How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

The latter was what I basically learned on, back the day, being allowed to sport my dad's back-up F4. Had to tie a knot in the sling for it to not bounce on the ground when I had it around my neck, me being too small.

Digital is so much easier, until you want to print. Upside of learbing on film, you are much more carefull at which pictures you take.

Maybe, one day, I'll get some B&W film and pull out said F4 again. Big maybe so, as I simply don't have the time to develop film on top of everything else...

Does film generally look better than a pre-processed raw digital photo? If so, that'd be a better selling point to me. Not having to master fiddling with clunky post-processing software - much more appealing than, "film is better because each shot costs a dollar, I can only take 36 shots instead of 2,000, and I enjoy the 2-weeks-later surprise of the results."

Also wish they would disclaim that the links in the article are affiliate links, quite impolite not to.

Since taking up film photography, I've had countless conversations with shopkeepers, fellow concert-goers, line-mates, and all manner of other folks whom I'd likely have simply ignored if not for the shared connection of the vintage camera around my neck. At a recent concert, I had a ten minute conversation with one of the security bag-checkers about my Canon; he had been a concert photographer in the 70s/80s and shared some of his experiences & tips for shooting shows. While eating a recent breakfast out, my server asked about the camera sitting to the side of our table and we struck up a conversation about photography and family heirlooms (this camera had been passed down from a family member). For some reason, vintage cameras seem to foster a connection that can span age and generational gaps.

Film photography has also been a source of connection to older family members and a gateway to unlocking and sharing memories that may not have otherwise seen the light of day. Conversation naturally starts with the modern film hobby and progresses quickly until photo albums are strewn about the kitchen table and old photo equipment litters the floor. Like many other commenters here have said, film photos have a knack for capturing "real" moments that embrace the ephemeral nature of photography - goofy poses, blurry photos, and candid moments. These moments tell us so much more about our friends and family members and shake memories loose from the depths of time. Digital photos can replicate some of this, but I find that their ubiquity leads to fatigue more often than contemplation.

Folks are right to complain about the cost and inconvenience of buying and developing film, but we as film photographers have the privilege of supporting small, local businesses that are dedicated to their craft and to the film community. In addition to the livelihood these businesses provide to their owners, film shops can also cultivate an in-person community around the hobby that makes the experience much richer for those involved. We recently had a new film store open in my neighborhood, and it's been fun browsing their film stock while chatting with other photographers who've stumbled into the store. If I'm going to be paying $15 for a roll and $20 to get it developed, I'd like to see that money support a local small business.

Buy a digital interchangable lens camera and make a conscious effort to both shoot a lot (and be willing to purge stuff, don't become a packrat) but also spend time experimenting and focusing on getting a particular shot or style of shot as best you can, technically first, and then artistically.

People who lack the discipline to be "intentional" without being forced to by the medium will not have the discipline to a)take the notes required so they can later understand how and why things didn't work, and b)shoot film long enough to actually learn the technical skills needed to then focus on artistic skills.

They'll find it frustrating because they'll get back a bunch of badly exposed, blurry shots and have no idea why. It might not even be their fault, because labs fuck up developing all the time, film can be bad (and its performance varies with temperature, age, etc) and film cameras can be horribly unreliable or broken and you have no way of telling unless you take it for repair.

Even the most serious, dedicated, methodical beginner will find it all exhausting unless they're practically autistic.

Digital is superior for serious beginners because beginners more than anything need to actually just go and shoot lots of photos, often...and know what when wrong when things don't work. And they need a minimum number of variables to keep track of.

If it's a film camera, they'll "save" the film, and worse, by the time they develop a roll, they won't remember anything about what they were doing.

None of these problems exist with digital. Not only are frames essentially free, and not only are the cameras nearly perfectly reliable - you can instantly see what did or did not work, and try again. Or try multiple things, and see immediately how it worked out.

You get complete metadata ranging from aperture and shutter speed, usually lens data, and various modes the camera was in and nowadays often even including location.

It becomes trivial to pop open your photo editing program and search for photos taken with a particular lens and effortlessly compare them down to the pixel, see histograms, etc.

Further, film is fucking terrible on a technical level; 35MM dSLRs surpassed it nearly two decades ago in nearly every technical capacity; micro 4/3rds / APS-C surpassed full-frame 35MM as well quite a while ago. Film has terrible dynamic range, resolution isn't very good except for expensive and low-sensitivity film...and usable ISO levels for natural light have terrible resolution. Forget about trying to shoot indoors unless you have some sort of lighting equipment, and that's a whole entire level of additional complexity.

If you're an experienced photographer who wants an extra challenge from film, fine.

But stop telling beginners film is superior. It is not, in any way/shape/form. It has not been for two decades.