I've written before about why I like to use film when taking photos. Now I want to go over why I am going digital.
- Results. I am simply not skilled enough to get good results with film, reliably. My hit rate has always been pretty low. When I get what I was looking for, it's extremely satisfying. But I miss a lot.
- Cost. So the obvious solution to the above point is to practice more, right? I agree, but the cost of buying film, getting it processed, then the time of scanning and converting negatives is absolutely massive. Add high quality scanning (either as equipment or as a service) and things spiral.
- Quality. I could have the sharpest lenses and nail the focus every time, but if the film scan isn't capable of getting that detail, so what?
- Process. I like that shooting film is manual. I have to focus, I have to frame, I have to meter the light and set the shutter speed while considering depth of field. All of this can be automated with film if you get the right SLR, and all of this can remain manual with a digital camera. The medium that captures the image doesn't have to change the process of taking the photo.
- Hassle. I do the majority of my photography while travelling and I have had multiple rolls of medium format film destroyed by a scanner more than once. Not all security staff are particularly professional, and some are by-the-book to the point of absurdity. Their guidelines state that any film at 400ISO or slower can be scanned. It's simply not true.
- Trust. Once filled a roll of film has to be posted to a lab to be processed. That's a lot of points where things can go wrong.
Digital isn't going to make me suddenly good at this, but it will allow me to practice. When I reach a point that I'm taking one photo, checking the result, and being happy with it, then I'll use film again. But never alone and never just for practice.