I don't miss Film Photography - Here's why. 

If the most interesting thing about the images someone creates is the camera they made them on, then I think we can all agree its time to work on the art of photography.

I just started shooting film and I definitely agree. I also feel like it challenged me to learn more about exposure because I don’t have a computer doing it for me. I think every photographer should try shooting film.

@BaraenAlex That is the smartest comparison of film vs digital. I was a photo hobbyist back in the 1970's and 80's with a darkroom, and I dislike digital camera menus.

It isn't an age thing, the medium itself offers something different to a very modern industry with cameras that can do everything for you with a blink of an eye. Which btw, I imagine as AI gets more integrated into our technology, will only get easier in 10, 20, 50 years time. Photography is about finding the right tool to do the job and that tool has to be enjoyable to use otherwise it's not a fun process. Pretty much everyone I know that shoots photography on some sort of professional level, always shoots digital for work, and film for pleasure. Personally I think its also the reason why we've seen so many "retro" design cameras popping up because companies have come to realise that not everyone wants a Canon 5D Mark IV dull looking camera, that does it all. Design and shape has been underappreciated by some of these brands for the last couple of decades.

@@Ivanmckt I couldn’t care less.

@@Ivanmckt Exactly. Here is sample size plus one. No way could I use mainly film for paid work anymore, digital is way easier and more versatile. On the other hand I deeply enjoy the process of exposing film (I didn’t use film since the 90s, started again about half a year ago, and now I’m completely sucked in again).

@@vampolascott36 yea but one gen has one gen’s thing. We should agree to disagrees :) I shoot both and enjoy both

May i ask your age? ​@@Ivanmckt

Yes digital will never look exactly like film. Maybe AI filters will soon get us closer 😂 I like both mediums the way they are. As long as the images don't look 100% life like and neutral, I am happy.

@@SamuelStreetlife I guess that’s the issue. Images with modern digital camera sensors start to look more and more life like, film not so much. The video kind of missed the point, but was enjoyable, and great pictures! Thanks.

That's a stretch, some of them do look like film. And if you put it on the internet without telling people that it was digital, I'm willing to bet 80% of them would believe that they're film while 20% had no idea. Here's the problem, film also don't look like film. Because different method of processing and scanning, your portra photos won't be the same as my portra photos. Not to mention, people also do some editing in their film photos on top of it so most of the images you see online is not authentic color of the film stock itself.

@@SamuelStreetlife what name brand is your puff jacket? it looks warm

Completely agree. I went through the same journey. I also agree that of the excellent photos Samuel took, none of them look even close to film.

Hahahaha agree! A segment for all the snobs haha great video altogether :)

Yes weight can become an issue with the ZF. I think he weight with a 40mm f2 or 28mm 2.8 on the ZF is manageable but compared to an X100 it will still feel heavier. I personally don't mind. I bought a little thumb rest that you stick onto the leather part on the back and it helps a lot with ergonomics. But it's not ideal. For me it works for now.

Congratulations on purchasing the X100VI. I preordered on the 1st day and hope to receive it in a year or two. The XE2 is a very competent body as you know. Hope you have fun with your Fuji bodies. I’ve read and heard nice things about the ZF. The glass is supposed to be excellent and fairly priced. As in life, choosing a camera and lenses is all about compromising. At any given price, all the cameras are very similar. Also, there aren’t any bad cameras.o we make our choices and then don’t look back. With the presets Samuel mentioned all the images from our cameras will look the same. So we just select the body that has the features we want. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)

You’re right about the six months, but I fear you won’t hear anything new compared to what you can already read online since the camera’s release. The main cons are still: ergonomics, and “weird” ISO handling. I got the Nikon Z f months ago, and I still have the same great impression I had on the first day. I use it only with a grip attached, and its ergonomics are perfectly fine for my hands. Yes, when you want to switch between A & Auto ISO to M & manual ISO, it takes one step more than on every other body, because the Auto ISO implementation is the other way around. But it’s like this on every Nikon body with Auto ISO, so you would have to change systems if you want the other implementation. I feel like this is the biggest “issue” with the camera, but it’s not really an issue for me. I love the camera since I picked it up, it inspires me, and I love using it (I say this as an owner of about 10 more recent MILC bodies in different systems). So yeah, great fit, I guess!

Vintage lenses sure make a big difference!

Yes it's electric tape

good for u

Yes it's my main Raw processing software.

You must be new. You don't know there are lots of film cameras with batteries? a lot of them won't work without batteries at all. IF you just want the surprise, then you could do the same with digital.. turn off image preview, turn off LCD screen, use external OVF if you must, then only look at the photos a month later.

You shoot without a light meter? Must be a pro at the Sunny 16 rule.

@@ledheavy26Selenium cells exist.

@@PippetWhippet Might as well practice that sunny 16 rule if that's your go to lol.

Yes you can :)

I have owned the ZF since its release date. I didn't keep the X100VI and the answer is the same as in my X100VI video: ZF for me.

It is magical watching the negatives developing. It is fun printing from the negatives. If that is what you are into. The price of film and development have skyrocketed as you well know. Many people interested in the film experience are being diverted to digital due to the cost and the advantages of digital. Too bad. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)

But anyway, i take photography serius, i use Google Maps.

Nice idea👍

Dehancer is better I have both.

@@SneakyCaleb it seems like cobalt might be really good for color matching other camera profiles in the modern era, but I can’t imagine it could come close to Dehancer and getting a proven analog look that fool almost anybody

@@gothamindembaum I make arguably the best Lightroom presets on the market. And even I will acknowledge dehancer is legit the best but the price is insane.

Haha, true. but I really didn't want this to be a debate about which is better. Just want to share my stance on the topic.

@@SamuelStreetlifedebates are okay. Don’t be afraid of having an opinion, marvin

Only the last clips at the forest. Before that it was Nikon Z7.

And how are you liking it footage looks amazing

@@SamuelStreetlife got you, I’m so close on buying the xs20 do you recommend how’s your experience with it? That xs20 Portugal video of yours was soooo good

Exactly this is what's feeling totally strange to me. All the analog process and work, just to get a digital file in the end to share a tiny photo on instagram.

Yep. I grew up shooting film and processing in the darkroom. A few years ago I went back to film again for a short while but the cost (even back then) in both time (lots of extra time spent developing and scanning) and money was not worth it to me. I still use my old digital cameras that are a decade old, so digital is "free" to me. I use Darktable to process my raws and it's quite easy to emulate the look of film imo. I've recently even been able to recreate Cinestill 800t halation pretty accurately. A lot of people today that never started on film have fallen in love with "badly" shot film to the point where if they see a professional shoot film "correctly" I've seen it be called "digital", it's crazy.

@@fatihersoy2944 I can't answer that as I've never used those plugins. I'll say that Darktable offers powerful tools and each step offers powerful masking utilities to be able to craft a look. The interface isn't the greatest when you start out but you get used to it. The ability to duplicate modules and hone in with masking (drawn masks, parametric masks, chroma and luminance, shared masks between modules, etc) is really powerful. I was never really happy with the film grain in Lightroom when I used it but I use darktables grain all the time. It's an open source and free program, so no harm in trying it. Some of the modules are more complicated than the others, but it's worth learning imo. It's more flexible than Lightroom and I don't miss the subscription price.

@@fatihersoy2944 In my opinion, black and white has always had advantages on film. However, with the latest cameras, the dynamic range is so large that even this can be simulated well. The prerequisite is correct exposure and a very dynamic RAW

for a better experience only manual focus

glue

😆haha

because Sam said so? huh

@@aantonic did you even watch the video?

Many film photographers back then process their images in the darkroom. They would indeed shoot digital if they live in this era.

​@@ufukkiblatHonestly to get a good darkroom print you need to do a good bit of dodging and burning. Film being processed at a lab will already have a baked in tone curve too and can vary wildly. Develop and scan at home?, well that can vary heavily too lol.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Poor photographers can use digital to get technically better results without having to learn a bunch of skills that the technology does for you. You are free from worrying about focus and exposure etc, and can concentrate on the aspects which make the end result better - composition, light, colour, subject and so on. It’s why AI generated photographs are so popular, they free you up from worrying about composition and subject, light and colour, going out, hiring a model or finding the thing. You want a photo of a vicar on a merry go round, easy, you’ll have it in 5 minutes flat! So now it’s all about the idea and nothing else. And yet, name the great photographers… chances are you will name a disproportionate number of film photographers, a disproportionately lesser number of digital with no ai photographers (yet). A poor photographer is still a poor photographer, no matter what they use. Getting a billion cameras per 2 billion people hasn’t produced one in one hundred thousand greats. It’s shifted it to one in a billion greats. It’s nice that the average person on the streets holiday snaps are more pleasing to them (and I proudly put myself in that group, I’m no photographer, I love digital and hate film) but the simple truth is that it hasn’t let more cream rise to the top, it just made more coffee below the same sized film of cream. We raised the bar for the bottom, gave ourselves a whole new layer of people to sniffily look down on, without having to actually get better to achieve this - “oh, your photos are out of focus and not sharp, you can’t afford the technology I can to prevent that.”

RU-vid is full of these adverts masquerading as reviews.

​@@dorfschmidt4833it may be, but you have no proof that this was that

Well most digital photography RU-vid channel concentrate on new tech (because there is always something new...) or technical tutorials. Film photographers can share more about the process because they isn't much to talk about tech. But I also find some film photographers videos extremely boring. But the digital creators definitely are leaning towards the tech part and that is boring too.

Bitter much?

@@POVwithRC Hit close to home much?