I watched a great You Tube video from Patrick Tomasso recently about the movie industry.
He discusses what made older films so special in comparison to a lot of lacklustre movies being released at the moment.
His points are very relevant to the world of stills photography as well.
It seems the number of Megapixels a sensor has, whether or not it’s full frame or maybe or even a stacked CMOS sensor is all important and mind boggling at the same time but do you even care?
I certainly don’t.
It may be important to some photographers who consider that’s how to create great images but I find it a little boring.
And I don’t think I’m alone…….
The feeling of film?
Digital cameras brought convenience, instant results, and high resolution.
Film, on the other hand has imperfections and unpredictable nuances that make it not as reliable compared to digital.
Objectively, digital is better quality.
but…
In street and documentary photography, where authenticity matters, film’s sometimes imperfect textures and ‘look’ create something that digital sensors struggle to emulate.
You could say film is more ‘real’ because it’s a physical process?
Digital is just numbers on a computer.
Digital images often feel too clean – overly sharp and clinical – while film creates a richer, more timeless aesthetic.
Although I admit this is somewhat subjective.
Beyond just aesthetics, film photography taps into something deeper.
Visual nostalgia.
There’s an emotional weight to a film photograph, even if the content itself isn’t particularly striking.
A mundane digital image can often feel sterile, whereas even a mediocre film shot carries a certain charm.
The organic textures, the way light interacts with the emulsion, and the inherent flaws all work together to create an image that feels more alive.
In a world where digital perfection is the norm, film photography stands out precisely because it isn’t perfect.
It has quirks and is just… not as boring.
Dynamic range is ruining everything
Film photography thrives on deep blacks and bright highlights. 
Film stocks don’t have the extreme dynamic range of modern digital sensors, meaning everyone had to embrace high contrast scenes adding to a certain visual intensity that added drama.
Although I’ve seen people express how film has better DR than digital, I’m sure there’s cases where this exists but i’d like to see any film stock compete with the Hasselblad X2D on this.
Today’s digital sensors, with their extended dynamic range, attempt to preserve more detail in highlights and shadows.
This does sometimes result in images lacking the punch and mood of film.
If an image looks too good, technically – is it just boring?
I mean… just look at the way people edit digital images. We’re ADDING grain, crushing the blacks and bumping up the vibrance to create a mood.
Film fanatics and photographers are now craving the stronger contrast, deeper blacks and an image that feels alive rather than flattened.
It’s about the process.
Beyond just the look, the tactile experience of film is another huge reason for attraction
Shooting film is about the process for a lot of people. 
From loading a roll to developing the negatives, to physically holding a print in your hands – it all feels more involved, more intentional.
Seeing an image appear in a darkroom or scanning a freshly developed roll creates a connection to the work that digital simply doesn’t offer.
The process itself becomes part of the joy, making photography feel more like a craft than just snapping and editing on a screen.
With everything mentioned above, this hype around film photography isn’t just about nostalgia – it’s about images that feel alive.
As digital perfection becomes the standard, photographers are increasingly looking for ways to reintroduce imperfection, texture, and emotion into their work.
And right now, film is offering exactly that.
So go ahead – Take Risks – Shoot Film…..
Tell me what you think.
