Film or digital: which is better?
An honest answer from a club that chose film. Each wins at different things.
Written by Arch Club, which shoots only on film. We have tried to be fair to both.
At a glance
| Film | Digital | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost per picture | Film, developing and scanning for every frame | Close to nothing once you own the camera |
| Highlights | Colour negative film holds bright light gracefully | Clips harshly when overexposed |
| Low light | Limited by film speed | Far stronger |
| Speed | Days to see results | Instant |
| The original | A physical negative | A file that copies perfectly |
| Proof it's real | Hard to fake a negative | Increasingly hard to trust |
Where digital wins
Speed, cost and convenience. For sport, news, events in the dark and anything you need to send today, digital is the right tool. You can shoot a thousand frames and keep ten.
Where film wins
Our answer
Better depends on the job. For pictures meant to be collected, held and believed, we choose film every time.
ARCH CLUB
A members' club for foot photography, shot only on film.
Every Arch Club photograph is made on a Canon EOS-1V, a Mamiya 7 or a Fuji GW690II, with real models in New York and never AI. Members receive new film photographs every month, and collectors can own the original negative, sealed in display resin with a print of their choice.
Anyone can find a picture. Few will ever hold a photograph.
Visit Arch ClubPublished by Arch Club, Brooklyn, New York.