This is a question I've been asking myself more and more as time goes on. The "Film Look" has become quite a popular term amongst the photography community. The praise film receives is an interesting juxtaposition during a time where photoshop composites, CGI and heavy edited images dominate advertising. Our digital cameras are adept at communicating with state of the art strobes making the execution of very technical images much easier with digital. This was my first studio shoot using a film camera to supplement the digital images, and the results were surprising, despite the challenges.
No doubt, it is possible to add a flash, or strobe to a film camera, however - not all film cameras can use strobes, and not all strobes are compatible with all film cameras. In more complex lighting scenarios the photographer may need a light meter to find the correct lighting ratios for a given scene. And then there's the fact that you have no sample image to view to see whether or not you are achieving the look you desire. Some photographers use digital cameras to test the lighting first, and then switch to their film camera - however, we are talking about convenience here and whether or not it the look film provides is worth the extra effort. In other words, In order to answer whether or not film is viable one must ask how much they value convenience, and whether or not the look film produces outweighs the convenience of producing a digital image.
Below are two images from my most recent shoot. The first image was shot with 35 mm film and the second with a 100 megapixel medium format digital camera. Let's ignore the fact that my digital camera has a larger sensor than my film camera - and many film photographers who shoot studio portraits use a medium format film camera. How do you think the film photo holds up compared to the edited digital image?
Disclaimer, the film photo was not edited, and I did not have a compatible strobe or remote so I was limited to the modeling lights on my strobes - which meant less light was hitting the model.
In the digital image, the magenta and blue gels stand out as well as the smoke. I've dodged and burned the photo in photoshop and used tone curves, to name a few extra steps. While the two photos have different compositions, it is hard to refute the fact that the digital image is more technical, yet, there is something about the film image, I suppose, a "film look". The gradient from light to shadow is so subtle, maybe because of how well the grain sits on the image. The magenta gel has turned a bit red (probably due to the film stock) but is also more natural looking, and overall there is a nostalgic feeling to the image, which I suppose I was going for to begin with.
To answer the question of whether or not film is viable in the studio - it depends. Ask yourself what emotion or aesthetic you are trying to convey and whether or not film can help advance that vision. In this case, despite the composition maybe not being the best way of telling the story, I think that the qualities of film definitely helped convey a sense of nostalgia. Overall, I am happy with how the image turned out, and will definitely be using film in the studio to supplement my digital images in the future!
