film now but find the cost a limiting factor. Going back to film causes the shots to be better planned rather than spraying and praying for a keeper. Buying a 80s non programable SLR for a fraction of cost is a good way to pick up the basics, as film photography can be difficult to start.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Film certainly teaches the value of an image

[@cameracameras]

I shoot film and digital. They both complement each other. 😊

[@ozjohntekson7202]

Truth Well Told !!! I shoot since 1980s... I always tell: - Film vs digital is like riding a horse vs driving a car. - If you are not printing your analog negative film on a film paper in a darkroom, it is nonsense, it is a deception for looking kind of cool, maybe. - And I never miss the smell of the chemicals and all mess of developing and printing, although it was kind of fun sometimes. Film might be interesting if you are a hobbyist or a retired person who needs some occupation to fill the time.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Exactly, it was a very messy and time consuming process, especially if you had dozens of films to process. It's ok for very low volume shooting but for more profesional needs, its well past its sell by date

[@Tom_367]

I started with film in the seventies with a camera my grandpa gave me. After school I bought a Minolta X300 until it broke down. I always felt that although a good camera it was a limited tool. By the the end of the century I started with digital but wasn't convinced. So I bought two cheap Nikon F5 and that brought me a lot of joy and photos I still like to watch. At around 2014 I got me a used Nikon D3 and slowly grew into digital photography and its advantages. Like even better autofocus, very good sensors and the possibility to look at the image directly after taking it. Also being able to take a photo in bright daylight with f 1.2 without ND filters is amazing. I'm still using film cameras, but not much.

[@stevew1487]

What shutter speed do you use for that?

[@Tom_367]

@stevew1487 up to 1/32000 s

[@Tom_367]

@stevew1487 up to 1/32000 s

[@stevew1487]

@@Tom_367 Thanks. I just have 1/16000th, 1.7, and 2x crop so I don't think I'll get the effect you're after but I'll give it a try the next really bright day.

[@BernardFreeman-r4w]

Had my own darkroom for 25 years and sold it in 2002. I don’t know how many times a bit of dust ruined a print. So easy to remove in Photoshop. Never going back to film as I sold all my film cameras 5 years ago.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, dust was a killer wasn't? Even these days scanning negs or slides can be a real pain.

[@ronstar7027]

You are typical. I am not.

[@CalumetVideo]

I shoot digital when I want to shoot 35mm equivalent. I shoot medium format and 4x5 film in black and white. In my mind, there is no advantage to shoot 35mm film over full frame digital.

[@washingtonradio]

Having shot both, I personally only shoot digital. Digital works better for me than film does. But neither is 'better' only different. What suits me may not suit another.

[@thomashilmersen711]

In my experience, a lot of the "special" thing about film is actually due to vintage lenses, rather than film per se. FIlm cameras are in general "vintage" and thus come with "vintage" lenses. I have used vintage lenses with my Leica M246 monochrom camera, and I really cannot see any difference relative to my Leica M4 with the same lens.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

You may well be right. I intend to test a Minolta MD 35-70 both on an X300 and a Sony a7RV. Film v digital with the same lens should be interesting

[@TimothyMathews]

I shot film for years and got serious about it in the mid 90's the first time I took a photography course. In about 2009 I started shooting digital and I've also enjoyed that. Last December I got back into film because I got a medium format camera. I'm finding the change of aspect ration to 6x7 and the slower pace to be helping me produce more interesting images than digital where it's too easy to just shoot anything.In a world were everything is digital and being taken over by AI, the authenticity and physicality of film is more attractive. I will continue to shoot both, but shooting 6x7 film is inspiring me and I have access to multiple darkrooms. Getting back into a darkroom after 30 years was such a joy and I was amazed at the quality I was able to achieve compared to 35mm taken to 1 hour photo labs.

[@Stringbob]

I completely agree with the idea that both film and digital have unique qualities that deserve appreciation. It's easy for the debate to become polarized, but at the end of the day, the medium is just a tool. What truly matters is how we, as photographers, use that tool to convey our vision. Film certainly has its charm-there's a tactile, organic quality to it, and yes, it can teach patience and discipline in a way digital may not. The anticipation of developing a roll of film, the limitations it imposes, the feeling of holding a physical print, these all contribute to its magic. But, as you pointed out, that doesn't automatically make it "better" than digital. Digital has opened up a world of creative possibilities with its flexibility, immediate feedback, and technological advancements in dynamic range, color accuracy, and editing. At the end of the day, it's about what serves the photographer's artistic intent and workflow. Both mediums have strengths and weaknesses, and both can result in stunning images. I think you're right to focus on celebrating the differences rather than trying to crown one over the other. I really appreciated the thoughtful approach here. Looking forward to seeing more of your content!

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thanks so much for your comment. I try to use my experience to see all sides of any photographic debate

[@zayanything3124]

I was at a wedding with a photographer who “shot film” (I was doing video) and all they did was dial in the settings on their digital camera and took the same photo with their film camera. Seems a bit like cheating to me, but to each their own.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, if you are not trusting the analogue equipment to get it right, then maybe film is not the right choice

[@URBONED]

I shoot film and I work in a lab developing and scanning film everyday. Just a handful of things to consider: Film needs little to no editing to look good. So for the casual shooter that wants to take photos but doesn’t want to spend hours in Lightroom, film is perfect for them. If you’re someone like myself I can spend an hour in Lightroom editing a roll of high res scans and have so much flexibility (if I want it) but 9 times out of 10 I’m doing minor adjustments to get the levels correct. I’m already starting with a good image. Plus I have 36 frames to edit and not 300+ like if I shot digital. Yes film is expensive, but it forces you to improve 10 times faster. Every mistake costs you, so you slow down and focus on getting the shot right instead of holding the shutter down and taking 20 shots of the same frame for no reason. In one year of shooting film I improved more than I had in probably 10 years shooting digital. It forces you to know what you’re doing and be confident in your choices without seeing the final photo in the moment like you can on a digital camera. When you can shoot a roll of 36 exposures, all different scenes/compositions and be happy with the results, that’s satisfaction. When was the last time you took only 36 digital photos (not 300) and were happy with them?

[@chrisbloom382]

I mostly agree with you but there is something about film that digital can't quite replicate. It's hard to describe but with film and even a scanned negative or slide, you get this feeling of being able to peer into infinity. I just don't get that feeling with digital. Like I said hard to describe and yes I shoot digital almost exclusively.

[@jb-xc4oh]

Thats because the human sensory system, the way you experience life, does not operate on digital principles.

[@rossb48]

I shoot both and prefer my large format camera for landscapes and my digital camera for family photos. I think the best would just be whatever a person decides for themself.

[@bryllupsfotofilm]

Hi Jason, you're absolutely right. I'm still an active photographer at 61, shooting with a Nikon Z6ii and a 50mm f/1.2 lens. Back in the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, I used film for my work with Elle and other magazines. It was a real hassle-the costs, developing, scanning, and producing exhibition prints at 160 x 120 cm were no small feat. Younger generations today often see using film as a way to differentiate themselves, almost like artisans crafting something unique. However, modern digital cameras are vastly superior in both quality and cost-effectiveness.

[@ronstar7027]

In my case, I have more fun with my film cameras and processing my bulk loaded film and printing in my darkroom. I like both types of photography. So, Jason is NOT "absolutely right".

[@larswara2124]

Totally agree. Grew up shooting film in the 80-90`s, mostly Fujihrome, so when digital became affordable, I never looked back. I have also scanned quite many of my slides, and at times that was a kind of depressing. Some are quite good (but nowhere NEAR even some of the earliest (affordable) d-slr-cameras), but a lot was downright awful, even stored both dry and temperate.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

The irony is that digital enabled the film revival by making photography available to a much broader section of people. Now some of those relative newcomers want to feel as if they have "discovered" film

[@jeffirish3402]

I'm not sure if there is a right answer here. My first camera was a Kodak instamatic in 1970. I quickly moved to 35mm and I've been shooting 35 ever since. That said, I also have a Canon DSLR and shoot a lot of wonderful stuff on my phone. For me, as a visceral matter, I prefer shooting 35 on my various classic cameras, converting it to digital and doing any subsequent work on Photoshop or other digital editors. Using manual 35mm cameras are a blast, but I have no problem using 21st century technology to get me the result I want...

[@ClaraWilderman-n5x]

You are perfectly right! It seems to me that some people believe that a camera makes the photographer. I started in the 1980s with an OM2N. I used it for a long time and shot some excellent photos, many average photos and some really bad photos. In the 1990s a bought a Contax T2 because I wanted something for my pocket with an autofocus for snapshots. Again I shot some excellent photos, many average photos, mediocre photos and some really bad ones. (The price for the T2 has skyrocketed because some celebrities showed it on TV. I would never spend 1500 pounds for a 30 year old camera that nobody can fix nowadays if it breaks) When the Fujifilm XPro 1 came out I bought it and I still use it. And you guessed it, I shot some excellent photos, many average ones and some really bad ones with it. I used to go to Butoh dance performances in the 1990s. There was always a Japanese photographer who used a self-made padded velvet Bag in which he had his analog camera to be able to shoot noiseless. He obviously could operate the camera without seeing it. I met that photographer recently at an art fair where he exhibited his photographs. He told me that he had switched to a digital camera but considered himself to have been a better photographer during his analog days. He said he could only afford a certain amount of film material which forced him to learn to only press the shutter at the right moment. With his digital camera he doesn't need to be so concentrated. However he also said that he didn't go to performances as frequently as he used to and that he used to know all the performers personally in the old days. Long story short he puts less effort in the outcome nowadays. Also his old photographs sell at higher prices. Part of it is that he has photographs of famous dancers who have meanwhile retired or even died. It is not what you take photographs with, it is the effort you put into your work.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I agree entirely. Also the XPro1 is one of the few cameras I regret selling.

[@JohnDevitt]

I started out in the early '80's with film, for both b&w and slides. Had my own darkroom and used to develop and print my own monochromes. Loved it all. Nowadays it's the Sony A7RIII, but I find myself pretty much exclusively using vintage analogue lenses, and love that tactile, hands on experience of shooting with them. I'm curious about the lens on the Minolta you're holding in your hand. Is it an MD ZOOM 35-70mm f3.5? I have that one myself, and it's an absolute gem. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Well observed, that is indeed the MD 35-70mm. The X300 was my late father's camera and I just did a video about shooting film with it for the first time in decades. A future video I am planning will be to shoot the MD 35-70 on the Sony a7RV. The Minolta being an ancestor of the modern Sony cameras

[@JohnDevitt]

@@JasonRowPhotography I'm a huge fan of that lens, and am always amazed by the images it can produce. Looking forward to seeing how it holds up on the A7RV,

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, it will certainly be interesting. I will actually compare it shooting the same scene on both film and digital with that lens.

[@Luigi13]

I understand what you have said on this channel perfectly and agree to it 100%. Digital is definitely better less expensive and the results are immediate. Cheers.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thanks, I think both mediums have their place but relative newcomers to film shouting about how it is better is clearly wrong.

[@kelalamusic9258]

I shot film for years going back to around 1970 with my first camera, the Minolta SRT-101. Great camera. Now I’m shooting digital. I would shoot film once in a while for nostalgic reasons, but not as a replacement. To me it’s like when the car took over the horse and buggy, then later in time going back to a horse and buggy and saying it’s better than a car. Anyway, I’ll stay with digital and now and then dabble with film.

[@stevew1487]

I can certainly understand the attraction to film, after all it WAS photography until relatively recently, and the technical developments and evolution which took place over its long history is refined and sophisticated. The fact that the equipment can be mostly mechanical and more durable than digital counterparts is also an advantage, I don't however believe that at this point the image quality is superior. As a hobby though, it's perfect, and I'm glad people are doing it because all of that history does not deserve to be forgotten.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I agree with image quality, digital is significantly better

[@jondr.8933]

Like you, I've shot film since that's all there was [40yrs] I'm often amused by the people who have discovered film. I still enjoy all the film formats. Film cameras are like a classic car or a mechanical watch. There's something about them that invokes a passion. But its not better. It's worse. One of the few areas, where analoge wins is pinhole photography, due to the log exposures required. The sensor/ prosser/ battery, will not do well with exposures between 10 seconds and many months. The cost is something often minimised in on line forums. Its colossal. Sending it to the lab will run you £1 a picture all in. You can do it all yourself. Black and white Developing is reasonably cheap but time-consuming. Then you will need a scanner. Despite this, I still enjoy analoge photography, just like I enjoy driving a classic car. But its not a daily choice.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, it's very much the "discovers" f film that this video is about. In reality they are using it as a way to improve their social media engagement because their actual ability to do interesting work is quite limited

[@comeraczy2483]

Thanks a lot for this very interesting point of view. I started shooing film on my dad's camera in the 70's. There wasn't any photolab nearby, so we had a darkroom at home. Today I shoot only digital (mostly wildlife) and the only reason I'd ever get back to film would be for large format, and that would be only for the experience of it, not for the result, the practicality, the creative options, or the cost. In terms of result, digital is just way better in terms of dynamic range, resolution, and modern lens selection. In terms of creative options, with film, in order to achieve the desired luminance, the exposure is constrained by the sensitivity of the film loaded in the camera at the time the photo opportunity happens. Since exposure has a direct effect on depth of field and motion blur, that's a severe limitation in terms of creative options when shooting film.

[@RascalKyng]

I am holding out for the day they make a sensor insert in the shape of a film cartridge. Analog to digital adapter to bring these mechanical cameras back to use.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

It has been tried on more than one occasion but sadly not succeeded

[@RascalKyng]

@@JasonRowPhotography Oh I know. But those iterations were pathetic, and more of a crowd funding profit scheme really.

[@RascalKyng]

@@JasonRowPhotography Oh I know. But those iterations were pathetic, and more of a crowd funding profit scheme really.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

The one that was announced right at the early days of digital was a genuine attempt I think, but I agree the more recent attempts have reeked of a money grab

[@Cracky003]

I'm not really in a financial position to have the most relevant comments, but I'll try. Currently I shoot with a sony A7S, the original, with adapted single coated M mount lenses. I ended up here going for the film aesthetic, but without the real ability to spend the money necessary on the long term. The only physical aspects I use to get there are the single coated lenses, other than that its all my standard edits in, surprisingly, the free program Darktable. Like you said if you shoot raw it can be done with any camera. Just shoot raw, use manual mode, and youre forced to learn both ends, exposure and post processing. Ive gotten great results, and have less than $1000 invested in my camera bag.

[@GringoLoco]

Good to hear someone saying the obvious... digital is quicker, cheaper, more versatile, and basically beats film in almost every way. Though film has a nostalgic appeal, and I happily used film for decades, in 2025 its too expensive and too many lab developing risks and variables.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you

[@thomashilmersen711]

I wish there was a more "mechanical" digital camera. E.g. one could have a lever to cock the shutter. Presently, the Leica Ms probably give the most tactile feeling.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I agree, and I did a video in a similar vein a couple of months ago

[@stevew1487]

I can't believe this video got ratioed. Look, film photography is cool, it's fun, it's classic, it's organic (in a non-healthy way), it has a rich legacy to say the least, but in terms of basic image quality for amount of effort spent, it's been left behind, but it's still a fine form of expression, and image quality isn't or needn't be the issue at all.

[@Pyramidalist]

I have been fotographing since early 70th .... up to the 2nd generation of digital sensors ... and postproduction as well ... NOW I got some vintage cameras (Voigtländer Ultramatic Cs, Bessamatic, Minolta SRT 101b and XG2) ... I am just reactivating my old skills ... I started by restoring them technically and .... now ... as shooting is really expensive in relation to digital (i make 500 + fotos and more without burst or the kind a day). So using film is now the end of my taking-process ... Im optimizing scene and composition, depth of field ... ... with my phones camera incl. calculator for differences of the lenses (problematic) ... but in result every foto is non-situative ... all more resopnsible ... what are the hundred thousands of digital fotos on my ssd if I have a foto in my hand ... or how much of these masses of digitals are printed ...

[@MichealSeaghdha]

I agree completely and a lot of what you said about processing labs goes much of the way towards explaining why many of my early prints were absolute rubbish. The cost, time, inconvenience and variable quality all contributed to me shelving a hobby in 1982 before resuming it properly in 2009. Without the advent of digital, I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, unless you shoot film, process and print yourself, you are very much at the mercy of outside factors

[@PierreBurnaugh]

If these folks who never picked up a camera before 2010 keep crying and complaining, companies will listen to them and trash digital surely enough. And those of us who started on film and appreciate the difference, quality and convenience of digital, will see a backwards devolution. Mark my words, because the industry only aims to cater to those who cry loud enough. Like so many, I shot film and was in the darkroom for nearly 30 years before 2000 and incorporating digital in the early 2000's. So, a lot of us have the same experience of seeing the evolution and quality-progression of digital, knowing very well that film, although a different option now, is not "better" is certainly not "THE way forward". It's like you're reading my mind and I'm sure there's a multitude with the same awareness, well said!

[@JasonRowPhotography]

They are vocal but they are also very much a minority. With the exception of a few niche cameras, from smaller companies, there hasn't been any serious film camera produced since the Nikon F5. I suspect the film niche is far to small for major companies to dabble in

[@chilmersen]

Agree with most of what you say, but we have different views on scanning. When I scan a film, I scan for post processing. The resulting image is very flat, but I am able to pull a lot of information from the highlighs. A good negative for scanning isn't the same as a good negative for printing. The reason I use film is mostly because I prefer the cameras, and somehow I become for fond of the the images - but I do not know why.....might be that they require more post processing...and that I process the images much later. The quality I get is similar between film and digital - pretty sure that the film has more information, but as you said - it is only accessible in the dark room (I shoot mostly adox cms 20).

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Having control over the scanning process certainly gives you more options

[@bencompson]

Film isn't better than digital but it isn't just different, it is worse. In almost every way. Anything you can do on film you can duplicate in digital. "That certain quality" isn't really a thing. The only thing that can be said about film is that some folks enjoy the process and that it is "analog". "Analog" is a bit of a fad these days. Ironically, most of these same folks enjoying the film fad are shooting film and then going to great lengths to digitize the results and then spend time in post trying to look 'filmic'. Don't get me wrong. I love that there is a film revival. I love that people are using old vintage gear. I love looking at their results which are often wonderful. I even enjoy shooting film from time to time on my old film gear. (I've been into photography since 1986. Processed a lot of film at home too.) So I'm not anti-film. Just realistic about it. I will say that the process of shooting film, sending it off for processing and then digitizing it is very puzzling to me. I did that back in the day when there were no other options but it seems strange that people are doing it now. Seems like it abandons the "analog" ethos. Now, for those who take control of the whole process...shoot, develop, silver prints...well I kind of get that. But who is doing that these days?

[@JasonRowPhotography]

That's pretty much what I said in the video

[@bencompson]

@@JasonRowPhotography Yep.

[@scrptwic]

I shot film 1n the 1970's until 2005 when I bought my first digital camera and a year later I sold my film cameras. In 2023 I bought a Spotamatic SP11 film camera kit for $100.00 . I bought the kit mainly for the Takumar lenses and accessories. When Pentax came out with the Pentax K3 Mark 111 Monochrome camera for $2200 .00 I decided to check out the Spotamatic camera it needed new light Seals so I replaced the light for a few dollars in supplies from Walmart. I now have a functioning full frame interchangeable lens camera capable of photographing black and white or color film for little money compared to the Pentax Monochrome camera or the Pentax 17 half frame film camera

[@BigBadLoneWolf]

Try doin fast action shots with burst shooting, and taking 1000 frames in a day with film and it gets very expensive

[@JasonRowPhotography]

It does indeed.

[@timeaston2776]

I agree. I have recently rediscovered film but in all honesty, use it for the one in a hundred shots suited to the format. Digital will always produce a more accurate rendition of what a subject looked like. Once in a while, however; 35mm film will produce a more accurate rendition of what the subject felt like. Toss in the satisfying ceremony involved in taking a film image and I don't think there will ever be the time that I completely give up film again.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I agree completely. Plenty of space for both mediums, my beef is with relative newcomers to film proclaiming that it is better than sliced bread i

[@sonofoneintheuniverse]

Old ex-film fart here. With digital I can practice a lot with color and black&white without breaking the bank. To become a better photographer I need to practice - a lot. Like a musician. Ever heard of a master pianist mastering the piano without practicing - a lot. What matter is the final image and with digital I have full control from start to finish. Be it slides (projection or screen) or prints. Color or black and white. Hooooray - digital save my day and leave me with a few shillings in the bank too...

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, full control of the whole process is important and unless you are developing and printing your own films, element of the process can be highly variable

[@ashleyarchitect]

Totally agree - the freedom to take almost as many variations on a shot as you wish, plus tremendous latitude in editing, makes digital a medium with far more creative potential than film. And no longer can you fall back on film selection to give you a "look" without effort...you need to really think about what you are trying to achieve in every aspect of the image. THAT is creative learning ❤ which is a far better use of your time than removing dust from your film scans 😂

[@Gielon]

I think everyone should try and have their own opinion, it's as you said different medium, no point saying better or worse - just different.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Exactly. Opinions are vital, but forcing an opinion based on a few shoots and to follow a trend carries much less weight

[@masanthar]

A good photo is a good photo even not pin sharp even with the exposure a bit off. That aside, film and digital are a different experience to shoot, each one rewarding and each capable of capturing a worthy image. I really like the more laid back and thoughtful experience of shooting film bit digital makes life so much easier.

[@nigellee7892]

I’m not wishing to throw water on your fire, but I’ve never really gone along with the “digital versus film” debate in photography as at the end of the day it’s about the images created. I believe for a lot of people though that the ‘medium’ is more important than the ‘message’ but that surely is fallacious thinking. A good picture remains a good picture whatever it was taken with.

[@stevew1487]

I think that's more along the lines of what he's saying.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Quite a lot of people seem to comment without actually watching the video

[@nigellee7892]

@@stevew1487 I think he’s saying digital is better - and from a technical point of view, it no doubt is - but photography as a uniquely modern means of creative expression, is not so much about pixels etc as about pictures.

[@stevew1487]

@@nigellee7892 Of course, but but what I got out of it is that the people using film just because "it's better than digital" are A) Wrong and B) Missing the point.

[@nigellee7892]

@ I’m sure they do … the plethora of videos on KZbin has led to us all having very short attention spans🤨

[@careypridgeon]

A film camera is a box the directs light onto emulsion. The lenses are important. I used a Praktica for 20 years and used it for commercial work as my hobby stuff, I didn't work as a photographer, people just asked me to work for them. I *adore* film, and still use it, but my *god* is it expensive. I enjoy using my Shen Hao 6x17, but I can't produce prints from every photograph I take, because I just don't have that much money. In spite of using B+W by choice since I started in the late 70's it's just got more expensive. I'm not going to stop, it's far too much fun, and I doubt anyone will be making a 6x17 digital sensor any time soon. I have a folder with my top 100 images, and there are a few digital images in there. Those are from digital cameras from the early 2000's though. I have a Mirrorless now and it has far too many options that I wish I could just disable. I might just sell it and buy an old Nikon DSLR instead. Either way I always choose film first. I've used digital images for scientific research since 2000, and my work has evolved from manipulating the live intake from a camera to using AI to detect signs of C*v*d 19 in people to develop rapid triage diagnostic methods for field hospitals in third world countries. Whether it will ever replace my pootling around taking photographs for fun is a thing I seriously doubt, since the end product (image) is only a small part of the pleasure for me. I rarely share anything, this is the first year I've considered putting photographs in frames on the walls. I must be going soft.

[@jimseibyl5140]

I was a commercial shooter during the film days, I was there during the digital transition and id agree with your assessments. I still shoot my Hasselblads but I still have my film backs and like it as a hobby these days but the work involved of going from shot to fine art print is time consuming compared to tweaking a raw in Capture One and going to print from that. I love both but for different reasons. My 20 year old Phase One back yields much better shadows than any 400 iso film……

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thanks for your comments. I agree, and there will always be a place for film, but the workflow and the image quality is surpassed by digital. The only real win for film is the aesthetic, but it's not difficult to replicate in PS or LR. Would loved to have had a Blad back in the day - actually would love to have one now.

[@VictorReynolds]

Either medium has it’s strengths and weaknesses. One is not better than the other. At the end of the day, it’s not the medium or the camera, it’s the photographer.

[@eltinjones4542]

Totally agree I wouldn't switch back from digital It's much easier to get decent images nowadays with digital

[@ronstar7027]

Yes. My neighbor, (who is an idiot), takes great snapshots with his iPhone. That does NOT make him a photographer. He doesn't know an f-stop from a door-stop.

[@msmith2016]

You can always pick out one of these film snobs because their images always include the rebate. I started on film and still shoot some but it neither makes my photography better or worse.

[@fintonmainz7845]

The fact that film is expensive and you're forced to think twice before pressing the shutter button and then have to wait for development is often given as an advantage of film photography: on the other hand with digital you can take more pictures and can get instant feedback allowing one to LEARN and Improve.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Yes, this is very true

[@jeremyfielding2333]

The beauty of imperfection. That's why I prefer film. By the way, here in Bangkok, process and scan costs 5 USD

[@JasonRowPhotography]

To be fair, Bangkok is cheaper for many things - I was there las September

[@cinifiend]

Similar types of gatekeeping exists in a lot of other formats and domains as well. Vinyl records vs digital music, books vs e-books, old sports cars vs modern sports cars, etc. The list goes on endlessly but it's always the same, a small group of people who want to feel like they are special and in the know will talk about how great this older format was (that they happen to be heavily invested in) while completely downplaying all of the advantages of the modern equivalents. They act like anyone who likes the modern formats is a moron and not part of their special club. Of course there is nothing wrong with the older formats, and there is nothing wrong with the newer formats either. The newer stuff always has significant advantages for the majority of consumers or it wouldn't be selling. If film cameras were truly the better option for every consumer (as the gatekeepers would have you believe) then companies would still be mass producing film cameras and selling them in bestbuy.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

"They act like anyone who likes the modern formats is a moron and not part of their special club" This is exactly what I am seeing in certain sections of film photography. Those that have been doing it years and truly understand it, make much more sense about its pros and cons than those that have recently joined the "club"

[@mikaelwerner1]

When it comes to "better" in photography it is a premise not well-grounded, so any argument in favor or against it is unreasonable per se.

[@joseerazevedo]

Which do you prefer? That's the "better" for you. If you enjoy the darkroom process, that's "better" than sitting in front of a computer for you. The contrary is true also. If you love to count pixels and are pleased with sharpness, digital is much "better" than film. But if you get high on grain, film is the way to go. If you prefer organic, maybe film suits your taste better. You're into tech? Digital will please you as nothing else. The fact is these are two different medias to photograph anything. Choose the one you prefer and enjoy your journey. The "better" one is what you prefer. Care more about what you photograph than the gear. THAT is what will make you proud of your images. Relax and have fun.

[@Jack_Warner]

The picture quality of film was surpassed years ago by digital. But digital images will be hard to archive compared to film. I have negatives dating back to 1949. I can scan them or print them if I still had my darkroom. I cannot see people keeping a digital file for 76 years. Although I've archived a lot of my digital pics onto Blu~Ray, I won't be around long enough to see if they have survived. I've still got my Olympus OM1, that I purchased secondhand in 1979, when I worked on British Railways. I also have an OM4 and OM20. Plus a Mamiya C330. The only medium format camera I've kpt. But they never get used now. I've got ten rolls of Ilford FP4 sitting in the fridge, that I may sell soo, as I can't be bothered to go out and shoot anything.

[@JohnJohn-fz6nt]

I loved my OM1 and Vivitar series one 90 mm macro...long gone now.

[@LYSYSTUDIOS]

Agreed, the film cannot match digital on almost every count. I shoot both, got myself now a new system with both digital and film bodies, still in the testing phase on the digital one, the pictures are beautiful, yes, I use film presets to give it a film look, really great. Yet, when it comes to the final artifact, i.e. the print, I find it much more enjoyable not to involve any computer in it (except for the lightmeter, I don't use a selenium one :) ), so on that bit, it's process based. People to whom I show the pictures tell me they prefer those on film (without me telling them which one is which and they are no photographers), but maybe it's just that I put much more work on the film side to make it worth it? Having managed to master the craft up to an acceptable level for me, I find the digital too easy, even boring... Thanks for your video, it 100 pc sums up what I think about the whole matter.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@louhautdavid6451]

I agree at 100%. I have been practicing black and white photography in the dark room for many years and and it made me understand how each step from seing an image to make a print are related, how important it is to choose the right exposure to get the final result you expect. I turned to digital because I wanted to shoot in color and I thought that it would be easier to get a similar control. I had no idea how to achieve this in the darkroom. Now I'm going back to black and white in digital. It's OK but I think that my old analog prints were better. In my opinion, nothing really matches the beauty of a FB paper but I probably lack some knowledge to be completely satisfied.

[@MichaelRusso]

I love film. I shoot it and develop it myself. However, I love digital too. I prefer it for landscape or bird shooting, family shots. I love film in medium and large format. Great for art and portraits. A professional should have some film experience but not required. Some people who shoot digital may at some point dabble in film. Good for them!

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I certainly would never deter anyone from trying film

[@chesterjohnson4504]

I am a bit crazy. I used film starting as a kid in the 60's and used until about 15 years ago. I started using Nikons DSLR and loved the d70, d700, d810 and my so nice d4s that I purchased used along with many F mount lenses. I now shoot Canon ML and I am torn which I like the best the older DSLR Nikon system or the new high tech ML Canon with the RF lenses. I had a dark room for my film days and I miss that too. My Besler 23C enlarger was so much fun. Is one better than the other? I enjoyed each and made money using each.

[@RobWoodWasHere]

Great video as always, Jason.

[@nicolasandresalvarezarangua]

This was a lovely video, really nice.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you very much!

[@infinitesky-59]

At the end of the day it's all about the look of the look of the photo. I love my 40d, I love my 5d2 and I am looking to get an M8. None of those are technically relevant today but all yield a look I like. One of my favourite photos was shot with an OM10.

[@Bob-us9di]

Interesting... I use both film and digital - although I've noticed that my Canon 6D leads me into bad habits (spray and pray, chimping, over-editing, fix it in post etc). So this morning I took out my Kodak Box Brownie No 2 Model F, slammed in a roll of Ilford HP5 and limited myself to the 8 frames. I enjoy it.. sure the images are not as 'good' but I had a lot of fun and there's an different feel to the results. I liken it to digital music vs vinyl (or may I say LPs!). I have thousands of hours of lossless music that I can play anywhere via wifi, yet I still enjoy the act of cleaning a LP and lowering the needle into the groove followed by some decent Scotch. So there's a difference in the process - analogue makes you work for the results whereas digital is (almost) instant gratification. Put another way I can listen to Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony with Karajan and the Berlin Philharomic - it's perfect, every note in place, intonation spot on... it's just sleek and glossy. Or I can listen to Mravinsky conducting the Leningrad Philharmomic in a 50s recording in mono - the brass and woodwind instruments are technically inferior but there's character in the rough edges - probably similar to what the composer heard when first played. Neither is better - just different. I can enjoy both the process and final result of both 🙂

[@stevenbrown5356]

I have been saying this for a long time, it’s not your camera or the medium that makes the image look the way it does. It’s you.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

100%

[@sophietucker1255]

I started in 1970 and frankly am sick to death of all the folks saying film is dead, film is better, M43 is dead, M43 is making a great comeback, medium format is better, more megapixels is always better, full frame is the only format, you have to shoot in manual to have total control. I’ve stopped listening to any of the vide………..

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Did you actually watch the vid…..?

[@eastbaystreet1242]

Thank you, Jason. Exactly this.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thanks :)

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Do you shoot film? Is that a relatively new thing or did you cut your teeth in the days before digital?

[@jeffbeyea8910]

I shoot mostly film. Not because it’s better, but because it’s what I learned on, and so it’s easier for me to get the results I want. I was away from photography for a long time; as I am learning digital techniques and editing I will probably shoot more and more digital over time. For now, when something is really important to me I still choose film.

[@abinam2255]

Annoys me too. Film is prohibitively expensive. Film snobs are just that ... snobs.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Some of them, mainly the ones that came from digital. The people I know that stayed with film are generally superb photographers who know their craft and don't make loud exclamations about film. Many of the new convers from digital, have very little to shot for their proclamations and are using the film trend to boost their social media engagement

[@aerialfilm1]

Amen!

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you :)

[@daveed4475]

Straw man argument. I don’t think many people are arguing that film photography is better. It is a preference for many though.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Plenty of people on social media saying its better.

[@farouk6564]

Very well explained.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you

[@petercollingwood522]

Neither is better, just different. both have plusses and minuses. Digital is certainly more convenient, for sure. But I'm enjoying shootin film more than digital at present. Of course I'm doing it as a hobbyist not for a job. It'd be different if I were having to earn a living from it.

[@stevew1487]

I think it's perfect as a hobby because it's potentially more engaging than digital, less predictable and so forth, but to say it's better than digital is neither true nor really relevant.

[@herrerafoto]

Film isn't better than digital, it's just a different medium. Comparing them is like comparing electric guitars to acoustic guitars. Many shooters like the organic imperfection of film media. Is only a matter of preference.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Your comment suggests to me that you didn’t actually watch the video, because thats pretty much what I said in it

[@dct124]

Here for the comments 😂

[@JasonRowPhotography]

There’s plenty of them

[@mywonkyTLR]

I shoot both film and digital. They each have their place. Personally, I prefer 120 film. But that's just my own taste.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I did shoot 645 back in the day, a good compromise in size between 35mm and 6x6

[@f.kieranfinney457]

I think what people are saying is that film cameras are more fun to use. The post processing sucks but there’s something unique in the way film cameras feel and function. We’ve seen more engaging digital cameras being made as a result. It’s sad that to get the simple and enjoyable interface of a Leica you have to pay a fortune. Imagine a $2000 Fujifilm camera just as intuitive. We like the look, the analog dials but not the menus of homage cameras. (I hate EVFs too). Fix that and people won’t wax poetic any more.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

"We like the look, the analog dials but not the menus of homage cameras" 100% agree, I made a whole video about that as well

[@lensman5762]

I have been shooting film for over 50 years and digital for over 25 years. Film for me is a personal passion. A means to have control over the end results which I have a physical influence in. This is not so with digital, no matter how you look at it. Digital is more convenient , far cheaper and much much easier to work with, but the experience and the satisfaction is not there. Digital is not an organic, and tangible media, film is. It has a physical presence in your hands. I am not disagreeing with you, but I think that your view of why people are going back to film V digital is rather simplistic. The two media are fundamentally different and the only common factor is that they produce an image. They should not be compared, and there is room for both.

[@MasticinaAkicta]

AH Film... Yeah not going back. Unless it is for some really odd crazy BW film that is. Because digital cameras these days are just better in so many ways. My A7 is awesome at getting files that come out pretty darn good to start with. Process it a bit and ... wow. The Lattitude of that sensor! Even the first A7, nothing special but it is already so good.

[@thevoiceman6192]

I have seen the opposite. Digital photographers superiority towards me when I say I am a film Schooter. So they belittle me. They say why would you want to schoot film? So I say to them. Do you say to a traditional painter why do you use paint and a canvas and a brush when you can make digital paintings? Do you say to musicians why do you plug your instruments and microphones into an amp when you can go wireless. So they pause and say no. So I say. Why break my chops for schooting film if you are not going to say that about other genres of art who do it old school? Or why do you make your digital photos look like film in photoshop if digital is so great? They get quiet after that . And remember without film there would be no digital or photoshop. With film you make the camera work for you. With digital with whitebalance and histograms and raw or jpeg the camera is a computer and works for you. Now dslrs are obsolete now that Mirrorless is king.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Sadly photography has its toxic element and always has done

[@Arnold-t8n]

You say film is more expensive. How about you having to buy a new digital camera every three years or so because of software issues etc. The cost of those cameras are thousands of dollars. You can buy and develop a lot of film for those thousands of dollars. Viewfinders are usually more dim in digital cameras. Unless they are the top of the line Leica or Hasselblad digital cameras which blows your Sony out of the digital world.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I would very much beg to differ. First nobody needs to change cameras every three years, I have RAW files from 20 years ago that process just fine on the latest versions of Lightroom or Photoshop. Second, if you are shooting more than 1000 images a year thats about 28 rolls of film. That's pretty low even for an enthusiast. To purchase, process and scan one roll of film to a medium resolution costs about $25. So shooting 28 rolls in a year would cost $700. That will get you a very good used digital camera. If we look even at changing every 3 years, that $2100 which gives you a very good new digital camera. I tend to ignore the computer requirements because most people already have a decent laptop or desktop and there is plenty of free editing software. Lastly the viewfinder on my Sony is double the resolution of the latest Hasselblad (X2D) and the Leica Q3 and is generally regarded as one of the best viewfinders on any modern camera. The only viewfinder I have ever had come close to it was on my Nikon F3 and that never gave me anywhere near as much information.

[@Saber_Nico]

" How about you having to buy a new digital camera every three years or so because of software issues etc." And I'm here still shooting with a Nikon D5100, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one rocking with older DSLRs. Very ignorant statement you made there

[@JustJas-ei2hy]

With film in a film camera you get the "film look" straight away. Why do people want to get the "film look"? Because its better! LOL It costs me more to get decent prints from digital images than prints from film.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

You only get the film look if you are printing directly from a negative on to photographic paper. Most labs use equipment that digitises the image first. As I said in the video film is not better, its different

[@gogogeegee76]

Better, as vinyl is better than cds.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Different not better, as the video says.

[@MichaelRusso]

Not better, Film (or digital) is different.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Literally what the video actually says

[@MichaelRusso]

@ Absolutely! A very good video on the subject.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thank you

[@recreationalplutonium]

lol, who in their right mind would claim that film is better? also why the F would you should film if all you do is scan the negatives in the end?

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Have you watched the video? I make exactly that point about scanning

[@recreationalplutonium]

@@JasonRowPhotography lol no, why should I watch the video? I just reply to clickbait titles

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Well that pretty much invalidates your initial comment then

[@recreationalplutonium]

@@JasonRowPhotography ok, boomer

[@_H_2023]

Never understood why anyone would digitise film as you now have a digital image that's poorer quality compared to a 100% digital image!unless it's for achieve. Coming from digital to film I have to say I really don't like digital now I'm working in film, The reason is every one is so obsessed in digital with getting things super sharp almost razor sharp and to me it's too clinical and doesn't look natural. I've now gone down the root of 35mm and contact printing with a Sanderson half plate camera 1880s and I just love it, all hands on work, with Dichromate and Silver Nitrate and I find this is so much nicer even the mistakes look good rather than sitting at a computer screen and working in P.S. No real skills required to achieve a fairly decent image in digital that nobody really wants to look at. The secret is to go ALL manual and enjoy either digital or film, your correct they are totally different mediums but you can enjoy both worlds.

[@ShadesOClarity]

Except that it is.

[@stevew1487]

LOL. Well I guess that's it then...

[@JasonRowPhotography]

A few comments like this. :)

[@christofabt8958]

Digital is better, I switched from an EOS3 to a EOS 350D and used the same lenses. The quality of the digital prints from this 8 MPx Kamera was much better than the ones from slide or color film.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Personally I agree for most metrics, digital is better but there is still very much a place for film, and I think all new photographers, should shoot some film if they are serious about learning photography

[@basaraj]

I shoot 35mm "full frame" digital and 35mm film. I have more fun shooting film. More fun is better than less fun therefore, film is better. If you have more fun letting the optical image sensing computer do the thinking for you, than film is not better, for YOU. I get compliments on the camera (Olymus OM-1) hanging from my neck when I shoot film vs. the camera hanging from my shoulder when I shoot digital. More compliments is better than fewer compliments therefore, film is better. Simple. Great video, thank you.

[@Saber_Nico]

you're speaking in subjective. objectively, which is what we are talking about, digital is better, doesnt matter how much "fun" you have with film.

[@ronstar7027]

I have top line Canon digital cameras, 1DXMkII, 5DmkIV, 1DXMk, 6D, R5, and about fifteen L Series lenses, (up to a 500mm f4), and some R Series. I also have about 15 35mm film cameras with a full range of lenses, Nikons, (F3, F2, a couple of F's, two Nikkormats), Canons, (A-1, F1, rangefinder with 2 M39 lenses), small fun rangefinders of various types, and an Olympus XA2. All in all, I love my film cameras more, and enjoy working in my real Darkroom and B22, more than with my Lightroom. So don't presume to pronounce which type of photography is better. It's up to me to decide, not you.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I wonder if you actually watched the video. Because in it i do not presume to pronounce which medium is better, in fact I actively encourage people to shot film.

[@kaczynski2333]

Just as film and digital are aesthetic chouces, so to is large format. Moving on

[@JasonRowPhotography]

Thanks for you comment. Moving on

[@kaczynski2333]

​@@JasonRowPhotographycorrect; it's more attention than either my comment or your channel deserves.

[@JasonRowPhotography]

@@kaczynski2333thanks for the engagement, you must think my channel deserves it 😂

[@kaczynski2333]

​@JasonRowPhotography oh, I've given you your comment; but. I've also hit "do not recommend channel". I'm not convinced it's the win you believe it to be.

[@PixPete]

The fact you keep mentioning “Threads” immediately disqualifies you from this conversation. Good day, sir!

[@JasonRowPhotography]

I believe I mentioned Threads once, no more than twice and in reference to the particular type of photography this video is talking about. Given I started this particular conversation, I am clearly not disqualified, you however , are due to not bringing anything useful to it. Good day to you.