The Value in Replicating the “Film Look” on a Digital Camera
By: Paulo Makalinao
Tags: Film, Photography, Creativity, Cameras, Art

I also want this “film look” to be a staple in my style. So regardless of the format I choose to shoot in, film or digital, I want all my photos to still have the same feel. So in this regard, I’m forced to replicate the feeling of my film photos onto my digital ones so that I have consistency. I won’t make every digital photo a perfect replication of a film stock, but if I could get just the feel of film in one way or another, I’ll take it for the bulk of my work. But let’s put this point aside and see why a lot of growing photographers and influencers still want the look.

Because I’m a weird case. I’m a person who shoots both formats and then uses the photos I take on film to better the process of replicating them on digital. Most people want to just skip the whole “using an actual film camera as a reference point.” They just straight-up want to shoot on nothing but digital and still get a “Film Look.”

So here’s the elephant in the room: if I or other people want the film look, why not shoot on film?

Well, as I mentioned, I already do that. Enter my Canon AE-1. But even though I can actually get the film look with film, I still want it replicated in digital. And a lot of people who don’t shoot on film still feel the same way.

Let’s get real here. If you shoot on film, you probably understand how much more difficult shooting on this format is than digital. We live in a time where taking photos is more convenient than ever. My dad shot on film as a teenager in the 80s (he was probably even using a Canon AE-1 or A-1 himself). He has an iPhone now. He has no intention of shooting on film ever again because he has everything he needs to take a photo in the palms of his hands. This is because shooting film is inconvenient for most people like my dad.

Think about this: most film cameras are almost fully manual. Manual exposure, manual aperture, manual shutter speed, manual focus. Some have automatic functions, but they’re not exactly the most reliable. Even the exposure meters themselves are not very accurate a lot of the time, hence the use of rules like Sunny 16 and bringing along light meters.

Then there’s buying film rolls, which are pretty expensive. A roll of 36 exposures of Portra 400 is like $10. $10 for 36 exposures that I can’t even view right after I take them (Yeah, yeah, there are cheaper film stocks). But then you have to get the roll processed into negatives, and those negatives need to be scanned into actual photos you can use. This costs both time and money. After buying a digital camera and an SD card, shooting thousands and thousands of photos has nearly zero variable costs like film does.

But why do we shoot on film anyways? Because we love the process. Art is a process. That’s like the entire mantra of my articles. But most people don’t really get that. They like convenience. I mean, we’re probably not going to cook our food over an outdoor fire, but some people will do that because of the artistic nature of the process. And despite my father not shooting photos on film, he still uses VHS tapes. To him, it’s about the process. And it’s no different than my desire to shoot and develop my film.

But if there’s a way for people to get the film look without the hassle of actually shooting on film, then there are people who are going to do just that. Film is not exactly the most accessible way to shoot photography. It’s become more of a novelty and a niche since the onset of digital. And I shoot everything I do professionally on digital. It’s the easiest, quickest, and most reliable way to go about it. I shoot thousands of photos every month. I simply don’t have the time or money to shoot them all on film. Not to mention how much harder it is either.