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.
I am a veteran photographer who started photography 1979. I can understand the hype and I am actually glad that the take up is growing and hopefully more camera manufacturers will start to make simple mechanical cameras. I kept my Nikon FM, FE and Olympus OM3ti and often shoot BW. I have to say though it is not the same processing and printing in my darkroom. Scanning the film and then post process on PC and print on my printer is a somewhat defeating the purpose of film, so I still use my darkroom to process my BW film and print. So, to get the full benefit of film photography (my opinion only) is to also process and print your own using traditional methods. Cheers
Thanks for sharing! I love meeting seasoned photographers who have been amongst the gear since the 60s 70s & 80s. When I was 21 I found film photography, it was when I became bored of photography via. Digital and just not feeling an urge to go out and capture, find images, find something, and make an image with what you find, as well as create in a studio. Film turned all that was ordinary into something I could preserve, look at later and instantly remember. Having to develop and wet print your own film really trains your brain to recall memories, places, people and things. Every shot counts, so it feels way more precious. For me, I know how to print but the end result is always meh, my patience is too little. I do really enjoy scanning and working through high bit tiffs. I’ve recently started taking film process orders for a lab, and I’m shocked there are people who choose to dispose of the negs, I always try to talk them around… Cheers from Aus
@@jbones360 Well done, great to hear you are also getting business out of this. I am surprised people discard their negatives, the whole purpose of the negative is to preserve the image and chemically print at later stage. I can understand scanning the negative to manipulate the image in LR or other but digital storage is not the same as the negative.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
The claim that "medium format is better than 35mm, not because of greater resolution" is simply incorrect. The primary advantage of medium format has always been its larger negative size, which directly translates to higher resolution and greater detail. A larger negative allows for finer tonal gradation and more information, making it superior for applications requiring precision and quality. As for the process, in the era before digital, medium-format photographers didn’t simply "order prints." The workflow typically involved ordering a contact sheet, a true 1:1 representation of the negatives. On this sheet, one would meticulously mark crop areas, annotate specific images for dodge and burn techniques, and identify the frames worthy of enlargement. This was a disciplined, deliberate approach to achieving the best possible print. Todays digital technology has transformed this workflow. Film negatives are scanned, making traditional contact sheets largely obsolete. However, the principles of selective refinement and attention to detail remain foundational to professional photography, regardless of the medium. Apologies for the lengthy response, but I felt it was important to clarify the significant difference in resolution and workflow between 35mm and medium format film.
for me as a primarily large format photographer film is about preservation of historical techniques through use in the present day. it's about taking care of these cameras so future generations can learn about them and putting large format out there for people to see and be inspired to pick it up too.
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.
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.
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!
I am 49 years old, I started with film photography, for which I used a manual focus SLR which had no features; the charm of those manual focus SLRs was that they were very easy to learn and use, and in use there was absolutely nothing to distract the photographer. My favourite manual focus SLRs were made during the mid 70's until the early 80's, the best of them all was the Nikon F3 which was then a professional SLR. I also loved the NIKON FM2N which I see you use in this video. I also love the very loud sounds of the mechanical shutter-curtains and the flipping of the mirror, and the haptic feedback you got from pressing the shutter-release of a manual focus SLR, sadly lost in Mirrorless cameras as they don't have a mechanical shutter.
I looked around a lot for the FM2n and found someone selling it used in mint condition. I love the fact that it's fully mechanical, and I'm also a big fan of the + or - light meter in the viewfinder. Thanks for checking out the vid!
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.
I started with a Nikon F and F2 a month ago. Developed my first couple rolls of Kodak 400 and love those 72 imperfect photos more than all the thousands of digital pictures I took with my dslrs.
I still remember the first couple of rolls I developed. Imperfect was definitely how I'd describe those first few rolls, but there's nothing wrong with imperfection. I think it adds a certain quality that can't be replicated. I'm loving my Nikon Fm2n, so I'm sure you'll love your Nikons. So many lenses to choose from with these cameras!
@@keelanbourdon yup all my Nikon D lenses work with them, that’s the reason why I went with the F and F2. It was either ditch the equipment and go mirrorless or just pick up some bodies for film. I went with the latter. Looking forward to learning more, thanks for your content.
I just got into film, I have always had digital cameras. My dad was a photographer for most of his life so that influenced me a lot as well. Along with movies like the Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I never did photography until this past year since I travel for work and just got into hiking and seeing National Parks.
Cool to hear you just got into it. Photography through film is such a different experience I've found, and I've really enjoyed it. I'm sure it'll accompany you well on your hikes
I was shocked to see that im only in the first 300 people to subscribe, you definitely deserve more, your video was very well written, i had a strong calming, almost asmr feeling watching it. Definitely consider doing more on analog photography subjects.
I love shooting film because the whole process is just so meditative to me, loading a roll of my choice into the camera, shooting it, developing it myself, and scanning it Really makes me more thoughtful of what I am shooting, some of my favorite photos ive ever taken are on film
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
Photography was for me an awakening that led to a professional creative career and a Masters in studio art. I took a photography class in college when I was 18 back in 1991. It was film photography, developing film in a darkroom and exposing photo paper. I borrowed a Minolta SRT101 from a family member. I shot black and white pictures and learned the whole process. To this day it’s my favorite class of all time. I went digital like everyone else but came back to film. It was my first tactile experience in creating and still my favorite.
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!
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 love the feel of my FE2 and S3 2000, real mechanical manufacturing and function. This together with anticipation of collecting a set of prints is pure nostalgia for me. You really try to get the photographic process right, otherwise it is expensive mistakes.
I picked up my first camera back in 1980. Today (yes I’m old) I still have and use the AE1 Program. I never really gave up film and never really fully embraced digital. I still prefer film and do my own processing. For a few years it was getting difficult to find supples but now it is easier but getting more expensive
Good coverage of the subject here sir. Nice production quality too. Your 1-3 points are probably true for many. There’s others too. For me it’s the workflow is easier ironically. I can shoot a subject in the morning, develop and dry and digitise the results and get the results to client later that day with little to no colour correction etc needed. Or I can send it to a lab and have them do it all. Either way the results are back in a few days. It’s also just how I’ve always done it and I’m a Luddite who doesn’t like changing how I do things 😅
I think one of my favorite parts about shooting film is not obsessing over the "color grade". I get it, people love messing with colors. But I also love the fact that I can pick up a roll of Ektar 100 and know what to expect when I develop. Thanks for watching!
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)
The nostalgia for this is over blown. It's about the photography itself. The more everything gets automated the less an actual photographer is involved or rather it's just the designers of the automated methods being the photographers using you to just take pictures.
Hearing your thoughts on why film photography is continuing to be important to many people was interesting. Thanks for this. When people call it “analogue”, do they give any thought to what film photography is analogous to? Analogue is not a word that stands on its own. It is a comparative term. Your drone work and videography is top-notch. Good luck, eh!
Thanks for watching! I guess analog is just a comparison to the digital world we live in today. It seems like we're all getting deprived of things that feel "real" if that makes sense. Pixels aren't a great substitute for reality.
I grew up when film was the only choice. When digital started I slowly moved over to it. That being said, the majority of my time spent behind any form of camera was on vacations and family events. Later on, I took courses in film photography and development. My approach to the camera has remained the same regardless of analogue or digital. Depending on the situation, Always think before you click! Slow down! Not every picture you take is going to be the best and just because you have unlimited images (digital), rarely do I take more than 2 images of any given subject. As for rapid fire shooting, really never done it at all. Film back in the day was used just as digital cameras were used today, you would shoot rolls and rolls. pick out the best shots (especially commercial photography) But now, cost it the biggest barrier. Thanks for sharing!
How have cost to develop changed? Has it always been more expensive to develop B&W film than it takes to buy the roll? Labs are charging $12+ per roll to develop B&W film and I'm buying them at $7-$10 per roll.. Youch! I need to learn to develop. Color is the opposite. Costs $7/roll to develop and $14/roll to buy. Has it always been like this? Just curious.
Great presentation. Film also presents a huge variety of outcomes: colour negative, black and white, colour reversal, (and there used to be black and white reversal) and within each of these groups there is a miriad of different effects produced by different films. Then when you develop the film yourself you have the choice of different developers that all have slightly different effects on the final outcome. Extend that to printing in the dark room and you add another dimension to the experience. While I like the crispness of digital, I have always felt like something else is doing the work for you.
There really is so much to learn when it comes to film. Like you mentioned, everything from the technique when developing to the different types of grain for different film stocks, it all affects the final outcome of the photo.
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!
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.
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!
@@keelanbourdon Well, keepers for me, at least. One ,in particular, I like because the young couple agreed to help me create the shot. Several others worked out well so I will call the day a win. That doesn't happen for me every time out.
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
My first camera was an SLR when I was 13 in 1958. I couldn't afford film for it so I just explored how things looked through the viewfinder. I learned so much. The SLR ( and DSLR) is wonderful because what you see is what you get ..WYSIWYG I have never understood the rangefinder love. Leica ?
With rangefinders you see past what your camera can capture, so framing is easier, also, rangefinders are smaller, more compact and easier to carry around, and that turns out to be the deciding factor when choosing the camera to take with me somewhere
I had a Leica M3 back in the 70’s. Preferred my Nikkormat FTn. However the sharpness of the rangefinder was stunning. Why? Design. The rear lens element is much closer to the film plane than with an SLR so the image is sharper. Scan a quality rangefinder camera image for optimum results. Also buy your film in 100 foot rolls to cut cost. Simple to load your own film
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.
thank you for that Video, just stumbled across but i must say that your video Quality is extraordinary, audio , Video and Content quality are so perfect i thought that you must have about 500 000 to a million Followers. Keep on going
Wow, thanks so much. This comment means a lot to me! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and feel free to subscribe to stay up to date with future videos I make. I have a lot of great vids planned for the future!
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.
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.
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.
Well said. You are raising good points about the why. I would add that, as people, we get a special satisfaction about doing the work, about doing things with our hands. It's when you have to work on something to make it happen that we get there most out of it.
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..…. 👍
I am a hobby photographer. I still have my Pentax K1000 that I bought used back around 2002. I used the Pentax with a roll of Fuji 400 a couple years ago. Had a Nikon 90s that came with a lens I wanted. I gave that camera and a couple of lenses to a lady in her 70's that said she missed taking photos. I shot several rolls of 35mm with the Nikon. I think I am not happy with the resolution of 35mm file. Soooo, since last fall have purchased a Pentax 645 and Pentax 6x7 at bargain prices and 3 boxes of 120 film. I am happier with the scans from the 6X7 which give similar resolution to my 24mp Nikon 610. So far I am tickled with the colors of Ektar 100. I like my golden hour photos and the film seems to give a more even transition in the highlights. Once the film is used up I will decide if I will keep shooting film.
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.
I think its a bit more to it than that for me. It's the fact that there's no digital conversion. It captures the light directly to the film. For portraits, it means that it's a capture of the physical light that bounced off your loved ones. it's not a copy, Its not an interpretation. And the reason why I plan to buy a film camera is for a few reasons. Recently I was looking at slides with my kid through a viewer/magnifier of when I was a child. He was super into it, and I am thinking of buying him a film camera as he seems to want to try it. It could be a fun activity/hobby for him. He loves older/ antique tech.
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 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.
Digital to me is distance, I can go further and take more shots (especially on my bike), and I have no repercussions for messing up. But film is slowing it down, taking a break, and thinking about every shot and every roll and waiting to get it developed at the local photo shore down the road to see the results.
Totally, it's about slowing down and being in the moment.
Рік тому
Hello, Film photographer here, but a slow one. I really like your insights and your view about film photoghaphy. First video ans great editing. Subscribed.
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.
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...
I really like to shoot film. Lots of options allow a choice of the mood based on the way certain films capture the scene. Then there is the light small physical aspect of the cameras. I also have the nostalgia of where I was when I shot all those rolls of film during my travels around the world. Those negatives are still in storage in my home. The camera is too. I still use that first camera today seven decades later. It still works just as well as it did when I bought it. Mostly mechanical except for one tiny battery that lasts for years without replacement. Shooting film just requires one to know the basics of proper exposure. None of the complicated settings that are necessary with the modern digital cameras. As long as film is available, I'll be shooting film.
I didn't mention that that first Nikon F was in a wreck where it flew off the seat and hit the dash before dropping to the floor. It only bent the filter frame with no damage to the camera or lens. I had it checked and everything was still within standards. It has never been cleaned. Can't say that would be the case with modern digital cameras.@@keelanbourdon
With film you are more involved like records, depending on your camera a light meter may be needed all part of the event, when you look at old photos one of the things that makes them special is the rarity the vast amount of digital images will never be like that, now there are more photos of an hour old baby than the average person had in a lifetime when film was the only option. I wonder if using old lenses on mirrorless cameras has encouraged people to try them on the cameras they were made for. One thing I have realised is I need to go back to my old habit of making notes about each shot, by the time you get to the end of a film you have no idea what is on it especially if it is a half frame camera
I've thought about making notes for each shot. Would be a great way to not only keep track, but to also be a lot more aware of each shot that I'm taking.
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.
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.
Yes I enjoyed shooting film for 20+ years and it certainly taught me to get it right in camera. But after shooting digitally, for almost 20 years, I could never really go back. Multiple reasons, cost, convenience, greater control, sheer immediacy to name but a few. I still have two old Nikon cameras an F3 and a F5 with a couple of manual focus lenses. They feel neat in the hand and I can imagine shooting with them occasionally, for nostalgia. But full time reversion from digital? No way - even if my current outstanding Sony kit lacks the same emotional connection I had with Nikon and Kodachrome or Velvia.
Shooting film is definitely a very different process when compared to digital. For my generation (gen z), we grew up knowing digital photography, so there is a novelty to shooting film that we haven't got the chance to experience yet.
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!
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
I shot on film from 1984 to 2007 (although I bought my first digital camera in 1997) and I will never return to it. I still have my old film cameras and I still buy some more, just for that feeling and for nostalgia. But I haven't put a roll of film in a camera in many years. I will never trade the flexibility of digital for the rigidity of film. Back in the days of film, I used to carry four cameras: one with ISO 100 BW film, one with ISO 800 BW film, one with ISO 200 colour film and one with medium format film. Plus the corresponding lenses, flashes and accessories. Film cameras were heavy, especially the medium format cameras. Going for a photoshoot was a hassle. Not to mention how many filters I needed to have, as the light changed and I could not set the white balance otherwise. Now, I can carry my normal full frame DSLR and my IR converted DSLR. Plus the lenses and accessories. And I have the peace of mind knowing I can cover any photographic situation. I think nowadays, film photography is for the ones who did not experience it back in its glory years. It helps the photographers to better understand photography. Also, it helps with the creativity. Having limited frames, you really need to think twice and make sure that's what you want, before you press that release button. As for me, the film photography taught me exactly that: not to be wasteful. To make absolutely sure I like what I see through the viewfinder, before I take the shot. Even to this day, my auto image review is set to Off. And I almost never check my pictures on the camera screen, after I take them. Exceptions apply if I take pictures of people.
The limited frames is the big pull for me. I think limitation can sometimes bring out the best creativity. Also, I grew up only shooting digital, so there is something about shooting film that feels different to me, (and presumably other people in my generation as well.)
It would be interesting to see you revisit this topic after, say, a year, and see if you are still as interested in film photography as you are now. I'm one of those old people who started doing film photography back in the era when film was the only way to do photography (did my own darkroom work as well), and I still make film photos occasionally when I want a "nostalgic" look, or want to use an old camera that I like, or just have some time on my hands. But when I look honestly at my film photos vs. photos I've made with a digital camera, the film photos are just shockingly bad. That's partly because of the limitations of films, but mostly because of the "generational loss" the image goes through when it gets converted to a digital file so it can be posted on social media or made into a UA-cam video -- which is 100% necessary, because for most of today's creators the whole point is to let everyone know that they are film photographers and say "look how special I am." I'm pretty sure we're at most 12 to 24 months away from a time when anyone who walks into a curated-craft-beer bar and announces him/herself as a film photographer will collect nothing but amused smirks from his/her fellow 20somethings, and then somebody will say, "Oh, I remember when I used to do that," and everyone will chuckle sardonically...
I've been shooting film for over 5 years now, and I feel like I've picked up a life long hobby. I've seen it go from basically no one my age shooting film, to all of the sudden this explosion in popularity where it seems like everyone in my age group is shooting on it. The core reason I started shooting film is because I was getting burnt out working as a professional videographer/photographer. I was losing my passion for the art, and I needed something else to reignite my creativity. Film did that for me. While I think you're right that this is a trend that will probably fade out as all trends do, I'll be sticking with it. I love what film brings for me creatively, and I could care less what the trends are surrounding it lol. The price increases with film have been quite annoying, but I'm also glad so many people have been taking an interest in photography like this. It's really cool to see people think more about the photos and moments their capturing, rather than just taking a thousand photos on their phones and not really paying attention to what they're shooting. I'd more than glad to re-visit the topic in 2 years time and see how the landscape is for film photographers. I think it'd be very interesting.
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.
Digital has become too perfect and easy to use(weight aside in some cases). The z6ii delivers much more than I expect and need as a hobbyist knowing also that you can tweak easily in post any blunders. I am taking up film now because I want to slow down and savour the process as well as the result up to and including development ( printing I'll pass to others for now). You get more in the moment and then anticipate the results. Had too much fun shooting with a 20 yearold point & shoot this year to ignore film photography. Besides using adapted older lenses with focus peaking on mirroless is a joy. It's a win win situation.
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.
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.
I'm developing, scanning and printing everything myself at home so the 6x7 (or 6x4x5) just has so much more detail and quality. way more expensive though lol @@keelanbourdon
In my case. I have never owned a film camera and I wanted to experiment with this medium. The images coming out the camera look sort of old (vintage…) but the proportions are pleasing compared to what you get from an iPhone. This is most noticeable when you try to take pictures of buildings in a city, the iPhone is just awful for proportions.
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.
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.
For me, film photography means that I have to deal more consciously with my surroundings, that I create the image composition in my head that I then want to capture when I release the shutter, that I can consciously and unconsciously perceive details, moments and situations without blindly passing them by. Of course, this makes photography slower than digital, but you're more likely to have an eye for something special instead of shooting in continuous fire, as is unfortunately mostly the case with digital photography. This is not nostalgia, but much more, namely what photography really means, quite apart from nostalgic feelings that others might still ridicule. This also improves and sharpens your own photographic skills. Of course, this does not mean that digital photography is worth less, quite the opposite. However, you should use both to improve your photography in general and to really know what you are actually doing.
I find I just shoot completely different with a film camera. Digital to me always feels like I'm "on the job", where with film, I feel like I can take as long as I want to find the the right moment to press the shutter.
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 guess in my case it's nostalgia I had film cameras until the early 2000s I recently found a Mamiya C33 like the one I had 50 years ago it brings back memories of those days when I had a darkroom and the joy of the process of taking the pictures and developing the film.i do scan and edit the pictures digitally I don't have room for a darkroom anymore but I try to edit them the same way as back then exposure and dodging and burning maybe tweak the contrast just like picking different grades of paper back then My youngest son is getting into photography and he only wants to shoot film I guess the acorn doesn't fall too far from the tree after all
I love shooting film. I started that way a very long time ago. I love the cameras and their basic simplicity. HOWEVER, I also shoot a lot of digital, and I never shoot "thousands of pictures and choose one or two". I shoot about as many frames with digital as I did with film; maybe a few more because I can afford more "record shots".
I used film from 1960 to 2005. I haven't used a roll since. But right now, I'm digitizing 50+ year old negatives from my rather extensive high school yearbook work, preparing a digital video slide show for my 50th high school reunion (something I anticipated 50 years ago!). I truly wish we had used digital cameras back in 1969 to 1973! It would have made my job SO much easier. Film is an annoying medium. I spent my working life with three large professional photography companies. I ran production departments in both a film lab and a digital lab. Digital is far more important. It has democratized photography, because everyone who has a digital camera or smartphone can present to everyone else in minutes! Try that with film. You can do it, but the time and expense involved are impractical.
I think for most people, it's the process > the practicality of it. If someone is shooting for convivence, they'd probably shoot on their phone or a DSLR
The fact you can digitize those negatives 50 years on is actually one of the strengths of film. Archival of digital media is a massive hassle. File formats change, hard disks fail, storage media becomes obsolete and data gets corrupted. Digital is important and useful and if I want to take a silly picture and share it, I'll 100% do it on my phone camera, but the medium has a nonzero impact on how the work is consumed. If I see a scene that I want to make permanent, my film camera manages to do that better, regardless of the hassle, or maybe even because of the hassle.
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.
The process is a big part of it, and I'm glad people are discovering that faster isn't always better.
Digital photographers still print.
@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.
I am a veteran photographer who started photography 1979.
I can understand the hype and I am actually glad that the take up is growing and hopefully more camera manufacturers will start to make simple mechanical cameras.
I kept my Nikon FM, FE and Olympus OM3ti and often shoot BW. I have to say though it is not the same processing and printing in my darkroom. Scanning the film and then post process on PC and print on my printer is a somewhat defeating the purpose of film, so I still use my darkroom to process my BW film and print.
So, to get the full benefit of film photography (my opinion only) is to also process and print your own using traditional methods.
Cheers
Thanks for sharing! I love meeting seasoned photographers who have been amongst the gear since the 60s 70s & 80s.
When I was 21 I found film photography, it was when I became bored of photography via. Digital and just not feeling an urge to go out and capture, find images, find something, and make an image with what you find, as well as create in a studio.
Film turned all that was ordinary into something I could preserve, look at later and instantly remember. Having to develop and wet print your own film really trains your brain to recall memories, places, people and things. Every shot counts, so it feels way more precious. For me, I know how to print but the end result is always meh, my patience is too little. I do really enjoy scanning and working through high bit tiffs.
I’ve recently started taking film process orders for a lab, and I’m shocked there are people who choose to dispose of the negs, I always try to talk them around…
Cheers from Aus
@@jbones360 Well done, great to hear you are also getting business out of this. I am surprised people discard their negatives, the whole purpose of the negative is to preserve the image and chemically print at later stage. I can understand scanning the negative to manipulate the image in LR or other but digital storage is not the same as the negative.
Gas station is an essential part of modern life and therefore of modern photography
can't argue with that
I don’t understand your point.
You managed to include every piece of nonsense about film photography in one short video, congrats😢
Especially a misty gas station
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
Totally agree, I feel like I learn something new every time I watch it.
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 think that's a great mentality to have.
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 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!
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!
Our world is so overwhelmingly digitial these days, I think people are starting to really want tangible things again.
@@keelanbourdon This is why I will always offer my clients prints and photobooks. A real photo is something you can hold.
@@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.
@@91bravic12 I plan on doing a video about vinyl as well, so stay tuned for that!
@@keelanbourdon I'd be interested in helping if you want, been wanting to do a vinyl podcast myself. I have quite an extensive collection.
Shooting both is the way to go!
Best of both worlds
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.
Films dynamic range can be really incredible. It's amazing how close it can replicate what we see with our eyes.
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.
The claim that "medium format is better than 35mm, not because of greater resolution" is simply incorrect. The primary advantage of medium format has always been its larger negative size, which directly translates to higher resolution and greater detail. A larger negative allows for finer tonal gradation and more information, making it superior for applications requiring precision and quality.
As for the process, in the era before digital, medium-format photographers didn’t simply "order prints." The workflow typically involved ordering a contact sheet, a true 1:1 representation of the negatives. On this sheet, one would meticulously mark crop areas, annotate specific images for dodge and burn techniques, and identify the frames worthy of enlargement. This was a disciplined, deliberate approach to achieving the best possible print. Todays digital technology has transformed this workflow. Film negatives are scanned, making traditional contact sheets largely obsolete. However, the principles of selective refinement and attention to detail remain foundational to professional photography, regardless of the medium.
Apologies for the lengthy response, but I felt it was important to clarify the significant difference in resolution and workflow between 35mm and medium format film.
for me as a primarily large format photographer film is about preservation of historical techniques through use in the present day. it's about taking care of these cameras so future generations can learn about them and putting large format out there for people to see and be inspired to pick it up too.
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.
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.
I really appreciate you checking out the video! I'm glad I could provide some insight into why the younger generation is embracing film.
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!
I haven't gotten the opportunity yet to drive a classic car, but I can totally see how it could give that same feeling! Thanks for watching
I am 49 years old, I started with film photography, for which I used a manual focus SLR which had no features; the charm of those manual focus SLRs was that they were very easy to learn and use, and in use there was absolutely nothing to distract the photographer. My favourite manual focus SLRs were made during the mid 70's until the early 80's, the best of them all was the Nikon F3 which was then a professional SLR. I also loved the NIKON FM2N which I see you use in this video. I also love the very loud sounds of the mechanical shutter-curtains and the flipping of the mirror, and the haptic feedback you got from pressing the shutter-release of a manual focus SLR, sadly lost in Mirrorless cameras as they don't have a mechanical shutter.
I looked around a lot for the FM2n and found someone selling it used in mint condition. I love the fact that it's fully mechanical, and I'm also a big fan of the + or - light meter in the viewfinder. Thanks for checking out the vid!
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.
Thanks for watching the video! Working hard to get a photo and having it come out beautifully is what makes photography special in my opinion.
I started with a Nikon F and F2 a month ago. Developed my first couple rolls of Kodak 400 and love those 72 imperfect photos more than all the thousands of digital pictures I took with my dslrs.
I still remember the first couple of rolls I developed. Imperfect was definitely how I'd describe those first few rolls, but there's nothing wrong with imperfection. I think it adds a certain quality that can't be replicated. I'm loving my Nikon Fm2n, so I'm sure you'll love your Nikons. So many lenses to choose from with these cameras!
@@keelanbourdon yup all my Nikon D lenses work with them, that’s the reason why I went with the F and F2. It was either ditch the equipment and go mirrorless or just pick up some bodies for film. I went with the latter. Looking forward to learning more, thanks for your content.
Analog cameras & lenses last for decades with proper care. Imagine DSLR operating for 20 years or more? LOL
I just got into film, I have always had digital cameras. My dad was a photographer for most of his life so that influenced me a lot as well. Along with movies like the Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I never did photography until this past year since I travel for work and just got into hiking and seeing National Parks.
Cool to hear you just got into it. Photography through film is such a different experience I've found, and I've really enjoyed it. I'm sure it'll accompany you well on your hikes
I was shocked to see that im only in the first 300 people to subscribe, you definitely deserve more, your video was very well written, i had a strong calming, almost asmr feeling watching it. Definitely consider doing more on analog photography subjects.
Thanks for watching, I just started up my UA-cam channel a couple weeks ago. Glad you enjoyed it and there will be lots more videos to come!
I love shooting film because the whole process is just so meditative to me, loading a roll of my choice into the camera, shooting it, developing it myself, and scanning it
Really makes me more thoughtful of what I am shooting, some of my favorite photos ive ever taken are on film
Definitely, being present in the process like that is super calming. I'm pretty sure my top 3 photos taken have been on film.
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 just rewatched the movie again the other day lol, never gets old.
Photography was for me an awakening that led to a professional creative career and a Masters in studio art. I took a photography class in college when I was 18 back in 1991. It was film photography, developing film in a darkroom and exposing photo paper. I borrowed a Minolta SRT101 from a family member. I shot black and white pictures and learned the whole process. To this day it’s my favorite class of all time. I went digital like everyone else but came back to film. It was my first tactile experience in creating and still my favorite.
The tactile experience is huge.
i love the way this video is edited. recently it's been kinda hard for me to sit through a whole video but i really enjoyed this one :)
Well I'm glad you were able to sit through this one! More videos to come so stay tuned :)
I can't wait to see more videos from you. I love the editing and visual beauty
Thanks so much! I have a lot of videos planned for the future. Stay tuned!
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!
It's great rediscovering those photos. I checked out your channel, great stuff! Love the cinematography you've got going on.
@@keelanbourdon Thanks so much!
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.
Medium format always looks so good. I'll have to pick one up one day.
A very good medium format camera is the Yashica Mat 124. I have one of these and a Mamiya C330. It is a large TLR@@keelanbourdon
I love the feel of my FE2 and S3 2000, real mechanical manufacturing and function. This together with anticipation of collecting a set of prints is pure nostalgia for me. You really try to get the photographic process right, otherwise it is expensive mistakes.
Expensive mistakes for sure. I think people are very intentional when learning on film because of how expensive those mistakes are.
I picked up my first camera back in 1980. Today (yes I’m old) I still have and use the AE1 Program. I never really gave up film and never really fully embraced digital. I still prefer film and do my own processing. For a few years it was getting difficult to find supples but now it is easier but getting more expensive
Hey, if the process works for you why change right?
Nice video mate! I was disappointed when I saw that you don't have any other videos on your channel. Keep it up!
Thanks! I appreciate you checking it out. Lots more videos to come!
You nailed the algorythm and content/timing with this video. 252 Subscribers and 8.8k views... NICE!
haha yea, I'm surprised this video got traction the way it did. More videos to come though if you liked this one!
Good coverage of the subject here sir. Nice production quality too. Your 1-3 points are probably true for many. There’s others too. For me it’s the workflow is easier ironically. I can shoot a subject in the morning, develop and dry and digitise the results and get the results to client later that day with little to no colour correction etc needed. Or I can send it to a lab and have them do it all. Either way the results are back in a few days. It’s also just how I’ve always done it and I’m a Luddite who doesn’t like changing how I do things 😅
I think one of my favorite parts about shooting film is not obsessing over the "color grade". I get it, people love messing with colors. But I also love the fact that I can pick up a roll of Ektar 100 and know what to expect when I develop. Thanks for watching!
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)
The nostalgia for this is over blown. It's about the photography itself. The more everything gets automated the less an actual photographer is involved or rather it's just the designers of the automated methods being the photographers using you to just take pictures.
Great job explaining the feeling. 👍👍
Thanks for checkin out the vid!
I'm just loving the highlight recovery I have in my intentionally overexposed shots. And the detail in the shadows. It's magic.
It really feels like magic sometimes eh
Great job on your 1st video. Great pacing and B roll sequences
Thanks so much!
Hearing your thoughts on why film photography is continuing to be important to many people was interesting. Thanks for this.
When people call it “analogue”, do they give any thought to what film photography is analogous to? Analogue is not a word that stands on its own. It is a comparative term.
Your drone work and videography is top-notch.
Good luck, eh!
Thanks for watching! I guess analog is just a comparison to the digital world we live in today. It seems like we're all getting deprived of things that feel "real" if that makes sense. Pixels aren't a great substitute for reality.
Nice video! The slowed down process is one of the reason I also like to shoot analog from time to time.
Nice channel, just discovered it. New sub!
Thanks for subscribing! Glad you enjoyed the vid, lots more to come.
I grew up when film was the only choice. When digital started I slowly moved over to it. That being said, the majority of my time spent behind any form of camera was on vacations and family events. Later on, I took courses in film photography and development. My approach to the camera has remained the same regardless of analogue or digital. Depending on the situation, Always think before you click! Slow down! Not every picture you take is going to be the best and just because you have unlimited images (digital), rarely do I take more than 2 images of any given subject. As for rapid fire shooting, really never done it at all. Film back in the day was used just as digital cameras were used today, you would shoot rolls and rolls. pick out the best shots (especially commercial photography) But now, cost it the biggest barrier. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching! Think before you click is a great motto
How have cost to develop changed? Has it always been more expensive to develop B&W film than it takes to buy the roll? Labs are charging $12+ per roll to develop B&W film and I'm buying them at $7-$10 per roll.. Youch! I need to learn to develop. Color is the opposite. Costs $7/roll to develop and $14/roll to buy. Has it always been like this? Just curious.
Great presentation. Film also presents a huge variety of outcomes: colour negative, black and white, colour reversal, (and there used to be black and white reversal) and within each of these groups there is a miriad of different effects produced by different films. Then when you develop the film yourself you have the choice of different developers that all have slightly different effects on the final outcome. Extend that to printing in the dark room and you add another dimension to the experience. While I like the crispness of digital, I have always felt like something else is doing the work for you.
There really is so much to learn when it comes to film. Like you mentioned, everything from the technique when developing to the different types of grain for different film stocks, it all affects the final outcome of the photo.
Intelligent, articulate and thoughtful! Subscribed from Melbourne Australia
Thanks so much! I would love to visit Australia one day
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!
@@keelanbourdon I've developed well over 50 rolls at this point 20 colour and 30 B&W and I still go "wait that worked?" every time
Excited to seen younger and newer people to photography shooting on 35mm
It's gaining more and more popularity for sure
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.
I think being able to look through photos in a tangible way, years down the line, is something really cool.
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!
How did the photos come out at city park? Any keepers
@@keelanbourdon Well, keepers for me, at least. One ,in particular, I like because the young couple agreed to help me create the shot. Several others worked out well so I will call the day a win. That doesn't happen for me every time out.
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 love the tactile feel as well. Something about holding a big chunk of metal in your hands is so satisfying.
@@keelanbourdon definitely
I never thought about that film being my buddy who was on that trip and is right there in the binder on my shelf.... Whoooaa!
Totally! It's an interesting thought
My first camera was an SLR when I was 13 in 1958.
I couldn't afford film for it so I just explored how things looked through the viewfinder.
I learned so much.
The SLR ( and DSLR) is wonderful because what you see is what you get ..WYSIWYG
I have never understood the rangefinder love. Leica ?
People definitely love their Leica rangefinders
With rangefinders you see past what your camera can capture, so framing is easier, also, rangefinders are smaller, more compact and easier to carry around, and that turns out to be the deciding factor when choosing the camera to take with me somewhere
I use a Ricoh GR digital camera from 2005 now. So pocketable, and NO viewfinder.I love the results
I had a Leica M3 back in the 70’s. Preferred my Nikkormat FTn. However the sharpness of the rangefinder was stunning. Why? Design. The rear lens element is much closer to the film plane than with an SLR so the image is sharper. Scan a quality rangefinder camera image for optimum results. Also buy your film in 100 foot rolls to cut cost. Simple to load your own film
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.
That's really cool to hear about your grandad being a press photographer. Must be pretty fun to shoot with that.
thank you for that Video, just stumbled across but i must say that your video Quality is extraordinary, audio , Video and Content quality are so perfect i thought that you must have about 500 000 to a million Followers. Keep on going
Wow, thanks so much. This comment means a lot to me! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and feel free to subscribe to stay up to date with future videos I make. I have a lot of great vids planned for the future!
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.
It's definitely a quote that has stuck with me for awhile.
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.
Each camera is definitely a different experience for sure. Thanks for watching!
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.
Well said. You are raising good points about the why. I would add that, as people, we get a special satisfaction about doing the work, about doing things with our hands. It's when you have to work on something to make it happen that we get there most out of it.
I think technology is such a great tool we have nowadays, but we also shouldn't forget about doing things with our hands. Great point.
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..…. 👍
Yes, definitely. Slowing down is big when shooting film.
I am a hobby photographer. I still have my Pentax K1000 that I bought used back around 2002. I used the Pentax with a roll of Fuji 400 a couple years ago. Had a Nikon 90s that came with a lens I wanted. I gave that camera and a couple of lenses to a lady in her 70's that said she missed taking photos. I shot several rolls of 35mm with the Nikon. I think I am not happy with the resolution of 35mm file. Soooo, since last fall have purchased a Pentax 645 and Pentax 6x7 at bargain prices and 3 boxes of 120 film. I am happier with the scans from the 6X7 which give similar resolution to my 24mp Nikon 610. So far I am tickled with the colors of Ektar 100. I like my golden hour photos and the film seems to give a more even transition in the highlights. Once the film is used up I will decide if I will keep shooting film.
Film seems to handle highlights really well. I'm always impressed with the dynamic range of my photos shot on film.
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.
Thanks, I appreciate you watching! I'll check out the revenge of analogue. Seems really interesting.
I think its a bit more to it than that for me. It's the fact that there's no digital conversion. It captures the light directly to the film. For portraits, it means that it's a capture of the physical light that bounced off your loved ones. it's not a copy, Its not an interpretation. And the reason why I plan to buy a film camera is for a few reasons. Recently I was looking at slides with my kid through a viewer/magnifier of when I was a child. He was super into it, and I am thinking of buying him a film camera as he seems to want to try it. It could be a fun activity/hobby for him. He loves older/ antique tech.
Summed up my thoughts perfectly. Film has become such an important avenue for my creative expression
Same here! Thanks for watchin
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 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.
For sure. I think we're going to see a big rise in people going back to analog - simply for the fact that it's actually real.
I like this. IF someone were to question you about AI you can show the negative... end of discussion. Perfect.
Film is so deeply personal for me because I grew up shooting and developing my own 35mm film. I’ll always love film.
Definitely a connection to it when you've grown up shooting film.
Digital to me is distance, I can go further and take more shots (especially on my bike), and I have no repercussions for messing up. But film is slowing it down, taking a break, and thinking about every shot and every roll and waiting to get it developed at the local photo shore down the road to see the results.
Totally, it's about slowing down and being in the moment.
Hello,
Film photographer here, but a slow one.
I really like your insights and your view about film photoghaphy. First video ans great editing. Subscribed.
Thanks for subscribing, lots more to come!
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.
Glad to hear you kept all your cameras and lenses! I'm sure some people regret getting rid of them when digital took over the market.
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'?
@rickymcc8624 wow. I'm sorry that you feel that way.
"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...
@@jlwilliamsdon’t live for others.
I really like to shoot film. Lots of options allow a choice of the mood based on the way certain films capture the scene. Then there is the light small physical aspect of the cameras. I also have the nostalgia of where I was when I shot all those rolls of film during my travels around the world. Those negatives are still in storage in my home. The camera is too. I still use that first camera today seven decades later. It still works just as well as it did when I bought it. Mostly mechanical except for one tiny battery that lasts for years without replacement. Shooting film just requires one to know the basics of proper exposure. None of the complicated settings that are necessary with the modern digital cameras. As long as film is available, I'll be shooting film.
Love to hear how long you've been shooting with that camera. It goes to show how well built these cameras were.
I didn't mention that that first Nikon F was in a wreck where it flew off the seat and hit the dash before dropping to the floor. It only bent the filter frame with no damage to the camera or lens. I had it checked and everything was still within standards. It has never been cleaned. Can't say that would be the case with modern digital cameras.@@keelanbourdon
Nicely put, and all true. When I look at a prospective shot with film, the world feels different. Slower, more patient. I think that’s healthy.
I agree, totally the right way to go about art
With film you are more involved like records, depending on your camera a light meter may be needed all part of the event, when you look at old photos one of the things that makes them special is the rarity the vast amount of digital images will never be like that, now there are more photos of an hour old baby than the average person had in a lifetime when film was the only option. I wonder if using old lenses on mirrorless cameras has encouraged people to try them on the cameras they were made for. One thing I have realised is I need to go back to my old habit of making notes about each shot, by the time you get to the end of a film you have no idea what is on it especially if it is a half frame camera
I've thought about making notes for each shot. Would be a great way to not only keep track, but to also be a lot more aware of each shot that I'm taking.
Nicely put. Great video.
Thanks for watching!
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.
I've used mirrorless cameras with nice physical dials, but also with great autofocus. Very nice to use.
I have negatives from 1990. My oldest digital images are all deleted/corrupted . That is why I shoot film.
There's something comforting knowing that your photos exist in the "real world".
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.
Yes I enjoyed shooting film for 20+ years and it certainly taught me to get it right in camera. But after shooting digitally, for almost 20 years, I could never really go back. Multiple reasons, cost, convenience, greater control, sheer immediacy to name but a few. I still have two old Nikon cameras an F3 and a F5 with a couple of manual focus lenses. They feel neat in the hand and I can imagine shooting with them occasionally, for nostalgia. But full time reversion from digital? No way - even if my current outstanding Sony kit lacks the same emotional connection I had with Nikon and Kodachrome or Velvia.
Shooting film is definitely a very different process when compared to digital. For my generation (gen z), we grew up knowing digital photography, so there is a novelty to shooting film that we haven't got the chance to experience yet.
Love the vid. Hope you picked up that film canister lid you flicked off. lol.
Yep I picked it up, (I popped it off like that for dramatic effect lol.) Glad you enjoyed the vid!
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 do agree, film cameras are very cool to fiddle with. Gotta love the tactile feel of them.
Love, love film photography!!! ❤
Yesssssss
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
Thanks for checking it out! Imperfection is closer to perfection than perfection in my books. If that makes sense lol.
I shot on film from 1984 to 2007 (although I bought my first digital camera in 1997) and I will never return to it. I still have my old film cameras and I still buy some more, just for that feeling and for nostalgia. But I haven't put a roll of film in a camera in many years.
I will never trade the flexibility of digital for the rigidity of film. Back in the days of film, I used to carry four cameras: one with ISO 100 BW film, one with ISO 800 BW film, one with ISO 200 colour film and one with medium format film. Plus the corresponding lenses, flashes and accessories. Film cameras were heavy, especially the medium format cameras. Going for a photoshoot was a hassle. Not to mention how many filters I needed to have, as the light changed and I could not set the white balance otherwise.
Now, I can carry my normal full frame DSLR and my IR converted DSLR. Plus the lenses and accessories. And I have the peace of mind knowing I can cover any photographic situation.
I think nowadays, film photography is for the ones who did not experience it back in its glory years. It helps the photographers to better understand photography. Also, it helps with the creativity. Having limited frames, you really need to think twice and make sure that's what you want, before you press that release button.
As for me, the film photography taught me exactly that: not to be wasteful. To make absolutely sure I like what I see through the viewfinder, before I take the shot.
Even to this day, my auto image review is set to Off. And I almost never check my pictures on the camera screen, after I take them. Exceptions apply if I take pictures of people.
The limited frames is the big pull for me. I think limitation can sometimes bring out the best creativity. Also, I grew up only shooting digital, so there is something about shooting film that feels different to me, (and presumably other people in my generation as well.)
Pick up not just 1, or 2 but 3 film cameras this year!! And I’m loving this new hobby
More the merrier, glad you're enjoying film!
Thanks for a intresting video. Cheers from Poland :)
I'm glad you enjoyed it! Lots more to come.
It would be interesting to see you revisit this topic after, say, a year, and see if you are still as interested in film photography as you are now. I'm one of those old people who started doing film photography back in the era when film was the only way to do photography (did my own darkroom work as well), and I still make film photos occasionally when I want a "nostalgic" look, or want to use an old camera that I like, or just have some time on my hands. But when I look honestly at my film photos vs. photos I've made with a digital camera, the film photos are just shockingly bad. That's partly because of the limitations of films, but mostly because of the "generational loss" the image goes through when it gets converted to a digital file so it can be posted on social media or made into a UA-cam video -- which is 100% necessary, because for most of today's creators the whole point is to let everyone know that they are film photographers and say "look how special I am." I'm pretty sure we're at most 12 to 24 months away from a time when anyone who walks into a curated-craft-beer bar and announces him/herself as a film photographer will collect nothing but amused smirks from his/her fellow 20somethings, and then somebody will say, "Oh, I remember when I used to do that," and everyone will chuckle sardonically...
I've been shooting film for over 5 years now, and I feel like I've picked up a life long hobby. I've seen it go from basically no one my age shooting film, to all of the sudden this explosion in popularity where it seems like everyone in my age group is shooting on it. The core reason I started shooting film is because I was getting burnt out working as a professional videographer/photographer. I was losing my passion for the art, and I needed something else to reignite my creativity. Film did that for me. While I think you're right that this is a trend that will probably fade out as all trends do, I'll be sticking with it. I love what film brings for me creatively, and I could care less what the trends are surrounding it lol. The price increases with film have been quite annoying, but I'm also glad so many people have been taking an interest in photography like this. It's really cool to see people think more about the photos and moments their capturing, rather than just taking a thousand photos on their phones and not really paying attention to what they're shooting. I'd more than glad to re-visit the topic in 2 years time and see how the landscape is for film photographers. I think it'd be very interesting.
I started my film photography in 1958, using my Dad's camera. He bought me my first camera a couple of years later (he wanted his own camera back)
Wow, that's awesome
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.
Would love to get more into dark room developing with an enlarger. I heard it's like magic seeing your photography come to life on photo paper.
@@keelanbourdon there’s nothing else like it
Digital has become too perfect and easy to use(weight aside in some cases). The z6ii delivers much more than I expect and need as a hobbyist knowing also that you can tweak easily in post any blunders. I am taking up film now because I want to slow down and savour the process as well as the result up to and including development ( printing I'll pass to others for now). You get more in the moment and then anticipate the results. Had too much fun shooting with a 20 yearold point & shoot this year to ignore film photography. Besides using adapted older lenses with focus peaking on mirroless is a joy. It's a win win situation.
I would love to adapt some older lenses to my newer mirrorless cameras. They always give such a great look to the photos.
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.
Pre-visualize is a great way to describe it. It's as if you're taking the picture in your head long before you actually click the shutter.
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.
Yep, there's definitely some downsides to film. I get why digital is used professionally now, but as a hobby, it's hard to beat.
All I really want to shoot right now is 120 (Pentax 67, RB67, Mamiya 645)
120 would be awesome to shoot! I've only shot 135, but planning on checking out some larger formats down the line.
I'm developing, scanning and printing everything myself at home so the 6x7 (or 6x4x5) just has so much more detail and quality. way more expensive though lol
@@keelanbourdon
Well done. Very thoughtful.
Thanks for watching!
I love the secret life of Walter Mitty! Great video man, keep going!
Thanks man, more videos to come!
In my case. I have never owned a film camera and I wanted to experiment with this medium. The images coming out the camera look sort of old (vintage…) but the proportions are pleasing compared to what you get from an iPhone. This is most noticeable when you try to take pictures of buildings in a city, the iPhone is just awful for proportions.
I haven't done a lot of city photography with my film camera, but there is something to that vintage look.
Excellent editing. I like what I'm seeing
Glad you liked it! I worked hard on this one lol
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.
That is what I love about film, how true to life the photo looks.
Amen to Kodachrome 25. I loved it for 35mm.
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.
For me, film photography means that I have to deal more consciously with my surroundings, that I create the image composition in my head that I then want to capture when I release the shutter, that I can consciously and unconsciously perceive details, moments and situations without blindly passing them by. Of course, this makes photography slower than digital, but you're more likely to have an eye for something special instead of shooting in continuous fire, as is unfortunately mostly the case with digital photography. This is not nostalgia, but much more, namely what photography really means, quite apart from nostalgic feelings that others might still ridicule. This also improves and sharpens your own photographic skills.
Of course, this does not mean that digital photography is worth less, quite the opposite. However, you should use both to improve your photography in general and to really know what you are actually doing.
I find I just shoot completely different with a film camera. Digital to me always feels like I'm "on the job", where with film, I feel like I can take as long as I want to find the the right moment to press the shutter.
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.
I bet you learned a lot in those years eh. Ever thought about making some UA-cam videos to share your knowledge?
@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 guess in my case it's nostalgia I had film cameras until the early 2000s I recently found a Mamiya C33 like the one I had 50 years ago it brings back memories of those days when I had a darkroom and the joy of the process of taking the pictures and developing the film.i do scan and edit the pictures digitally I don't have room for a darkroom anymore but I try to edit them the same way as back then exposure and dodging and burning maybe tweak the contrast just like picking different grades of paper back then
My youngest son is getting into photography and he only wants to shoot film I guess the acorn doesn't fall too far from the tree after all
I haven't gotten a chance to print in a darkroom yet, but I would love to do that. Seems like such a cool experience!
@@keelanbourdon
I had a friend that had a darkroom and taught me all the basics seeing the image start to appear on the paper is almost magical
I love shooting film. I started that way a very long time ago. I love the cameras and their basic simplicity. HOWEVER, I also shoot a lot of digital, and I never shoot "thousands of pictures and choose one or two". I shoot about as many frames with digital as I did with film; maybe a few more because I can afford more "record shots".
Sounds like starting out with film created good photography habits.
I used film from 1960 to 2005. I haven't used a roll since. But right now, I'm digitizing 50+ year old negatives from my rather extensive high school yearbook work, preparing a digital video slide show for my 50th high school reunion (something I anticipated 50 years ago!). I truly wish we had used digital cameras back in 1969 to 1973! It would have made my job SO much easier. Film is an annoying medium. I spent my working life with three large professional photography companies. I ran production departments in both a film lab and a digital lab. Digital is far more important. It has democratized photography, because everyone who has a digital camera or smartphone can present to everyone else in minutes! Try that with film. You can do it, but the time and expense involved are impractical.
I think for most people, it's the process > the practicality of it. If someone is shooting for convivence, they'd probably shoot on their phone or a DSLR
If it wasn’t for the expense and inconvenience, I would never shoot film.
The fact you can digitize those negatives 50 years on is actually one of the strengths of film. Archival of digital media is a massive hassle. File formats change, hard disks fail, storage media becomes obsolete and data gets corrupted.
Digital is important and useful and if I want to take a silly picture and share it, I'll 100% do it on my phone camera, but the medium has a nonzero impact on how the work is consumed. If I see a scene that I want to make permanent, my film camera manages to do that better, regardless of the hassle, or maybe even because of the hassle.