Fyi, don't pop off your film canister lid into the grass like I did. I did it for "dramatic effect", but picked it up immediately after. Always pack out what you pack in!
I remember reading an article several years ago in some news publication, that historians were concerned that there wasn't going to be a history to look back on because people had stopped shooting film and they weren't leaving a "physical " memory behind. I am glad to see that film photography has hung on and seems to be making a comeback even if its a niche market. Film definitely makes you slow down and enjoy the process.
@challiray Most people do not print, I didn't say digital photographers don't print. The cost involved with digital printing as well as film printing, especially film, just keeps most people, not all but most, from doing it. Ink is expensive.
If you think a film negative will outlive a digital file, you’re nuts. The film negative will rot away to dust. Read about Martin Scorsese and the film foundation and why he started to panic in the 80s when he realised all the films he loved as a kid was vanishing, literally rotting away.
@laurencewhite4809 I never said that. Look at my post again, also from a purely technical perspective, Digital beats film hand down. I shoot both and enjoy both. Have a wonderful day.
Have you ever driven a classic car? Using my 60 year old film camera gives me that same feeling. Every time I click the shutter. Plus the buzz when I have developed my own negatives and I scan the image. Often I go Wow how did I do that? Plus the softness of the image. Digital sensors are now up to 50 megapixels and so sharp they are literally unreal. I have just sold my digital camera and have gone totally to the dark side... Cheers!
A very nice idea that a particular roll of film was with you in that moment. I like that a lot :) Thanks for the great first video! I'm looking forward to your upcoming content.
One of my favorite things about film is flipping through my negative archives and looking at all the different places my film has been with me. Thanks for watching, lots more to come!
I picked up film photography because I see it as something of an antidote to the ever growing difficulty in telling real from AI generated images. Not only is it real and tangible, it makes me feel more conscious about what I'm taking photos of and I really like that.
Film is photography and photography has now come full circle. Digital has been with us 25-30 years now? And what we are seeing more and more of is digital photography editing software being used to simulate 35mm film types. And it makes you ask the question, what am I doing spending all this money on digital gear to create a film look when I can simply just shoot film!
@@keelanbourdon This is exactly true, and it's also true why vinyl records have had a huge resurgence also. I've also noticed VHS movies coming back to an extent.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Film Photography. I'm 62 , spent most of my life using film then like many slowly switched to digital. I'm now using film again after long time and I really appreciate the fact that so many young people like you are now using film. I'm was curious to know what leads you guys to use film nowdays and your video has provided me with some interesting material.
Number one reason to shoot film - owning your original images and legacy With digital, they are copied from the camera, to the computer, to the cloud. There is no original image anymore. The SDCard gets overwritten. The computer gets replaced every few years. The cloud storage stops when you stop paying the monthly tribute. At the end of the process, there is nothing left. It’s just rented memories, held by a third party, and deleted when you are no longer paying your fees. When you are old and gone, nobody is going to bother trying to dig up your “digital backups”, that are stored on old hard disks or flash drives that are obsolete… and probably incompatible with current standards. But a carefully organised set of negatives, with written notes, that’s different. A 5 year old can hold that up to the light, and see what you saw.
Absolutely, I love your example of a five year old being able to view the photo with ease. As much as digital has helped us through the years, there is still definitely a place for things that are tangible. Thanks for watching!
I really like your cross reference to the Ben Stiller movie. That hooked me too. And for me it is the haptics with analogue cameras. The feedback you get from the “click” in the moment
I am old , 60+ lol. I started out with film. My grandad was a press photographer (I have his Graflex) . I did 35mm, 220, slides. Then I dropped film in the 80s. Had a backpack Beta tape recorder with a huge video camera with a big cable (+half a car battery) :-) Through the 90s, 2000s, 2010s, all digital. During the pandemic, I picked up the press camera. I also had his darkroom timers etc. So I got a nice scanner, the Adobe stuff. Started film again minus the enlarger. My mom passed and I got a ton of 35mm gear. Been fun. My best half thought I was nuts. Now I do weddings and offer film as an extra. Do both.
I started Film in 1969. Was in the Navy and purchased my first 35mm camera from the Ships Store. Put aside when digital came out. Returned to film 4or5 years ago. I have several Nikons. Including a S2 from mid 50s. The most beautiful photos have been taken with Medium Format Film cameras.
I too shoot with an analogue camera (6 years are already passed since I started). MY reason for choosing this medium is simple: I want my pictures to be seen by my future family. I am now able to open a few boxes and see my mom and dad as kids playing with their respective parents, or when they were lovers. I can see myself as a child cooking at home, on trips with my old classroom friends, on summer holidays etc etc. I want to show my life in an easy and accessible way. I personally doubt many people are able to properly store thousands of digital photos for decades.
After several decades of photography and a few photobooks and the Costco crash, all; or most of my photographs and books are gone. I sold my home and my wife said I should sell my camera/lens collection so I did, thinking it would be no problem to replace what I wanted to replace. Not so! So now at 78 my cameras are gone and most of my pictures are too. I've ordered one antique Pentax camera with one 50mm lens and I'm back to film, which I trust and understand, and it understands me. Apparently I'm not the only one!
It is quite crazy the demand for a lot of these older cameras. I don't blame you for thinking it'd be easy to replace what you sold! Glad you're back at it with film photography.
As someone who started on film photography using my grandpa’s old medium format TLR, I instantly grew annoyed by film and the cost of film that i sought a DSLR. After using a DSLR for a short period of time, I almost immediately wanted to return to film because while it is more work, it makes me feel more attached to my photos
I definitely feel more attached to my photos with film. I look back into my negative archive and I remember almost every shot I took. It's a cool experience coming from digital.
Try this out: fill up your memory card with a dummy text file or whatever that takes up exactly the amount of space to leave only room for 24 shots left on your card, before you leave the house. (Obviously the camera allows you to delete it, but you know... don't)
Watched The Secret Life of Walter Mitty this weekend! Its both goofy and endearing and that quote is one I think of often when I choose if I want to capture a moment, or just exist with it. Currently rolling with an OM-1, OM-2, X-700, and a few different point and shoots. SLRs for quality, P&S for the memories & vibes.
I now have eight film cameras. I just like shooting my film equipment. Yes, I have a digital... but the film gets out often. It's a split between B&W and color. When you get those really good shots it feels good. I shot a roll at a city park Dec 15. Maybe I'll get the pictures back by years end. That is part of the fun... the anticipation!
You are young but you have an old soul and have summed it up beautifully. I got my first camera in 1960 when I was 16 so I grew up with film cameras. I still have my Olympus OM1 although it has not been used for a very long time. Many things are made too easy now, including photography and the value of hard won photos is not not appreciated. We didn't have PhotoShop then. When I look at my old photos the memories come flooding back. Friends and family no longer with us, fun and laughter, places, holidays, weddings, plus, for me, the cameras I took them on and the waiting for the film to be developed. I still shoot Olympus....an OMD E M5mk2. I sometimes use one of my old legacy lenses with an adapter too, just beacus... Enjoy your photography and your film cameras.
There are a couple of reasons why I do film photography. I stumbled my way into it coming from a Canon APS-C DSLR. For starters I got an Exa 1b with a waist level viewfinder and a 50mm f/2.8 lens for 10€ a couple of years ago as my first film camera. It was just sitting on a shelf in a store's window at a local photo studio. I was just getting some chinese takeout, saw it sitting there and came back for it the next day. The name plate fell off, parts of the film counter are missing but it had the leather and red velvet case/bag(?) so it would have still looked nice as decor if it didn't work. I bought it for the sole purpose of trying out a waist level viewfinder because I had watched a couple of videos about the Hasselblad 500 series of cameras. Somehow the subjects looked so alive and three dimensional in the big medium format viewfinders. It worked and still does and the lens is actually quite good apart from being only f/2.8. I read up on the M42 lens mount, found out about the Helios 58mm lens and found someone who was selling it along with a Zenit E camera near me for marginally more than the lens alone typically goes for. It's heavy since it's mostly made of brass I think, the shutter makes a satisfying noise and it has a selenium light meter which I had never seen before. Unfortunately it won't get any better because they kind of decay as time goes on and become less accurate. It was build in 1982 afterall. Now I have a newer model Zenit 12XP with an electronic light meter and easier to use control knobs, a Jupiter 9 85mm and SMC Takumar lenses (28 f/3.5, 35 f/2.0, 55mm f/1.8). I kinda navigated myself into M42 because they relatively cheap to get. My interchangable lens SLRs are all M42, East German or Soviet models, because they cheap. Oh well, each camera is a whole experience. I have a Lomo Lubitel 166B and Yashica Mat 124G as 6x6 medium format cameras, both TLRs but they function very differently. For example with the Lubitel you can easily screw up your shot when your fat finger blocks the shutter lever. You also have to advance the film seperately or you will have multiple exposures on one frame. Ask me how I know... The viewfinder is really crappy tbh. Hard to frame and focus. You really have to take your time with it. The Yashica feels much more solid, has a better viewfinder (I just ordered a Bright Screen to upgrade it), there is less to screw up but it's also noticably heavier. I don't mind dangling the Lubitel on a strap on my wrist while I walk around, the Yashica requires a bigger neckstrap for me. I haven't even talked about the pictures I get from them yet. There is still a learning curve up ahead for me as I have to figure out how to work with film a little more, especially the exposure but my most recent results look promising. At first I had them developed and scanned at labs (I tried out different ones) but I got some equipment to scan the negatives myself so I'll only get the films developed from now. I use Lightroom and Negative Lab Pro for now. Even though the pictures might now be the most interesting or great, I have much more of a connection to them. I walk around my neighbourhood, take shots and make notes of the subjects and exposure settings and when I get the scans on my computer I am right back in that moment. I bought a Canon EOS R as an upgrade from my 600D/T3i but I don't feel the urge to take it with me somehow. I totally have to get to know it more to be more comfortable with it but there is not that much drive in me. Yeah... It's a gut feeling mostly. I totally have gear aquisition syndrome with analog cameras. They come in so many styles and flavors and I want to try them all.
I'm encouraged to see much younger people than myself (low 30s) getting into film. Most people my age are shooting digital only (that I know of). I recently got into film after shooting digital for 7 years. It is so much more satisfying and my photography "skills" have improved vastly. I really enjoy it. It is a lot more expensive, but it is a labor of love at this point. I also like the idea of leaving physical (possibly historical) records behind. Think about it, you could shoot millions of pictures throughout your life and have it all on one hard drive when you die. Someone could throw it away or delete it in a split second. Your life's work, gone. I like to think the film will be treated differently. Maybe not, time will tell.
I hope film will be treated differently. I think there is something to having that actual physical negative that changes someone's mindset around it. When you can actually see the photo taken and it's not just one's and zero's, it feels more personal.
I'm a super keen photographer, and spent 40+ years getting better. IMO one never stops learning. I still have my old Nikon F3 and F5 plus a few frozen Velvia films and some bulk Provia cut to 36's to shoot one day. But, for 20 years I have shot 100% digital, now exclusively on Sony kit. The technical quality I can achieve nowadays (higher spec. sensors, glass and software) is better than anything I achieved on 35mm and arguably better than when I shot with a Mamyia RZ67ii. Artistically and creatively, then probably less improvement - but that's down to me. I have sent images all over the world and received awards (as an amateur) for many images in different genres. Had work published occasionally too. But I don't kid myself that any are 'great' or likely to appeal to family or friends enough for any to seriously think about preserving for either history or Art's sake. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but after discussing with a few equally serious (but, alas ageing) photographer friends we have concluded our lifetimes work in imaging is mostly destined for the skip. It will be thrown away because it has little or no emotional connections to our families. The only odd pictures that are likely to survive will be a few portraits of family or friends. My wife might be more sympathetic, but she won't outlast me by more than a few years - then it's the skip, landfill or recycling (probably just the paper prints and card mounts). Most folks today (probably 95+%) think that a phone is all you need to take good (well good enough) pics. Just because I'm willing to pay $3000+ for a great lens, can shoot good (IMO great) publishable sports or wildlife pics will mean little or nothing to others. I accept this and don't kid myself that my obsession with making a few outstanding images will 'cut it' with others. About the only way to preserve more than 1% of your work is to create 'interesting' photo books. Preferably books with a few words and 'soul'. Ideally even a photo essay or story. IMO relatives are less likely to just throw out books (unless boring) than loose prints, slides, negatives, photo kit etc etc. Let's face it, how many of us know anything about any of our ancestors beyond perhaps our grandparents? Unless I was famous or notorious or captured some historical amazing image(s) then who cares? Heck, most of us can't even recall newsworthy images from last year! So, if you want a shot at posterity, then make a few brilliant photo books. Maybe consider documenting your own family too - then 'self interest' might just motivate someone to consider preserving. For sure many will see the above as a cynical outlook. But how much do you see preserved from 'ordinary folk'?
"Your life's work, gone"... yes, but don't kid yourself that film images will be treated any differently. I've got boxes and boxes of painstakingly handmade, archivally processed black-and-white prints that I can't bear to throw out because they represent such a big chunk of my past... but nobody else cares about them, and one of these years when I'm found dead on the floor of my shabby little apartment, the landlord is going to send over a couple of guys to clean the place out and they'll throw those boxes, along with all my other personal treasures, straight into the dumpster. Nobody's going to rediscover me after my death like Vivian Maier, and nobody cares about anybody else's photographs when millions more photographs come into existence every second. I know that sounds gloomy, but it's what's going to happen to 99.99% of photographers and their works regardless of what medium they use. At least if your photos are on a hard drive, there's a small chance that one of the junk men will tuck it in his pocket on a whim and take it home and maybe give your photos a last glance before he erases it...
Well done. Your comments about the physical interaction, feeling more grounded, trusting that you got it right, harmonize with sentiments of vast numbers of both new film photographers and a number who have returned after years of digital. I see film's resurgence as a marker of deeper cultural change as well. You may enjoy The Revenge of Analogue-- Real Things and Why They Matter, 2016, by David Sax.
Great video, loved it and was nodding along with the section about no distractions. There's definitely an element of delayed gratification/inconvenience that makes those film shots that came out perfectly even more special... Started with an f80 and the local lab, ended up with an FE, a medium format and my own developing and scanning - I love how film in particular can let you pour in as much effort to get the exact look that you want, or can be as accessible as a point and shoot and the local lab. Looking forward to more from your channel!
Totally agree, I also find there is such a magic in developing your own photos as well. I remember how shocked I was when I developed my first roll and actually saw pictures on the negatives haha. Thanks for the kind words, lots more to come!
Film photography is a mature tecnology. It's had almost 200 years to become what we have now. There's something delightful about a technology that's gone as far as it will ever go (like vinyl records). Digital, as good as it is, is an immature technology. At the moment it has fine grain, huge dynamic range, saturated colors and amazingly high iso speeds BUT digital always looks digital. Never natural. It will become superb, one day, but at the moment it always looks fake. A well lit and well focused film image looks real and looks magnificent. For those who've never experienced Kodachrome 25, medium format, projected on a good screen, you have no idea what I mean but please take my word for it - it is a wonderful experience.
Hopefully , more people will see the value of ACTUALLY having a photo in the hand and not on some digital piece of junk that will be obsolete in 5 years.
I was doing everything i could to help keep analog alive during the dark years in the 00’s, when in my country, film died completely. When everybody abandoned film, in stubborness i went all in instead, learning every technique and formula i could. A lot of people saw me as some backwards wierdo for using film but i didnt care It's very rewarding to see film coming alive again, being able to pass on the knowledge i accumulated, teaching the next generation.
@keelanbourdon Yeah I thought about it a lot, but I'm not much of a youtuber production wise 😉 And I struggle to chose which topics to upload about as there are so many. I do however give free physical classes on darkroom technique, large format and film photography in general, trying to keep film alive with the next generation.
I grew up with film and used it for 30 years, printing my own work, and I worked as a technician for pro labs. Pro films were made to mimic reality as far as possible (color film that is). These were industry standards and they have us a starting point for digital capture. I think film has some unique attributes, including the physicality of an object, and the almost unknown result before development or printing. A photo was always a print or a slide back then. Viewing online or on screens has changed that, and it's taken digital some time to start looking as good as film, but now it's taking its own direction and with new lens/mount design, new sensors and software, it's looking very good IMO. I miss the darkroom, the chemical smells, and above all the high skill levels that technicians printers and photographers had. Film can teach you a lot about photography, but digital is so much more convenient, and the means to manipulate images is marvelous. One can make unique creations with so many tools that is far superior to darkroom technologies. However we ought to display prints more, these are photographs really, and the older b&w technology is still superior on terms of viewing and reflectance imo, whilst color printing is much better with inkjet. Film still has some characteristics that stand out,mainly the colour separation and shadow detail, skin tones, but it's all dependent on film lens combos etc. We are still in early days of the art of photography, and digital brings much excitement and optimism to the future of the art form. Remember also alt process photography like Daguerreotype etc. These are all still beautiful processes of print making, and I believe print making is still the core of photography... drawing with light. Serious photography needs to separate itself from the Instagram/social media abyss and start displaying prints in galleries again, whatever they be, digital or chemical, or combinations. I recently invested into digital after using medium and large format for years. It's great, I really enjoy it, but I often look at film age prints to gauge tones, contrast, and color pallette, which, btw is not this washed out retro look that many young people think is film like. Try a properly exposed and properly developed 100 iso transparency: it's not washed out at all. I think that's is from seeing old, faded prints and believing that's what film is like. Film still has benefits over film in some areas as evidenced by the film industry where film is still used a lot. Horses for courses.
I hear you about the "washed out" look that is slowly being known as the film look. I think sometimes film has such a high dynamic range that people tend to boost shadows or lighten the blacks on digital, and it makes it look "film esque" because of that.
I like the permanence of film. You’re not reliant on computers and hard drives. I’m getting back into film and feel really lucky that I didn’t sell my darkroom setup. So as long as I can get the film, chemistry and paper I can make photos.
My enduring love of film mostly nostalgic, as you call it but I call it familiarity. I’m 63 and it’s what I know. I prefer to keep it simple while shooting. I can wait to see what’s any good later then if a shot stands out for me I’ll tweek it in post editing. But the real thing for me is I just think film cameras are cool to fiddle with. Just acquiring something new to me scratches my itch. I don’t even shoot that many pics! Yep I have gas!
I have shot digital for around a year and a half for mostly planes and just random street pictures but recently I have gotten into film photography and don't get me wrong I still love shooting digital but theres a time and place, and film photography is a whole another world especially with all the different types of film and such but I quickly fell in love with it and the processes of shooting film and waiting a couple weeks to get the scans back from the lab and I like how tactile the cameras are and how it reintroduces you to the fundamentals of photography and all the reasons you said about why people are getting back into film photography are the reasons why film appeals to me and so many other people
I like your 3 points for doing photography with film camera. I am an original 35mm photographer from 1985 to 2010 and now back at it. Even though, I have several mirrorless cameras, I still feel lot more comfortable with my film cameras for composing my shots. You needed to take in consideration the limited amount photos you can shoot base on the amount of roll of film you would bring with you, your ISO is fix by the type of film you insert in the camera, and understand the lighting base on your film ISO. So, for me, it was always a good challenge and looking forward for the end result when developing your film. P.S. I still got my original film cameras and all their lenses in perfect working condition.
as someone old , when i started taking pictures there were no digital cameras and i enjoy developing film, i have always stayed true to taking pictures with film. But i am very concerned about the prices charged for film today. There's just nothing to justify these, and I see that as a big danger for film photography as it just puts a lot of people off
I'm just now getting into film and the prices are rough. To purchase, develop, and scan 10 rolls of Illford HP5 costs me $350 through Gelatin Labs purchasing at $10/roll locally. Ouch! I'm going to buy a scanner from B&H and scan my own to half the price of development/scanning. I then want to learn to develop myself.
I went back to film to help me slow down and think about the shot more, it’s also nostalgia. I enjoy the whole process from clicking the shutter to developing the negative at home to see what I got..…. 👍
All I miss from the film era is mechanical cameras...feel, sound, manual focus. I never liked waiting for the film to be developed, and on one occasion, find out that whole role of film is overexposed, because my aperture jammed wide open.
Every time I consider trying my 35mm film camera again, I stop thinking about it for one reason. Here in Canada it would cost me over $2.50 for each 4 X 6 print. That's counting the cost of the film and developing and printing. I just got back an order of digital prints from Walmart at a cost of $0.10 per print. Sorry but I will never go back to film again even though I like the look of film prints. The cost is simply outrageous.
As expensive as it is, I think it's worth it if you're intentional with your film shooting. I'm in Canada as well, so I know where you're coming from. I think just trying to make each shot count when using a 35mm is what makes it worth it to me. But yes, it is definitely expensive.
!. physical feeling, 2. film look, 3. nostalgia. Check, check, and check. Also permanence. I've lost thousands of digital images in the cloud, etc. However I have shoe boxes full of negatives, positives (slides), and prints from 40-50 years ago.
Looking through my old negatives is always such a great experience. It's like reliving the memories all over again, but in a way digital can't quite capture.
Digital is easy and close to perfection. Film is inperfect and shooting a analog camera a craft, scanning too. I use both. Digital for publishing, analog for personal projects. thanks for your video
Film photography will never die , Why ... it's the past iconic photos that were taken .. back 1970s to the 50s ... to the 1920s ... I have a lot of cameras Pentax MX , Yashica automatic , a Konica .. made in 1965 ... one of my favorite very early is my Nikon F4 serial number 222××××
For me, I shoot film because it encompasses a beautiful contradiction. On the one hand, it helps remind me of what is real, in an increasingly unreal world. On the other hand, it slightly distances the image from reality. When the cynical precision of digital is replaced with rays of light dancing on physical film, it helps me see the moment that has passed through a lens of introspection and personal resonance, and suddenly every picture matters so much more.
you missed out several things... When I started photography, back in 1998, I took digital for granted and left the film back. I was shooting since 1993 but only took this seriously when I bought my first digital camera (Olympus) in 1998. Then I started with Nikon Dslrs and on 2004 I discovered "strobes" and my photography just went berzerk. I got several nice photography prizes and also got well put on several other photo national contests. Then back in 2011 I had learned almost anything digital photography had to teach and I got stuck as there was nothing mor to discover. I was doing photoshoots with several external strobes, I was shooting models etc etc... But I was not being challenged and my learning process had stopped. This is until I bought a ROLLEICORD on 2014. The exact moment I went back to film I discovered all the passion there is. I discovered that the digital made it so easy for the masses that you become SO DEPENDANT on what an administrative asian decides on how the camera you bought is going to behave. And if you have a friend with a D750 and you also have a D750 with the same lens as your friend, if you shoot at the same time you'll get 2 exact photos alike... Now if your friend had a Nikon FM, and you a FM as well with both a 50mm f1.8 (Kit lens in the 1960's) if you both press the shutter at the same time, the photos coming out from those 2 rolls WILL BE DIFFERENT from one another. This because there are so much more creative variants in the middle, like for instance I'm using DoubleX and he's using Ilford, or that while developing I used 1+9 and he used 1+25, or that I used Ilfosol and he Rodinal, that both images, while depicting the same thing, will be somewhat different or very different divergent. Film photography is the continuation of the learning process started while photographing with a digital sensor.
Film for me is nostalgic and a satisfying way to escape the drudgery of studying and aquainting myself with yet another digital device. If you don't spend enough time at a keyboard and want to spend more, then editing your RAW files is a sure way to achieve that goal. Results straight out of a digital camera cannot match that of film, especially slide film.
There's a reason so many people are trying to emulate film with filters. If someone wants it to look like film, I think they'd get the best results by using the real thing.
When it comes to black and white I have always preferred using film because in digital it just looks to clean and starts looking like Graphic art designs. Film is an entirely different creative process you have to pre- visualize your image and know what you want before you release the shutter.
Yes ! WHAT is the deal with analog photography ! I did analog from I was a small kid from 1970 to 2007 both for hobby and as a professional, I will NOT miss it ! I love digital photography, No chemicals.
@@keelanbourdon No, as I wrote I done analog photography for MANY years and shot a lot of films, I do NOT ever want to shoot analog again. I feel much more comfortable and satisfied now shooting digital Cameras, than I did with any of my analog cameras. It is a bloody mess with the analog films chemicals !!! Now it is only a trend with analog and like all trends it will stop again.
To clarify to everyone looking to get into this, film cameras unless you are looking for rare cameras or something really high end, getting a film camera that produces beautiful pictures is nowhere near as expensive, your film photography dreams could only ve $40 away on ebay
This. As much as it seems like you need some crazy expensive Leica to take photos - you don't. You can take some great photos on a disposable film camera if you just wanted to try getting the film experience. Cheap 35mm cameras can be found on Facebook marketplace and it isn't too hard to find one in decent quality if you're patient.
Shooting film when it was the only medium then suddenly thrust into the digital age was the most liberating experience. The vast majority of of film photographers today have no idea what a properly shot roll of film looks like. Then argue the fact that they say film is still superior is the biggest laugh. These so called looks of recent film are usually a result of expired or terribly over or under exposed film. Sure it's an aesthetic but is more anchored in faded prints found in a shoe box.
I think if people are having fun with the hobby, I'm all for it! Art is subjective. Though, I agree, I wouldn't say film is superior. It's just a different way of shooting photos.
I grew up with film and I can appreciate a lot of reasons why people choose it, but I’ll never go back. One thing I find interesting is when people talk about how shooting film slows you down… I mean how much discipline does it take to use single shot, compose and be deliberate in taking a photo with a digital camera? Does everyone with a digital camera just go around in constant spray and pray mode? 😂 Film is great if it makes the person using it happy, and I had a great time when I shot on film, but I think a lot of people shoot film now because it’s the cool thing to do. Just my opinion… 🤙🏼
For my generation, spray and pray is real lol. I get why that can be very helpful in a professional situation, but from a creative point of view, film can help a lot with focusing on your subject and shot composition.
@@keelanbourdon I can understand that to a point. I just think the photographer needs to be the one who controls the discipline and not relying on their camera to do that. But to each their own, I guess! ✌🏼
My film photos look better and more tasteful without editing than the ones from my digital camera. Especially the lighting in harsh daylight. I appreciate the dynamic range and not heing scared about losing highlights.
Oh yeah, the dynamic range is something I maybe should've gone into a bit more. I think it's another big reason as to why I'm so attracted to shooting film.
I grew up on film. Still have two Nikon bodies. Digital for me any day baby. Shoot RAW. Use Darktable with filmicrgb module. Dont miss film at all. I would say though, I have slides and photos from four decades ago. I dont have any digital pictures from 10 years ago. There is an argument for permanence.
With your permission I will rename this post: "What's The Deal With (B&W) Film Photography"... Why??? Very simple is easier to take color pictures with digital cameras... But It is very difficult and satisfactory to take a roll or a plate of B&W film, going into the darkroom, using chemicals in the dark with the film, in very subdue light expose the paper go to chemicals again, wash, dry... Put the light on and find that the exposition, develop time and all the steps before has been right... Not every "light on" is a victory but is a teaching experience. Happy shooting!!!
Thanks for watching! I love developing my color film, and it's always such a cool experience to see my photos come to life in the negative. I've yet to actually develop my negatives into photo's though. That's the next step! Happy Shooting as well.
I can definitely appreciate film and I feel bad for every day I leave some old rolls of film undeveloped, but as a newbie, I definitely appreciate that I'm able to get into photography with a 160€ camera that can take beautiful photos without THAT much work.
It is nice that the barrier of entry for film shooting is quite low. Overtime it can get quite expensive with the price of film rising and all, but to just start, it is quite accessible. Thanks for checking out the video!
@@keelanbourdon Mine is digital, but yeah, I've seen film cameras that are pretty cheap and I assume can take amazing photos with the right lens as sensor resolution isn't an issue.
What sadden me is that in all minds, digital will kill film no matter what because of the "tech" aspect and performance behind did. But I really don’t understand ; acrylic didn’t put a term on oil painting, we’re talking about art and expression, not frames per second ffs. Sometimes we need to shoot an Ilford 3200, sometimes a D850 and sometimes a Nokia 6300, let us live
I hope film will always be around. It will always be used for movies hopefully, and I think there will a niche group of photographers shooting film as long as rolls are still being manufactured.
I am sick of hearing that "When we shoot digital, we take thousands of pictures, hoping for one good one." I shoot digital almost exactly the way I shoot film (which I still use). On several recent trips, I shot between one and two "rolls" on my Fujifilm digital per day. I love film, because it has a different look from digital, and there's no camera simpler than my Retina IIc or Nikon FM. No "menus" or settings to worry about. I love digital for its resolution and low noise (among many other qualities) but I hate the complexity of the cameras.
I think for the majority of people, that is the case though when shooting digital. Just firing away. Especially in a professional setting. Now, I'm sure people still "fired away" with film back in the day, (especially with attachments), but shutter fire rates were not what they are now with digital haha.
Great video! I have 7 film cameras in 35mm & medium format in one bag, and I also have full Canon & Nikon digital equipment in 2 other bags. I have shot more film this year alone (2023), I develop it scan & edit it all here at home. I have over 75 rolls in the fridge in both formats along with multiple developers and associated chemicals. I find it fun and creative to do these processes to see what I can achieve, CHEERS!
I've been taking photographs professionally for 45 years and I'll never understand the current nostalgia for film photography. I’ve shot it all and i can assure you a modern digital workflow destroys film based photography. Ansel Adasm, Brett Weston, Eugene Smith all of the great film photographers of the 20th century would have killed for the convenience, sophistication and efficiency of current digital photography. Film is a 100 year old technology that is expensive, awkward and polluting. You guys are crazy.
I think people who are younger are used to using screens to create, so film photography can seem appealing because it is a very tactile, hands-on hobby.
The chemicals could be a concern, yes. I'm sure there are studies out there that have gone into detail of the environmental effects of film photography, and maybe even how much impact it's having on the world in recent times.
Film: Every time you click the shutter it costs you one dollar. Every time. Good shot,bad shot,accident shot:one dollar. Then you wait…and wait…and wait. Then you wind up with a DIGITAL file anyway!!! Maybe if you’re lucky you get one or 2 keepers. Maybe. Makes no sense UNLESS you have a fully equipped darkroom and you are completely immersed in the craft producing silver gelatin prints. Then- and only then- does it make sense.
I think if we're focusing just on the price of film, then sure, it doesn't make sense. But if you go into it knowing it's an investment, film can be very rewarding.
@@keelanbourdon The price of film, developing. What’s that? A minimum 25 dollar ( per roll). But in the end you are using A SCAN anyway. So what is the point? Plus it may take you a month to shoot a roll so that eliminates instant gratification. I have been a darkroom technician for most of my life (I’m 68) but unless you make your own prints it is a waste
As someone grew up with film and darkrooms I can safely say I don’t miss them a single bit. I also think it’s a bit funny to take all the time and added expense of film only to ultimately digitize the images and post them online. If you’re going to shoot film, print your images and show them somewhere in the real world. Otherwise you’re just putting your pristine film images through another level of processing. Go spend a day breathing in chemicals and learning how to dodge and burn with an actual enlarger, and get back to me about what a wonderful experience it is.
I think it's the process of shooting film that is appealing to most people. It is a bit ironic to digitize and post our film photos, but at the same time, we do keep our physical negatives. I think it's possible to have the best of both worlds.
Ahhh the darkroom…the chemicals…the music playing….the thrill of the latent image coming to life before your very eyes…that was the thrill of the passion for me. Did you ever see Minamata (with Johnny Depp)? The scenes of W Eugene Smith in the darkroom (with 10 Years After playing in the background) brought back wonderful memories for me
Hypo in your lungs, stains on your clothes, brown fingernails, possible silver poisoning! I welcomed digital, but one darkroom memory that sticks with me is when I was printing to the sound of Songs in the Key of Life, got blue thinking I could enjoy the wondrous art of Stevie Wonder, but that he could never experience mine.
It is the process itself from visualization, capture, anticipation, film development and darkroom printing that is its own reward. The Craft! Even if not another soul sees it it’s OK. That was the reality of most film photographers back in the day but the obsession endured.
Nonsense. People are just overwhelmed with the possibilities of digital photography. Also, they have no discipline to limit themselves when using digital cameras. It's only human.
Eh, I think there's something to film. The medium you use plays a big part in the creative process in my opinion. Though I do agree, it's much easer to lack discipline when using digital.
I started with film in the 1970s. I developed my own B&W film. Made my own prints. I love the look and feel of my old film cameras and it makes me sad to see them sitting on a shelf. Every now and then I get the bug to shoot film again and every time I do it becomes apparent why almost no one shoots film anymore. Its expensive. When you figure cost per keeper its even worse. The commercial developers out there are inconsistent in quality. Developing your own is messy and sometimes even more expensive. There isn't much environmentally friendly about it either if that is a priority. On top of that virtually none of the practical arguments for using film over digital make any sense whatsoever including Tarantino's laments. It is an inferior medium in almost every way compared to modern digital imaging. The arguments about longevity resonate with me but are also somewhat moot. You can print a digital image for a hard copy. Negatives and slides are pretty durable but not infinitely so and probably not as durable as a print made with archival ink on archival paper. So that argument for film is a bit weak as well. And hard copies are as susceptible as hard drives when it comes to fire, flood, etc. The only serious role I can see for film is large format in which the flexibility of the camera (tilt, shift, etc) make it unique. But talk about expensive! Anyway, I love that some people still love to shoot 35mm film. I hope more people fall in love with it. However, I think any attempts to justify it from a practical or uniquely artistic standpoint fall utterly flat. From a personal or emotional standpoint, sure, easy to justify. Do what you works for you. I think the most compelling argument for shooting film is that you like it. And that's about it.
@@powbobs Agree; we're all entitled to our opinions. But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valuable. Substantiating an opinion with evidence certainly makes the opinion stronger. Disagreeing is easy. Defending it might be harder. Curious if you disagree that shooting film is expensive. Sure, expensive is a relative term....but let's just say on a per shot basis compared to digital. That's objective. So either it is or it isn't and opinion has nothing to do with it.
@@bencompson When I was a kid I thought film was very expensive. Now, although the price has definitely gone up, I don’t find it prohibitively expensive for the three or four rolls I shoot each month relative to how expensive it seemed when I was a kid. Digital is cheaper, and I shoot far more digital than film. However, I enjoy the process and results far more with film. I develop my own wet prints which I also find deeply satisfying. B&W film can be bought very cheaply, by the way.
Somehow, I just knew you were going to leave out status signaling. Nobody wants to admit that status signaling is a thing, when almost every aspect of our lives is affected by it, if not controlled by it. Shooting film costs more money in the long run. Therefore, EVERY difference between it and digital is touted as an improvement that can only be achieved with film. But almost everyone digitizes their film, and then does all the same post processing. So any so-called improvements are moot. The true appeal, is being able to A) be seen with your expensive film camera, B) talk about your expensive film camera, C) show prints where you make sure to mention that they were taken with your expensive film camera..... You get the idea. Photography has always been plagued with status signaling. There was a time when the biggest camera with the biggest fucking lens was what made you look like a pro, because that was the most expensive. It's the same reason why cheap ass wine with expensive looking labels tastes better even to the supposedly most experienced somaliers. It is the same reason why people say that coffee that has passed through the anus of some wild cat, tastes better. And it's the same reason why whole foods can get away with charging $5 (or was it $10) for a small jar of water that had an asparagus sprig sitting in it for a while. People will do anything to make sure that other people know that they have money and resources and all the time in the world, you know, like all the rich people do.
I understand the points you're making, and I even thought about including how film cameras can essentially be an "accessory" to some as part of their outfit. But I think a lot of people who shoot film genuinely just enjoy the process. Every one has different reasons as to why they decide to shoot film, and it's hard to generalize a super large group of people imo. I don't shoot at all because of the price of my camera. I just wanted something that was in good condition and reliable when I bought mine.
@@keelanbourdon People who drink bad wine from expensive bottles and people who drink coffee that came out of a cat's butts "enjoy the process." My point is that they are usually delusional or lying about what convinced them that they enjoyed it. Read The Authenticity Hoax. Or, any of a thousand articles exploring why people claim to like cheap wine when poured from expensive bottles. And I harp on it because far too many photographers follow far too many status signaling trends, to the detriment of their own creativity. Unfortunately, far too often their "creativity" amounts to deciding which expensive bandwagon to jump on. Yes, I know that sometimes limiting one's tools can force one to become more creative. But, if you are limiting your tools, simply so you can create the same images that a million other people have created, so you can make sure that everyone knows which bandwagon you are on, then are you really being more creative? If you want to serve your fan base, and you believe that your fan base is composed of film shooters, then you need to find ways to help them break out of the bubble of merely showing off how well their tools adhere to the conventions of their bandwagon. I learned photography back in the late '70s, early '80s. Back then, all the books and magazines were talking about how to make the most use of the different color qualities of different films. They didn't talk about how how beautiful or nostalgic "that film quality" was, in general. That was a given. And it was often actually complained about. They talked about how to make the best use of each different film's unique qualities. Because that was their only option. How to use it to express one mood or another. These days, all of that can be done simply by applying a LUT. But, what subject is best served by which LUT? Or, in your case, which subject is best served by which film. And then, you're going to need to figure out how to make sure that the unique color qualities of each film comes all the way through all the digital processing, without being processed out. Otherwise, what was the point of bragging about using that particular film? If you are really using specific brand of film for a specific quality, then how are you making sure that that quality actually comes through? And, What are all the ways that you can make best use of that particular quality to, you know, actually say something new? You might do well to get your hands on a bunch of practically antique photography books and magazines from the '70s and '80s. I really liked the John Hedgeco books back then. They are chock-full of all kinds of tips about these kinds of things. Just be sure to cite your sources. Don't pretend that you invented all of this stuff on your own. You will be more truly authentic, if you take your viewers with you on your journey of learning and exploration. Tell them what you read in this magazine, and in that book, and tell them how you are putting those things together to flesh out a creative idea. Even tell them how to get their hands on their own copies of all these old books in magazines. Hopefully, that will lead to more true creativity in the long run.
Walter Middy is one of the best movies ever. I’ve watched it 15-20 times. It’s one of those films you can watch over and over and it doesn’t get old to me. Very inspirational
I also loved it, I didn't know anything neither excepted anything when I just watched it, but it was very beautiful movie and it felt like a "loveletter to photography" on some way.
I think you're right about it being grounding. For me, film photography feels like alchemy. Pick my subject. Set my shutter speed and aperture. Determining the focal range on my 60s Voightlander. Loading the these moments into a tank in complete blackness. Chemical baths at specific times and temperatures. The process is a story in its self. Absolute alchemy and I love it.
When I first started developing, I felt like I was back in a high school chemistry class (minus the anxiety lol). Such a great feeling to do it out of your own interests. Like you said, the process is a story in and of itself.
I really am wanting to get into developing! How much would a bare-bones basic setup cost to start developing B&W? I shoot primarily Illford HP5 Plus 400ISO.
@@vorteco7692 I know I’m a year late, but I’d share my opinion. With a paterson kit + changing bag will cost around 120-150 eur, but if your focus is on saving money I think scanning at home is the real money saver. If you have a digital camera then for 35mm film I can recommend the Valoi easy35 since you just attach it to your lens and it costs around 200 eur which includes everything you need. If you don’t have a macro lens and you have a Nikon dslr crop body or a mirrorless crop of any brand I can’t recommend enough the Nikon macro 55mm 2.8 or 3.5 lenses. They cost as low as 100 eur and have superb performance that can be taken seriously among modern lenses. For a crop body on the minimum focusing distance your view covers a 35mm film frame since it’s also 1:2, but on full frame something like a 90-105mm 1:1 lens is better. If you don’t have a digital camera then you can either choose between something similar of the above or a scanner. If you have nothing it will all cost around 250-300 eur but will quickly pay for itself considering scanning prices in labs. Also, specially for B&W buying a bulk loader for like 50 eur and some empty 35mm cartriges if you don’t have any will save you tons of money because you can get most stocks in bulk. If you want to take it a bit further you can use it to bulk load ektrachrome or vision3 cinema films (note that for the best results with vision3 you need ecn2 developing chemicals or a lab that does it).
Having shot on film, processed my own b&w and c41 film, printed my own photos, and paid thousands for processing and printing at labs, I'm completely over it. I'm so happy to be able to shoot digital now. But, since I learned on film, I still approach each photo as if it were using a frame of film. I'm deliberate in my composition and exposure. I don't fill up cards with thousands of snaps.
I started my photography in 1962. I shoot film as well as digital. I like the aesthetic of grain but there are two practical reasons top shoot film. The first is the gamma of film is much closer to the way the eye records visual data. And secondly both the cost and the limited number of frames on a roll causes the mind to think more about each shot. Medium format is better than 35mm, not because of greater resolution, but because the number of shots is lower and the cost is higher per shot, so the mind automatically takes more time, and considers the look of the light more deeply. Discernment increases and the number of shots taken decreases, but the quality per shot skyrockets. If you think it is about resolution, you are not understanding what you are doing. I remember in the 60's, with my Speed Graphic 4x5. I would normally go out with just two sheets loaded, and no matter what, I had to get the money shot in one of those two shots. That has a way of sharpening the mind about what constitutes the perfect story telling moment. Ansel Adams would have just one sheet of film with him. This is why he became such a master of getting the right moment, of recognising the story, and how to tell it. He only needed that one sheet because 99% of taking the photograph happened between his ears and in his heart, way before he would release the shutter. That is the advantage of film - limitations, and making the most of the silver that has been entrusted to you, and understanding that it is not the camera that makes the photograph.
1) That is 1,000% false about Ansel Adams. He sometimes brought hundreds of glass plates with him on long trips with gallons of chemicals for coating them, and later on many rolls of film or many holders for stacks of sheet film (he also had a mobile darkroom anyway, so he could just load more sheet film from the stack when holders ran out). A large format camera can only hold one plate or sheet at a time, it doesn't have an auto advance lever, but you can simply replace the dark slide and take out the holder and put a new one in... There's a picture of his donkey Mistletoe you can look up with a massive amount of gear piled on top of her that would put any modern "bring everything" photographer to shame, and that a human couldn't even carry all of. 2) If you want to be limited, you can simply put a dummy file in your memory card that takes up 99% of the space on the card and only leaves room for 24 shots before you head out.
I think your arguments in the second half were on point. The clarity between you, the subject, and the camera is very consistent - you're not taken out of the moment by what you've already shot. And having an actual _original_ image which, as you say, was formed by chemical changes right there where you were when you pressed the shutter is something special - which the absurd attempt to create 'original' digital files with NFTs only emphasises. You can still get good cameras very cheaply - especially if you're not concerned about getting one of the most famous models. And you can get that tactile sensation from a few digital cameras now - Fujifilm cameras and the likes of the Nikon Zfc for example. The price of film now is keeping me away from shooting film - which I've done for 30 years up to around the pandemic. But that may actually make it _more_ appealing on Instagram and TikTok - because now it has a status element to it.
One of the biggest things for me is staying in the moment when shooting. I love how connected I feel when I'm shooting on film. Thanks for checking out the video!
I have mixed feelings about shooting film. At 72 years old my eyesight is not what it used to be. Like most I started at age 15 and never stopped. I like a camera that have the standard dials. My current is fuji X T5. My Nikon FM2 and FE2 sit idle. I still enjoy the control with the knobs and f stop and let the camera autofocus.
Good video. Film has been with us far longer than digital. Digital is still the new kid on the block. Shooting film is very special, and I hope it continues long into the future.
Thanks for whatching! I think film will always be around in some shape or form. There is a whole new niche market now for film which only seems to be growing.
To me, Film cameras are simpler and more deliberate. I get a metering on my phone after choosing an aperture, and that tells me my shutter speed. After that, I take the picture and then forget about it until a month or two later when I send the roll out for development. There is nothing like the joy of finding a portfolio shot on a film roll you forgot you shot. Great video! Can’t wait to see what you do next!
