Film vs. Digital Shooting (what I learned by shooting film)

Boy, shooting on film sure is a challenge.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m glad I did it. But shooting on 16mm film was expensive and challenging. I hope that my brief account of what I learned shooting a film on 16mm film is helpful for you.





Having the privilege to shoot digitally is pretty cool.





This age of filmmaking in which we live is pretty incredible. Sure, there are many technical things to learn, but we have astounding technology at our fingertips. In many ways, digital capabilities have allowed filmmakers to soar, take risks, and try new techniques that weren’t possible or were much more challenging previously.





In my experience, film obviously limited what I could try out and how I could take risks.





There are pros and cons, practically, artistically, and financially, to shooting on both film and digital. My personal opinion is that shooting digitally is a more practical choice, if not also a good creative choice. However, I think that the experience of shooting on film is a worthwhile one for anyone to attempt at least once, and is by no means a waste of time or money.







This won’t be an all-encompassing examination of the pros and cons of shooting on film. I just want to share some things I learned and observations I made.





The verdict: shooting on film vs. digital



Flexibility vs. Permanence





Digital: Allows for more flexibility, both in post-production and while shooting, due to the capacity to continue rolling and do many takes without much issue.



Film: Demands permanent decisions and provides limited options.



What I mean by this is that with digital you can cover up some mistakes with multiple takes, and (depending on your color profile and camera) have the flexibility to change the look drastically in post-production.







With film, you most likely can only afford a small amount of film stock. This means that you have to get what you need within the 1, 2, or 3 takes you have, then move on. This requires a higher level of planning, confidence, and technical understanding to get a positive result. Film, while naturally pleasing to look at, also provides less flexibility in post.





From my experience, this will greatly differ based on the quality at which the developer scans the film. Higher quality scans with more color information may cost more depending on which company you work with.





Guesswork vs. Certainty

Digital: Is more forgiving in that it allows you to immediately see results and adjust, and allows you to push forward when you don’t necessarily have all the answers.



Film: Requires that you have a solid understanding of, at the very least, the basic principles of what you are attempting. You cannot see the results and adjust. If you are incorrect in your approach, you won’t know until the film comes back from the lab. It might be unusable–there’s no way to know.







Being able to see your shot before you roll is a wonderful tool for filmmakers. However, it can also be a terrible crutch. The nice thing about shooting on film is that if you don’t have the expertise already, it will force you to get it – and quick – if you want good results. You realize that without that instant preview, your true level of filmmaking confidence will reveal itself. This can be daunting, but it’s a useful learning experience.





Once you have the principles of filmmaking down well, having the digital view available becomes a tool for efficiency instead of a crutch.





Ready-to-Edit vs. Processing

Digital: Allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor immediately. After your shoot is complete, you can peruse the footage at your leisure and start editing right away.





Film: requires you to delay evaluation of your work and wait patiently while the lab processes and scans your film.





Depending on your schedule and deadlines (if any), this is important to consider. If time isn’t a huge factor, you just have to deal with not having instant gratification. This is unpleasant, but survivable.







Freedom vs. Discipline

Digital: Allows you to, essentially, capture whatever you want, with a much less stringent limitation on how many takes you can get.



Film: Forces you to be disciplined. You can only afford so much film stock, so you must only (with some exceptions) get the takes you know you need.



I touched on this a bit in regards to flexibility in post. However, shooting on film does something else incredible for you. It forces you to be highly precise in everything you do. Ever take, every second you are rolling is valuable. Every foot of film is precious.



Therefore, by shooting on film, if you care at all about the end-result…



You are forced to be disciplined. This is the best learning experience of shooting on film for newer filmmakers and I highly recommend giving it a shot for this reason alone.



This forced disciplinary practice bleeds into every area of your film: prepping as much as possible, knowing what you want and need for the film to work, focusing on what’s important, and so on.



Once you graduate from film to digital, you are given the freedom of ‘unlimited’ takes. You now have the freedom to make mistakes, to try new things, and to vie for excellence. However, if you learned shooting discipline, you will be more effective and your curiosity and perfectionism will be tempered by discipline.



Affordable vs. Costly

Digital: ‘Footage’ has extremely low costs, generally, and you can get your hands on the cameras for very good prices.



Film: Footage costs are quite high, and the larger the format, the higher the cost. You not only have to pay for film, but for processing and scanning, too. Cameras are generally harder to get your hands on, depending on where you live and who you know.



Immediate feedback vs. Planning

Digital: Allows for a lower risk application of the ‘run-and-gun’ style of shooting, if you are unable to plan as much as you’d like.



Film: While still capable of being shot on-the-go, requires more light and doesn’t give immediate feedback, which doesn’t lend itself as well to run-and-gun.

Shooting on digital is much more friendly for those planning to do any run-and-gun shooting or shooting on the move in varied and non-ideal locations.



No white balance flexibility vs. Easy mixed sources

Digital: Allows you to see, more or less, what mixed light sources will end up looking like. Above all, digital allows you to pick any white balance you desire along a spectrum. You can select a balance that leads to pleasing daylight and tungsten within the same scene.



Film: Forces you to choose between tungsten balance or daylight. There is no in-between. Therefore, you have to adjust the lights and lighting you use in order to suit the film stock, and this can be quite a pain, to say the least.



High light sensitivity vs. High lighting requirements

Digital: These cameras, while not always good-looking in low light scenarios, generally tend to have higher light sensitivity than any film stock while providing clean images.



Film: Film stock simply does not have the capacity, even at its highest ISO, to provide a viable image in very low light (unless a dark look is what you want). Film tends to look better the more light is hitting the medium, due to the chemistry of how film works.



When shooting on film, you must have more light to work with and this is an inescapable reality of shooting on film. If you have a decent budget, this may be less of a concern, but when on a shoestring budget, every penny counts.







Things unrelated to film that I learned

Neutral Density (ND) filters aren’t exact in their measurements. What? You thought that ND filter you use lowers exactly ‘x’ number of stops? Apparently, this isn’t true.





Every ND filter has a certain amount of variability and will be slightly stronger or weaker than advertised. With digital, this wasn’t really a big deal for me (and I never noticed). With digital, I could watch my histogram and see my exposure, but when it came to shooting on film, it had drastic effects.





I realized this when a good chunk of shots filmed for an exterior day scene came back incredibly dark. As DP, you can imagine that I was appalled. How did this happen?





I ran through every scenario in my mind and couldn’t figure it out. Had I miscalculated, done my math wrong? Was I that incompetent at basic arithmetic? Had I been too prideful to admit something in the moment? After looking into it continuously, the director discovered this little neat-o fact about ND filters.

If you are relying on a few layers of ND filters, and each one is a bit stronger than anticipated, it adds up. You might end up with footage far darker than anticipated… which is exactly what happened to me, unfortunately. Watch out for those suckers!





There will always be things you couldn’t anticipate and have to deal with. Over the years, I’ve learned this lesson quite well. However, when shooting on film, the issues are often amplified due to the high-risk nature of each shot. You either get it, or you don’t, and there aren’t a lot of ‘do-over’ opportunities.





So what?

Look, I’m not advocating that you blow a ton of money shooting something on film. However, if you want to learn in leaps, try going through things ‘by the book’ and do a proper, professional shoot, no run-and-gun, and shoot it on film. Budget something that’s reasonable for you and won’t break the bank.







If you are still rather inexperienced, learn the essentials of filmmaking before you spend a bunch of money (but don’t be afraid to invest a bit into yourself and your experience). The nice thing about the digital medium is that it allows you to make mistakes without a ton of risk. However, it can train you to be sloppy. Keep sharpening your mind and don’t be afraid to fail. Failure leads to growth.





So what are you waiting for? Draft a script, put together a few hard-working, reliable folks, and go make a film!



Good luck!





