And now onto my comparison:

I think digital photography is a faster and easier process but you don’t learn as much or get as in depth in the settings as you do with film. For example, my professor explains people who learn on crappy digital cameras today; they take the picture and if it doesn’t turn out, they keep taking it until they get what they like and just delete the bad ones. They don’t know the settings or what they do or why they work. They aren’t making the photographic decision. It’s trial and error with buttons and settings, not really knowing what they’re doing. With a fully manual film camera, you have to really know your manual settings and record them, so when you develop and see that you over- or underexposed, you can see what you did wrong and calculate how to fix that the next time.

I also really love the “magic of the darkroom.” It’s so much more hands on than digital editing, which is just pushing some buttons and moving your cursor around. Getting a good print in film requires so much more skill in developing the film, exposing the negatives correctly, having the right paper, using the chemicals long enough, burning and dodging right, etc. etc. It’s a much richer experience than “open this image file, tweak, save, close.” I’m not sure if they’re even too comparable. I’m beginning to think they are more like cousin art forms… sort of like comparing a watercolor painting to a printer print-out. Not that there aren’t some very high-end and beautiful art works that were printed on fancy printers, but painting is just a longer and older process that is much more hands on, get dirty in your raw materials as compared to the completely virtual process of digital imaging. You basically never have a tangible piece of art in digital photography until it is printed. Whereas with film, you’re working with tangible mediums with your negatives and your paper.

In the end, digital is a much faster and relevant process for today. Especially for portraiture, where you’re expected to have lots of images in a short period of time, and need a fast turn around and lots of options for paying clients. But I still see a use and a need for the film process as art and as documentation. Silver prints still last decades longer than ink-based digital prints. Personally, I would like to use film more, if darkroom and printing sources were more available after I am no longer taking classes.

Comments on your preferences in film vs. digital? What’s your experience?