Film vs Digital – A Photo Comparison

With film usage and adoption on the rise, we wanted to resurrect the debate of digital photos versus analog photos. As a film processing lab, we obviously have a bias, so not going to say which is better, but to present the differences and list advantages.

While in Eastern Sierra Nevada, we shot two photos, one film and the other digital. Both the digital photo and the film photo were taken with the same settings. The left image was captured on Velvia 50, taken with a Canon EOS 3, a 50mm lens at f/4. The photo on the right was taken with a full-frame Canon 6D with 50mm, 100 iso, and f/4. Both images are unedited. As you can see, Velvia 50 has a very fine grain and has rich, vibrant colors straight from the scan compared to the unedited JPEG from the Canon 6D. And yes, you do have the option to edit digital photos, but there’s something special about making a beautiful image in-camera on film and not having to spend any time editing!

Also, if you’re looking for a little less saturation, there are other great film choices, like Provia 100, which isn’t as saturated but still has great color and fine grain, or you could go with a color negative film which will give you more subtle colors and has a wider range of exposure latitude.

Film Photography Advantages

  • Lower initial cost than for a comparable digital camera
  • With a higher dynamic range, film is better at capturing white’s and blacks’ details and can’t be replicated with digital cameras. Also, film can capture subtle details lost in digital photography.
  • Film is more forgiving of minor focusing issues and exposure problems.
  • Film captures photos at higher resolution than most digital cameras.
  • Analog film can be pushed or pulled multiple stops when needed, but the amount of contrast within the image is affected. Some photographers use this to their advantage to create the ideal look they desire, but this method still does not allow extremely high ISO speeds without impacting image tones.
  • Film photographers with a limited number of exposures available on a roll of film must think more about their images before shooting them. Digital photographers tend to take pictures first and think later. Depending on your viewpoint, this is either an advantage or disadvantage.
  • Unlike digital cameras, film cameras are future proof and don’t become obsolete.
  • No power or batteries needed. Long trips and cold conditions can be limiting for digital cameras.
  • The Darkroom photo lab scans your film photos, now allowing you to edit your images on a computer with photo-editing software or share on social media.

Digital Photography Advantages

  • The resolution in even point-and-shoot cameras, which is often 12 to 20 megapixels, is high enough resolution for large prints.
  • Digital cameras also have the advantage of being able to change film speeds between individual photographs.
  • The cameras are generally lighter weight than film cameras.
  • Memory cards are tiny and can store many images.
  • Instant gratification and images can be viewed immediately. Some film photographers consider this a disadvantage.
  • You can edit your images directly on the camera.
  • You can choose to print only the images you like best.
  • Many cameras offer built-in filters.

Online Film Developing

Film Developing

Professional film developing and scanning for 35mm, medium, large format, and disposable cameras for over 45 years.

Start your order

Photography film index

The Darkroom’s comprehensive index of film types; characteristics, examples, and reviews.

View Index

Film Offers Color Consistency and Dynamic Range over Digital

Film is the golden standard of photography. Nothing compares – not even digital. A good example of this is when a film company like Fujifilm tries to match film’s beautiful color consistency. Such an ‘advancement’ in technology is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

Film is the golden standard of photography.

Take Provia and Velvia, for instance; when Fujifilm tried to replicate these stunning film stocks into their mirrorless digital cameras, it was a sad day indeed. Rather than making more film, they halted production and turned their attention to replicating the color science in camera. Digital mirrorless owners rejoiced as they could now take photos enriched with ‘Veliva’ and ‘Provia’ simulations. Looking at these cameras’ digital photos, the film simulation effect is merely a punch in contrast and saturation with some embedded metadata text. This type of marketing ploy has nothing on the traditional film stock we have been shooting for years. That’s why when you pick up a roll of Velvia or Provia, you know that nothing is going to beat the original. The color consistency is famous in film and not as a digital reproduction.

Check out The Darkrooms film index, reviews, and samples

Adding to this, the film can capture a wider dynamic range (13 stops, to be exact) than most digital cameras. Because of this, you won’t have to edit your highlights, lift your shadows, or increase saturation. The image is perfect in every way. You can’t get the same results on a digital camera.

Resolution of Film is Higher Than Most Digital Cameras

The title above may seem far-fetched for those new to film, but let us explain it to you. Film is manufactured in various formats to suit a variety of cameras. This is much the same as the sensor sizes on digital cameras. However, unlike digital cameras, film can capture and store at greater resolutions. More specifically, when the film stock is larger, so is the photon count on the film stock’s surface.

For example, if we were to put a 120mm negative against a 35mm full-frame digital sensor, the film’s resolution would trump the digital camera. This will be more evident at lower ISOs; however, as you increase ISO, the signal-to-noise ratio drastically changes, and the digital sensor will win in terms of resolution.

So if you are looking to shoot film at lower ISO’s (Under 800, let’s say), then the resolution you can get will outperform a smaller sensor.

Amazing Photos with Cheap Cameras

Top 10 Photography Podcasts for Film Photographers

Film Processing And Editing Is As Creative As Taking The Shot

One of the key elements of film photography is the creative control offered throughout the processing and editing stages. Rather than being a bulk-edit workflow as experienced in digital, there is a staged process involved with film. It is a process that is both enjoyable and challenging but still one that you have full control over. One of the biggest advantages of film editing is the greater level of light management within the darkroom environment. Film offers a significant level of dynamic range with less blowout of highlights and loss of detail in shadow areas. Digital files can be impossible to recover from such issues.

While it is convenient that digital editing can be done in-camera or on a digital device, it is often done on the go. There is fulfillment and enjoyment in our busy world to be gained in slowing down and working within a darkroom a lab. Alternatively, many are now taking the time to work on high-resolution scans from film photography outings. With the right processing flow, film negatives will last a lifetime and can be used for scans or prints numerous times. Those in the digital world live in constant fear of computer crashes, hard drive failures, or even memory card corruption. There is nothing worse than a memory card read error while in the field or while trying to import images onto a computer.

Editing should be far more than simply pushing around sliders on a screen. Film processing and editing impacts all the senses and brings you closer to creative outcomes.

The Cost Of Film Photography Is More Manageable and Less Jarring Than Digital

Like it or not, the costs involved in photography’s creative pursuit are a key consideration for many people. Both film and digital have unique cost considerations worth exploring – however, film photography has a gentler approach with a lower financial burden. With film, your up-front costs are far less as film cameras’ price is significantly lower than that of a modern DSLR or mirrorless kit. The price of some of the high-end models is staggering and would place most under financial strain. Plus, you are shackled with the other drawbacks of being locked into the digital medium.

Film photography spreads its costs out throughout your life as a photographer. Aside from the camera, the ongoing cost of film is a low-cost element – buying in bulk is always a smart choice as you are more likely to get out and shoot with a bag full of film. Plus, you save a little on each roll with a bulk lot. From there, you are looking at lab and darkroom costs depending on how deep you want to dive. A popular solution is to manage lab costs by opting for digital scans of your film. These scans are of the highest quality and retain all the quality and detail of your original shots. Plus, you now have full creative control of which direction you want to head and how much you want to spend.

You can now take your digital scans and edit them further with your preferred editing software – or not at all. You can opt to print your scans at home or through a lab in any size and format you want. And, if you are so inclined, you can, of course, share your work on your site, blog, or via social media platforms. Either way, it is evident that you will invest much less with film throughout your photography life than you would through digital. Film cameras last lifetimes while digital-only last as long as their circuits hold-up.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic in the comments below.

This was originally posted on our Instagram (

86 replies on “Film vs Digital – A Photo Comparison”

Although I carry around a primo Leica digital I still tend to go to my trusty mechanical Spotmatic or F1 for my “money shots”. With 24 exposures, film holds me to a strct line of creative and judgemental discipline as to “the decisive moment” (Bresson), composition, f-stops, shutter speed, color management, and so forth. With digital I have an unfortunate tendency to “shoot it first and fix it later” via Photoshop. I also have a closer feeling of a hands-on connection with film than electronic digital much like driving a 350 Camaro with 4-on-the-floor as opposed to an automatic. The automatic will get you to where you’re going but you’ll have a heck of a lot more fun getting there with the 4-speed. Ansel Adams made an astute observation : “I am a fly-fisherman, I don’t drop a stick of dynamite into the creek”. So, what was good enough for him and Bresson I guess is good enough for me. Nuf said.

My general rule is color digital, B&W film. Nothing compares to printing from a B&W neg and watching an image appear by magic. I currently use 35mm but I am looking into a good used medium format film camera. However when I travel however I only take my DSLM because of size and weight with a small P&S as backup. There is only so much you can get in a carry on.

For me, it’s the color or in the case of B&W the detail and fine tones you get from film. You can’t reproduce with digital filters what you can get from quality film or slides and I love to shoot 120 roll film in medium format with a negative that is 400% larger than “full frame” digital cameras. The exposure latitude of negative film is one huge advantage film offers that I love. A lot of digital looks cartoonish with HDR or has blown out highlights.
How are all of your great photos from 2003 doing right now? Unless you are a very disciplined archivist you probably don’t have them. Most digital photos never get printed, while negatives or slides can last more than a lifetime. In the last year, I’ve found family pictures & negatives that were taken before WWII, try that with digital.

I own 8 film slr cameras, 2 Konica, 4 Minolta, 2 Pentax and also use a Fuji digital camera. I feel the difference between the modern digital slr’s and the ones’ made in the 60’s and 70’s are the standard lenses that come with the camera when you purchase it. I have thousands of b&w negs and slides which are crystal clear and beautiful, even after storage these many years. I attribute the quality of these photos to the excellent lenses made years ago and also to the great work done by the processing firm. Just received some “experimental” photos I recently took with my old Minolta . Although my pictures are nothing to brag about, your processing made them look a whole lot better than any I have taken with my digital camera. Kudos to “The Darkroom”.

Everything else aside; the hours in my dads basement darkroom running the enlarger and working with him are priceless to me; I wish we had done more before he passed. Can still smell the chemicals. Can’t do that with digital.

It’s an argument that can’t be won with logic, and it’s so individual anyway. Here’s why I shoot film, tho:

1. I like the fussiness and struggle. It’s fun to think and fiddle, to calculate EV without a meter, or to whip out the meter and read it like a little robot. The analog ones, the digitals–they’re all fun.

2. All of my imperfect photographs remind me of old timey photos–either ancient family photos, or photos from long ago . My new imperfect ones make me feel part of the gang.

3. When I make a good one, it’s soooo satisfying, and part of that comes from knowing the camera facilitated it, of course, but didn’t take over and do it for me.

4. I LIKE having to commit my next 10 or 12 or 36 photos to one ISO. I enjoy the stress of “125 or 400? How about 3200? What about pushing 400 to 800 or 1600? Or should I pull 3200 to 1200?” My god, this is what being alive is all about! Then you pick one and go with it and make the most of it.

4. Call me easy to please, but I find even failed or lackluster sincere attempts in black and white to be artistic, or at least soothing to look at. When the image doesn’t live up to the reality, imagination kicks in. This is never the case with perfectly exposed, razor-sharp lollilpop-colored images created in megapixels (which are not, technically, photographs).

5. Film cameras look so cool. Especially the squared-off ones from the pre-ergonomic plastic days. Today’s cars all look the same because they were all designed by wind-tunnel tests…and today’s cameras were all designed by the weak, soft hand that must have it all and squawks at edge or the texture of vulcanite.

6. I am not a pro or a wedding photographer. All of my photos are optionals and luxuries. Photography sucks money out of my pocket, doesn’t stuff it with it, and that is a wonderful thing, because it means nothing is at stake if I muff a shot or a whole roll. No bride’s mom will sue me.

7. Last one: Too bad the iconic names have swerved so much or even entirely away from film to digital. I’m not trying to change your definitions or win people over to my side, but to me, for me, in MY opinion, there is a difference between photography and image capturing, and there is a difference between a camera that makes photographs and a computer made by a former camera company that captures images.


Amazingly ignorant comparison. Dynamic range of film is several stops less than modern digital. Film results strongly depend on development process and non-reversible. Set your digital camera to “Vivid” mode and you will have equally bright picture in JPG. Digital sensitivity is higher. Flexibility of digital image manipulation is infinite (4K focus stacking, HDR, etc.etc.). Resolution of 20 MP digital is higher than scanned film. Film is totally obsolete. It is like a stone ax vs. chainsaw.

Thank you Anatol, you are 100% correct. The emperor is simply wearing no clothes. If you like to do film photography, by all means go and enjoy it. It has a certain nostalgic quality. But trying to convince yourself that the quality of film is higher is like pretending a compact cassette from the 1980s sounds better than a good digital recording from 2020. It just isn’t true.

It seems rather unfair to compare the properties of 120mm film to a 35mm digital sensor, it’s almost 4x more area to gather photons! 120 film definitely trumps full frame digital but 35mm film can’t really compete with the latest full frame sensors. The only area that it can is highlight control which is the thing I love most about film.

“Resolution of 20 MP digital is higher than scanned film.”

This is false.

In order to adequately resolve the detail in a frame of 35mm film, you have to scan it, at minimum, at something on the order of 8000dpi. The scanner also matters, too. A flatbed or desktop film scanner is simply incapable of reproducing the detail that exists on the film emulsion. You have to go to a pro level film scanner like a Noritsu or Frontier to come close (which produce an image on the order of 20-30MP depending on settings). To fully capture the detail in a 35mm film frame, you have to drum-scan it. At 8000dpi, a 35mm frame scanned on a drum scanner will produce an image on the order of 80MP. On a slow film like ISO 100 or 50, you can easily enlarge a drum scan to 30″ or larger. An 11,000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame yields a 157MP image.

And we haven’t even started talking about medium format, where digital sensors cannot compete even with fairly low-resolution film scans. If you want to enlarge to 60″, you shoot on medium format film. You can spend $50k on a Hasselblad digital camera and still not be able to get 400MP in a single shot (you have to take multiple exposures to get it, so it’s limited to subjects that don’t move). Meanwhile, an 8k dpi scan of a 6x7cm film frame yields a 416MP image in one shot. No digital stitching needed. The subject can even be moving.

Large format, forget about it. If you want to make a 90″ print and view it at a reasonable distance, your only option is to shoot with large format film. I am unaware of a digital camera in existence that can match the resolution of a drum-scanned 8×10″ film frame.

Film also has way more latitude in terms of exposure than you may be aware. Color films can tolerate as much as -2 or +3 stops of under- or over-exposure before becoming unusable. Black and white film can be over-exposed as much as 5 stops before the image becomes unusable (and yet it still produces an image, flat as it may be). Find me a digital sensor that can tolerate 5 stops of overexposure without completely washing out.

Terrific article Trevor! I guess I get a bit frustrated with “digital” photographers always in the debate of why digital is so much better than film. I have been shooting both film and digital for over 30 years, and more recently trying my best to leave digital and going solely to film. For me, it’s not about the megapixel count, the “satisfaction immediacy” or the ability to quickly change the sky in editing if you don’t like it…it’s about slowing down…and being 100% in control of producing the image, leaving electronics to the wayside. I have left a link to a blog I recently wrote entitled “Technology has killed the true spirit of photography” which I believe you will get. Looking forward to future articles! Best, James

I just like film. I have 3 Minolta X-700 (manual focus). Some of them have the multi function back, and I have anything from Vivitar to a Zeiss lenses. I met a person last year who called my camera a dinosaur. I just smiled at him and said “It’s a living dinosaur”. The fact that the Dark Room will push film. Has expanded were I can use my film camera. I recently went to a black light party, and I had to push my 800 film to 1600-3200. I think the challenge of taking the picture with a fully manual camera makes the picture more memorable. Normally, I only shot two to three rolls in a day. With a digital camera, you will shoot over 200 shots by lunch and hardy remember any of them. Please note most of my photos are for fun, and not for profit. Next time you get out your digital camera, pick out and non-zoom lens and set your ASA to 200 , and turn off your AF, and don’t change anything but the f-stop and the shutter speed (1/1000 max). {Bet you will not last more that 5 minutes}. When I finish a photo shoot, I’m done. I do not need to spend the next 4 hours converting and correcting. There is a point in photo shop. Where you become a image-ographer and no longer a photographer. But if you are shooting for profit or vacation, you just have to have a digital camera.

I love my X700. It just feels like a precision instrument. Sometimes if I expect needing to push the ISO I’ll just use a higher ISO film and a variable neutral density filter. Then I have light and dark scenes covered. And sometimes the grain is cool.

I wanted a nicer camera than the cheap point-and-shoot digital camera I have. I couldn’t afford an DSLR camera and lenses. So I found my husband’s Canon EOS 620, with a big telephoto lens attached, and all I had to buy was a battery (2CR5 lithium 6V battery for about $10). Now I am very, very happy. I bought 8 rolls of film and one roll of B&W film. I wonder if I can take a picture for your latest contest in time for the October 30th deadline??? I’m so so happy. I’m glad I found you, to develop my film also.
It is so exciting!

I definitely enjoy the film photography process much more, but it’s quite expensive in 2019 to buy, develop and print film. For that reason, for me it’ll always be supplemental to digital photography. I have quite a collection of old Canon, Nikon, Olympus & Pentax SLR cameras and they’re cool as hell and pleasing to hold, manipulate and operate. But they’re not going to replace my Canon or Sony digital rigs.

Slowing down is not an inherent capability of film. That’s all a matter of photographic discipline. Many film-only photographers seem to lack this discipline.

From a logical standpoint, there is absolutely nothing a film camera does that a digital camera can not do. Nothing. The opening paragraphs of this article used a dishonest comparison. Film requires processing. The image on the left did not spring fully formed from the Canon EOS 3. It was processed in a darkroom. There are dozens of film simulation presets that can reproduce that image from the digital RAW form the Canon 6D. Heck, Fujifilm even makes digital APS-C and medium format cameras that produce Fiji Velvia image right in the camera.

If this article was written as clickbait, yay!, you win. Otherwise, this piece is pointless.

I started shooting professionally in 1998 when digital was just becoming a viable alternative to film. Here’s my opinion on the two:

I LOVED assisting film photographers when I started out. Loading backs, understanding how different film stock’s reacted to different types of light, relying on a light meter, taking detailed notes, pulling Polaroids, delivering dozens of rolls of film to the lab and waiting at the bar next door for clip tests… Maybe more anything else, these processes helped me understand how to plan for the perfect shot while remaining open to unexpected possibilities once on set/location.

By the time I stopped assisting and began shooting in 2003, clients generally expected digital for a few reasons. Digital backs produced beautiful, large images in real time. Clients/art directors could see the results while we shot. Art directors could place a mockup of each photo into their layouts and get client approval before we wrapped up for the day. And budgets no longer included film, processing, clip tests, contact sheets, prints, scans, etc.

One immediate, and unexpected, benefit was – because they saw the images in real time, clients were comfortable once we locked in the planned shots and were much more willing to try a few different things while on set. This allowed them to feel/be more involved and let us shoot things they wouldn’t otherwise be comfortable with. And those last few shots of the day often became the ones they used. That’s a big win for everyone.

In a commercial environment, digital just made sense once the image quality got to a certain point. I did miss the manual process of preparing the film each morning and working with my favorite labs and printers, but it made sense.

Now, I shoot all commercial work with a Canon 5D MarkIV and, for the most part, I love it. I still sketch every shot before shooting. I still take detailed notes. Honestly, the only part of shooting digital I don’t love is organizing/maintaining hard drives, backing up images, and spending more of my day at a computer. Not the end of the world, just not my favorite part of the job.

For personal work, I get my film fix with a Fuji GA645 and a Rollei 6008 Integral. And my iPhone 🙂

When talking about film vs digital, I feel that my favorite part of photography is often overlooked – the experience of meeting new people, traveling to new places, capturing unique images, and creating deep relationships with the talent, clients, and crew. Those things will never change.

Photographer for many, many years starting with a Canon A1, I now have hundreds of thousands of full frame Sony shutter actuations and recently shot an old 120 camera with TMAX bw film. I’d forgotten how much I love film. Now I’m in the market for an old Hasselblad. If you have the skills, it’s not a debate. You use what speaks to you at the time. Digital does not create film images.

I have been photographing for many years.I have a Nikon F6 as well as a Nikon D7100. I love the results from my film camera. I give the DSLR the same opportunities . I Sometimes shoot them side by side, film and digital . I am a slow and methodical shooter, but my F6 with film just looks way better than the DSLR images. This is of course after processing both in photoshop. The DSLR images seem to have much less body to them, the film images seem to be more robust in nature.?? Hard to explain.The DSLR is great for family stuff,weddings, birthdays etc. But for my serious landscape and macro shots I us my F6 with Velvia ,Kodak or Ilford it just can’t be beat. I keep trying but I always get the same results.

I got into photography while living in Iraq back in the 70’s. The only file I could get my hands on was Kodachrome 25, or Kodachrome 64. I took beautiful photos of archaeological sites such as Hatra, Nippur and Babylon. When looking at the photos of Nineveh and Hatra, tears well up in my eyes since a lot was destroyed by ISIS.
My first camera was a Canon A1 purchased in 1979. I still have it. It still works. I have a lot more toys, but I could not come up beautiful photos off a DSLR.
I will stick with film.
Best wishes!

If you can get beautiful photos with your AE1 you’ll get beautiful photos with any DSLR made after 2005. I promise you…

I started with photography in mid 70’s. I shoot digital now (Nikon D7000) with all Nikon lenses ranging from fisheye thru 70-500mm and macro prime Nikon 200mm. I post process in PS for many years and the digital bribgs beautiful images. I still hold on to my Nikon F90x tho. Why? I can explain. I shoot b&w of my little kid. I pick my shots carefully. I execute with care. I put the film in fridge and store them for the rest of the year there. I develop them in dark room at Xmas time. I love the surprises , the forgotten moments, the throwback in time. This is what you don’t get with the digital. The surprises, the mood of developing, the ritual of taking photos with a thought and preparation, not taking thousands of shots and scrapping them after. The click with film counts, there is no other click and you only find out if you did it right or not in the red light. Cheers!

Simple argument, if your in business and have many clients shoot digital. If your doing it for personal work shoot film and enjoy the good ol days of analog! 🙂 I just got my pics back from a photographer and half of them are too soft and blury from using analog. I am not happy coz I will never get the detail back! I shoot all digital..and i know I have the shot when its on the back of my screen!

I think that people should stop comparing resolution, the popular Joker Movie was filmed on 35mm and then mastered in 4k. Film gives you a more artistic look, and less worry about settings like white balance, auto focus, raw or jpeg. Film looks good if you know what you are doing right out of the camera. Currently I have been experimenting with 800 ISO Single Use Cameras, if it is too dark increase your lighting. I like not worrying about anything but composition, and not needing batteries, or having to edit photos. Plus the cost of digital to get quality photos cost thousands or at the least hundreds of dollars if you are thrifty. For the year with the cameras and development, I will spend under 400, and can always go to medium format, or large format. Try buying a cheap digital medium format camera, 120 is about 60mm so ten under IMAX standards. I have tried digital so many times Nikon D600 Canon Mark II, and went to school for photography. Digital may look technically correct, or sharper edge definition, or colour rendition. But it is not as artistic, and post editing takes the art out of creation, editing numbers, and values, not air brushes, or toners, or even the film type. Film is coming back in a big way, I would say higher than Vinyl records. “Tune in, Turn on, and Drop Out” – (Dr. Timothy Leary).

Film is more artistic? That’s like the belief that only Mac users are artistic. It’s flawed, a pure and utter logical fallacy born of bias and tribalism.

Resolution is highly dependant on grain of film stock used. 4k is literally 8MP. Color balance is certainly a consideration of film stock used so if you’re shooting film it’s actually a bigger consideration than digital where automatic white balance or raw postprocessing take out all the guess work while opening up all sorts of possibilities in post – especially f you shoot in raw. Furthermore, raw vs jpg is for most people a choice they make and don’t deviate from save for amateur photographers going from jpg to raw.

The recurring costs of film photography add up. I’ve been happy with my D750 for 5+ years. Cost me $1696 on sale. For the cost of a quality F3, FM2, Canon F1, AE1 (300-800 depending on the model desired) that still likely requires CLA and at $400 in film a year I’d be at cost to $2300-$3000. I’d likely go through more film and the $8-10 a roll variety. Gear acquisition syndrome driving camera upgrades every 2 years only effects those who fall for it. Most amateurs and families I know shoot with 15 year old D70s/30Ds, and hobbiests with 7-10 year old kit.

Stating that you must spend thousands to get “quality” images is once again subjective and flawed. The D700 produces excellent quality images. A D850, R5, or z7ii may best it in terms of sensor improvements, but that doesn’t mean that the D700 isn’t capable of quality photos.

I greatly enjoy film photography, and developing my own BW film, but comparing film to modern digital is futile and only exposes biases and untruths like those expressed in the article above and 95% of the comments that follow it.

I’d highly recommend a scientific based comparison between film and digital rather than a subjective one fraught with biases.

To be clear, my point re the d700 is it can be acquired for very little these days. Even better example would be a used D600 or D610 or even an old Canon 20D.

I started my photogrphy journey with film and sold my SLR, lenses and tripods after a relatively short period of time. While I was successful in producing nice shots and enjoyed the hobby, the lack of any creative input in the film’s processing frustrated me. It was pre-photoshop, scanning and digital manipulation. The cost of film, cost of processing and zero control over how film was processed just made the hobby inaccessible to me. Many decades later and I’ve revamped my photography interest in digital. It’s world’s away from the analogue mode for me. More creative control in processing, cheap access to great equipment (I use a 7yr old digital camera that’s great with analogue lenses). The whole setup cost me just over $300. I paid that just for my SLR with a 50mm lens back in the day and that was $300 in decades ago money. I paid another $200 for a tripod and another $175 for a second hand telephoto back then. Not to mention my little M10 weighs nothing compared to my OM10 which always felt like a brick around my neck and a pain to carry. I just got a free SLR body thrown in with a vintage lens I just bought and I’m happy to have the option for 35mm film again if I ever get the desire. But I doubt it will become the camera I pick up and throw on my bicycle when I go on my photo safari’s.

Very good comparison of a digital and film photo showing what can be achieved straight from the camera.I have owned full frame digital nikon and now an xt2 but have always missed what I got from film back in the day so have just gone back to an F5 mainly for black and white .first of all I had forgotten what a great camera it is even just the feel of it in your hands is great.then there is the matrix metering which is Im trying out all the ilfords first HP5,FP4 and PANF and the rollei 25,100 *,5 I find myself using the F5 more remains to be seen but it’s great to have the option thesedays .

Does anyone really believes that this comparison I legit the person clearly shoot with a flat picture profile and used a canon 6d which does not have the IQ that other Digital camera have like the d850.
Also the website that is comparing film vs digital is called the darkroom and is selling I shoot film t shirts and develop and scans film so I’m calling B.S on this comparison.

I have spent a tons of time in both, and more in digital, and still cannot get the level of darks and details in B&W digital that I can with B&W film. I’m sure it may be able to be done but imho not by many, even with great software and hardware (silver effects pro, lightroom, capture one, mac, wacom, etc) anything less than real high end experts may have trouble or never reach their goals. I am good, very, very good at computers technologies and been in digital for over 10 solid years now. Still cannot get really very near the same in digital B&W I can with B&W film and prints. And the prints, with all the darkroom fuss of chemicals, dodging, burning, etc still only takes like 25% of the time great digital ‘development’ takes. Not to mention that the wet print *will* last 300 years. 🙂 . Still so much of the world is in digital, how can we really avoid it. Converting film, much less prints, to digital so that I have a digital version of what I did, is slow and costly as its not common today. With film I cannot go shoot and within minutes or less give somebody a jpg copy to check out. That ease of use has value. The digital is not as good, but the effect of getting a draft into 20 peoples hands (editors, etc) 20 minutes after shooting it gets a some respect, not to mention high demand. Their values are a dichotomy to me, that neither can be brushed away or solved by the other.

No offense but what you describe is not digital vs film but a completely different matter. It’s the social media fueled need for being liked in the instagram era where fantasy is reality.

This is an endless debate, and one which will, by definition, divide us into different camps. Still, really, there is no need to get defensive, whichever camp we’re in. Each has it’s own virtues and vices, and it’s down each of us to decide what suits us best. For myself, the satisfaction of seeing the print hanging on the wall is where it’s at, and I guess that’s the fly in the ointment these days. I wonder what the percentage of all “images” captured today that actually end up in print is? Pretty low I would guess. I’m happy to be shooting film, but I’m less concerned with trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. Let’s all of us be happy with whatever medium we use and celebrate others in their pursuit, whatever form that takes. Happy shooting to you all.

For me, 35mm film connects me to my past. Also, I wanted my young daughter to have a physical photo album. Shooting with a film camera is also very satisfying. I love to hear the clockwork mechanism on slow speeds. Also, yes the images just simply look nicer. I have been suggesting to Google that they include a mechanical shutter sound for their phone camera.

For normal people, those who aren’t technically minded and the half-witted, digital is, unquestionably, better than film. Only in the hands of those with the patience, skill and dedication, will a film camera likely yield superior results to a digital one. Isn’t it really as simple as that?

Wow this has to be the most condescending comment I’ve ever come across in a photography forum. I enjoy film but your comment reminds me what I don’t like about many film photographers (same thing I don’t care about most Leica photographers)…

I was 10 when I got my first camera for Christmas in 1949. It was an Ansco Panda. I used a Uniflex TLR through my HS and early college years, all the while doing my own processing. I continued with film in every format from Minox 11mm to view camera 4×5. I took a hiatus from film beginning in 2001 and am just getting back to it. A few years ago I jumped in fully with serious digital equipment. What really amazed me when I purchased and started using Vintage TLRs and folding 6x6s was how much photography – and me – had changed. It took me awhile to remember to set the speed and aperture, focus, cock the shutter, shoot and advance the film. Wow! Sadly, most of what I shoot ends up on Facebook, where it’s hard to tell the difference between cell phone, compact digital, DSLR and 6×6 film, unless you zoom in on the picture. In all cases now my end product is digital – either direct from the camera or from scanned film. This gives me the chance to enhance, crop, manipulate any image. It’s like a whole new form of picture creation for me. So I now think of the original picture as my sculptor’s clay. I love it.

Great article. Film? Digital? Not a professional by any means, but nothing beats film. That is, when in the hands of the right developer. I can use a digital to scout areas I want to shoot, and record comments. I don’t know how many times I’ve lugged around cameras, tripods, heavy expensive lenses, and discovered the spot just wasn’t right, or the wrong time of day for the right shadows. With a digital I can shoot, record comments about when I think will be the right time for that special composition. That said, though, I would like to see the digital shot’s results after a pro spends about 10 minutes with, let’s say, Adobe Lightroom, or Skylum Luminar?

I’ll just add the very polarizing issue presented above, both are tools that create amazing images, and these days if you are shooting for the joy of it, shoot with all, both, etc. Whichever gives you the happiest experience. When it comes to commercial shooting the client needs will determine what platforms you are able to bring to the table, but when doing it for your own reward – try out all kinds and see what suits you. Some folks end up liking half frame 35mm, others large format 8×10, and still more m4/3, aps-c, ff, digital MF, etc. Having tried most of these, I say from my experience, that each has their perks, and some you will mesh with, and others you’ll think “nah, I’ll try something else”. Also, in regards to film gear, the depreciation has pretty much hit, so you can try what you like, and resell if needed or trade and be not too bad off 🙂 All the best to our shooters, and hope people enjoy what and how they shoot 🙂

I shoot both. I do enjoy the mechanical feeling of my Konica T3 or Nikon FM2n, the shutter sound, loading and winding the film…it’s all a great experience. I only use film when I want a slow day, ie . landscapes, portraits of my wife etc…. but for my kids!! No ways, i choose digital 99% of the time. Heck trying to focus on them running around is enough to drive one to some bad habits. Also, when I’m printing big, I prefer digital, the images are just cleaner, no debate!!! but for 4*6 prints film is wonderful. Point is, both has there place.

Film photographers have to learn aperture, shutter speed etc. and their relation to each other . Shooting digital you can set you camera up like a point & shoot and learn little if anything about the art of photography. I want to see what my eye through the lens saw, not a manipulated Light room version of.

I’m a film photographer and use an all manual Leica MP. Before Mary Ellen Mark passed away, she made me promise her, I wouldn’t become a digital photographer. She knew the beauty and soul of film. For me, this was a request I could keep. In a day of photographing, two rolls of film would be considered a lot. I am a quiet photographer, and wait for the moment of connection with my subject, or when I let my own defenses down.
I have nothing to compare film to digital aside from my iPhone, but will forever be an analog photographer.

A few years ago I purchased a used Leica M 8.2 because I wanted a digital “box” that I could use with my Leitz lenses, 28 through 50mm. Long story short, I spent lots of time learning how to process digital files, post-process, etc. I never stopped using my twin Leica M4-P’s however.

Today, I use the digital M8.2 to make “sketches,” to try new compositional/thematic ideas, etc. Some of these images find their way into work that I use … most do not. Having a relatively inexpensive and quick sketchpad has proven valuable to me.

For the bulk of what I do (deliver, show, etc.) I rely on films. Pure and simple. Of the two workflows, film is slower and more expensive but therein lies its hidden strength. Digital has made me a better “editor in the field,” but if I have the choice, I put the film in the camera and, even if I have to send this to a lab, I find a much higher yield with film than with digital images.

Your results, of course, will likely differ.

I bought my first 35mm SLR while in high school. 1969 + or – a year. An East German made Hanimex Praktica that I still own but have not used in years. Got a 400mm telephoto lens for it as well. Set up a B&W darkroom at home and learned as I went along. Got to the point where I was buying bulk B&W film by a specialty company with super fine grain but only ASA 25. But could you enlarge the resulting photos to a huge size even after cropping and get super sharp and beautiful prints on glossy paper. Then there was the Minolta SLR that developed a problem and I was told cannot be fixed. So much for the argument that film cameras last “forever”.

Once married the wife wanted color so I mostly shot 400 speed Kodak film. Prints seemed to fade so did a lot of slides for many years. Most ended up stored for years in boxes I am just starting to go through now.

Here is what I am finding out now. Many of the color prints are fading, etc. Wedding prints taken by a “professional” photographer are fading and definitely will be useless in the near future. And professional photographers keep the negatives so there is no way for me to reprint them. So much for lasting for decades or even hundreds of years. I just opened a box of slides and discovered pictures of a day trip I remembered well but had forgotten I had taken pictures at it. But the slides have deteriorated to the point that in many much of the image is just washed out, gone forever. So much for “lasting forever”. Most likely the processing was poor but there is no way to know at the time that the lab cut corners. I will say that my B&W images seem to be in good shape but I was careful with processing.

Is film superior? Maybe, but I am 68 and at this point in my life i have other things to do than spend hours in a darkroom to get a few finished prints. Or to wait days or weeks to find out the pictures I took didn’t come out. Had that happen a few times…. Found myself not carrying the SLRs places because of the weight and bulk…

Digital…. I have multiple backups including one external hard drive I store off site so even if my house burned down I still have them. (Hard drive even has scanned PDFs of all important financial, legal, etc documents. Try doing that practically with paper.) I should be able to make new prints of any digital photos at any time in the future with no loss in quality from the original. I’m satisfied with the quality of enlargements. Above this desk is a print measuring 20 x 30 inches of a stunning landscape taken out the window of our car while my wife was driving and where there was NO safe place to pull over. Several others we decorated our house with are even larger. So for me I’ll stick with a decent quality low to mid priced Digital camera.

You are obviously selling a product, so your bias comes as no surprise.
But nevertheless, yes, film is great, just like analog guitar pedals sound for the most part better than their digital counterparts. However, picking on fuji for doing a bad job with their sims is really unwarranted, nobody else has even come close to providing something that looks just as great as analog than their Pro Neg Hi at iso 800.
Also, analog is really, really bad for the environment. The nasty chemicals you’re using to pay yourself on the back for having an edge are extremely questionable.
Look at what Martin Part did with digital DSLRs and think again. Does it look exactly the same? No. Is it worse or better? Hard to say. Can I immediately recognize who’s behind the camera? Yes.

I always find myself rolling my eyes when I see these debates, even more so on a site that has a clearly vested interested in one format over another. The fact of the matter is that different tools work better for different people. I shoot a 50/50 digital/film workflow. I can produce work that keeps my clients and customers happy – from assignment work for the likes of National Geographic and New European magazines, to my various documentary photography exhibitions and photobooks released and sold over the years. I will happily shoot and produce work in either film or digital.
Each has it’s advantages.
I also find it funny when some suggest film photographers know how to compose better, that they work more methodically and so on. Honestly, a professional will do these things no matter what equipment he/she is capturing with. All I really see in these debates is one side trying to one-up the other using silly straw clutching arguments. The deciding factor in the quality of your work is you and your brain, your eye for a good image. Shooting film is not going to magically give you that, just the same as digital will not.
Lastly, film is cheap? I’m sorry but a quick search shows otherwise. I live in the UK now (I am from the Netherlands however) and own 2 digital, and 2 film cameras. One of my film cameras is a mint condition Nikon FM2n with Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. When purchased, with original box and manual etc in mint condition, 6 years ago, this cost me a reasonable £140, with the lens (alsmo mint). A quick search as of right now and these are going for £400 (body only in some cases) and up. They’re good, but they’re not £400 good in 2021. These cameras ARE of a vintage that they will start having problems. Then you’re looking at paying out for repairs or servicing (which may or may not entail shipping it away and paying for shipping back). Film? £56.49 for 5 rolls of 35mm Portra which I like for film documentary portraits on the go? How about £30 for 5 rolls of HP5 plus, my favourite B&W film for documentary or even more for Kodak Tri X (which I find a little overrated anyway)? I swallow the cost because I do enjoy shooting in film and can afford the cost but for many the cheap claim goes out of the window very quickly when you take into consideration these extra costs, and that’s before we even mention developing/processing and scanning costs etc, printing etc.
You’re over £1,000 before you know it. Long story short, film doesn’t work out cheaper than digital, for anything other than amateur use in my experience.

Anyway, rant over.

Takeaway point here should be: Both are great, both work perfectly well but only if you apply the creativity and hard work to produce a winning image.

“You’re over £1,000 before you know it. Long story short, film doesn’t work out cheaper than digital”

6x7cm film camera – $1000
Developing and drum-scanning – $200
End result – a 400MP image you can enlarge to 60″ no problem

How much do you have to spend to get that kind of resolution from a digital camera image?

It is pleasant to see that hobbies and professions could stir up such emotive passion. I have put my Mamiya 645 and C330 cameras which both look like new into “mothball service” and have to struggle with my Nikon 810 for my hobby. During films heyday I could not find one 35mm product to give me the sharpness and the lack of grain that I felt I needed at the time for the portraits I took over the forty odd years as an amateur hobbyist. It could be because 35mm was a compromise format initially intended for movie use. Having attended various exhibitions and won various awards for my portrait work during last century, I like to think that despite my age and gradually failing eyesight I could still tell a good picture from a mediocre, in terms of image fidelity. I my opinion for the finished product, only 6×9 120 format can produce the same quality that I could get from my 810 in my own experience. I have also mothballed my Thorens turntable and my 1000+ record collection as my hearing bandwidth tends to decrease year by year but more importantly some (not all) digital formats sound a lot better to me. Over the decades many of us have parted with vast amounts of money (in many cases enough to buy an additional home) in pursuit of our hobbies so we will always be ready to justify this expenditure and vigorously defend it, no matter what. How I wish I’d still kept my 1977 two stroke motorcycle, even tatty examples are fetching thirty times what I paid new. Nostalgia is now a lucrative niche business thanks to the fact that as our senses get curtailed with age, our emotions and loyalty to our traditional ways strengthen along with our bank balances.

NOTHING forces you to keep pushing the button on digital. I use mine exactly as I use my film camera, aim, focus, set exposure, recheck composition. think, then expose.

If in a situation you can not control, digital is nice because I can take many more and hop for the best, but these situations are not my style.

I love my dark room, unrolling the film and seeing the images, then selecting and printing.

I “play” with 6 film cameras,Nikon F4, Minolta XD-11(my very first camera), Olympus OM-2n, Olympus OM2SP, the Olympus Flex TLR, and the Minolta Autocord TLR. I enjoy the process of slowing down and actually thinking about the photo. I also get my negatives/positives processed at, and then I “scan” them with my Nikon DF, to RAW photos for fun in Lightroom. This Blog is amazing, and I have learned a bunch from you’se guys!

Let me get this straight… you compare a film photo with a raw file and then say a 120mm film negative has more detail that a 35mm digital camera? Why don’t you compare jpeg or imported raws to film and 35 to 35? Yes, because your article would fall apart. The bias here is absolutely staggering. If you love film, I get it. I love cars with mechanical gearboxes. They aren’t faster, They aren’t better… It’s just more satisfying, but I am secure enough that I don’t have to lie and try to skew facts by comparing the gearbox on manual Ferrari 599 with the automatic box on a new Hyundai sonata.

And as far as the color science, reproducing the color rendition of a specific film is not gimmicky. It’s very scientific. A lot less gimmicky than this article. If you want to jerk yourself off to disillusioned thought, that’s cool. But don’t step on the toes of us that moved away from film and are perfectly happy with the decision.

For apples to apples, I’ll put my Fujifilm GFX100s up against your 120mm film camera and see how things stack up.

Well said, though I might have avoided the J-O comment but I 100% (or as these folks would say 1000%) agree. Lol

Try not to worry about the 120 vs full frame, a 35mm frame of Velvia/provia/E100/Ektar/CMS 20/etc when properly scanned will absolutely flog any full frame sensor around.

Remember that the whole scanning process is a concession to digital to allow comparison. Not everyone (especially those using film) intends the ultimate expression of their image making to be on a screen. Printing in the darkroom at any size, 35mm vs a full frame print on any printer is not a fair fight… there are no dots to compare in the emulsion and it is, of course, far sharper than any dotted print could hope to be.

Sorry, but your GFX100s has no chance against a 6×4.5, 6×6, 6×7, 6×9 medium format image using the above mentioned films, and probably many more, even with moderate home scanning on a flatbed. If ultimate resolution is what you wanted, you should’ve saved those pennies and bought a whole image taking, processing and scanning system for far less. And that’s not even thinking about 4×5, 8×10 and so on, which will really put your fuji into some dark shade, and thats without the improvement of control using movements

But I’m not having a go at you or your camera. Your Fuji, I’m sure is pretty awesome at making pictures happen quickly, and that, I suppose, also came into your thinking. And maybe, if chasing megapixels, you can take a bunch of shots and stitch them together while staring a monitor, and that’s cool too.
There are many “battlegrounds” on which digital can live with film, but resolution from “one shot” is not one of them. Likewise, speed is not an attribute that film can really go toe-to-toe with digital.

I regularly shoot my EOS 1N side by side with my 5D mk ii with the same lenses and the 1N images are more pleasing, full stop. I don’t care about anything other than how they look. I print up to A2 with a nice inkjet and with an enlarger in a darkroom at home and both make sharp images at that size. Anything bigger makes the walls of my house look too small.

I have a question…I too began with film then transitioned into DSLR – now going both. However I question the science of printing from a film negative being better than DSLR. Doesn’t the digital scan from the film scanner negate any advantages that the film would have had? I think it’s safe to say labs are all using scanners rather than the enlargers and such of yesteryear. Why would a sensor from a film scanner have any better performance than a leading DSLR?

My last comment was way back in May of 2017 (whoa, where has the time gone?) so, here are another few insights I came up with regarding the so-called “digital vs 35mm” differences. If you love Photography as much as I have for the past 50 years or so any decent digital or 35mm camera will usually produce quality, highly acceptable photos and prints but, with a few caveats. 1. Whatever camera you’re using get to know not only its strong points and advantages but it’s weak points and shortcomings too like the back of your hand and work within those parameters. No sense in having a Porsche Carrera or 4WD Jeep if you don’t know how to handle them or what they’re capable of, right? Good photography is essentially about 2 things: Skill and Discipline and aren’t achievable overnight (I might add Patience too). As I can attest, photography is a lifelong, fascinating learning process that has its rewards and disappointments. Fortunately, the latter get fewer and fewer as one progresses along the learning curve regardless of the type of camera used so, when you get a crappy photo (and you will) analylize the mistakes in it and do better the next time under the same conditions and camera. 2. This next comment is purely subjective and personal. Many folks are dumping their 35s in droves for more “convenient” digitals so I’ve been rescuing them from trash bins, thrift stores and friend’s closets for the past 10 years or so. To date I have 48 of them around my bedroom shelves and every one of them is fully functional. Virtually every Japanese camera and model is represented, the prize being a mint condition, VietNam era Nikon F with 3 Nikkor-S lenses I luckily noticed in a dumpster. An acquaintance recently was short of rent money and sold me his Canon 60D digital and film EOS 750 with 3 Sigma lenses and Canon 430EZ strobe in a HF foam lined hardshell case for, would you believe, 350 bucks. So now, on shoots, since the lenses work on both cameras, I can opt for film or digital. Pretty neat, huh? 3. Last but not least, work with a top-notch film/digital processor like TheDarkroom for quality results you hope for. PS. They can’t save lousy photos taken by lousy photographers, after all, they’re not magicians. So, with all that being said, regardless of the Instamatic or Hasselblad in your hands, keep in mind what my hero, Dirty Harry once said “One has to know their limitations”. Happy shutter bugging.

Film vs digital is a silly comparison in my opinion.

I still shoot film and have a darkroom but I also shoot digital. Digital has more accurate color rendition vs film stock. Film companies decide how the colors should look, not you or nature. After Kodachrome left a lot of photographers switched to digital for that reason. Even film photographs today are manipulated by computer after- see Harry Gruyaert for example.

Digital is also an entirely different process. You’re supposed to saturate your sensor with as much information as possible without blowing your highlights and then expose in the computer, not in camera like film. The image comparison above shows a finished film photo vs am I processed digital file- which again isn’t a good comparison. Both should be compared after the digital information is processed and edited.

Technology is a good thing, but again I enjoy both.

I think the first response to this thread, by Dug, says it all. That’s the heart of this discussion as I see it.

I started with a 1936 Contax II, worked my way up to better film cameras that I could also use for “work” photos, and stopped with a Nikon F4. Then digital took over, and every year or so it meant buying another camera. I worked my way up to a Nikon D2x, then a D3, and then called it quits. The cameras got better and better for my sports photography, but when I retired, I couldn’t keep up. So I switched to a Leica M10 which uses all my old Leica lenses. For the Nikon stuff, I replaced all my huge cameras with a D750 which did everything I wanted, and then I bought a Df because I figured I’d never have another opportunity to get a camera like that. I also got a Fuji X100 for travel, and a small Canon G7X-Pro Mk II that goes on my belt.

The most enjoyment I got out of all the above, was my Leica M10. I turned off the review function, and shot it as if I was shooting film.

This year, I dug out my old Leica film cameras, and started shooting B&W again, just like 60 years ago. I enjoyed it very much, and I bought a Plustek scanner to digitize the images, which I edit on DxO PhotoLab4. I have all the Adobe stuff, but don’t use it. My M3 I sent off to Don at DAG Cameras for a clean&lube, and my M2 needs that even more. I got out my Nikon F2, but I wasn’t very comfortable with it – it was just like my Nikon SP, but with a prism and meter on top. A week ago I got out my Nikon D4, with knobs and buttons and levers for everything – no menus. It’s too big, too heavy, but it fits into my hands perfectly. So I just started learning how to use it again.

I noticed when scanning my 60 year old negatives, I would take ONE photo, then move to a different spot and try another view. Nothing like the “spray and pray” concept with digital, where one can take hundreds and hundreds of images. I like what Dug wrote, taking the time to make EVERY shot as perfect as possible, before pressing the shutter release.

Now for the hard part – processing my B&W negatives, scanning, and editing in PhotoLab 4 took a long time, but the results were SO much better than what I had been getting with my digital images. Both had lots of resolution. Both were exposed properly. But there was “something” from the film images that made me enjoy the results more than I had from the digital images. I don’t know how to explain it, but it was very obvious. This is images from my Leica – I haven’t gotten any images back yet from the F4. Maybe shooting with a Leica, and a rangefinder, helps me be a better photographer.

I guess it doesn’t matter which people use. I’m pretty sure I’ll continue to use my M10 (and an M8.2 for infrared). I’ll also continue to shoot film, being as patient and careful as I know I should be. With film that’s easy for me. With digital, I want to take the shot NOW, then try to do better.

I’ve got lots of photos posted on my SmugMug gallery at “”. I’m just starting to upload my latest film images there. I can’t say film is “better” than digital, or vice versa, but I can definitely say that film causes me to be more careful and creative, and it shows in the images.

(….and no, I don’t have one of those ultra-high-resolution expensive scanners, and neither do I have one of the newer 40 or 50 meg digital cameras. I’m done with buying newer and better digital cameras – I stopped playing that game. I’m thoroughly happy that my 1954 Leica M3 can create images at least as good, if not better, than my best digital camera. And I am convinced the main area that needs improving is ME, not my camera gear.)

I am at a crossroads with this. I just got back into photography and I want to make art with it. I have 4 vintage Pentax SLRs from the 60s and 70s that are mechanical beasts. I don’t own a digital camera yet. It feels like film is expensive but I ran the numbers of buying developing and printing film vs buying a dslr and printing jpegs…. and it’s more economical to shoot film. The cost of producing 600 8x10s equals a starter dslr and lens… before you even print a single picture. My 40-50 year old mechanical slrs work unfailingly. How long is the lifespan of a digital camera? How often does technology change? All metal cameras just work.

Leave a Reply

Note: We don’t monitor the comments very often, so please contact us directly if you have questions.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *