Your approach to film photography is HYBRID. Not analog. And that's perfectly fine. And I get it, these days, working with colour film in classic way is too cumbersome. But If you really want to unleash your full potential in black & white film photography, you should already have a darkroom with enlarger. You can always scan that wet print later on any $20 home scanner later. Just saying...
@@FilmPhotowithMatt In my youth I tried the bathroom. But it was combined with toilette, and there was always somebody who wanted to pee. Kitchen had too many windows. So eventually I've set it up in the closet in my room. I had to drag chemicals and water across the apartment, but I didn't care, there I had my peace. Now, in my new apartment, I'm looking to set it in the kitchen / living room, which I can turn dark within a minute. And everybody else has its room. Peace ✌
Digital files generally look over-sharpened and over-saturated, but these are choices people don't have to make. The most important thing for me, is the outcome is on a tangible, holdable object like a print or a book. Something that doesn't become virtual the moment you scroll off the file. The act of printing feeds back into the taking of a photograph, and the choices we make.
I tested the digital and film quality theory on a trip I took last year. I hauled my film camera and my digital camera with me and I ended up shooting a couple of subjects with both my cameras. I have all Nikon gear so I even used the same lens on both cameras for the test. From a technical standpoint, the digital camera is the clear winner. It’s sharper, I got more details in the highlights and shadows, and there’s very little noise so it looks smooth. HOWEVER, every person I’ve shown the images to - an admittedly small sample size - has preferred the film photo. It’s not technically better, but it has more character. It’s more dramatic. It’s more memorable. Modern-day digital cameras can do some amazing things, but that doesn’t always result in amazing images. Great video!
Hi great video. I know it's been awhile but I wanted to know does the display on the bmpcc shows "full 100%" if the NP battery is "full" or does it only show the power available in the bmpcc internal battery and just extends the time? Hope I explained that ok :)
You said a couple of times that once you develop your film you have to scan it anyway. Some of the commenters below me have said the same. My walls are covered with my prints (B&W and color), and, I can assure you not a single one of them has been digitized. I don't own a digital camera (besides my phone, I guess) or even have a way of digitizing my negs (besides sending them to a lab, I guess). There's really no reason to compare digital and film unless one is full digital and one is full analog. Once a negative is digitized it's a digital image. I'm not saying one is better than the other, even though I think you can guess which I prefer. Anyway, you're going to need to find a darkroom to do a fair comparison. Cheers!
I send my digital photos to an online lab that does a really nice job. I tend to prefer black and white images and they offer a “true black and white” paper. I don’t know how they do the prints, but I don’t think it’s ink jet. Whatever they do, I get really good detail and no hints of color (a cheap local printer used their color process for black and white and the prints always had a distinct blueish look). ANYWAY, several months ago I had an appointment and I arrived early. As I was waiting, I saw some enlarged black and white prints that looked incredible. I examined them closely and they were done on photographic paper that were exposed through film and then developed with the traditional chemical process. They looked so good. I would bet that most people would prefer those prints to a digital print from a digital camera of the same scene.
I'm a hobbyist. I grew up with film but we only had point and shoot cameras back then. There were no settings to change other than to turn the flash on or off. I've been shooting digital for a little over 7 years. I would say from a clinical stand point that digital is cleaner and technically looks better. Especially at higher ISO. I took some pictures at a dirt track race back in April. A couple of shots were around 28,500 ISO. After using denoise in Lightroom you can't tell the ISO was anywhere near that high. I was using my z8 and 180-600mm lens. But as good as digital is it still doesn't give you the same look as film. It's the tonality. It has to do with the RGB sensor and filters on it. Fujii cameras have a lot of film simulations put in their cameras but even their photos don't look exactly like the colors in film. I recently got back into shooting film. I've even started developing black and white film and I'm about to start developing color. I just got my kit in the other day. If you want the true film lol you'll have to do your own prints in a dark room with an enlarger. You may not see it as much with 35mm film but you'll see it with medium format film. I said I wasn't getting back into film because u didn't want to start buying another set of lenses and stuff. Then I said I'll shoot film but I'm not going to develop my own film. I'm not going to say that I'm not going to buy an enlarger and ask the other stuff and set up a dark room in my house because as soon as I say that I'll be buying all the stuff for it. I'm just shooting film for the fun of it and for the look. But I'm not giving up digital.
Digital will look better, perfect even but film simulations are all the rage and the difference.The moment you get into attempting to simulate an analog process where everything from how warm your water to how much you move the film while developing can play a roll in the final look is a whole other thing.
Film and digital both have their upsides but "looking better" isn't something you can determine objectively. For me, film is the only option worth considering, not only because I like the resulting images more but because I like the process. It's the same reason why I prefer vinyl records compared to Spotify (even though that's how I mostly listen to music nowadays), the ritual of taking the record out of its sleeve while admiring the album art, putting it on the platter, carefully dropping the needle and hearing that first crackle. Then listening to the whole album without skipping tracks, only having a meditative pause to change the side. When I shoot film, there is a similar process. I can't just take out my camera and shoot pictures at any settings I please at machine gun speeds. I have to savor the moment and be mindful of what I shoot and how. It usually takes me a while to fill up a whole roll, so when I get it developed, it's like Christmas morning because I've already forgotten what pictures I've taken. If this wasn't just a hobby for me I'd probably welcome the convenience of digital though, just like I do with Spotify when I want to listen to music on a commute or while taking a walk etc.
Well, I’m with you. I love shooting film and print it in a darkroom on silverhalide paper. And I think. They look better that way. Rather then scanned and printed digitally. But digital. Is convenient. Fast. And looks just as good. Although, printing is still not as sharp still. But that’s pixel peeping and I think technology will improve and catch up. I’m of the mind set. Shoot analog, print analog. But without digital. There is no sharing it on the innerwebs.
I do portraits directly on photographic paper with my 11x14" large format camera. That is unique art, like a painters painting, which I also sign. You can't emulate this with a digital camera.
the secret is that because of the way human psychology works whichever you think looks better, will end up looking better to you. anyway I prefer digital for the workflow and have given up trying to have an objective take on the quality argument, personally.
I Can absolute relate to this. I do both and it is mostly about the proces but the end result does also reflect that proces, so does it look better? Often, when we nail it, but not from a technical point of view but from a Visual feeling. I only shoot 35 mm. On my leicas I Can use High quality and fast glas. Medium formats are old and slow glas, so therefore I didnt those that format. An important benefit to my leica M is that I Can use a much slower film speed or time, than on my slr`s because of the lack of mirror Shake. Leicas are quiet. Try the silky smooth Leica M7 or a mechanical Leica MP ❤
Mirror shake is a very interesting (under emphasized) aspect of the camera debate. I've absolutely run into it myself with older, less expensive cameras. Thanks for the comment and suggestion. I'll keep saving up for that Leica... someday 😔
Well you could try to compare an analog darkroom print with a digital print. Of course there are a lot of variables as well, but it would definitely be a more acurate comparison
Wow very underrated video, only people who been through this phase would understand. Very well done, it is always okay to take a break and refocusing on yourself my friend. This will make us love and enjoy life more everyday. It is okay.
Smallrig makes a new power adapter that looks exactly like yours, except you don't have to turn it on, and it doesn't have the battery level indicator. Plus it is only cost about 25 bucks. The NPF batteries seem to last forever, so I figured I wouldn't miss the battery level indicator. With the money saved, I bought more batteries.
I love the presentation. I have two questions. How heavy of a lens can I use before needing support, and what newer camera can can the OG be paired with? I am in the market for a new A-cam.
So I but the smallrig battery mount and thought it would work with the cable from the NPF-style adaptor mentioned in the video, but it doesn't seem to work. Do I need another cable or have I bought a defect Smallrig adaptor?
