This has been the most hotly contested debate since the advent of digital photography. A disclaimer: I will give you my $0.02 per usual through the glasses of street photography as that is my passion but these shared thoughts could be applicable to other forms of photography and are at the end of the day are just a mere opinion and observation.
The short answer to the question is an unequivocal no. It doesn’t matter how you produce a photo because the end result, a photo, a print, “should” be the intended goal of any street photographer. I don’t want to be so presumptuous as to tell anyone what to do because street photographers come in many shapes and forms. Yet, when a photo is great, compelling and evokes the viewer then it doesn’t matter if a film or digital camera was used to take it. Both 35mm and APS-C frame digital are excellent in image quality and with films such as Kodak Portra and Kodak Vision3 you do not relinquish any quality over to that of the digital sensor.
Of course, the longer answer is more nuanced and protracted. Digital photography has one major advantage over film which is that once the cost of the camera and lens have been paid, there are no further costs for the development of film. Therefore, one can shoot as many shots as you like out on a street session and I will get back to this notion a little further on in the article. The economist in me would have to say that there is an argument to be made that one can divide the amount of pictures one takes by the cost of purchasing the digital camera. Therefore if you purchase a $4000 camera your first shot is a $4000 shot. Better make it count.
Of course we can apply the same formula to purchasing a film camera and add the cost of developing, scanning and purchasing the film and because film cameras are usually bought used it is exactly the cost of the latter three which act as an inhibitor to people shooting a lot of film or even shoot film at all. I develop and scan all my film at home not because I enjoy that aspect of my workflow but simply because it makes shooting film affordable. I couldn’t imagine (anymore) having to bring my film to a lab and pay for all those services. Therefore, if you’re really serious about shooting film consistently and affordable, unless you’re a big shot YouTuber with a sponsorship, you’re better off developing and scanning your film at home. This is the one single biggest step you can take to lower the cost of shooting film.
Of course another major advantage digital has over film is variable ISO. Digital cameras nowadays can practically shoot in the dark. With film, on the color side, we are stuck with 800 ISO max, 1600 if you push it but I have yet to see anyone with beautiful results after they’ve pushed their color film.
You are henceforth left to shoot flash when things get truly dark. Which to me is no issue as I do love shooting flash but I have seen some truly amazing nighttime photography with high ISO on digital cameras. Flash is a very deliberate aesthetic and will instantaneously change the mood of a shot. On the other hand film is very flexible when it comes to overexposure which digital isn’t. One can also easily use ND filters to change the speed of a film during the day and take them off as your light dwindles. To shoot with an 800 ISO speed film is still very light sensitive especially coupled with 1/60 and F2.8. You can go reasonably “dark” with those settings. But having the ability to seamlessly go from ISO 100 all the way to 12,800 without much, if any loss of image quality is a crystal clear advantage if you enjoy shooting past sunset.
Having limitations does inspire creativity. Having to “work” for a shot and find a solution to get it is also a very gratifying experience and there is certainly nothing wrong with having to think about a shot and how to acquire it. Having to “work” for a shot doesn’t guarantee it’s a great shot but it leaves us with a feeling of satisfaction. Which is in my opinion part of the appeal of film cameras. My Konica IIIA has a top (I know, quite the oxymoron) shutter speed of 1/500 yet I don’t feel it has held me back in any regard versus a camera topping out at 1/4000 but I do feel it forces me to think about how to acquire the shot properly. It keeps me in the moment.
A lot is always said about the fact that with a digital camera you can take as many photos as you like. This is true although I feel that there comes a point of diminishing returns. It’s better to take 100 well thought through photos in one session than to spray and pray 1000 photos which you then have to sift through at the end of the day. I am not a fan of shooting on continuous mode. Thankfully I did learn photography on film so when I shoot digitally I shoot like I’m holding a film camera. I learn to anticipate the moment and yes, you can still work a scene however your eye learns so much faster by learning to anticipate moments than to simply spray and pray therefore I believe that the ability to shoot as many photos as you like on digital is a bit of a moot point.
Focusing speeds are also going to be very similar on both platforms. It doesn’t matter whether you zone focus on a film or digital camera. If you rely on autofocus(AF) then newer cameras are naturally going to have an advantage but my F100 is as good at AF as anything modern.
Then why do I prefer film if it doesn’t matter how you arrive at the end result? To me it’s the process of shooting with a decent film camera, the physical negative of my work and the look of film once your shot is scanned or printed. I certainly wouldn’t stop shooting if film suddenly didn’t exist tomorrow. You’d just see me out on the streets with my Nikon D700 and Tamron 45 1.8. It’s just that film has a very special place in my heart and soul. Maybe it’s because I feel film has a soul and digital doesn’t. I certainly sing the praises of a great digital street shot but the tones I get from Kodak Vision3 250D cannot be replicated in digital. They just can’t. It comes down to a personal preference, a personal choice. One isn’t necessarily “better” than the other. It’s just that one suits a particular person better than the other.
