Okay, well, maybe not everything, but as someone who spends nearly every day surrounded by the world of photography gear, I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the current state of digital photography. As a writer at B&H, my job is to know the ins and outs of photographic gear: I have had a hand in producing content for nearly every digital camera release over the past few years, I stay up to date on the trends going into camera design, and I even still get excited from time to time when a new camera is released. And as much as my daily life is inundated with the world of digital photography, I still am, almost exclusively, a film photographer.
I could share my version of the story that almost every photographer aged 30 or older has—about how I grew up and learned photography using film, still daydream about long nights printing in the darkroom, and how nostalgic and fundamental all of this is to my current practice—but that is not the reason I work with film. Even though that story is there for me, it's not the nostalgia that keeps me shooting film to this day. For me, it is the undeniable difference in quality that film provides, rather than the cold perfection that is inherent to digital, and I also shoot film because I can afford to. I don't mean this in a monetary sense; rather, I can afford to do without autofocus, instant playback of my images, high continuous shooting rates, video recording, and pretty much any other convenience offered by modern digital cameras. This is not a knock against what these cameras can do, but, for me, this abundance of technology can get in the way of what I'm actually trying to do with photography—which is, to get my shot.
Photographs © Bjorn Peterson
Now, this may seem contradictory, seeing as how all of these features seen in digital cameras are there for convenience and to help you "get the shot." They are put in place to help professional sports photographers nail that image of the center outfielder jumping to grab the homerun ball; for photojournalists to easily record stills and video while on assignment; and for hobbyists to be able to share photos and movies on the go via social media. And, arguably even more important than any of those examples, these features are important because they make it easier for anyone to capture well-exposed, in-focus imagery regardless of his or her photographic experience. This is excellent, and I am very glad that technological strides have been made to make photography accessible to all. Photography has always been about evolution toward accessibility, and it is crucial for this path to continue. At the same time, I feel it is important to also maintain acceptance of "legacy" practices and celebrate the heritage of the medium, especially when this heritage still encompasses its own set of unique advantages.
Much in the way many fine art painters prefer to work with oil instead of acrylic, despite its difficulties, or how many drivers favor manual transmission cars to automatics, the use of film is a preference that encompasses both the experience and results of photography. Unlike in the past, where film was the sole option for recording a photograph, using film today is a deliberate choice, considering the ease and access nearly everyone has to a digital camera. I make the choice to work with film because I prefer the results it provides, despite the comparative difficulties associated with the process. No matter how many film emulations you use, or the number of hours spent working in Photoshop to adjust your photograph, there is an inherent look to photographs made on film that cannot be replicated by digital imaging. The difficulty in explaining this difference in words is that the distinctions are not quite tangible, and often these desirable qualities are objectively lacking in technical terms, compared to recent digital offerings.
 |  |
Beyond a unique set of aesthetics associated with film, the process to working with film is another key to my continued use. I am not a working professional photographer in the sense that I typically do not photograph for the sake of deadlines or clients. When photographing for myself, I hope to make the experience as fluent and enjoyable as possible. Call me a Luddite, but if I'm out taking photographs, I'd prefer to spend time taking in the scene, interacting with people I'm photographing, or watching the event I'm attending, rather than spending time tinkering with camera settings, reviewing imagery, dialing in my settings, or worrying about how I'm going to quickly share my photos on Instagram. With most film cameras, the simplicity and lack of ability to confirm the shots inherently instills confidence in me when I'm working. Whereas with digital cameras, I feel compelled to chimp or tweak my settings simply because I can. Since the settings are there, I feel obligated to use them, whereas when the technology is removed, I have no choice other than to use my instincts.
 |  |
Going back to the beginning of this piece, and unlike other "film versus digital" conversations, my situation differs from many in that I do not see digital photography as a threat or a line of division between photographers. For me it is situated as an alternative and an option to suit various photographers' needs. Distinct from my preferences to shoot film, I actually embrace an almost completely digital workflow post-development. This hybrid method of working, where I shoot film, scan it, and then digitally output to light-sensitive paper (à la laser-exposed printing to silver gelatin or chromogenic paper), straddles the various lines of quality, control, and convenience , which are the most important considerations for me. I enjoy the ease and control of processing and printing digitally, and even do sometimes wish I could shoot digitally and get the same results, too. But while I can, I'm happy to shoot film and stand on the sidelines, watching the world of digital technology expand until I'm ready to jump in.
