The best way to think of it is Film and digital.
Each has strengths,
and each is an important tool for photographers. I propose that it makes little
sense to exclude one or the other from your toolkit.
subject here is film, but this is not a pro-film, anti-digital diatribe. It is
an attempt to inform. The advantages of digital are widely circulated and well
known, and I acknowledge them, but for the sake of brevity will mention only a
few of them here. No slight is intended.
big, big question: is film going to disappear?
day. But not soon. It will still be in use in 2015. Manufacturing volumes are
now a fraction of what they were in 2005. Kodak's seven worldwide factories,
each of which ran 24-7, are now reduced to one factory in Rochester, New York,
which operates one shift per day. In the developed world, 35mm amateur color film
is no longer a high-volume consumer product. By 2015, you will be buying it from a
small number of specialist retailers (including Frugal Photographer).
a photo-hungry third world won't be switching to digital soon. The movie
industry is about half digital now (2012) and about 95% of the film Kodak makes
is sold to Hollywood. Microfilm remains far superior to digitization for
simple, cheap, archival document
can read a microfilm (or any film image, actually) with a magnifying glass and
some sunlight. Try that with a digital file.
that is one of the reasons why there are certain situations where film remains a better alternative.
photography is a slightly different case in point.
should consider using film when headed to remote destinations where physical
conditions require robust equipment, and where the advantages of digital are of
little or no benefit. Even
the toughest digital camera is a wimp compared to any decent mechanical film
can also be an issue. Recharging batteries is not possible everywhere. And in
many places in the third world, only flashlight batteries are readily available,
and even then, only in larger towns.
Soro-Gbema chiefdom, Sierra Leone, November 2004. I spent a week in Fairo, which
was in the second year of
rebuilding itself after the end of the Sierra Leone civil war. This
family posed for me framed by the window of a house that was burned by rebels in 1991. Fairo has no electricity and the only batteries in town are D-cells for
flashlights. Recharging or replacing batteries would have been out of the
Film: Bluefire Police, exposed in a conventional
Luceni Beimba Kamara, of Fairo. Mr. Kamara's health deteriorated during the
twelve years he was struggling to survive in refugee camps. He carries with him
a terrible sadness.
Polaroid 665 positive-negative
Garba, of Bo, Sierra Leone. Mr. Garba is a professional photographer, who has
made his living in Sierra Leone since immigrating there from Nigeria in the
1980's. He shoots weddings, funerals, portraits, and seminars and
meetings. During the civil war he worked as a correspondent for several
newspapers. He relies on an older mechanical Nikon SLR and a hand-held
meter because, as he says, he
can't afford to be at the mercy of a dead battery.
Lamina Kamara was one of my acquaintances during my Peace Corps tour in Fairo,
1967-69. I was very pleased to find him still alive and in good health. A year
previously he had stepped on a nail and suffered a bout of tetanus that left him
walking with a pronounced limp, unable to flex his feet. I took this photo with
a Polaroid camera using their type 665 negative-positive pack film. I gave Mr. Kamara the
print and kept the negative. These Polaroid negatives must be cleared in an 18% sulfite
solution. It was difficult to dry it in the humidity of Fairo, and I had to
leave it propped against the wall of the room where my wife and I were staying.
Dust from the cement-plastered wall and the sandy floor contaminated the
negative. When we left Fairo it was still not completely dry, and I carried it
for two days between blank pages of my notebook, and the paper stuck to it. It's
beat-up negative I've ever tried to print, but the image is priceless. Click it
to enlarge it.
© 2004 David Foy
on a budget should consider using film.
seems counter-intuitive, but it's true. Your initial equipment outlay can be much less.
Your cost per image can be only nickels, or even pennies. It might be a nickel
or penny well invested, given the image quality advantages (see below).
equipment costs. Very good used film cameras and lenses abound, and can be had
for little money. Enlargers with good lenses are going for peanuts (so are
excellent 35mm film scanners). It's true that the prices of digital cameras
continue to drop rapidly, but the price of digital SLRs (the most useful kind of digital
camera for a serious photographer) remains high, and may not drop much more. A
good, used 35mm SLR with a good zoom lens is a better alternative than any
non-SLR digital, if you're serious about photography.
fresh film does cost money. There are strategies to keep film costs down: for
example, buy short-dated or slightly out-of-date film from a reputable supplier,
and freeze it. A hundred rolls of short-dated black and white film at $1 per
roll takes up about a cubic foot of freezer space, and requires a $100 initial outlay,
but it's a pretty good way of setting yourself up for 3600 images, and it will
be useful for at least a decade. That's just under 3 cents per image.
to the common misconception, digital photography is not guaranteed to be cheap,
and is not always fast. Printing inkjet images at home is slow, inherently
wasteful, and shockingly expensive. You can reduce waste by becoming a workflow
fanatic, but speed and cost are beyond your control.
inkjet printing is subject to the constant pressure of obsolescence. What do you
do with a decent, useful printer when ink is no longer available? You replace
it. A darkroom is a one-time investment. It is not unthinkable for a
photographer today to make prints in a home darkroom built by his or her
great-grandparent, using a 1930's enlarger, last upgraded forty years ago with
nothing more than a better lens.
any photographer, whether using digital or film, needs to limit waste and
use consumables carefully.
camera users have the advantage of being able to take many more images than they
intend to print, since the cost of taking images is the cost of owning the
digital camera and storage cards, and does not change with the number of images
you shoot. Sometimes — often, perhaps — this can be a strength. You can go
wild at your child's birthday party, and come away with unexpected delights.
Shooting rapidly and copiously at a fast-breaking sporting event, or at an East
African game preserve, only makes sense.
generally, the best photographs are made in your mind long before they're made
in your camera, even at a game preserve. Restraint is not just a cost-saving
exercise. It's an artistic tool. Visualize first. Then shoot. Shoot less. Shoot
view that film images are "richer" is no illusion — it's a
a microscopic level, digital images are captured as a regular two-dimensional
lattice of relatively far-apart sensor elements, each the same size. The space between
them is then filled in by software routines ("interpolation").
Interpolation can not, and therefore does not, result in more detail. It merely
creates a smooth transition between adjacent pixels. The best lens in the world
on a digital camera can only capture what can be resolved by some specific number
of sensor elements. Interpolation algorithms can be very good, but the upper limit on
how much detail can be stored in a digital image is a hardware limit, and it is
image on film is a thin, tightly-packed, yet three-dimensional, random array of
dye "clouds" or metallic silver filaments, varying in shape and size.
Depending on the film, a film image can record as much detail as your lens can
resolve. If you are using a good lens, a Bluefire Police 35mm negative, for
example, stores far more information than even a 12 megapixel digital
many prints, especially smaller prints, the difference between film and digital
is not noticeable. On enlarged images, digital photos often seem
"flat," and some are noticeably "pixilated." The
well-documented movement back to film from digital among some wedding and portrait photographers is directly related to this fact.
film is a truly proven archival medium — with the following caveats:
must be true silver-based black and white film (not a dye-based C-41 film,
because the dyes used in the C-41 process are unstable and will eventually fade);
it must be processed properly; and
it must be
these conditions are met, there is no reason film negatives cannot last for more
hundred years. After all, silver is an extremely stable metal, and a
properly processed black and white silver-based film negative consists of grains
of pure silver suspended in gelatin on inert acetate or polyester, and nothing more. Film has
been in widespread use since approximately 1885, and its storage qualities have
been thoroughly studied.
print longevity has not yet been proven over time, but has been estimated based on
accelerated-aging simulations. The estimates are probably reliable.
black and white prints, if correctly made and properly stored, should last
hundreds of years;
best digital color prints, made on archival paper with pigment-based inks, should last a hundred
years or more;
color prints made on commodity photo-quality inkjet paper, using dye-based
inks, may fade within a few years, or may last as long as ordinary C-41
C41 color prints (the kind you get from a one-hour lab) have lamentably
short life expectation, probably no more than two or three dozen years, or
if exposed continuously to room light.
common digital archival medium today is CD-ROM, and studies show these are
subject to deterioration, particularly if you mark them with a solvent-based felt-tip
The least expensive CD-ROMS could be unreadable in just a few years. The
essence of the problem is that CD-ROMS are attacked by airborne solvents, which
de-color their dyes, delaminate their layers, and tarnish their inexpensive aluminum substrate.
premium CD-ROMs are said to be of archival quality. They are made with more
durable dyes, silver or gold substrates, and are sealed to prevent the
infiltration of pollutants. These have estimated hundred-year lifetimes.
Valuable digital images should always be stored on these kinds of high-longevity
As is the case with film,
actual longevity depends on storage conditions.
longevity is one thing. Readability is another. And the history of digital
obsolescence is sobering.
I first began working with computers, in the early 1980's, data was stored and
exchanged on punched paper tape. We graduated to 8" single-sided floppy
discs, then double-sided, then quad-capacity, then to ever-smaller, ever-higher
capacity floppies. None of them could be read, of course, on the previous
generation of disc drives. Popping up now and again were various kinds of
magnetic tapes, from the usual IBM style 9-track reels to any of several dozens
of kinds of cartridges. Each required its own reader and its own software.
I have no doubt that to read any of the paper
tapes today, and most of the magnetic tape cartridges, and the 8" floppy discs, I'd have to find a computer museum
somewhere that would co-operate with me.
That's probably true with the
5-1/4" floppies as well. The last time I saw a computer equipped with a
5-1/4" drive was years ago, in a thrift shop, priced at $5 with no
takers. It is worth noting that most new computers
today are shipped without any kind of floppy drives at all.
it's possible to read 9-track reels taken from storage, if you live in a big
city with a long-established mainframe infrastructure (although there are many
reports that older tapes have sections of total data loss due to the oxide
recording layer coming loose).
ensure film images are readable in the future, process and store them properly.
Period. All you will need to read them is a magnifying glass and some
To ensure digital images are readable in the future, store them properly on
long-life media — but
you must also migrate all your digital images to new storage media every time
storage obsolescence rears its ugly head.