Film vs. Digital? Still An Argument?!

It’s 2017! So sick of this film vs. digital argument. Still!

Film? Digital? It doesn’t matter unless you want it to. I shot film for many years before going all digital. There is no argument. Physicality? Once you print your images it’s there. Preciousness? Children are precious. If you think photography is, you shouldn’t be a photographer or an artist.

Leave the argument on how it is done for those who believe in self deception. Find your place, make your stand. Say what you got to say in your life, in your images if that is what you do. That is all that matters.


Published by Keith Goldstein

Photographer, husband, dad, and passionate cyclist. Lives and works in New York City.

12 thoughts on “Film vs. Digital? Still An Argument?!

  1. Excellent and wonderful post. Both are good mediums. Whatever works best for the individual photographer. I suppose both have pros and cons. My Dad used film but in the 40s, 50s, 60s & 70s that is all there was!! My Dad used to develop his photos as Kodak Koda Chrome slides. I still have his slides from the 1950s. They are in a special metal box all labeled. Unfortunately when my Dad passed away in 1995 his slide projector disappeared so I’m not able to view them. I keep telling myself to get the slides digitized (Is that a word?) Anyway I’m scared to entrust his precious slides to anyone for fear that they will be destroyed. If you have any suggestions please let me know when you get a chance.


  2. Hi, Keith. I have the impression that most people look down on analogue photography nowadays, especially the photoshop magicians. I think that is to me main difference .
    For this reason I always write Analogue #…. above the uploads inc ase it’s analogue ofcourse 🙂
    I tremendously enjoy both, especially the totally different way of creating the image on film and digital, both give me such a joy, even though almost nobody appreciates or understands my photographs, except myself and a few kind people…

    1. Hey Jiro! I feel the opposite, that people look down upon digital. I find so many posts, with few exceptions, such as yours, that profess that film is the only way to make imagery. I am in your camp, I tremendously enjoy both, though I grew up with film. Digital came quite late into my life and I embraced it. I find doing digital, with a film sensibility makes sense for me. I treat each RAW file as I would a negative in the enlarger. Photoshop, for me, is my enlarger.

  3. Amen, brother, amen!

    It’s the work that’s important, not how you got there. If you like toiling over trays of chemicals still, if you find the way an 8×10 view camera slows you down to be beneficial to your way of seeing, have at it. For many artists it’s about overcoming the constraints of their medium and film certainly provides more of them to battle with. For others, it’s about executing their vision through whatever tools help them get there most easily. And that’s OK too.

    It’s particularly odd to me because neither film nor digital is exactly “natural” or hand-crafted – they’re both artificial means of abstracting and manipulating images by human technologies, one more chemical the other more electronic. Why should anyone care?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: