Film or digital?

A few years ago, I assumed that things had run their course and digital photography had become the norm. Indeed, it is an accepted part of everyday life, when most mobile phones now come with a usable digital camera. Film is something that some professionals and some enthusiasts still use, but it has all but disappeared from the high street for everyday use. Nevertheless, a few younger people are discovering the creative possibilities of film, and it seems to be enjoying something of a revival.

I used film regularly between 1970 and 2007. I bought my first digital camera in 2005. Although I was not initially thrilled with the idea that a computer was a useful photographic accessory, it has since become an essential storage device and tool. Could I imagine a time when I might abandon digital photography in favour of film? An interesting question.

Although I enjoyed the discipline of using and processing film, it was not without its frustrations. There were a number of risks and uncertainties, any of which could spoil or even ruin the results. Setting aside the basics of getting a good exposure and capturing the subject, on various occasions I have been let down by poor film loading, camera failure and human error during processing. But it is mighty satisfying when it all comes out well. I always get a buzz from doing something creative with my hands.

In comparison, digital photography is all about technology. Even the most basic digital camera will do nearly everything for you -- all you have to do is point the camera in the appropriate direction and press the button! You can immediately see whether the camera has captured the image you intended, and if you are not happy you may be able to have another go. This also serves as confirmation that the camera is functioning as expected. Furthermore, you are not limited to about 40 exposures before you  need to change media. A memory card can hold hundreds of images, even video. (But battery life can be more of a consideration...)

So, digital photography sounds wonderful. I wish I had had a point-and-shoot digital camera when I was growing up! However, there is one worrying deficiency that no-one seems to talk about. By its very nature, film (with the exception of Polaroid) results in exposed negatives and positives (slides). This is the raw data. From these, prints and scans can be made (with additional processing). But more significantly, a person can look at a negative or slide with the naked eye and know that it is a photographic image.

In contrast, digital photography generates images in the form of digital data files. These require some sort of digital device to read and decode the digital data. The problem is, technology moves forward relentlessly. SD memory cards and JPEG format files are common in 2017, but what will the future be like in 40, 30, or even 20 years? Can we expect to be able to read an SD card in 20 years, and will we still be able to decode a JPEG file?

The point is, the long term survival of our digital memories is at risk. There is still currently no digital archival media available for consumer use that is guaranteed to be good for 40 years. No digital equivalent of the slide or negative. So if we fail to keep migrating our digital data to the latest technology, there is a real risk that it will become unreadable and therefore lost. (Even a digital mass storage device is subject to physical damage.) The best we can do is to make prints of our digital images and store them carefully. Which, sadly, is how it was 50 years ago, so things have not really changed that much!

And to answer the question I posed, despite the archival problem, I find digital photography too convenient to forsake it completely for film. When I get to retirement, I dare say I will be tempted to dust off my old 35 mm cameras to see whether they still work, and to see whether I am still capable of processing film. Here's hoping that I will still be able to buy new film and processing chemicals when the time comes...