I used film from the time my uncle gave me my first camera in 1960 at the age of 5, until 2005. I used film in SLRs and many other advanced cameras from 1968 until 2005. I worked in a pro portrait lab environment from 1979 to 2012, my first eight years as a multi-image AV producer doing training and promotional/motivational shows, the rest as a systems, project, or production manager of some sort. So I think I have a little perspective to offer.

I enjoyed film, when it was all there was. But when I got my first Mac in 1985, I could see that the future would be digital. Five years later, we had Photoshop and 1.2 MP cameras. The Kodak engineers came to our lab and showed us their experimental goodies (camera, Composite Machine, and dye-sublimation printers). A few years later, they showed us the first practical film scanners.

By 1995, we were off to the races, buying scanners, software, servers, and primitive digital printers. In 2002, we installed our first digital mini-lab. By 2007, we had 40 of them.

I said in '95, that film would be a hobby relic in 20 years.

Over the next 12 years, we ripped out all our old optical printers and recycled them, replacing them first with film scanners, software, networks, and mini-labs, then with digital cameras to feed the system.

In early 2005, we brought in a model and photographed her with film (split-70mm Kodak Portra 160NC in 6x4.5 cm format). Then we photographed her with a Canon EOS-20D. We scanned the film, color-corrected both the film and digital images, and printed both sets of images on a Noritsu MP-1600 mini-lab. We brought in all the managers and supervisors for a blind review of the prints.

62% of the staff liked the digital images better. That was good, because that Spring, our retail school portrait photographers began recycling over 400 long roll film cameras and replacing them with 20Ds.

In 2007, all the film processors came out. The film processor operators both had the same form of terminal cancer (35 and 25 year employees). We had to dig out several feet of earth under the concrete floor of the film processing room, to remove polluted soil. HR and legal counsel had a potential nightmare on their hands... But we got lucky. The operators had refused to wear their PPE (personal protective equipment) on multiple occasions.

By 2011, our entire workflow was 100% digital. No order paperwork, no film. Only data on DVD, or moved over the Internet. It was MUCH quicker, and FAR more accurate.

Here are some observations:

We can think just as much with digital cameras as we did with film cameras. In fact, we can think even more, if we like! The difference is, we can get where we want to be a lot faster. All it takes is the self-discipline to do it.

I think (or intuit) just as much about what I'm photographing now — or more — than I did when using film. The physics of light have not changed. The way digital tools react to light is a little different, but with knowledge and care and the right tools, we can get the same look, or something better. I haven't changed my thought process. But with digital tools, it is easier, faster, and more likely I will get exactly what I want.

I still start with a goal for my images. I still think, "Light character, contrast range, color temperature, intensity... Long view, medium view, close-up view... Bird's eye view, worm's eye view, vary the lens perspective... Pose, compose, expose... Anticipate, predict, follow, record... Color, line, form, weight... Balance, flow, negative and positive spaces..." ...But now I get to review and recalculate, on the spot.

If I want, I can "delay gratification" and just make exposures without looking at the OLED display. But why would I, since instant feedback allows immediate adjustment or correction? In FilmWorld, I had to worry about re-photographing (things I could re-photograph), or worry about missing a scene entirely. In DigiWorld, I review, adjust, and retake on the spot. If my idea didn't work, I change it. If my exposure was off, I adjust it.

JPEGs are like slides. With both JPEGs and slide films, to get ideal results, we must control ALL the variables BEFORE we press the shutter release. JPEGs are NOT meant to be edited. There is almost the same +1/2, –2/3 stop latitude. We must NAIL exposure and white balance in the camera if we want accurate subject rendition. Digital camera menu settings are *just like* the bag full of filters, different slide films, and meters I used to carry back in the early '80s. But they're far easier to use, once learned.

Raw files are like color negatives. With both raw files and color negative films, we have lots of exposure latitude (about +/– 2 full stops). We MUST process the images later, to get a usable file or print. WE are the lab, though. We can't send raw files to a lab... We must process them into JPEGs or TIFFs first. The good news is, we have more control over the outcome; the bad news is, we have to exercise that control. That means buying a decent computer, monitor, calibrator, software, and learning to use it all correctly.

I don't miss film. It served me well, but I've moved on. If YOU like it, that's great. Film photography makes a great hobby for those who like working with it. It makes an interesting art medium for those who still use it. But it isn't intrinsically "worse" or "better". It's just an older, different way to work.

Some are supposed to be very stable others not so much sunlight and air seems to destabilize the dyes. A pigment based ink will probably out last dye based inks. Archival quality Inks should last and glass seems to help. I buy a lot of second hand pictures for the frames and fading of the printed images is very obvious. On the plus side being able to reprint from a digital file is less of a problem than printing from a color negative whose dyes have drifted over time. I've some inkjet prints that seem fairly stable and others severely degraded after just a couple of years...

I spent almost 50 years shooting film from 35mm to 4x5. I didn't usually "get them developed." I usually developed them myself, both black and white and color. When ALL my work was "lost" by workers clearing my house in Mexico, I made the decision to move entirely to digital. This decision was buttressed by learning of the burden borne by the environment from the chemicals and leached silver of my photography. It was also supported by the ease of creating backup sets that might have protected me from the loss of many thousands of prints, slides and negatives.

As to having to wait to develop the images, I do exactly that when I shoot RAW and have only RAW data until I develop the images in Photoshop, (or more recently Affinity Photo). I do not succumb to the ease of jpeg because my images are almost always superior when I develop them.

There is no reason any longer to shoot film. The quality of the image is no longer better. Indeed it is no longer even discernably different.

Of course, there are antiquarians who choose to use some process like Daguerreotype, Talbot's Process, or Ambrotype. But there will never be enough of those to be problematic.

Some thoughts about recent events. I shoot digital and I also shoot film. I get the question 'why' a lot.

Yesterday I went to the beach with my son and grandkids. I took my M43 camera, got some shots I was happy with. However before they left, I took some film pics and my 2.5 yr old granddaughter said "grampaw can I see the picture?" How to explain this? So she is growing up and her understanding of a camera is it is something that you take a picture and you get to see it right away. Not seeing the picture was completely out of her comprehension. I explained that we had to wait to get the film developed, she just gave me a blank stare.

Today I decided, would be a film day, went for a hike with friends, took my film camera with 24-120 F4 lens attached and a couple rolls of film. The thing that struck me was how light that was. The lens was most of the weight. The film camera body is small and light. Much lighter than my D750 but not quite as light as my M43 kit. But still very light for full frame.

The last thought is regarding why do I shoot film anyway? I like the fact that it makes me think more before I press the shutter. I think more about the composition, the exposure, the story. It slows things down. Which is not all bad. And there is something to be said for delayed gratification.

Of course I don't have any images to attach. I will have to wait to get them developed to see them.

I used film from the time my uncle gave me my first camera in 1960 at the age of 5, until 2005. I used film in SLRs and many other advanced cameras from 1968 until 2005. I worked in a pro portrait lab environment from 1979 to 2012, my first eight years as a multi-image AV producer doing training and promotional/motivational shows, the rest as a systems, project, or production manager of some sort. So I think I have a little perspective to offer.

I enjoyed film, when it was all there was. But when I got my first Mac in 1985, I could see that the future would be digital. Five years later, we had Photoshop and 1.2 MP cameras. The Kodak engineers came to our lab and showed us their experimental goodies (camera, Composite Machine, and dye-sublimation printers). A few years later, they showed us the first practical film scanners.

By 1995, we were off to the races, buying scanners, software, servers, and primitive digital printers. In 2002, we installed our first digital mini-lab. By 2007, we had 40 of them.

I said in '95, that film would be a hobby relic in 20 years.

Over the next 12 years, we ripped out all our old optical printers and recycled them, replacing them first with film scanners, software, networks, and mini-labs, then with digital cameras to feed the system.

In early 2005, we brought in a model and photographed her with film (split-70mm Kodak Portra 160NC in 6x4.5 cm format). Then we photographed her with a Canon EOS-20D. We scanned the film, color-corrected both the film and digital images, and printed both sets of images on a Noritsu MP-1600 mini-lab. We brought in all the managers and supervisors for a blind review of the prints.

62% of the staff liked the digital images better. That was good, because that Spring, our retail school portrait photographers began recycling over 400 long roll film cameras and replacing them with 20Ds.

In 2007, all the film processors came out. The film processor operators both had the same form of terminal cancer (35 and 25 year employees). We had to dig out several feet of earth under the concrete floor of the film processing room, to remove polluted soil. HR and legal counsel had a potential nightmare on their hands... But we got lucky. The operators had refused to wear their PPE (personal protective equipment) on multiple occasions.

By 2011, our entire workflow was 100% digital. No order paperwork, no film. Only data on DVD, or moved over the Internet. It was MUCH quicker, and FAR more accurate.

Here are some observations:

We can think just as much with digital cameras as we did with film cameras. In fact, we can think even more, if we like! The difference is, we can get where we want to be a lot faster. All it takes is the self-discipline to do it.

I think (or intuit) just as much about what I'm photographing now — or more — than I did when using film. The physics of light have not changed. The way digital tools react to light is a little different, but with knowledge and care and the right tools, we can get the same look, or something better. I haven't changed my thought process. But with digital tools, it is easier, faster, and more likely I will get exactly what I want.

I still start with a goal for my images. I still think, "Light character, contrast range, color temperature, intensity... Long view, medium view, close-up view... Bird's eye view, worm's eye view, vary the lens perspective... Pose, compose, expose... Anticipate, predict, follow, record... Color, line, form, weight... Balance, flow, negative and positive spaces..." ...But now I get to review and recalculate, on the spot.

If I want, I can "delay gratification" and just make exposures without looking at the OLED display. But why would I, since instant feedback allows immediate adjustment or correction? In FilmWorld, I had to worry about re-photographing (things I could re-photograph), or worry about missing a scene entirely. In DigiWorld, I review, adjust, and retake on the spot. If my idea didn't work, I change it. If my exposure was off, I adjust it.

JPEGs are like slides. With both JPEGs and slide films, to get ideal results, we must control ALL the variables BEFORE we press the shutter release. JPEGs are NOT meant to be edited. There is almost the same +1/2, –2/3 stop latitude. We must NAIL exposure and white balance in the camera if we want accurate subject rendition. Digital camera menu settings are *just like* the bag full of filters, different slide films, and meters I used to carry back in the early '80s. But they're far easier to use, once learned.

Raw files are like color negatives. With both raw files and color negative films, we have lots of exposure latitude (about +/– 2 full stops). We MUST process the images later, to get a usable file or print. WE are the lab, though. We can't send raw files to a lab... We must process them into JPEGs or TIFFs first. The good news is, we have more control over the outcome; the bad news is, we have to exercise that control. That means buying a decent computer, monitor, calibrator, software, and learning to use it all correctly.

I don't miss film. It served me well, but I've moved on. If YOU like it, that's great. Film photography makes a great hobby for those who like working with it. It makes an interesting art medium for those who still use it. But it isn't intrinsically "worse" or "better". It's just an older, different way to work.

Here's something to think about: First of all I shoot exclusively jpeg photos, only because I don't want to spend the money on an image processing program that I have to "upgrade" constantly, the other reason is because for me, shooting jpeg is a digital equivalent to shooting slides on film. I read an article many years ago that stated "if you want to find out how good a photographer you really are, shoot slide film" the reason being is that unlike negatives, slides cannot be processed like a negative, slide film is far less forgiving. One question I am often asked is "how do you do your post processing" when I tell them it is a jpeg many do not believe me and I have had people argue that such an image is not possible in jpeg mode one such image is displayed here.. I guess they are talking about the back ground. But the greater point I want to make is that "at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. when you get to the end of your life and you are standing before GOD, it won't matter whether you shot jpeg or raw, film or digital. I will probably have people jumping all over me just for saying that but that's ok.