Blog

The film vs digital question gets asked constantly, and it rarely gets a useful answer — because it is usually framed as a competition, and it is not one. Both mediums have been central to my work for years. They sit in the same bag, serve different purposes, and inform each other in ways that are harder to describe than to experience. This piece tries to give an honest account of what each one actually offers, based on using both in the field rather than reading about them.

What Film Brings to the Work

New Forest pony, roadside — shot on Ilford HP5 Plus 400. The tonal rendering and grain structure of film produce a quality of image that reads differently to digital, even when the subject is straightforward.

The first thing film does is slow you down, and that is not a polite way of saying it makes things harder. It is genuinely useful. With 36 exposures on a 35mm roll — or just twelve on a roll of 120 medium format — every frame carries a cost, and that cost changes how you look at a scene. You stand in front of it longer. You notice the light more carefully. You consider whether this is actually the moment before pressing the shutter rather than afterwards. That discipline carries over into digital shooting in ways that are difficult to quantify but easy to notice.

The aesthetic qualities of film are real and not easily replicated. The grain of Ilford HP5 Plus is not merely texture — it is part of how the tonal range is rendered, part of how shadow and highlight relate to each other across the frame. Digital noise is something else entirely: a byproduct of sensor behaviour at high ISO rather than an intrinsic quality of the medium. The difference is visible in the final image, and it matters for certain subjects and certain moods.

There is also the question of process. Film photography has a beginning, a middle, and an end in a way that digital does not — loading the camera, shooting the roll, developing it, holding the negatives up to the light. That sequence of events is part of why film feels like it belongs to the photographs it produces. The image is not just a file; it has a physical existence, and that changes your relationship to it.

New Forest Fairy Festival, Burley — Ilford HP5 Plus 400. The grain and contrast of film suit movement and atmosphere in ways that digital’s clinical sharpness sometimes does not.

What Digital Brings to the Work

The digital interface — immediate feedback, full exposure information, and the ability to adjust on the spot. Everything film is not, and genuinely useful for it.

Digital photography is not inferior to film — it is different, and in several respects it is superior. The precision available with a modern digital camera is genuinely remarkable. The Canon EOS 5DS R produces files with a resolution and clarity that medium format film cannot match in practical field conditions. The ability to review an exposure immediately, adjust, and shoot again is not laziness — it is a different kind of working method, one that suits certain subjects and situations better than the deliberate slowness of film.

In Norway, shooting landscapes and wildlife across rapidly changing light conditions, digital was the obvious choice. The ability to adjust ISO in real time as dawn broke, to check the histogram and know that the exposure was holding, and to fire multiple frames during a brief window of perfect light — these are advantages that are hard to argue against. Speed and flexibility matter when the subject is moving or the light is about to go.

Fjord reflection, Norway — Canon EOS 5DS R. Digital’s colour fidelity and resolution in landscape work are exceptional. The precise rendering of reflected light and subtle tonal gradations across water and sky is where modern digital sensors genuinely excel.

Post-processing is where digital has no equivalent in film. Working in Lightroom with a raw file gives full control over highlights, shadows, colour temperature, and tonal curve — adjustments that would require darkroom expertise and significant time in an analogue workflow. This is not a shortcut; it is a different craft, and one worth taking seriously on its own terms.

Kennet and Avon Canal in winter — digital. The clarity and colour depth available from a modern sensor in flat winter light is difficult to replicate on film.

Film and Digital Together — How It Works in Practice

The question of film vs digital assumes you have to choose, and in most cases you do not. Both mediums have been present in my work across every major project — sometimes on the same day, sometimes on the same location. At Silchester, working on the long-term Calleva project, film suited the quieter, more reflective sessions — its timeless quality matching the ancient landscape in a way that felt right rather than contrived. Digital allowed the sharper seasonal work, the colour transitions through winter and spring, and the flexibility to work quickly when the light was moving fast.

Switching between the two also has a practical effect on how you think. When digital shooting starts to feel mechanical — when you are firing frames without really deciding anything — going back to film recalibrates the eye. The discipline returns. You stand in front of things longer. And that change in approach carries back into the digital work afterwards.

Both mediums inform each other over time. The discipline of film improves digital work by encouraging considered framing. The flexibility of digital informs how you read a negative — knowing what post-processing can and cannot do makes you more precise about what you need to capture in camera, whether on film or sensor.

Film has a physical existence that digital does not — packaging, canister, negative, sleeve. That materiality is part of what makes it feel different to work with, not just look different.