Ever since moving back to film after years as a predominantly digital photographer I have been asked the question above. It's a fair question, in this modern world there is little reason to make life harder for yourself and so the idea of buying, loading, developing, printing and scanning images seems like a hassle to many. Why not just shoot it onto a memory card and then straight to the computer? It's simpler and in the long run cheaper.
There is not one answer to this question so here's my rather self indulgent response.
When the ship goes down, you better buy film.
I have always owned cameras, from my earliest point and shoot with a lens that seemed to attract my finger whenever I pressed the shutter to my first dSLR, the Canon 400d. Along the way I shot a lot of film and a lot of digital with very little understanding or engagement with what I was doing. My pictures were shit but I enjoyed the process and kept snapping. With the purchase of my first dSLR I broadened my horizons, took a course in portraiture, learned different techniques, details about equipment and most importantly about light. It was an essential and swift learning curve, one I am grateful for being born in the digital age. I graduated from the 400d to a 7d, nothing flash, second hand, with a shutter count of over 300,000 I never expected it to last, but it did. The 7d is known as a tank, they keep going no matter what you throw at them. A truth I inadvertently tested to it's limit off the coast of Taranaki.
Coming back in from a days fishing we had to cross the Patea bar (there is a picture of some surfers running on the sea wall by the bar in the "Life" section) and despite the best efforts of an experienced skipper we got hit by a freak wave and capsized in the harbour mouth. Being the enthusiastic photographer that I was I had taken nearly all of my camera gear with me. My 7d, 200mm L lens, 17-70mm Sigma lens and my beloved Voigtlander R3a. These were not in the forefront of my mind as I came up under the boat to see my brother-in-law taking charge and directing me out into the surf, but I do recall seeing and grabbing the bag briefly once I was out and bobbing around in the rough seas. My thoughts were clear enough to prioritise safety over the gear, I promptly let go of the bag and made for the sea wall. We all watched from the harbour wall as the upturned boat and my camera bag floated out to sea. A day or so later we found both 2 miles down the coast, the boat written off by it's unholy ejection from the ocean onto a rocky coast and the cameras by their dislike of salt water. They still sit on my book shelf as a reminder of how ambivalent I am about fishing.
As you will note by the mention of the Voigtlander in the above list I was already into film photography at this stage however I had not gone full film. The desire to regroup my photographic gear hit a financial snag, I was not insured so had no way of claiming for the damaged gear, I was also not very well off as I am terrible with money at the best of times. I started trawling TradeMe (NZ's answer to eBay) and eBay for cheap options. The only affordable options that came up were film cameras so I started buying. First, an Olympus Mju Zoom, then an Olympus AZ1 because it had a multi exposure button. I already owned a FED5 which I used for street shooting but I had got used to the 1:1 ratio viewfinder of the Voigtlander so going backwards was hard. I kept buying to try and find the right camera for me and the more I bought the more I wanted to buy. I got a Nikonos V, in fact I ended up with 3 at one point, an OM1 and an OM10. I then crept into medium format with a Mamiya C33 and that changed things. My aim to save money by purchasing a film camera had ended up with me spending more money on cameras then if I'd just gone out and bought the latest Canon 5d Mark IV. It was not making sense and my interest in shooting only seemed to extend to a small window, maybe 3 films, with each camera before I moved onto the next one.
The Mamiya changed that. Outside of Lomos it was my first medium format camera and the large negatives excited me. I ended up buying a Voigtlander R3M as well and that became my travel gear. A light, nifty rangefinder and a brick of thing made for contradictory travel companions. I carted the C33 around a fishing village on an island in Hong Kong in 40 degree heat and 100% humidity and didn't care. It was the camera I wanted to shoot with and I loved it. Except for one aspect, the twin lens. It bugged me to the point where I started eyeing up medium format SLRs. I didn't want to drop from the 6x6 format and couldn't afford a Hassleblad so the Bronica SQ series became my target. I eventually found one at a price I could afford and have not looked back. They have changed the way I shoot people and places, and cured my gear obsession, well, for now.
The gear matters.
It is a myth to say it is all about the photographer and the camera is merely a tool. I agree that a good photographer can take good pictures on almost any camera, however it is not true that the camera doesn't influence the process or the product. The Bronica made me a better portrait photographer, it changed the way I frame the subject, the way I interact with the subject and the way I work the scene. Film made me a better portrait photographer as it made me slow down, it made me consider each frame and it made me see the frame the second the shutter went. I know if the subject blinks when I press the shutter. In my digital days I would just hit the shutter 4 or 5 times to make sure they had their eyes open in one of them. Now I see the whole picture as soon as the shutter release is pressed. I get a rush of excitement when I know I've got "the" shot. Having no way of viewing the pictures on camera has made me far more aware of the scene as I shoot.
I am not saying there is right or wrong gear but I do believe there is gear that is right or wrong for each person or situation. Shooting on a dSLR I am upright, face on, the lens is in the subjects face, with the waist level viewfinder on the Bronica I am slumped over pointing my lens at the subjects navel. Somehow it is less intrusive and allows the subject to relax a little more, the angle is subtly different and so is the framing. A small difference that has a big affect. Others prefer the dSLR and the method that comes with it. It works for them and their subjects, it just doesn't work for me and mine.
Looks matter
It sounds so superficial but we work in an aesthetic medium and so the look and feel of the gear is important. I love the look of an OM1, or a Leica M3 or a Hasselblad 500CM, they are things of beauty, made with a love and attention that translates into the way we use them. It is not fickle to enjoy the way your tools look. I am not one to look after my gear, I do still see my cameras as tools and I can't keep working cameras on the shelf for too long without either using them or selling them so I am not talking about wrapping them in cottonwool but the way they look and feel adds to the joy of using them. An old guitar, with signs of a life well lived can look better than a a brand new Strat, I feel the same way about a well loved M6 over a pristine 5d. Looks convey something about the tool, its life, its use, its worth, these things matter to me and affect the way I interact with them.
Dynamic range
The arguments are probably rife on internet forums everywhere so I won't labour this point but the fact is that a group of zeros and ones can't capture the detail and dynamic range of an emulsion and still maintain a usable file size. If you want a picture with a subtle gradient from light to dark then you need a large negative and in digital terms a prohibitively large sensor and file size. Digital is improving all the time and one day will no doubt surpass film but at present the most accurate way to capture light is with film.
Time is important
Time is a commodity we have little of these days and so patience has suffered over the years. To be forced to be more patient by the process is not only a good thing to learn it also builds up the excitement and curiosity when the photos do come back. With travel shots I find I am away for a month or more and don't develop any pictures until I am home. This delay makes me relive the trip from start to finish up to a month after it. When I did the same with digital I would download the pictures onto my computer most nights, edit them and only revisit the one or two I deemed worthy of sharing. This is an issue as any viewing of recently taken images is tainted by your feeling when you pressed the shutter. Its hard to distance yourself emotionally from the picture you wanted to take and see the picture you actually took. My editing process now consists of more time. I scan my negatives one night, flick through them, am usually disappointed in all but one or two, then I leave them for at least another night before looking at them again. The processing time gives me distance from when the shot was taken, I also need distance from the initial viewing to see them objectively. I nearly always pick different favourites on the second viewing.
It's fun
I enjoy it, I don't know why but it makes me happy to load film, hear the click of the shutter, wind on, unload, reload and do all the things that now seem like a normal part of the photography process for me. I used my old 400d the other day and it felt odd, like I was skipping a step or three and it was somehow unsatisfying. I didn't even look at the pictures I took, they are still on the memory card in the camera and there is no urgency or real desire to revisit them. It's clearly a very personal thing but photography and film have become so intertwined with me now that I find it hard to connect with the digital process. In contradiction to this I use the camera on my phone all the time! Go figure.
So there it is, an occasionally contradictory and probably confusing stream of consciousness, look at my love of film photography. I hope at the very least it wasn't a boring read. I intend to update and expand on some of these themes in the future but for now happy shooting and thanks for reading!