Thank you for your video. Frankly speaking my questions was simply to understand your reasoning for choosing film over digital, not to cast a controversial debate. Some photographers like Ralph Gibson has embraced the transition to digital which obviously changed his images dramatically. In the case of Gregory Crewdson, appeal of his legendary photographs were lost in the transition. In this sense, each photographer has a different outlook on the film vs digital format.I am glad to have learned from your experiences.
Take your point entirely. Apologies if I made it sound as though your question was controversial. I meant that it would be difficult to answer part of your question without sounding like I was entering a film only debate/rabbit hole. Good to chat.
I have a black paint MP and a q2 monochrom. I love both but I keep going back to film. I always feel like it’s ok for a film photo not to be perfectly sharp but if the DNG files aren’t perfect the photo is nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing.
I use an M11 Monochrom and develop the photographs through Silver Efex which applies film specific grain like Ilford HP5 to the photographs. You can't tell the difference.
Film grain is the evidence of the media's technology and therefore organic to the process of film photography. Grain is the equivalent of the painters brush stroke, it humanizes an image. Grain helps to reduce the importance of details in favor of shapes and composition; digital images are much to sharp and lose the underlying meaning of a photo by emphasizing details.
Matt I also found the monochrome cameras all favour the darker range. So all the images have a larger percentage of the backs and darker tones. Until they develop a sensor that records highlights with greater depth I’ll not be wowed by the monochrome cameras
There is a technical reason for it: Monochrome cameras lack the Bayer pattern and therefore the sensors are about 1/2 stop more light sensitive compared to the same color-based sensor. To avoid too dark tones, I need to overexpose with my internal camera light meter about 1/2 stop. You can set this as standard in the camera setting if used constantly for this purpose.
Nice points and agree. Just returned from Cuba. Made great photos from my smartphone and loved my images from my film camera. This combination covered many memories, however making images via the film camera was another (better for me at least) experience. With regards the airport X-rays which have been earlier commented here too: was not so hard. Hand inspection was also possible and in Cuba all films went through the rays without an issue (100-3200 iso). Had a lead bag though. Enjoy film!! The more we use it and enjoy it, the more will stay here.. alive :)
Good topic! I have vested last year into a Leica MM 246 to use it in parallel to my B&W film with Leica M cameras. Why? For pragmatic reasons: severely increased film prices and for travel. Many airports use much more severe carry-on luggage scanners which can harm film, especially ones above ISO 400. Film prices became harder and harder to justify in my photography. I am still shooting B&W film but much more selectively now - as you mentioned, because I sometimes like to pause and enjoy the analog workflow. But digital monochrome - even not the latest and best sensor cameras - are fantastic in comparison. Digital monochrome falls short in specific effects only to achieve with film like halos and bending light around contrast-rich areas - but this is rarely a need in my photography.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 yes, and I am practicing bulk loading for almost 10 years now! It was and still is a big money saver with 35 mm films. I am always self-rolling my Delta 100/400, HP5+, FP4+, and PanF+ films. Unfortunately bulk loading is not possible with color negative films, but I stopped using color films a couple years ago. Significant price increases for 100' rolls of B&W film, too.
