What I Wish I Knew Before Moving from Digital to Film

Film image landscape - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
This post may contain affiliate links. If you click on a link and make a purchase, Shoot It With Film may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you.

Written by Drew Evans

There’s one question that pops into my inbox just about every week these days: 

“Should I shoot film?”

I’ve been photographing for close to 15 years now. I’ve gone through all sorts of camera equipment and photography styles. I’ve constantly been moving the goalposts for what I thought was expected of me as a photographer and what I’ve wanted for myself. Then, about 18 months ago, I decided to make a big change in my photography journey.

I decided to sell everything and start over – this time, only film.

So if you’re wondering if you should shoot film or why you should shoot film, here are a few tips that helped me along the way.

Film image of a beach - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

Making that transition from a digital workflow to a film-only workflow was quite the challenge, especially at first. Equipment and cost aside, it really made me realize just how little I knew about the foundations of photography.

Where my digital workflow left me with a ton of control and power to create the exact image I envisioned in my head (even though those visions were never that great to start), film photography forced me to learn. And learn quickly.

Here are a few things to remember if you’re thinking about making the switch from digital to film photography:

Film image landscape - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

1. There’s No Right or Wrong When It Comes to Digital vs. Film

The first and arguably most important point to remember is that shooting film doesn’t mean your work is better than anyone else’s. 

There’s been a small but vocal contingent of the photography community over the past few years that has taken the stance that film photography > digital. Personally, I don’t think that’s true in the slightest – simply just a different format for photography. 

My only advice here is the following: if you’re thinking about shooting film because you think it’s inherently better than digital, you should probably reconsider why you’re doing this in the first place.

Now that I’m off my soapbox…

Color negative strip - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Film image of San Francisco - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Grab your free copy of the Shoot It With Film magazine!

2. Glass First

As you’re starting on this journey of how to shoot film, you’ll come across hundreds and hundreds of camera options.

Figuring out where to start is a tough question, as it mostly comes down to preference. The prevailing thought is that the vast majority of people should start with (and in many cases, stick to) 35mm. 

But one thing to remember is that, unlike digital photography, most film camera bodies have the same features.

Whether you pick up a Canon AE-1 or the latest Leica MP (find on eBay), they’re going to have a very similar set of standard features. Digital cameras can vary more significantly, with different sensors, image stabilization features, high frames per second, and more. 

That said, lenses are what you should focus on.

Glass can vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer, and the quality of the lens will dictate the quality of your end image.

While lenses are still important for a digital setup, glass choice between film cameras is the biggest (and sometimes the only) differentiator between brands and cameras.

Film image of a tennis court - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Film image of a building - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

3. If You Can, Start with Black and White Film

If I could go back and start my film photography journey over again, I would absolutely start with black and white film first.

The first rolls of film I put through my camera were Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Ultramax 400. I was so enamored by the beautiful colors that film produced, and I started to search for colorful scenes in real life that could take advantage of the tones I had fallen in love with.

But I didn’t learn much about light, or contrast, or metering, or how to use my camera as an artistic tool. I wound up relying so much on color that I ignored the basics. 

Because black and white film eliminates that reliance on color, you’re forced to really learn how to use light and contrast in an image, and find interesting subjects that aren’t strictly interesting because of their saturation.

Film image of a beach - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Film image of a park - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

4. Get to Know Your Film

This one might seem obvious, but it’s still important nonetheless: when you’re learning how to shoot film, learn how your film stock works.

Not all film is created equally when it comes to saturation, latitude, grain, sharpness, and more. While it’s harder to do these days because of the cost, it’s important to test your film stocks in different situations.

Push it, pull it, shoot it in harsh light and in minimal light, in the morning and in the evening. Putting it through its paces will help you know how and when to use a certain film best.

For example, I saw wonderful images of CineStill 800T and decided to test it out. I took it out for a walk on a beautiful late afternoon here in San Francisco, and my images were pretty terrible. But it had nothing to do with the film, and instead the way I was using it. I learned quickly that for a film to shine, you need to work with your film, not make your film work for you (unless it’s a stylistic choice).

Here’s a guide to different color film stocks and different black and white film stocks.

Film image of a scooter - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Film image of a building - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

5. In Film Photography, Expose Over Not Under

I was so excited to get my first few rolls back from the lab when I was learning film photography. I grabbed my computer as quickly as I could once I saw my scans pop into my email inbox, and I opened them up in Lightroom.

They didn’t look right. The shadows didn’t look good. The colors looked… off. I asked some of my film friends why that happened and what I might be doing wrong. They all asked the same thing: “What did you meter for?”

That’s when I learned that metering in film photography is quite different than in digital. 

In my digital workflow, I had been taught that metering for the highlights would allow you to retain detail in the bright spots, and any underexposed shadows could be recovered in post. Editing was just as much a part of my creative process as was taking the actual photograph.

With film, the opposite is true. Unless I’m purposefully looking for a specific look, I meter for the shadows to retain as much detail as possible.

Many films are good about not completely blowing out the highlights but don’t do as well at retaining shadow detail, so I tend to overexpose instead of underexpose. 

Film image of a beach - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Film image of the ocean - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

6. Take Your Time and Make Mistakes

Last but not least, take your time. 

While you likely have a tendency to fire off 20-30 shots with a digital photography setup at one location knowing you can pick and choose the best later, you don’t have the same luxury with film photography (unless you have a ton of cash to burn). 

As you’re learning film photography, force yourself to stop, slow down, and think about the lighting and composition that you really want to capture. Slowing down and engaging more with the process of taking photos is one of the big reasons why you might enjoy shooting film.

There’s no worse feeling than getting a fully developed roll back to find that your composition and/or exposure is just a bit off, but had you taken an extra 30 seconds, you could have nailed it. 

Of all of the tips I’ve mentioned here, this one has probably helped me grow the most as a photographer. It’s taught me to really value my frames.

With a digital setup, I might take random shots ‘just in case,’ only to delete them from my memory card later. With film, I often stop to compose a shot and decide it’s just not worth the exposure. 

Film image of a building - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film
Film image of a forest - Switching from Digital to Film on Shoot It With Film

At the end of the day, challenging yourself and growing are the only ways to really prevent stagnation as an artist.

For me, learning film photography was that catalyst to force me to start over and re-learn things in a different way. 

Shooting with film isn’t my personality as a photographer, it’s simply the medium that I choose to shoot with. It pushes me, it makes me think and rethink my skillset on a routine basis, and it provides me with some of the most rewarding outcomes I’ve had to this point in my career.

Thank you so much, Drew! Drew is a regular contributor here at Shoot It With Film, and you can check out his other articles here, such as the Leica M6 35mm Film Camera Review and Mamiya 7 Review: Does This Medium Format Rangefinder Live Up to the Hype?.

You can also check out more of Drew’s work on his Instagram.

Leave your questions about switching from digital to film photography and why you shoot film below in the comments!

Shoot It With Film Magazine Issue 01 Promo Image

Drew Evans

Drew Evans is a cityscape and landscape film photographer and a regular contributor for Shoot It With Film. Find his other articles here, such as Lecia M6 35mm Camera Review and 6 Tips for Buying and Shooting the Leica M6.

Tags:
Blog Comments

Great article! I have never used digital and never will. My first serious film camera was a YASHICA-A for a few months, sold it to buy a LEICA 3a, had it about a year , sold it to buy LEICA M-3 in 1969 for the grand sum of $175.00 with a 50mm 2.8 ELMAR. i STILL HAVE THE m-3, The ELMAR succumbed to fungus, now shoot with 1939 50mmf2 SUMMITAR. Also ROLLEIFLEX automat, IKOFLEX lever focus with beautifully bloomed 7,5 cm 105 TRIOTAR lens and AGFA BILLY COMPUR with 105 mm 4.5 SOLINAR.

What a fun set of equipment, I always find it interesting to see what people are shooting with. I’m sure you’re happy to have purchased an M3 for that amount considering their prices now!

Learning quickly with either BW or Color can be helped a lot by NOT shooting 35 mm. Take a MF camera, many possibilities out there from 6×4.5 till 6×9. Do your thing and burn 16 or less negatives, develop or have it developed, check them as negative and after scanning. This is a much more focused approach than having 36 negatives that are also a lot smaller, or taking days to finish that complete 35 mm roll. Currently having a lot of fun with my latest gear addition/addiction a Mamiya Press Super 23. Oh, yes ,just found back a Olympus Trip 35 that a friend gave me, …

Those Mamiya Press cameras are so cool!

And yes, I know the feeling when loading up B&W on 35mm and getting through half a roll before losing speed. Then, the next time I go out to shoot, it never quite feels like the right time to shoot B&W.

If MF/LF were cheaper to get into and a good place to start for beginners, then I’d be inclined to agree with you.

Drew, I first started with B&W back in the early 1960s, developing and printing my own (as well as slide film). I now have a dedicated darkroom and work with 35mm (occasionally, using bulk loaded cassettes), 120/220 Rollfilm, 4″x5″ and 8″x10″ sheet film. I’d have liked to have seen more of your mono shots in the article. Try doing your own film developing then only get digitised the frames you want. Better still get an enlarger for 120 Rollfilm (can still use for 35mm) and do your own printing instead of relying on digitised prints. The larger formats are much more fun! You can concentrate more on composition etc. without concerns about grain, only tonal quality. Erwin: I also have an Olympus Trip 35 in great condition. Fantastic lens equivalent in sharpness to the similar Leica lens and a completely manual automatic exposure camera without any batteries! Match it to a Metz CT38-3 flash unit and you’ll have one of the best camera-flash compatible systems.

“1. There’s No Right or Wrong
The first and arguably most important point to remember is that shooting film doesn’t mean your work is better than anyone else’s.

There’s been a small but vocal contingent of the photography community over the past few years that has taken the stance that film > digital. Personally, I don’t think that’s true in the slightest – simply just a different format for photography.

My only advice here is the following: if you’re thinking about shooting film because you think it’s inherently better than digital, you should probably reconsider why you’re doing this in the first place.”

I agree wholeheartedly, recording an image chemically, or electronically, in and of itself doesn’t equate to a superior result. Any image has to stand on its own merits, regardless of how it was acquired, and anyone who believes differently may be missing the point of photography entirely.

That said I’ve been using film for about fifty years so, obviously, before and since digital imaging arrived. Over the last 20 years I haven’t seen anywhere near as much superiority, or condescension, on the part of film photographers as I have from proselytisers of digital imaging.

I suppose it’s not surprising people in either camp can tend to be emotionally embroiled in their own choice. That’s OK, but I think it’s good to be clear-eyed about how you make your photos and why, so, whilst I support your observations on the subject, I will add that, although a film acquisition workflow isn’t inherently superior to a digital equivalent—it is not inherently inferior, either. The truth is that, from a technical perspective, each holds advantages over the other *in certain respects*. And that the most important point of all is: which is best *for you*?

That last is the only thing which really matters but it is, unfortunately, frequently lost on online proponents of either imaging process. Photographers on the worldwide web, for reasons I have never really understood, have, in my observations, frequently demonstrated a predilection for telling other photographers how they should photograph, what they should photograph, and what they should photograph *with*. It’s like Canon v Nikon all over again—but even more tedious (if that is possible). As long as a photographer is clear in their mind about their choice of photographic medium, IMHO it’s best to disengage from the typical clickbait content that would insist they’re wrong. No matter how one makes one’s images, an immutable truth is that there will *always* be someone, somewhere, waiting to say it’s wrong.

“5. Over Not Under
I was so excited to get my first few rolls back from the lab. I grabbed my computer as quickly as I could once I saw my scans pop into my email inbox, and I opened them up in Lightroom.

They didn’t look right. The shadows didn’t look good. The colors looked… off. I asked some of my film friends why that happened and what I might be doing wrong. They all asked the same thing: “What did you meter for?”

That’s when I learned that metering in film is quite different than in digital.

In my digital workflow, I had been taught that metering for the highlights would allow you to retain detail in the bright spots, and any underexposed shadows could be recovered in post. Editing was just as much a part of my creative process as was taking the actual photograph.

With film, the opposite is true. Unless I’m purposefully looking for a specific look, I meter for the shadows to retain as much detail as possible.

Many films are good about not completely blowing out the highlights but don’t do as well at retaining shadow detail, so I tend to overexpose instead of underexpose.”

OK for negative films, but might I suggest you amend the text to clarify the point that reversal film requires more precise exposure and is far less forgiving of overexposed highlights? Yes, I realise your remarks are addressing exposure of negative film but no explicit mention made of this point. Anybody who ran with your comments in the process of shooting their first roll of RVP 50, (or even RDPIII) would end up learning an increasingly expensive lesson the hard way.

Thanks for your observations. Whilst those of us who have been photographing with film have much to offer younger photographers, I think it is a mistake for the former to believe that there is nothing they might gain by listening to the latter. Ultimately it’s in all our interests to listen to every voice in the film photography community.

Really well articulated and thanks for the reply.

1) So true. For me, film was an opportunity to get back to the foundations of photography and learn things that I had overlooked when starting with digital. So in my eyes, it’s “superior” in the sense that it was a better teaching mechanism for me. Unfortunately, with the rise of film on Instagram in particular, there’s been a tendency to say it’s the “better” format to shoot with because it’s more “authentic”.

2. Definitely a good call, I should have noted that I shoot negative film 99% of the time. I think I’ve only shot one roll of positive film and was so worried the entire time about both over and underexposure!

I started out with film in the early 70s and was always a Canon Fan. I bought my first Canon digital in 2005 and came back to film in 2021 during the height of the COVID lock downs. Since I had so many Canon L Series EF mount lenses I chose a Canon EOS film camera. I use film and digital and all my lenses work on both.

Awesome read Drew, and I can get on board with your sentiments precisely. I’ve never massively been enamoured of digital photography anyway, but with glasses photography using the rear view screen was pretty much the most comfortable way to practice. But when I transitioned from glasses to contact lenses I got right back into film with a Kiev 60 and a set of Zeiss lenses and never looked back (and now I have far more equipment than is healthy and I have no regrets!)

Peace out 🙂

Leave a Comment