I love the mistakes and the light bleeds on the film. I especially like the film one in the alley were she is laughing and slightly leaning over with her arm out. It was such a sincere moment. Great shots
I am a film guy myself, I have a Rolliflex 2.8 F C, a Bronica RF645, good medium formats and for large format my Graflex 1956 Crown Graphic with the BIG 4x5 negatives. I am always carrying my street camera, my 1951 Lecia lllF.
That's a great comparison, thanks for doing that. However, if you're going to just scan the negatives then it's not a real test. Film was made to be printed on an optical printer with silver coated paper. I know people will say it won't matter, but it does. There is a difference between a scanned negative and a photo that was printed with an optical printer. Yes, you'll still need to scan the resulting print, but it will show the difference.
Glad you found me on the wide world of the web. I may not get into the basics that much. There's tons of great people to learn from out here. The photography school of RU-vid is ripe.
I'm sorry that I just watch this video. I love it and I am a professional videographer. I like your film photos more than the digital... is not that interesting. I have shot photo film in Europe since 2004 and now I am doing digital shots in 4K, but to me it is not that interesting as film. Film makes you think about every shot...digital does not do that because it shows you what you shoot. Film makes you a better artists because you can't see it. What do you think? Your shots are great and I love your RU-vid stuff.
kind of missing the point , digital for all the tech behind it aint all that compared to film ..hundred year old tech .. if people didnt have computers and light room they would be shite photographers
Didn't feel like he was pushing any advice on the viewer. More-so talking about his experience(s) with both digital and film photography. Always love to see an unnecessary negative comment though, such charm.
somehow i really don't care about the latest technology in camera, yes it's important it makes life easier bla bla bla, but i'm absolutely fascinated by the tech in my old kodak camera from 1910 that i got from my family, this thing is a piece of mecanical art!
When I got back to film from all these fancy digital high MP cameras, I also realised, that digital is so boring... I started to use film presets on digital images and try to add film grain... But it's just not the same, so I shoot manly film. I am thinking to get one old digital leica M8 or M9, they have the most film alike images. LCD is very old, so I could also put some black tape over it, to make it look like digital M-D version 😄
I’m a newer photographer. I got into at after high school. I’m 24 now and have been doing photography for about 6 years now. Whenever I thought of film cameras I would equate it to low res, grainy photos so I just never got into it. When I met good friend of mine now, for the first time, he shot film. And I wondered why but then he showed me the photos and I understood why. He got me into it a little bit and even let me use his XA2 for a while. I had it for about 2 years and shot 1 roll, never got it developed. Until about the end of June this year, I picked up the XA2 again. The roll still in there. I went and got it developed. And fast forward to today I have a Canon AE-1 and a Mamiya 645 for myself and fridge stocked full of Portra 😂 I’ve been contemplating getting rid of my Sony A7ii, but I still like to do my portrait sessions with the digital camera as most of the models I deal with want to see the photos and stuff.
@@sebm2334 yes, I had some fujifilm cameras, the last one was xpro2. They are nice, but still you get this digital look with film simulation... It's not bad, this weekend I had X100V for test. Good camera, maybe I will buy it, but still I am not completely happy with images... Film has more life in it, digital looks so sterile
Or you could get a Leica R8 or R9 and the DMR digital back. That way you can choose between film and a digital image with Kodak’s CCD sensor and Imacon colour technology that people like Thorsten Von Overgaard raved over. He claimed the colour was very film like and printed beautifully.
Tight. Nice to hear. Even though I have this nice digital camera, I've still been leaning toward film on most shoots. (I keep at least one film camera on me during every shoot, lately)
Interesting in the attempts to revive film use is that no one talks about the chemicals used in the development and printing processes, and their disposal. Especially the C41 process. EDTA isn't nice stuff. None of the chemistry in any colour film process is good to put into the environment, or even to breathe the vapour. Re the film versus digital question, as a professional film photographer and printer for 30+ years I'd say modern digital sensors win hands down every time. So does digital image development. Nothing romantic about using film imo. I've scanned probably thousands of old negatives and transparencies too. But why use film today then digitise it rather than print it properly in a wet dark room? The characteristics that people seem to admire in old prints from film are largely lost in digital prints and on screen unless they're digitally recreated (which you can do to digital images anyway). That's because scanning effectively transfers a stochastic image structure to a pixel grid. I think if people want to use film they should learn wet printing too.
Your comment makes no sense. If you want digital images to have a certain appearance to your liking, then do them to your liking. It is literally the point of digital imaging.
You'll get about 10% more contrast if you put the proper lens hood on the 'Cord. The old single-coated lens would compare very favorably if shielded. The digital Hasselbad is probably 50 times as costly as the Rolleicord, so it's an unfair comparison. I've been shooting 120 TLRs since 1947 and today continue with the Rollei 3.5F Planar and Rolleicord VB, Series II, which still hold their own against medium format digital, if you know what you're doing. My chromes from 73 years ago are as bright and colorful as the day they came back from Kodak's Hollywood lab. Digital capture is fugitive and degrades relatively quickly. That why the studios still shoot major pictures on film and the Library of Congress Archives have found no way to guarantee preservation of digital images anywhere as long as old-fashioned film. Digital capture is cheaper, if you are not concerned with leaving a body of work for posterity, as am I after 79 years behind the camera. Your model shoot was entertaining and I enjoyed it. Thanks!
why bother comparing , would your really compare a vintage rolls from the 60s and 70s against a new BMW 7 series ..... no you wouldn't ... so why do it in photography... film will not die , people love it and even those living under photography rocks , know that people are flocking back to it .. and for numerous reasons , only 1 being the results ... the experience of shooting with old cameras, owning something that has been crafted and designed with thought and detail that you do not see today,along with the processes of using them ,developing and printing to metering your light and scene manually .. film has been good enough results wise since the 60s and popular general consumer digital cameras still cannot close to large format in terms of detail and quality ... if you don't believe me watch this..... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HXSWNXtDsOE.html.... spoiler the quality and detail questions over film are a mute question... the movie industry last year signed a long term multi million a year contract with kodak for the supply of film across various studios .. films such as james bond , star wars , joker , once upon a time in hollywood, little women, the lighthouse , ad astra, first man , blackkklansman, mission impossible, ready player one , wonder woman 1984, death on the nile, and tenet have all recently been shot using various film formats ... people need to stop wasting time with justifying film or comparing it to digital ,and start prompting its unique abilities and formats and the positives and characteristics of each ,from pinhole, to 35 mm, medium format to large format , and wet plate (and associated methods) to polaroid etc etc ... painters don't just use one format( oil, water, charcoal, acrylics) neither should photographers ,... variety ,artistic and creative vision is all that counts ...pick the tool that suites you, or will produce your vision and run with it ...
Gaius. The classic movies from Hollywood were filmed with Taylor, Taylor & Hobson lenses from England, these lenses provide that special look that no digital lens can replicate.
It's lovely work. And, of course, I can't speak to what speaks to you. But you might be entertained to know that when we ancient photogs shot for film, we wanted it as clean and error-free as digital would one day be. No end-of-roll. No light leaks. We craved the colors of Portra, or VPS (Vericolor Professional Type-S), but with zero grain, and quadruple the sensitivity. And we kept our Rolleis tuned to the max. (And light-tight) At the same time, there was this buncha neck-beards who shot "old-fashioned" media--wet plates and platinum. And they loved peeling emulsion and glitches that added soul. See how little has changed? :-)
Fantastic images my friend. I have the X1D & 907x myself. I also shoot a 501cm. I prefer the film shots for portraits for one reason and that’s the organic feel, the anomalies and the imperfections. The images you’ve made here are timeless and capture a wonderful time in life. Thanks for sharing. Like the format of this video very much. Look forward to seeing what’s next. Take care.
Sam McGhee of late I’ve not used it all that much but it’s my preferred choice for portraits. I find the results from the medium format digital much more preferable for my landscape prints. But some of the most memorable images I’ve made of people are on film. They have a timeless quality to them in my opinion.
I love shooting with cameras from the 30s-50s especially and I love TLRs. The old cameras are just beautiful and a joy to use. There is a certain level of craftsmanship that goes into them. I don't have to worry about shutter count on a camera 70 years old. If it is well maintained it will outlive me. I also find older optics give a look that is hard if not impossible to replicate and medium format film has a special place for me. I also enjoy developing my own black and white film. I don't do many enlarger prints anymore but that is the biggest change. I also shoot on an Olympus for digital because the ergonomics are the same as a film camera. Olympus figured out that a camera has been designed a certain way for 80 years for a reason. Cameras like Nikon or Canon or Sony feel like cameras with a lens bolted onto it. I also like that I can use all my old film camera lenses on my mirrorless camera.
Large format film with an equivalent of 1,200 Megapixels or 1,2 Gigapixels 8x10 inch film is stil completely unmatched. The pictures and extremely shallow depth of field are just something from another dimension. This guy here made a very good comparison: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4PTIXDhdQes.html
"I found the community of film photographers on RU-vid fascinating and enjoyable....!" You're right man! I am one of them.... Using film from 35mm to 5x4 format! It is fascinating! Shooting digital as well though!
I absolutely love film but its both for me. One thing to keep in mind is the way different sensors work-I've noticed the Sigma cameras with the old Foveon sensors renders images with that organic look because they are built like film and don't have the usual filters that a Bayer filter sensors would have and of which most cameras have. They were APSC format cameras that produced medium format images. Sigma was suppose to release a newer version of their Foveon tech but went back to the drawing board so, the latest they have out now is the Sigma FP of which has a Bayer sensor. I have a Fuji GFX 50S which has a super/pro/turbo charged Bayer filter sensor. lol
@Frank Silvers That's awesome sauce! I've always wanted the DP3M and the SD1 Merrill. I remember a company that would mod your DPs so that it could accept other lenses... ...This is it:www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/04/02/sigma-dp-merrill-heavily-modded-to-take-leica-lenses
I'm old. When I went to school for photography ALL WE HAD WAS FILM: MORNING, NOON AND NIGHT, fucking FILM. I had a nice instructor who started his first class one day. He said "You want to know what photography is?" He preceeded to pull a real twenty dollar bill out of his pocket. "I'll tell you what photography is". Holding up the bill for all to see, grasping it end to end in both hands above his head, he crumpled the bill in his right hand, and tossed it across the room into a waste basket in the corner. "That's what photography is." (True story).
Way back, the Rolleiflex (the more expensive version of the Rolleicord) was referenced in the "Desafinado" song by João Gilberto. At the time, millions and millions of people shot film. Nothing special. Nothing to mention. Measure light, compensate, shoot. Next. Guesstimate exposure when you had no light meter. Guesstimate distance when your camera had no rangefinder. Wait for the moment - the decisive moment - shoot. Next. No autofocus. No auto exposure. No click-click-click 10 fps motor drive. No off the shelf ISO over 400. At the time, a video like this would have been completely desafinado. Almost history.
Oh, the digital MF results are magical. The color science just has that Portra crap beat by a mile. The incredible tonality resolution available from that big digital sensor captures the true subtlety of the actual scene. It is Truth. There is no compromise. There was that click bait enough? For the intended output media, a social media post to be viewed on a phone, it just doesn’t matter what camera you use. Even if you output to A3 print, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. What does matter is composition and lighting, and this hasn’t changed for a hundred years. And those you’ve nailed regardless of here. Now, as for artifacts like light leaks from broken cameras being great, well, that’s not much to be proud about. After all, if the digital captures came back with rows and rows of dead pixels would you say that it’s “magical”? If the digital files cam back with big splotches from mustard accidentally dripped onto the sensor, would that be somethjng desirable? Technical faults are just that - film, digital, whatever.
more videos like that pleaseee , i agree in every single word you said about the technical side and the organic part of photographs and YES the film photography community is so good because the are only about the creation and not the specs !! I'm so glad that i found your channel
I see you worrying about a conclusion - both media have a place. Film is great and a little unpredictable (or more imperfect), digital is becoming ever more controllable at the same time as AI software allows for the unpredictable. For me that panoply, just allows for a variety of creative directions and that cannot be a bad thing. Chopping and changing what you shoot with (camera type, format size, fit/digital, pano cameras etc) provides a new impetus and creativity each time. Let there be excess of it............
Young lady good to photograph as she was not camera shy, which makes all the difference. For me, the film seemed to pull out more detail in her hair than the digital did, but I’m not sure impact from any post processing. I will have to play it back at a very slow speed or stop it to examine the files in more detail to see how film and digital compare, but I think film was better, more organic and less bland. Good idea to compare them. 👍
folks shoot film and develop it and scan it or darkroom it themselves because the whole process is theirs. I can buy a beautiful chair but I would miss the feeling of accomplishment I would get from building it myself. there is more of the craftsman in shooting film. I shoot digital in my business because I have to in my process. I shoot film for ME!
Loving these 907x videos dude! Would love to see a video on your process of creating the film emulations you're using for the digital shots. Looks sick.
4 года назад
0:07 The color negative strip on the left looks under exposed. Alway OK to even overexposed negative film, especially that used to short portraiture.
Maybe tell us your thoughts on the differences/similarities, why you woyuld choose one over the other?? Seems likea pretty pointless video otherwise. Theres very little to take from it
shooting film is awesome i still use 35mm in my three film cameras . minolta x700 . nikon f3hp , nikon f5 . love the simplicity ( untill you get the cibachrome developer and agfa daylight loader out , ) . dont get me wrong i have nikon d850s and modern gizmos .. but dont edit my digi stuff only in camera
Very nice shots! Both cameras do very well but Rolleicord surprasingly makes a very good job... you need more time to get the final image but... I like very much the results.
That's my hope. Honestly. There were some I preferred film more or digital more... nothing to really critique about, just something to enjoy. Thanks for the positive response.
Great video Sam! Love the cinematography of your videos, it's very enjoyable to watch! I found out about your channel while looking for infos about the 907x. Photos were good too ~ I've been shooting most of my personal work on film for the past year now. Like you said, it's less about the technical aspect and more about the feeling of shooting/creating.
Man theres just no soul in digital, it captures sharpness but no dimensions. Where film captures at times up to 5 multiple hidden dimensions in colors, sharpness, and apertures especially when you get that photo at the right time at the right place it has so much depth it feels alive and realistic.
Love this particular comparison as it is exactly what I am doing right now, same Hassi, then Rolleiflex & Leica II , M3, so fun to do both, plus am into B&W, so my M10p monochrome is perfect in totality! I have relearned the art of focusing on taking pictures not the technical stuff! So much more rewarding! 👍🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
Beautiful work, Sir! I really enjoy work from people who respect both mediums, because they are art forms, and use different process to render results. Im waiting to see some motion picture comparison between formats, can also include the third VHS one and interchanging lenses between them for interesting "Alternate Reality" results
Much appreciated, great video. Please do more comparisons with Rolleicord compared with. Overall I do not see a ton of difference here. I suspect the film images required less preparations. It would appear that the digital images have a bit more spontaneity. Please zoom in to your images more for the final videos. Cheers from Canada.
Great job. Could you do some zoom in and show us the best detail possible, something into the eyes of your model, in order to see the graininess, and the digital appereance? It would be really useful, given that this medium is really LoFi. Thanks!
End of the day who cares what I think or what you think, Sam. The real question is what did your cousin think of the shots? In all honesty they both window beautifully. Are you enjoying the hasselblad? Second to that, will you be getting the handgrip which will allow more functionality at your fingertips? Thanks very much for doing this - they are really good fun to watch & informative.
I love your philosophizing at the end. It highlights the artist in you in an accidental way. This video is artfully charming as well and slightly rugged. A lot of depth.
nice video as usual. thanks for putting it together. have you tried some old v-series hasselblad lenses or maybe even an x-pan lens of the 907x? now THAT would be interesting too. cheers from germany.
