The PROBLEM With Film Photographers 

Wow, that was 6 and a half minutes of truth and sense!!

I’m so enthralled with film photo process that I usually go out and shoot with no film in camera. Save a lot of money, too.

Regardless of the medium, the gear, or the subject… If it gets you out of the house to take photos - that’s what’s important 😎👍🏻

I personally find that taking pictures with film cameras is way more fun and I dont really care how the pictures turn out when its so much fun taking them. Its an escape of the modern digital world

Film photography is not more difficult than digital. I feel that many people now start in digital photography and did not learn the basics of the camera and photography itself. I started off with analog cameras with a spot meter and all manual controls. No auto anything. You learned where to meter and how to set the f-stop and shutter speed appropriately. The newer auto film cameras took a lot of the mental calculating away. This is in a way good as it allowed many of use to capture fast evolving scenes. These cameras and digital cameras gave us all a point and shoot method of working. Knowing the basics allows anyone to pickup any manual camera, read the light, set aperture and shutter, compose, and shoot. What makes a good photograph has always been debated.

I wonder if people who are into old cameras are just into old things in general. I am a historian and archivist and got into photography because I read about old cameras and was fascinated by how they worked. I shoot almost exclusively old things haha.

I've said the same thing for years. Many people think it automatically makes it good just because they took the photo with a film camera. Many of the real popular film photography RU-vidrs don't take great images but still have big followings. It may be more of a challenge, but my goal when shooting film is the same as when I shoot digital, to shoot great images that tell a story and are composed and exposed properly.

Im the kind of photographers that likes my gear to be good enough to “get out of my way” so i can focus purely on composition. Its why i use “unpopular AF automatic SLRs” that handle all the hard stuff for me. As for my subjects, I just shoot what I like, no matter what it is. Im all about composition being 90% of my effort, not messing with settings and worrying about stuff like that.

I get the point being made but it's also important to not get caught up in needing to judge every photograph as art or your conception of it. One of the biggest hurdles for me in photography was getting over being 'shutter shy' or anxious about every time I took a photo if it was going to be 'good' or artistic. A camera *is* just a tool and photography as a hobby can accomplish many things for you aside from just creativity. I just can't agree to calling something *just* a snapshot, snapshots are great! Take photos of what makes you want to take photos and don't worry about whether or not you're reaching whatever standard some person on the internet has of whether a photo has artistic value.

Film photography is not for everyone. I love it because I love to do difficult things, and I love the process. Don't care much for most of the new film photographers on social media either. 95% of what is shown is pure junk. Film or digital, it is the content that counts. Anse l Adams once said " there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept. " I rest my case.

Your comments bring to mind something that Ansel Adams said; there's nothing worse than a clear photo of a fuzzy concept! That is a trap that I've certainly fallen into. Regarding gear one of my cameras is a Yashica-12 TLR that I bought new in 1967 I think the year was. And I still use it. As a septuagenarian I'm not all that into social media for posting my photos. I develop, print and matt my own photos so if anyone wants to see them they really have to come to my house. And I like old dilapidated things. After all, I'm one myself!

I started photography in the film age before digital. And people were talking great pictures way before digital. Photographers come a dime a dozen. Everyone is a photographer. Especially now with cameras on their phones. But like before in the film age. The majority took crappy pictures. Mostly snapshots. I work in a Drugstore photo lab and it was like seeing the same pictures over and over. People now are just leaning film photography after doing digital. There’s a learning curve. One thing I see is people seem to apply digital photography to film. Like iso. Film speed matters. Everyone seems to like using fast film for some reason. Yes you can be creative with it. To get some interesting effects. But as a general rule, use the slowest speed for the photo shoot that yo can. Film isn’t digital. You can’t just say I’ll shoot this at 800 iso the go to 200 then 1600 like you can with digital. When I worked as a photographer I carried primarily 100, 125, and 400, iso. And sometimes 3200 TMax. Occasionally I even shot slower down to 25 iso. Slower film has more and finer grain. Which gives you more sharpness and better tonal range. I could still use slow film in darker areas or even at night. I didn’t push it either. Fast film like TriX, and HP 5, I would push sometimes. But only rarely. I just got faster film for the job. Unless you want a grainy image. Don’t use fast film. You can only enlarge so much until you get too much grain. Slow film I can blow up poster size. 25 iso you can make a mural out of it. Digital a lot is done in photoshop, With film it’s the same. Half of photography is done in the darkroom. A darkroom technician can make or break your photos. Good ones know how to take bulletproof or thin negatives and get prints out of them. Some of is with chemicals, like farmers reducer, used to reduce density and fog in negatives and prints. Or how they make the prints. Bringing out details that weren’t as clear on the original print or contact sheet Then cropping it to compensate for composition of an otherwise poor image into something better. I have a great Sony digital camera and it takes great pictures, but I prefer my film cameras. When you’re learning something new of course they’re going to take boring photos. People take boring digital photos too. When I worked as a photographer I took thousands of photographs. But after developing them. You still only get a handful of great pictures. Of those handful. They were published in or displayed.

I started with film, back in the '80s and find my approach and subject matter selection to be pretty much identical, likely helped by the fact I always try and carry both a film and digital camera with me when I go out. Most of what I learned with analog has transferred over to digital, even down to the point that I still find myself being economical with the number of shots I take with my digital kit.

Photography is subjective. What one man says is a crappy photo could be art to another. The last time I went to the museum of fine art in my city a good portion of the visitors have zero clue about art or art history. The exhibit was works of Pablo Picasso. Even with the guide attempting to explain many of them just didn't get it. Picasso introduced a new method of expression, cubism. It is important to know how he brought it to light, so to speak. He took photos with a camera that had a damaged lens. That cracked lens cause the images he took to also be broken. When those images were developed he then painted what he saw and cubism was born and evolved over time. It was such a departure from previous forms, not in any particular order; Impressionism, Realism, Renaissance, etc. I am sure that when art patrons back then first saw their first Picasso cubism paining in 1907 Les Demoiselles d'Avignon they likely thought he has a cracked eye as well as a cracked paining. Ted Forbes, very well known to most photographers, once stated that no one cares about your photographs. Its a very bold statement. But he is correct. No one cares about any of the photos you or the billions of other photographers or people with cameras that splatter snaps all over social media of the multi billion photos. No one cares. Why? Photography is subjective. Then again they matter to those to shot those images. They mean something to them. I have an old black and white photo, show it to anyone they'll tell you it is a poor photo, the picture itself is in good shape. Its not torn or been folded. Nothing has been spilled on it and the image hasn't faded. Its a bad photo due to exposure issues. It meant something to a family member who shot the photo and it means something to me. Its a photo of my grandfather, dad and uncle at the end of a hunting trip taken in New Mexico in the 1940s and its the only known photo of all three together. So you see, boring photos, bad photos, whatever the problem to you and others might think it's garbage. The the photographer it could be part of a learning experience of their introduction to photography. I have a box of bad photos that I've taken over the years. You'd be a fool to think that every exposure of every roll of film will be perfect and award winning. I read an NatGeo article of film photographers of the 1970s and 80s who would shoot 30 to 40 rolls of Kodachrome or Ektachrome, that's 1440 total exposures. That's for each assignment. During a lifetime of working for NatGeo and shooting hundreds of thousands of photos barely 500 made it into a NatGeo publication for one photographer. Yes these are seasoned, professional photographers. I will assure you they argued their collective asses off to get more of their photos published. Its the editor who determines which photos are boring and which will make into the next issue of NatGeo magazine. There are many self proclaimed people with cameras who call themselves photographers or professional photographers. if you are a professional photographer the money you earn as a pro pays ALL of your living expenses. If you are a You Tuber with a camera and you earn all of your income from your channel which you use to pay ALL of your living expenses you are NOT a professional photographer. You are a social media influencer with a video camera. Both of them are as far apart as a boy who flies a kite and a man who pilots a stealth bomber. I take my photos for my pleasure as does my wife. We don't post to social media for likes, views or thumbs up because most people haven't a clue of the message we're attempting to convey with our photos. We take photos for our pleasure. If we feel that a hand full of them are exceptional then we'll enlarge them, have them professionally mounted and framed to be displayed in our home for our friends and family to view. They may comment but many don't comment at all. We don't care if they don't. What matters is what we think of our own photos.

I am an old photographer. I started photography in 1969, we only had film. I don't share your concerns because I only used manual cameras. Yes I owned some view cameras. I even worked for a catalog studio where we shot with 8x10 Calumets and Deardorffs. At the studio we had to bracket in 1/3 stop increments. I learned on manual cameras. We did special effects, separated products from backgrounds all the things photographers do now with automated digital cameras. Once you get used to shooting film and working with manual cameras it won't feel that much different than working with digital. As a professional we had to know what the photo was going to be like before we tripped the shutter, we were being paid. Anyone of you can get great results with film just practice. Some things we used to do to check exposure was clip tests, Polaroids, bracketing, and we always used a light meter.

Just how does one expect to be a youtube influencer without taking $20,000 of film gear on a aimless trip across route 66, to take random snapshots of abandoned motels and other detrius?

Hmm… I’m hybrid shooter myself but shoot most of my street photography on film. I agree on some of the points you made, but I would argue you can find similar cliches in the digital realm as well, and maybe even more bad, mundane photos. But I think nostalgia factor is a huuuge thing in the popularity of film photography. Nostalgia is trendy, not just in the photography world. So I think when people choose to shoot old things with a film camera, it just matches with the vibe they’re going for. I mean, is there any point in shooting film in 2023 if you don’t want your photos to have a certain timeless / nostalgic look? 😄 And often I find at least for my photography, photos I take on film tend to actually be better, because the fact that you need to be very mindful of light, settings and that it costs a fortune. It actually forces me to focus more on the image. I also just enjoy the tactile feel of old cameras a lot more than modern mirrorless cameras, which sometimes feel like using a smartphone. But I do agree that just by shooting some trash can on film doesn’t make it a great photo and some people really think it does 😅

I’m glad you bring this up. I definitely fell victim to this when I first started out on film (about a year and a half ago) The good news is, I’m now satisfied with my cameras (Nikon F and FM2n) and I know how to properly use my gear. You’re right, a beautiful image is a beautiful image, regardless of what medium. Once we get that part down, the fact that our image was shot on film adds to it. I think Ben Horne is a fantastic example of this. He is a master of his craft but because his images are shot on 8x10 with slide film, there is no apparent grain and none of the typical colors that you get from color negative film at golden hour. At first glance, you would probably think his images are digital but when you learn that they were shot on large format slide film, they become all that much more impressive.

People will remember your photo for the subject matter and how it was captured, not because it was taken with digital, analog, or the brand of camera. All cameras are all equally capable in making boring photographs, lol. .......................... I've found when learning new gear (digital or analog), there was always a learning curve, during which my images suffered or I was slowed down................. If I had made a similar video in 1999, it may have be titled "The problem with digital photographers" and been about how they were spending too much time learning this new gadget as opposed to thinking about where they were pointing the lens. Great video!

I wouldn’t know for sure but part of it could be that (some of) the same people who yearn for the older style of film photography also maybe look back fondly on other elements of the past or dislike aspects of the more modern world. Whereas maybe someone who’s gone and bought the latest flagship Sony is more comfortable with some of those modern aspects.

This video is spot on and why so many film photographers post poor images on Instagram and Reddit.

"Hey man..." Not seeing how there's any more "suffering" when moving to film. (And the majority of film shooters aren't likely to encounter reciprocity failure - at least not the ones you choose to highlight in your IG example). Buy the camera, buy the lens, but the film... Take the image, send to the lab, pay more money, get the image back... There's nothing mentioned there thats primarily different than shooting digital, and nothing that implies an image should be "good". All of these steps are what's required to make an image, film or digital (using a camera) - even the manual focus part, seeing that many boutique lenses will be manual, and the cool thing to do is to attach vintage lenses to digital. Film vs Sony A7c? That's an $1800 via Amazon today, is this really an apples to apples comparison? A much more apt comparison would be to compare Leica digital vs Leica film. As well, you're creating a nostalgic tool to a modern one. Subject matter is going through a bias filter, simply because it's film. Again, a better comparison would be film STREET photography vs digital street photography. Film photography is more difficult? No. Film photography isn't "new". Digital isn't more difficult either. Poor practice yields poor results in either. If anything, digital may be easier to save a poorly executed photo. Again, no,no, no. Film cameras are not more difficult to use. They are the same. The exposure triangle applies both. Lens choice, depth of field, ISO, lighting... All the same. "The gear, the film, the settings" and "not creating a compelling images".... Have you seen other RU-vid photography videos, lol? RU-vid photo channels are - in my opinion - disproportionately "geared" towards gear - rather than how to visualize and achieve compelling images. And don't get started on the what is compelling thing... It's ultimately subjective. You find oversaturated sunset photos of esoteric scenes, that would not exist without the depth of control one gets in Lightroom and Photoshop to be more compelling than say a rusted lock on an old gate, let alone unique? Sorry, I see the problems you single out to be problems with photography in general. To me, your comparisons suffer from confirmation bias, and don't really apply to the premise. I agree, overall, there's too little emphasis and instruction on how to create compelling images - film or digital. Most channels are gear oriented. Your channel (whose content I enjoy) contributes heavily to this, actually. Out the channels that do touch on creating, most of them end up being a vlog of someone's landscape shoot, with a Ken Burns photo gallery making up the rest of the video. So, TLDR: I disagree, a lot. But enjoy your channel - keep up the good work!

Yeah, that's kinda true, I find myself falling to much for that technical, mechanical, optical nostalgic feel stuff. But I actually do have the result in mind, anyway, also shooting digital with vintage lenses.

Garbage photo still will remain a garbage photo no matter how fancy the camera was used for taking it, whether it's film or digital 😂 Great video! 👏

You're right. The main issue with a lot of film photographers is that they believe the medium is the message. They believe a shot can be interesting only by virtue of being on film. That's just not true. The quality bar should not get lowered just because one medium is more difficult to master.

Since returning to film 3 years ago I stubbornly have it in my head that I want to see what my subject will look like on film. Meanwhile I snap away with my digital camera with a bit more intent seeking “my eye.” Admittedly nearly half of my film shoooting , if not more, has been using HP5, Fujicolor 200 or Superia 400. The other half has been trying new films or rotating between something I’ve used a couple times or a new film stock. I believe that’s what keeps me in the mindset of what’s it look like on film. I need a kick in the butt to get out of this mindset. Thanks for sharing this and refocusing on simply taking a photograph.

So true. Not jumping up and down yelling (or hashtaging) "Shot on film!!! Porta! PORTA!" may help focus one's skills. No one else looks at a rotting wet leaf in a gutter and thinks "Oh, it was shot on film not an iPhone? Oh, okay. That's art."

I enjoy shooting film precisely because I find it easier. There are no menus to navigate that lead you to a million-and-one options for settings. For most scenes, it's just focusing and setting aperture. Oh, and 95% of my film scans require no post-processing. As far as shooting "old things," yes, landscapes tend to be old.

You have passionate valid points. But at the end of the day dose Art really make sense. Some Artists who are endowed with fame are done so posthumously (Vivian Meir) for the latest example. For the majority, it’s for self gratification and indulgence. If Luddite’s in the lovers of old spectrum did not exist, physical history, objects would cease to exist. Unfortunately, politics and corporate policy have dictated film supply and the relevant costs it has generated. I persist with my Spotmatic not because it’s “cool” but for me it’s about using something that was well made, takes some effort to master, and it produces images I can look at and enjoy for as long as I draw breath. I hope my Daughter can continue to use it after I’m no longer here, she can hold something that was a very enjoyable part of my life, a physical memento. Just for those reasons, I hope film and old cameras continue to exist.

I started with film photography back in the mid 80s when it was the only game in town. Didn't go digital until maybe 2009. I love that I had film as a foundation. The transition to digital was much easier. I still have two film cameras that I plan to use again. I photographed many different things with film, especially when I was in the Army. Film has a process, just like playing vinyl records which I have a good collection. Film is not for everyone just like vinyl records. I think it is easier to go from film to digital than vice versa. I will always have a soft spot for film. Thanks for the video.

You make some excellent viewpoints! I predate digital, but I switched over about 15 years ago and started shooting in manual, quickly realized that I didn’t know jack squat about what I was doing. So, I took the time to study on how a camera works, how light works, how composition works, how the lighting changes composition and how properly capturing that light leads to the photograph you envisioned. Now I find myself shooting 35mm again, taking what I learned and applying it with the addition of what I’ve studied about how film stocks work. I’d have to say that I did take the “easy route” and bought a Nikon F5, which is what all of Nikon’s DSLR bodies are based off of. In addition, I have full functionality with the Nikkor G type lenses that I have been using for years. That reduces my “barriers” down to the film stock I use. But my goal is to take the best quality images and capture them on slide film, not take nostalgic, grainy, overexposed photos of gas pumps. My view on all of the flat film images you see online: scanning. Scans are flat, period. Once you scan a photo, it becomes a hybrid digital image. If you present that scan with no post processing, what you post is going to be flat. “Well, I don’t want to take away from the authenticity of a film image.” Well, you already did by scanning it, replace what you took in post.

Film is subjective. When you shoot with a digital camera, it’s hard to put your creative spin on the image. You are trying to capture something objective with high detail and endless post- and pre setting opportunities. The beauty of film is all the imperfections that occur along the way. The differences in detail, natural grain, halation, darker shadows and lighter highlights. Films can be viewed the same way you look at a memory: its not perfect, but it sparks a feeling.

as a film exclusive shooter, i can agree with most of the things in this video, but the only reason i got into film is because i was a broke 18 year old and i picked up a really cheap old pentax, and the nearly endless number of film stocks available, it just feels like the ammount of stocks never ends, and i try to photograph only good photos because each shot costs money, about $1 per press is an average for me on 35mm and $3 on medium format so i always strive for the best of the best, also the fully manual controls taught me about depth of field and such, more than i wouldve learned if i saved for a fully automatic digital camera

i think people that like film photography like it for its retro style and that's why they take photos of retro stuff.

The subject is interesting but the point, the conceptual diverge between analog photography and digital photography, actually goes much deeper than you have examined in a few minutes. Analog cameras and digital cameras were built in different ages for different purposes, also linked to the different physical limits of the media and the completely different worlds to portray: even if the same results can be achieved with both, old cameras were built to collect reality , while modern cameras are built to create reality. The newest cameras on the market are mirrorless, with an electronic viewfinder, this means that when you put your eye into the camera you don't see reality but rather you already see a picture (with color settings, exposure and filters already applied), so then you take a picture of a picture. With old cameras, reflex or rangefinder, when you put your eye into the camera you see reality behind a glass and then you take a picture of it. This is why film photographers are attracted to subjects that express a close link with reality, subjects that moreover tend to leave intact for what they are (normal lenses, natural light, etc.), while digital photographers are more inclined to improve and idealize their subject (they can do it right there, in live view) and lean towards a more acrobatic photography. Film photographers are searching for things, facts, people, while digital photographers are searching for pictures. There is no space here to go deeper on that, but the conceptual differences between film and sensor are even more profound: each analog photo expresses a single vision, a point, which, also due to the physical, mineral limits of the film, clearly refers to the human eye as a single bulb, point, while the digital photo, especially the computational photo (iphones and the frame averaging of digital backs), is the result of the compression of a multiple vision that paradoxically refers more to the eye of a fly, with implications that bind, for this, analogue photography to poetry and digital photography to prose (infinite straight lines/meanings pass from one point, from several points a single straight line passes: the narration, your tale). This and much more than this push photographers to look for subjects that are more suited to the tools they use, or vice versa. And this is why for an Art photographer like Tillmans the switch from analogue to digital has been not only just a change of tools but rather a moral choice: even if his art was making more sense in the analogue environment where it developed, he, as a contemporary artist more than a strictly photographer, couldn't take the sentimental decision to being stuck on analogue photography, and his art (after he tried to switch to music for a bit) has changed completely since then.

Great video and you bring up some very valid points. I feel that there is no real way to settle this conversation. I started shooting my freshman year in high school in 1999 for our schools yearbook. We used Minoltas and Kodak film to shoot all the photos from candids, portraits, sports(indoor and outdoor) and group shots. I went from owning a Canon Rebel X after graduation until now that I shoot with Nikon D7200 main body with a D5600 as backup/filming body. I've had a Sony A6000 mirrorless and even briefly a A7. I personally shoot wildlife, landscape and birding photography. In all these years, I have found that the best camera is pretty much the one you have on you. It's a tool, with varying degrees of sophistication. Color reproduction and simulation is more or less a choice in how you want your photo/image to feel. Personally, I liked shooting Fuji film because of it's color reproduction, especially in greens since I shot landscape. I did shoot Portra when I was shooting portraits or events. These were all choices based on how I wanted the subject to be seen. This is a fun conversation to have because it touches on nostalgia and technical advancement yet begs the question of whether something else will come along to ruffle the collective feathers of analog and digital photographers down the road, haha.

Shortly before my grandfather passed away my mom had found in his house,a camera that had belonged to my great grandmother, a Kodak junior Six-16 camera and they both thought I should have it as a photographer. They thought if nothing else it might be a nice shelf display piece. It's in really good condition, and thanks to the internet I discovered with 3D printed adapters I could put 120film in it and try it out. So I took it and some film to Disneyland over several trips to try it out. I started with a B&W roll and was mostly trying to figure out how it's viewfinder worked as I had no idea nor what it's field of view was. Second roll, I tried color and then based on how the prints turned out, used my regular digital camera to approximate the view of this camera and took shots. The color shots looked like that had been taken on the late 1960s. My editing made them look like the mid 1970s. The shot of the Millenium Falcon in the park if you didn't know it, you might have thought it was taken on the set of the original movies. Got a little experimental on subsequent rolls such as a couple double exposures since the camera requires manually advancing the film. Ultimately didn't do much with it because each roll was only getting 6 shots. Between film and developing/scanning costs it was working out to $5 a shot, which is a little steep. So I picked up a Minolta x-570 to continue experimenting on film but at a better cost per click rate but haven't yet finished the first roll on it yet. But it's been fascinating to get back into film bringing all the knowledge I've learned in digital and applying it to older technology. If nothing else, the cost/benefit analysis on each click of the shutter makes me think how badly I want to take that photo.

I've definitely fallen into that trap. I like film photography for the process, which is why I shoot a variety of formats and camera types. I love casually going to a festival or something with nothing but a rangefinder on a strap or point and shoot, or being in a more deliberate situation and shooting portraits on large format (making it a goal to get into wet plate in 2023). Sure, I could probably take my X100 or other mirrorless and a couple of lenses in a really small bag and get great results all the time without thinking about it. But something about choosing the right film stock for the situation (portra all the time, kidding), being picky about how I'm metering depending on the look I'm going for, eventually developing and scanning myself and of course making prints myself even further down the line. It's so intentional, every step of the way and that's what I like about it. It also has a lot less margin for error, so you could even say that from a purist standpoint, film photography is more about nailing the shot than digital (because of the absolute magic that is a RAW file). I appreciate the video, and a lot of people need to see it!

I started analog photography as a way to learn more about photography. after 10 years I'm still learning and making mistakes. I'm sorry for not taking pictures of mammoths and instead taking my full frame pocket camera and take spontaneous pictures at the club or maybe just practicing black and white photography straight from the camera, no with filters. About the money? it is a bit expensive, but it also give you more value rather than taking as many pictures as your patience can handle. Of course digital photography gets better results, it's also easier ;)

Analog vs Digital is a difficult one for me. I started with digital, went to film after 3 years which is when I really learned how to take pictures stuck with that for 4, then went back to digital for 5 years and now I am back to analog again. When I look back at these pictures the analog ones just have much more character and tell a story while the digital ones are sharper, precise and so on. The breaking factor for me is that shooting digital is much less fun for me, I am less in the moment, take more pictures that are lower quality and have to spend much more time to edit/sort. The analog pictures are fine as they are, I don’t feel I have to edit them and I keep almost 100%. If I go back to shooting digital I will try to emulate the constraints and feeling of shooting analog. The digital cameras capable of that start around 1500€ though, Fuji Xpro 3, Leica M9, Pixii, Epson RD-1, let me know if there are any others. With analog you can get incredible results with a 50€ canon slr and 50€ lens. For the price difference I can shoot, develop and scan 50 rolls of film. Which is around 5 years worth of film for me. On the other hand I can probably sell the digital camera in 5 years and get most my money back. Difficult.

is it such a bad thing for the gear and process to be a main focus though? that's why I love the process, that's the fun part to me. thankfully I'm not a serious photographer and will never make it a job so it'll remain just a hobby for me. if I happen to accidentally make some good images here and there, awesome. I just wanna keep having fun.

It's ok if you don't have a connection to film photography or film cameras. I have a high-end digital 61 mp camera, Polaroid SX-70, other Polaroids, Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, next for me is a Mamiya RB67PROSD Medium Format Camera, mint. Film for me is anything but boring, it's exciting, I like my film cameras, I like the feel of them and the sound that they make. M digital camera is fascinating as well.

well man you make a good point, but the Instagram example is funny. The photos taken with sony are almost 90% crap, not for the Sony it self. 😁

Subject or content being worthy. The big difference is in the means the art is produced. One is digital pixel pushing, and pretty much just digital image painting to create an image. While the other is actually, taking a photo. Many can argue the hands on approach to the art of developing and printing, vs mouse clicks and printer button pushing, wont be me, I have my preference, like everyone does with any art.

so true and relatable! Most film shots have that snapshotty slice of life feel or as you pointed out the delapidated subjects. I think another factor is very much to do with the flexibility of film. You see a lot more night cityscapes on digital cuz you can just whitebalance for tungsten and white street lights. On film, there just arent many options to shoot that same modern subject matter. And if you wanna do so you have to specially load your camera with those films, or swap out your film. I have been planning out a wildlife project on film though! Going back to the old 1900s naturalist type of process

Perhaps most people that like old cameras just like older things in general, so they’re more likely to find old, interesting things to shoot? That’s certainly true for me, I like older cars, older buildings, older women, etc.

that is a recent phenomenon. also editing film with lightroom...my old photogrpahy teacher would die if he werent already dead.

In psychology that is called "priming". Vintage classic camera > Concept in mind influences behaviour > Photographer is primed towards these subjects As someone commented before, film photography is more technically challenging and I agree it's good for someone learning to get the basics and "classics". Say this as if it were some other school subject where we learn from the classics and basics. Thinking that the process ends on a print, and very often a darkroom B&W print which takes quite some cost and effort.

Analog became a hype as many jumped into it because prices were low. Then, prices rose and it became a status symbol. Many carry Leicas, Hassels, Mamiyas and don't even know how to put a film on it. But it looks "pro". That's what "pros" use! The guy shoots 6x6 to post on instagram... But he has money and that cool "pro" look. You're right on everything, specially gear related. Gear won't make anyone a photographer. Ansel Adams once said that "a sharper lens will only make a bad photo sharper". That's it!

I don’t know who’s thinking that because they suffered their film photographs are inherently GOOD!that’s STUPID!!! Your photographs are either good or they are not! and the only person that can tell you that is your client, if they pay for them and they are happy then your photographs are good! Remember, something is only worth the value that someone is willing to pay for… only then can you really gauge how good your photographs really are.

I took the same series of photos using portra 800 and my canon 5d mark II. Doesn't matter how harder was to take the one with film, the outcome is still shit compared side to side to the digital one and I don't consider it a decent result despite how hard (and expensive) it was. Tbh, I'd like to do the same thing again but this time with comparable gear, using my EOS 1000 mounting the same lens as the 5D and see the result again

Damn, you are so right about having a few film cameras I tend to take pictures of old and broken items. Which also includes broken people too.

an interesting topic although i don't think the idea of dull photography is unique to film photographers, it's across digital as well quite massively. The narrative around photography has become heavily focused on gear and gadgets and brands and very little about composition, creativity and thinking outside of the norm.

I shoot digital when scuba diving, film topside. I shoot for my own pleasure and subjects that interest me. I live in a town with buildings that were constructed in the 14th century so I do take photos of old things - if they interest me visually and not because I'm using an "old" camera.

I mainly shoot 35mm point and shoot cameras. Just family photos, Friends, vacation etc. Had couple of SLR’s and one medium format. I don’t struggle at all with developing, use Paterson tank/spools with c-41 chemical development mix along with Epson scanner. I don’t have instagram and all the photos I make for myself and my own memories. I just love the look of film, it’s nostalgic and idk 🤷🏻‍♂️ just gravitate so much towards film. Still shoot digital as well and on my phone. But film feels more natural and real to me. But that’s just my opinion, to each their own. My favorite stocks are Kodak Gold 200 and lomography 800. But in the end it’s just a hobby. I don’t care about gear or what film stock.

Good message. I was joking with a friend of mine recently that apparently to be a success on RU-vid you have to photograph old dilapidated buildings or junkyards. Maybe because the subjects aren't moving?! Haha. At any rate, I started photography in the film days and still see it as a vibrant medium, and am challenged by the "Old Masters" to produce impactful images. I do shoot digital as well, but my first, and remaining love, is film.

So true, lots of people think because it’s on film it automatically makes it a good image lol.

My first camera was total manual operation. Even had to cock the shutter as an individual step. No meter.. I used the suggestions on the data sheet that came with the 828 roll film for exposure. Then focus. Compose through the view piece.(it wasn't a rangefinder). At that point, all I had was hope I'd hit the right settings. My first 35mm, bought in '71,( Konica Autoreflex T )felt like a space ship in my hand in comparison! If I got back a roll of film with three bad shots... I was mad at myself for doing such a poor job. Photography is fun!!

This is such awesome advice thanks for sharing. Yes photography principles and fundamentals are still the most important thing.

Some real good points here. Although I shoot different environments, I think it's taken me over a year to really understand what I'm doing with a film camera. The next challenge is taking my skills and applying it to portraits, which combines the technical knowledge with guiding models.

I am going to have to disagree with most of what you have said here, at least for me. Maybe what you say is more common amongst those who are coming to film after digital. I do agree that film is more difficult than digital - no doubt here. But to my way of thinking a boring shot is a boring shot, no matter how it was captured. One still generates a lot of lousy images with digital, it is just faster and you can delete them quickly. We do tend to hang onto mediocre negatives because of the higher investment per frame, at least I do. I recently had a Disney vacation with my 5 year old granddaughter and decided to use film instead of digital because I know the negatives will outlive me. This occasion was too important to trust to digital alone. I also paid Disney for their photo package so we had key moments captured by others and it took some pressure off me. This approach worked out well. Honestly, there is nothing spectacular in the vacation shots. This is more about preserving a first time family experience than earning Pulitzer prizes. I ended up at the automated end of things (Nikon F100 & Tamron AFS-G type lens). When you point out that only old things seem to be photographed with film, I suspect this is a younger practitioner who feels that old methods should be paired with old relics. Makes sense but I don't limit myself that way. BTW, what I disagree with is that you makes this sound like a very broad generalization that applies to everybody, and I don't believe it does. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist as I am sure it does. Sorry for the ramble....

My solution after shooting a Nikon F2 for years, is when I acquired a Leica MD 262. This digital camera is the closet camera to a film camera without the suffering...!

I pretty much agree with much of what you say. I grew up with film photography and find it far more satisfying than digital. Computational photography is simply not my thing. While digital folks will cringe (yes I do have a nice digital camera) it’s just too easy. No satisfaction for me. I think people appreciate, at least the art community….a nice silver gelatin print as opposed to a digital print with a Prozac view of the world.

Controversial opinion, but I agree with it entirely. I don't hate photos of decapitated buildings, grassy fields, or portraits- but I generally find them boring. I like pictures of people doing something, or the juxtaposition of film cameras photographing things modern like sportbikes or something. Like, yeah- nice b&w picture of a sunflower. How original.

I like to look back at the work of people that really got me started in the first place. Look at director Stanley Kubrick's photographs from the 1950's/60's they are great study of composition and light along with stuff that is actually interesting. You can never really recreate that because it is no longer the 1950's. I think us photographers need to find our sense of place in this world and capture things that we truly see, not recreate what we have seen before. That is risky business considering the time and money spent using film. Back in the day the expense was relatively less compared to today. However, I still think that we can find interesting things that have never been captured on celluloid film before. I will try to think a little bit more before about what/why I'm shooting from now on. Great video.

My cliché is photographing my dogs. No reason as to why. 99.9% of all my film is my dogs. I try to shoot other things and I do, but somehow, my dogs are there. Either as the subject, far in the distance, or encroaching from the foreground edges. It's always a little funny when I show my pictures to people and all they see are my 2 dogs, either as portraits, main subjects, or accidental subjects.

There's a lot more to film photography to just what image you produce. No one seems to mention how you interact with your camera and how it interacts with the world. I can't count the number of times I get looks with a box camera Yashicaflex. Never had a glance with my Panasonic G7. Definitely some novelty factor to enjoy. Photography isn't just about the imagery.

Ill start this comment by saing i don't shoot film, its too expensive for me. But i love film emulation and I think i understand why people feel the need to photograph old stuff using film. There is a certain disconnect between new things (especially new cars) and the nostalgic kick that we get from using old gear for all its imperfections. Its that pastel tone of the potra film that simingly doesn't go that well with the modern industrial design of our days. And for someone who is already seeing nostalgia its understandable. The one thing i don't understand is the infint amount of film shots without a proper subject.

I disagree that photoing old stuff isn't prevalent with digital. They think rust, peeling paint and abandoned buildings are great stuff and have for decades. Spare me the hot chick the photographer convinced to remove clothes to reveal some of the B's, butt, boobs or belly contrasting her young, hot body with a falling down building. This is partially because they don't have a studio and need shade for their low powered speedlights of stobes. Film folks are beyond tedious taking photos of halations from gas station lights at night. Can't you guys come up with other locations? Gas stations are so boring! You are absolute right, film, like lenses called "art" don't make art and I think we are seeing a waning of the film fad as hipsters realize that and the short attention span for the latest fad fades as they move on to the next fad. I started shooting film in the late 50's and expect to shoot it til I die. It meets my vision for a shot in a way, digital plus plug ins can't. The F stop oou tube guys tried to duplicate Portra with a plugin and photoshop and gave up after a half hour of trying.

Interesting vid I’m going to respectfully disagree (to an extent). From my many years of experience with both film and digital, i always prefer film simply for the art of it. Yes, the whole process is expensive and time consuming but it’s definitely not a motivator for me to ‘want’ to think my images are good. On the contrary, i have rolls of many mediocre shots, which is why i shoot a ton. However, that rewarding feeling you get from an unexpectedly good shot is ssooo good 😂 digital has its use for sure, but I’ve grown tired of chimping at the screen after every shot. I am jaded with the trends though. I prefer images that tell some kind of story, or at the very least have a pleasing aesthetic with light.

In my opinion, I find that the result is not the best part of film photography, but the experience of taking the photos and developing them. Also, Failing to get a good result means you have the opportunity to experiment. I think that doing film photography as a job is not ideal, as he said- you never know the result until you receive it later, perhaps doing it as a hobby will be better.

Boring photos can also be taken with a digital camera. What strikes me about analogue photography, however, are the many underexposed photos. This is not a new phenomenon and is known to older photographers and is related to the fact that the light meters of old cameras from the 70s and 80s have only (centre-weighted) integral metering. This metering system produces underexposed photos in many situations and requires experience in exposure correction. In the past, books were written on the subject of exposure metering alone. But i notice that many young film photographers don't want to deal with the technology and that's why their photos are not technically good. As with everything nowadays, there is only a superficial interest.

I've taken pictures with digital and film photography. Never considered one more exciting, or boring, than the other. Film photography may take more thought in order to get one good photo but any idiot can take a thousand pictures with a digital camera, or phone, in the hope that a few come out right.

I use my film SLR camera for a reason, the phone camera doesn't look like I do, my old SLR looks what I look at. the human eye is 50 mm just like my Bronze Pentax. Digital reflex cameras cost from 2000, used, to 10,000 new and the lenses I won't even tell you. It's crazy. They are also plastic. You can buy thousands of films with that money and digital cameras are made of plastic, analog SLRs are made of bronze and can last forever. Digital ones last a few years and you have to spend thousands again to get another one. Yes, analog photography is weird and slow these days and I love weird things. It makes me feel more, I don't know, human?

So true, it is so boring. Even when Eggleston was shooting these things, they weren't old, they were the things of his time. And it was revolutionary in its time. Now we look for things that look like that time, and then we shoot them with all kinds of different medium-format equipment on expansive film stock. One photo like another. So useless. But there are also great innovative photographers like Max Pinckers, only they are not on Instagram or RU-vid :) Film is also incredibly expensive, and great photographers like Parr would always point out that you have to take hundreds of shots that are not quite there to get an excellent one, and the medium of film makes that process of learning and exploring and trying incredibly expensive. So with film most people go for the safe shots.

you made some great points here about how film photographers shoot subjects like old buildings and cars, especially with black and white film. i think a lot that work is also inspired by the old masters working with their giant viewfinder cameras and choosing the same subjects. their photos are often the first that new photographers study to learn about photography.

Well the problem is that you have a philosophy-create compelling images, whether or not you enjoy the process. A lot of us have the opposite philosophy-enjoy your process even while shooting mundane objects or rather documenting mundane objects. It’s only in the social media age that ‘compelling’ photographs are a thing. Through the years people have been shooting to document and create memories. So yeah, it’s NOT a problem with film photographers, it’s just that they have a different philosophy than yours. To each his own 🙂

As a plastic camera fan I just simply do not care if my pictures come out "good". I already know they won't lol

You shoot what you want, analog or digital doesn't matter

I cleaned out my local wall greens. I swear I was the only film photographer at ohios Bird Week! Among all those digital cameras lol

This is so true. The sea of faux nostalgic/vintage images are style over substance and won't hold up very well. They capture something that doesn't define this time period so they're of little historic and story value.

There are just more amazing photographers shooting with mirrorless than film. Almost every 4x5/8x10 photographer shoots old buildings or trees. The idea of shooting models, cityscapes or sports is somehow overlooked by most film photographers and I think it just comes down to timidness and drive. Driving around by yourself finding old gas pumps and taking 30min to set up one shot is simply easier, thats why it's all people do.

I grew up on film. Give me digital any day. I shoot raw and manual but that is because I understand what I want and the camera can not possibly read my mind. Then I have to process it. Developing a raw image gives you so much more control compared to film. No. Film is not magic. Where I am considering film is 4x5 though. You have lens movements, and you can get massive detail. At a price point that works for me…,

Haha loved the shooting things from 2500bc. Great video man.

I think you've fallen into bit of a trap here. Insta is about photo consumption, like swipe, like swipe, and what counts there is a popping image, rather than a subtle photograph. If you want to be big on insta then maybe that's what you need to do but it's not how a lot of photographers I know want their stuff seen ideally. So don't be too quick to judge. Not to mention the algorithm is catering to who searches for that hashtag, and a whole bunch of other parameters beside which may include which photos might be related to advertising market demographics too. Digital to me encourages image capture, and by image mean relatively generic, popular, stereotypical pretty images for the masses. And that's what I see, and that's fine if that's what you want to do. To me, it gets old really quick. So yeah digital images pop on social media but I will never buy a book or follow those people because it's dull. It's almost like a catalog of lifestyle images and amateur photogs who until recently were just image consumers too thinking that's what they want to do. So I'd flip this around and say your problem with film photographers is their actual strength. On average their photos are more interesting when viewed with consideration and in a series (not saying digital can't obvs). But if you're chasing the money / influencer train then go for it with digital. But I have seen so many influencer photographers now bow out of photography altogether now largely because they get lost, frustrated, bored even, and they never really focused beyond generic image capture and talking about cameras. I see film photogs do this too, but they usually just oscillate between film and digital.

Interesting points, must make myself suffer more then :D haha. I hear your points, but I use digital or film camera depending on the image I want to take, its about the image not the process for the viewer, so that's how I approach it.

Although I shoot in both mediums, I shoot in film for a VERY deliberate nostalgic reason. But I also do the same with my videos. If im looking for a grainy 90s look I shoot with OG BMPCC. I want a clean music video vibe I'll shoot canon or Red. (can't afford shooting on film for video. lol) I'll rent an Arri mini for a modern film look for like short films. I take FOREVER before I take the shot on film so I look for more artsy stuff. It's very deliberate but I wonder if thats what consciously going on in other film shooters head. ???

Not a film photographer (yet) but I've always wondered why so many of them are drawn to old gas stations! I feel like it has something to do with the desire to not waste film on scenes or subjects which may be high risk, like street photography or wildlife. Not to hate on the old-gas-station-genre but you're much less likely to waste precious film if the scene has no moving elements. But I guess it could also be related to personality, I don't know. Anyway great video!

I am so happy film had made such a come back. Making art with tactile supplies is a unique experience that shouldn’t be lost. But I see a lot of bad scans and flat images online. It seems no one is taught the basics of film calibration anymore. it takes a lot of testing to match your film of choice, to your developer of choice, for best enlargement results in the darkroom. This is why we stuck to one film and one developer. We didn’t switch every week. This is how: 1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones 2. Using the box speed, meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail 3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this shadow area 4. From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated 5. Process the film 6. Using the frame that was exposed at -3 stops less than the meter indicated (which should be practically clear but will have received lens flair and fogging - i.e a real world maximum black rather than an exposed piece of film that has processing fog)and do a test strip to find out what is the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black - Print must be fully dry before assessing this 7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc 8. The time that achieves full black inclusive of compensation for dry-down is you minimum exposure to achieve maximum black for all future printing sessions - print must be fully dry before assessing 9 You now know the minimum time to achieve full black inclusive of exposure reduction to accommodate dry-down 10. Using this minimum exposure to achieve maximum black exposure time, expose all of the other test frames. 11. The test print that has good shadow detail indicates which exposure will render good shadow detail and achieve maximum black and provides you with your personal EI for the tested film/developer combination 12 If the negative exposed at the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 400) 13. If the negative exposed at +1 stop more than the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/2 the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 200) 14. If the negative exposed at +2 stops more than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/4 box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 100) 15. If the negative exposed at -1 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) double the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 800) 16. If the negative exposed at -2 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 4x the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 1600) You have now fixed your personal EI but there is one more testing stage to go. 1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones 2. Using your EI, meter the brightest area in which you wish to retain highlight detail (but not the sky) 3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this highlight area 4. From the meter's reading open up the aperture by 3 stops or decrease the shutter speed by three stops 5. Expose the whole roll at this setting 6. In the darkroom, process one third of the film for recommended development time 7. When dry put negative in the enlarger and make a three section test strip exposing for half the minimum black time established earlier, for the established minimum black time and for double the minimum black time. 8. Process print and dry it. 9. If the section of the test strip exposed for 1/2 the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% more development 10. If the section of the test strip exposed for the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film is correctly developed 11. If the section of the test strip exposed for double the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% less development 12. You can use the rest of the exposed highlight test film to fine tune the development time You run this test on a condenser enlarger with a #2 contrast or a #3 on a diffuser enlarger

I like you man! Got a new sub today :)

"I don't see one gas pump, I don't know what's wrong" 😂

On the other hand, if you look at the images of someone like Joe Greer compared to a typical digital street shooter, they just look better. Idk if it’s down to the film stock fitting the subjects or the talent but it’s pretty clear that his film images have an intangible, timeless quality often missing in the digital equivalents.

Loving the twang

Problem with film photographers is they get carried away too much with the medium rather than the end goal. Which is fine because for most people it’s just a hobby anyway.

I wonder if "film talebans" know where you live...😄 I showed this video at a photoclub meeting and I had the "old guard" growling and drooling "how does this padawan DARE to question the IMMENSE, philosophical superiority of film!" I am 72, I remember that when I was a kid my father almost apologised for giving me a "half-format" 6x4.5 instead of a 9X13 plate REAL camera. Yadda yadda then, yadda yadda now. Thanks for putting back the "film religion" to where it should go, a tool for producing images and little else. I miss film and manual settings because I miss my old people and my hopes and my strenght and my 6 years, I can still buy film and fiddle with rings and dials, but the flavour is different. It is also true the opposite, though. Young nerds with 3 smartphones convinced that Apple was there before Creation and that digital also makes a better coffee, Ignorance and arrogance have no age. VERY good video!

Obviously, if you are using film, the image is the thing that will obviously speak for itself. Garbage in and garbage out, as they say. Like space, film is hard. Or at least harder. Count me among those that who are shocked but pleased as punch that IMAX is still a thing that people are fighting over. I thought it was a fait accompli.

This is the main reason I haven't switched to film (besides the cost), you put my thoughts into words exactly and I haven't seen many people discuss this! Most film photos I see people post have GORGEOUS colour, I have to give them that, but they all look pretty generic, they all have that "film" look and the composition is nothing much to say and very few have truly stuck with me. It's almost like they just take random snaps of things without putting a lot of thoughts behind the shot, counting on the colours, the "vibe" to be its saving grace, it feels superficial. I don't want to fall into that trap. But then of course, everyone is different and enjoy different style of photography, I put a lot of emphasis on composition and an easy, random process isn't gratifying to me.

This opening and explaing of suffering it hit me like a truck, this is ME! same with music! Like getting into synthesizers or collectief vinyl, somehow I want the most “purest” analog path, the manual physical aproach ✨

Do it right the first time! and take your time film photography isn’t for those who depend on the computer screen and sitting many hours and not getting plenty sleep. Lol I love the feeling on creativity on my prints. Digital is fast and fun but mostly the image is flashy and fake. Great image is on canvas and frames. Just create great images the first time. Lhphotography

You missed out developing your own black and white film and then making enlargements with your own darkroom. Kodak Trix and Ilford Hp5 films have a huge exposure latitude especially towards overexposure. I use a1957 Yashica Mat tlr camera with a 75mm 3.5 Lumaxar and 1950s 4x5 MPP Micropress camera with a 135mm f4.7 Schneider Xenar lens. I can't enlarge my own 4x5 negatives yet. I thought about getting the Intrepid enlarger. What do you know about them? You make some good points about film photographers in general, but there is still a lot of great work being made.