Is shooting film really worth the effort in 2025? Plus a look at the best Sebastiao Salgado book
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- In this video I will share with you some of the things that made me consider if film was still worth shooting in 2025 and we look at one of my most important photography books.
*****
SilverChrome Profiles for Lightroom Classic
jeffascough.co...
*****
The bag featured in the video is my Oberwerth Photo Backpack Sling in Brown leather. Oberwerth have kindly given me an affiliate link and discount code for our subscribers and viewers.
oberwerth.com/...
Use the Code Alice10 for 10% off your order.
*****
Cameraworks UK (Leica repair)
www.camerawork...
LincolnScan (Nikon Coolscan repair)
lincolnscan.co.uk
*****
Amazon affiliate links for the book mentioned in the video. We get a small commission from Amazon if you purchase through these links. It doesn't cost you any more money and you will be supporting the channel. So, thank you.
EXODUS by Sebastiao Salgado
Amazon UK: amzn.to/4hmcaPo
Amazon US: amzn.to/4hAQIWo
*****
For 1-2-1 tuition and online sessions with Jeff
www.jeffascoug...
*****
Jeff website: jeffascough.com
Sarah website: sarahascough.com
Instagram: / walklikealice
Privileged to have had dinner with Salgado a few years ago (we are fortunate to own one of his prints) - a great memory! Lovely man, very approachable and no ego. I enjoy film because it means I use some tactile, beautiful gear and also because it makes me slow down and think about the shot. I shoot much more on digital and am trying to make myself slow down to film pace, which is not as easy as it should be!
Really enjoy this channel, great mix of quality content.
Thanks. Glad you like the channel 🙏
We're about the same age. I shot my first roll of film in 1977 and was hooked immediately. We're old enough to have experienced both film and digital photography extensively, giving us a unique perspective on their aesthetics and differences. For those born after 2000, it's a completely different story. They lack that firsthand experience with film and the appreciation for its unique qualities. To them, a camera is synonymous with a phone, and that's about it.
Or they are now discovering film and believing they invented it 😉
I returned to film one year ago, then I bought a 5x7 camera and now I have a 8x10 camera with a petzval lens from 1868. I love the sensuality of film, the bokeh is magic. Film gives 'timeless' more than digital
Salgado is absolutely amazing. Esp. Migration. Oh how I envy you for your signed copy ;) As a semi-retired fashion/beauty photographer, I now have a bit more time at hand. I’ve always shot film next to digital, for my personal work. About a year ago, I decided to not scan my films, but go all the way and print in a darkroom. I unpacked all my stuff and dedicated part of my garage to it. The joy of the print process and the chemicals slowly uncovering the final result is so satisfying, that it reignited my joy for photography all over again.
That’s good to hear. I got fed up with darkrooms back in the early 90s. I was running a pro darkroom and printing hundreds of prints a month. I got burned out. Never saw the “magic” that others did.
Hi Jeff excellent video and Transcript. I do have a question for you. I’m just getting interested in street photography I would like to get your recommendation on a good book possibly from Amazon that I could get for myself. Thank you.
FIVE reasonably priced photography books that belong in your collection
ua-cam.com/video/LRLf21TJyz8/v-deo.html
Love the format of your new videos Jeff!
Cheers, thank you 🙏
I love the process of film. It’s also a counter to the digital world that we live in.
Great video thank you! I shoot film because my Olympus om-2n cost me 120 eur, my enlarger cost me 70 euros and I do have a feeling I am creating something with my own hands. And once I print photos in darkroom there is nothing like it… lot of fun.
I haven't been in a darkroom for over 30 years. I started my career in one. Maybe five years. I developed and printed thousands of films and prints. I guess i never saw the appeal of darkroom printing after that. It was always a chore.
I’ve recently returned to film, following a 20 odd year hiatus, and it feels like my photography has become whole, a void I didn’t detect while shooting digital has been filled. I’ve just bought an enlarger as well and that process in itself feels more real than the digital printing I had been doing.
I only have Salgado’s “Africa”, its images haunt me, and, lik you, I can only marvel at his genius and be inspired to work harder in the hopes of getting any photographs even close to those in that book. Great video, worthy of my sub!
Thank you. I have Africa too. Great book.
I don't know about other, but I myself plan on shooting film in the future if I could afford it and it still exist. In the meantime I'm practicing my photography with digital. Thank you for the video. 👍
My film story... I started shooting film when I was a teenager in the 1980s. My mom would sometimes let me use her Konica SLR, but mostly I used a Vivitar point and shoot to take pictures while camping and doing outdoors stuff with friends all the way through college. I stopped taking pictures when I was working, got into other things (motorcycles). But then when I was a grad student I bought a Zorki 4 rangefinder with a 50mm Jupiter lens at the Budapest flea market, shot a roll of film and I'll be damned but the thing worked! Fell in love with shooting range finders, and owned a Cosina-Voightlander Bessa R for a while (b/c TTL light meter is keen). But I never developed my own film. Again, once I was working as a visiting assistant professor in the early naughties photography fell by the wayside.
I started shooting digital mainly using a camera phone, then in 2021 I bought a used Fuji X100 and loved it. Same rangefinder vibes, and editing digital was kind of interesting. I was mainly taking pictures of my kids and the local landscape. Then this year I found out my colleague in art and design was teaching a film photography class and I signed up for it to learn how to do the dark room work. Its been great! We started making photographs and pinhole cameras. Developing the photograms, the pinhole negatives and then the pinhole positives was magic! In class today I made my first contact sheet from 35mm film and my first print. And, I shot this roll of film on the same Zorki 4 I bought like 25 years ago! I am sure that darkroom work is not as exciting after you've developed your hundredth roll or thousandth print, but I am totally stoked every time I get to go into the darkroom and have no idea what I am going to do after the semester is over to keep going with film.
said it once and I ll say it again, Sebastiao is THE G.O.A.T
I started using Fp4 in 1979 and I still remember the excitement of the first development. When I seriously switched to the digital Canon 20d, I moved on. When you talk about that feeling of deep frustration when seeing Salgado's works, I fully recognize myself. I have many books by Salgado but I struggle to look at them precisely because they make me lose confidence in myself, I know it's incredible but I can confess it to those who have experienced it like me.
Salgado was asked once how someone could learn to take photos like him. He replied that you had to be 70 years old, raised in Brazil, have a disabled son, studied economics, have his parents, his wife, etc etc. basically nobody can take photos like him because they aren’t him. So take photos that you can do and don’t worry about it.
@@WalkLikeAlice I try every single day
I like the anticipation of seeing a roll of film when you’ve self developed it yourself. That opening of the tank, the removal of the take up spool…. that, have I haven’t I got something…… that’s hard to beat. I on,y have a little Fed 4 and it’s so nice to just switch off with something so simple.
Yeah Salgado… he’s something else. Another great video Geoff.
Thanks Derren
Jeff 😉
My dad used to take me (little boy) with him to his small improvised darkroom in the basement. Simply was a part of our vegetable storage room and the installation must have made mum go crazy…. this was 1975. So it was magic happening there and it got me completely. Shot my first films back then with a Kodak Box and have probably spent all my pocket money on it. Now after many years in the digital realm I am going back to bnw film - re-startet this end of last year. So here I am with my old M6 / 35mm lens and plenty of Ilford HP5 experiencing exactly what you describe. Slowness, balancing, looking at things differently. Feels really good - giving similar picture quality, rewards higher portion „good“ pics an a great great feeling.
That's great!!
Great video! I’m loving the channel.
Glad you enjoy it! Thank you
For the last 9 years or so I have been shooting film consistently. But during those 9 years I was experimenting with a multitude of cameras, formats, film stocks etc. A lot of fun to be sure, but also maybe counter productive from an artistic point of view. Last year I took on a project of shooting 50 rolls of Tri-X with my 50mm Summicron over the course of 50 weeks with the final goal of making 50 prints. It was a profound experience, not only in re-instilling a much higher level of discipline to the way I shoot but also providing a much higher awareness of what I gravitate towards photographically. At this point I simply couldn't imagine not shooting film! I do still use my digital cameras, but only when it is impractical to travel with my film on an extended trip. The other important lesson I learned from the project is just how beneficial restricting oneself to a limited range of gear can be.
When we teach photographers we find the gear obsession is the first obstacle we have to overcome. Too much gear often leads to confusion so your approach is a really good one.
That's an impressive project.
Watching this on a train with my beloved M2 and a goggled 35mm Summaron 2.8 + a bag of 20 bulk rolled Kodak double X 35mm film. Absolutely love everything about shooting film and will continue while I’m healthy enough to physically manage it - tried digital and it just isn’t for me - it sounds like things will be easier for you now you’ve got the cameras serviced and the scanner setup functional - it’s always a faff getting a film workflow setup but once it’s in place I find it pretty straightforward (I develop at home and dslr scan my rolls) - hope you follow whatever you enjoy and makes you happy mate and look forward to seeing the results in future - stay snapping 🥳📸
Thank you
Loved my M2. Had a modified goggled Summilux 1.4 35mm as well.
@ nice one - I think that summilux costs a small fortune now!
624 / 5.000
Hi Jeff, I started taking photos in 1973, set up a lab at home and took and developed black and white photos until 2006. After a 12-year break, I started taking digital photos again. In 2024, I dug out my Nikon FE and started taking film photos again. Just the day before yesterday, I posted analog photos on Instagram again.
HP5 boosted and developed with Microphen.
The whole process from taking pictures to the finished image is very relaxing and a wonderful, creative process. I'll stick with it and work with analog and digital in parallel.
Glad to hear you are enjoying the process.
I shoot film mostly and digital secondary. I love film for all the reasons you state - have to take more time, more thought goes into each one and as I also developed my own negatives it's part of a process from the capture to waiting for the end results. I find it also helps my digital as I slow down before taking each shot with digital too. I shoot both 35mm and 120 and the latter I really slow down the composition as only get 10 - 15 shots depending on the camera. I shoot HP5+ and Fomapan 200 mostly and a roll of colour every now and again. I still have my very first camera, an Olympus OM2n and use it on a regular basis, I had it out last weekend doing some street photography, it's a great camera even today.
I’m new to photography and even newer to film. I have only shot and developed one roll of film so far on Ilford HP5 400. Thanks for your story and thanks for introducing me to Sebastiao Salgado.
My pleasure.
A majority of my work from last year was shot on film with a Nikon F3hp paired with a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2. I usually shot Ilford HP5, XP2, or Kodak Tmax 3200. For Christmas 2024, I picked up a Leica M 262 and a Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.5 lens. I haven’t touched film since. The 262 gives me just enough digital convenience, but gives me some limitations and experience of using a film camera. It’s been extremely enjoyable.
I still shoot film. I'm 67 years old now. My father gave me a Kodak instamatic camera for Christmas when I was about ten years old. I have no idea how many cameras I own now but I mostly shoot with my Nikon FM3A and my 500 series Hasselblad. I never bought a pro level digital. I only have a Leica D Lux 7 which became my Polaroid because I can fire my strobes using a pocket wizard on its hot shoe, directly choose f stop and shutter speed with its regular style controls and produce a test shot.
Before digital people took photographs to get a print. Favorite prints went into photo albums or in a frame to display. Today people snap digital pictures to view on their phone screens, or on their computer screens, or to send in a message to pop out on a friends phone screen, or to post on a social media site. That's all good but I'm fussy and some things won't change for me especially with black and white photography. My favorite thing is a well exposed film shot accurately processed film to create a beautiful negative that produces a beautiful black and white print without much fuss. There's nothing more beautiful than that well done silver print from a negative.
Twenty years shooting film and twenty years shooting digital, for a living. I now only shoot film and Polaroid, but I don't scan, I wet print. I just wanted to get pictures off a computer screen; to load a roll, process it, contact sheet then print on Ilford fibre. Personally, it's incomparable to digital black and white. Digital is fantastic, but having been around film in the first half of my career, it has a nostalgia too. You can't beat a well printed silver print, and you'll never get the same satisfaction from a print that comes out of a machine.
Awesome video. Especially the Salgado session. Next level that man.
Started on film. Struggled as I lived in country with almost developing facilities so was literally up to one year between shot and the developing. No feedback loop meant no improvement. Then digital came, my photography transformed. Now I wish I had the money for film, but that's not my luck, so 100% happy to be with digital. I have figured a way to process using DxO and Silverchrome. Nobody can pick the difference.
Thank you. Glad to hear that SilverChrome is helping you get the results you want. I tried to get as close to film as I could with the grain etc.
@@WalkLikeAlice It is actually very good. And I appreciate your dedication to bother coming up with something, and offering it others. I find that if you shoot on high ISO (with ND), especially if you can get some natural movement blur in the image, as well as some "unfocus", then apply silverchrome in post, you can get some incredible results. Some that even I have to remind myself "no, I shot that on digital." Top work mate.
Salgado now shoots digital, as do most pros. I shoot both digital and film. I remember back in '77, working at a camera store and buying a brand new Nikon F2. That precision tool was amazing to hold and take photos. Took it everywhere.
After I bought a Nikon D2X I never used my 35mm F3 again. Completely obsolete. I would like to have had a Lieca film camera back in the day, but too expensive. Instead, after my Canon was stolen, I had a couple Canonets. These were rangefinder tourist film cameras. I found that if I pointed at the ground and pressed the button part way that exposure for slides was usually pretty good. Focusing I always beat my partner shooting with a Nikon 2. Rangefinders have brighter viewfinders and focusing by aligning the yellow image with the full color image was really fast. The leaf shutter had no discernible lag. This is what Henri Cartier Bresson meant by Decisive Moment. For a Nikon film SLR the 'decisive moment' was always a bit before the shutter actually clicked. (I knew this but instead of buying another Canonet or a Leica I bought a Nikon F3... may be the reason no one's ever heard of me....) The Nikon Digital SLR X or DX had a shutter lag like that of the Leica (and the Canonet). I rented one and photographed a Model United Nations day at USC, high school kids doing presentations. I caught every single fleeting facial expression.
Micro expressions are about 1/10th of a second, so two photographers see the twinkle starting to happen... they both press the button... the DSLR (some of them but not all.....) captures it! the film SLR lifts the mirror and snap.... right after the expression is over.... Every time.
Here's what I know from being a very skilled B&W film photographer. You can get everything with a digital. Maybe the last holdout might be 8x10 negatives. I used to shoot those too. The biggest issue is printing. Neutral gray is great, but I usually slightly sepia toned my prints. So getting profiles into a printer that can give you the tints (they don't have to be sepia) and the qualities you want might be the hardest part.
The other thing is that a good DSLR has a phenomenal range. Shooting transparencys/slide film back in the day, 5 stops below exposure is pure black. B&W negative had a larger range, but this cutting off the image is a form of editing, it immediately applies to a film image a selection. You can get this, but not that. My Nikon D850 has a range of about 15 stops. I can shoot a 5 stop underexposed image, thumbnail is pure black, and then in Lightroom move a slider to get a normally exposed image. (A bit more noise.)
What this means is that where you used to look at a contact sheet or slides on a light box and had a first 'aesthetic impression' handed to you, with digital, what the first thumbnail gives you is what you saw. So the first level of change hasn't been done. It's easy to just want to include everything...
Good images. Slowing down is a great observation. That's what 4x5 and 8x10 cameras did for me. Knowing this, with digital you have to slow yourself down. Jay Maisel used to go out with his assistant to deliver jobs. The assistant stayed in the VW while Jay went up to Ad agency. The assistant complained that he never got to go to the ad agency. Jay said, but the wait time is time for you to shoot.
Shoot what??? So next time the assistant delivered the job and Jay stayed behind with the Beetle and made the photo of the Chrysler building in the side mirror.... So what I do is have a moment and decide, I'm going to make some photographs now and then where ever I am I figure out where there are images and start working them. I learned this more from Weston than Maisel.
I have no interest in ever shooting film again, except maybe 8x10, but even then I'd only do that to compare the results with the largest format digital camera I can afford. Darkroom work? If I could hire someone to do it, sure. I used to spend 10 hours a day for weeks to get 10 prints. It was fussing with exposure, chemicals, dodging and burning, washing, drying, then bleaching and toning and washing, and flattening. 95% of it just labor to get what I can do digitally in minutes. (It's also why I've never done wet plate colloidal photography or Daguerreotypes.)
I used to photograph works of art using an 8x10, color transparencies. These old paintings usually needed +2/3rds of a stop exposure and then a Flashing of the transparency. Putting a blank card out of focus in front of the lens, with the exact right exposure and color balanced lights to bring up the shadows to see detail. Not far enough... no change, a bit too far... the shadows get milky.. Reshoot. I can do this on my iPhone and if it gets milky, I just move the slider back. No one can do this with film without spending several hours doing the tests. Haskell Wexler used to do open shadows on movies he shot. You can sometimes only see these during the first release of the film. Film of course. No one else bothered. No one except other cinematographers and me ever noticed.
@ It's actually the D2X which is obsolete. Many folks are using the F3.
When Cartier-Bresson referred to the "Decisive moment" he was talking about the point when all the elements in a frame come together. He was largely concerned with geometry or "rhythm" as he called it. This had absolutely nothing to do with camera speed. 🙂
@@WalkLikeAlice Yes, about Cartier Bresson. That's what he said, but it was the Leica's fast rangerfinder focusing and almost zero lag leaf shutter that made it possible. I'm sure he'd have agreed.
And the only thing obsolete about the D2X is the mirror, which have to operate much faster than any SLRs. After several years mine froze. But ten months for a Leica repair? That's one guy, what's going to happen when he retires?
@@WillN2Go1 Bresson for the most part didn't use the rangefinder to focus, only compose. He had two dots marked on his lenses for certain distances and he would set those. Leaf shutters are mainly found in lenses not in M series cameras. The Leica is quick, yes, but pressing a shutter is more about anticipation, which is what he was good at. There were photographers around at the same time who are as good as Bresson but who never shot with a Leica rangefinder. The rangefinder suited his style and technique and that's how it should be, but the rangefinder wasn't the reason behind his meaning of the decisive moment. In fact, the Leica had more to do with his now infamous "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" quote.
I've studied Bresson's life and work for nearly forty years.
As for the D2X, you won't be able to get parts for it any longer. Batteries will follow suit. You won't be able to get them serviced. They are effectively as good as an old VHS player. The Leica repair system for M film cameras is very healthy. Simple cameras and easy to fix with lots of people working on them. It's just Leica themselves who can't cope with the servicing for some bizarre reason.
Hi enjoy your videos very much. The 2 pics you showed , I personally couch not tell the film from the film. Great job
Thank you
Hi Jeff! I just started shooting film at the beginning of last year because I wanted the experience and to better understand the process. I'm currently in love with black and white film photography and over the past year have gotten a Nikon F3 and a Leica M6. I am developing the film myself and if I had to use a lab I probably wouldn't use film quite honestly. I love developing it myself. I love Ilford FP4, HP5 and Kodak T-max. I initially purchased a 35mm scanner which took forever to scan a roll and I was fighting dust the entire time. Later, I purchased the Valoi Easy 35 system and it's really wonderful and I can scan an entire roll within 5 minutes and there's literally no dust (I bought the dust attachment as well). I still have a couple of digital Leica's but have barely used them since getting into film. It's such an accomplishment to have a photo that has been taken on film with good exposure, developed and scanned at home and ultimately made into a print. I use the Epson SC 900 printer and it's been fantastic as fun to learn about various papers for printing. I definitely take fewer pictures on film and am much more mindful about if a picture is worth taking. Salgado's book, "Genesis", is on my bookshelf. You have a great book recommendations which are so inspiring!
F3 and M6. Great choices. I have an F3 and I should get it serviced as I haven’t used it for about 35 years!! Your system sounds great and most importantly it works for you.
I shoot medium format film, but since I got an M11-D I don't really pick up my 35mm because it gives me a similar experience to film. I also use your presets, which I like very much
That’s great thank you.
Those Salgado photographs prove the value of film in this digital age - a different way of seeing. Black and white film offers an exceptional tonal range and grain structure that just can't be beaten. Thanks for the tips on the repair guys as well.
No problem. Thank you for watching
I used to live in an area where it was a two hour drive to my closest film lab and I would have to work out when I went down to take film to get developed, now I live closer to the film lab. This year I've decided to use up all the film that I have before buying anymore (three rolls of 120 of different brands and four (or five?) of a couple of different brands in 35mm. I do love film, it makes me think do I need to take this photograph? I enjoy winding it on, paying attention to how it goes on the take up spool. Enjoyed looking at Sebastiao Salgado's book, thanks Jeff.
🙏🙏
I still shoot film but being honest these days it's only for channel content I don't shoot film for anything else. I enjoy using old cameras and the whole nature of film photography but for anything else it's digital all the way. I'm using the Leica Q2 currently my fave carry all day set up.
I share your passion for Salgado. I have my original copy of Migrations bought when it was first published. His work was and continues to be revelatory and deeply influential for me.
Have you seen The Salt of the Earth?
@ Yes. Great documentary. My first exposure - pun intended - was Workers which I picked up in 1994.
@@adamalthus Great book. I have that one. I think they've updated that one too.
Shooting film is about all those things you motioned + if you shoot color it’s about color gradients/resolution/noise etc. the colors on film + scanned via CCD are just plain better in my opinion. Of course this depends on the film you use but let’s just use Provia 100f as the benchmark, and yea it’s just so much more pleasing.
The biggest challenge I’m finding with film, compared to digital, is the ISO limitation. Light in the middle of the day is fine, but at golden hour I’m finding the 400 & 800 iso limits very challenging. I tried pushing the ISO by a stop or two, so you set the iso at 800 on 400 speed film, which got me a fest exposure but the grain gets a little bit too much in color, and the mid range tones got lost.
Yes digital spoiled us in that respect. I bought fast lenses back in the day and used those wide open once the light dropped.
I shoot almost exclusively on digital. As photography is a hobby, film + development is a luxury. That said, I still shoot film every now and then - normally BW on an old Olympus Trip 35. It's a nostalgia thing for me and connects me to my childhood and memories of my father teaching me to photograph with film. Plus, it makes me slow down. The quality is less important than that experience.
Here I am looking at a roll of 6x6 negs drying , I can see already that with the violent backlighting my foregrounds are very under exposed , yes I could have used a grad filter but I try to travel light , own goal by me this time . The lack of dynamic range in film is probably the hardest element to live with , but when I get it right I think the film just sings ! Frustration is part of the process , if all I did was scan and display in a digital realm I would have gone back to digital but I have a darkroom and a seriously good enlarger ( de vere 45) . I love making prints so I love a good negative to work with
Dynamic range is an interesting thing. With highlights, film is far superior. I haven't been in a darkroom for over 30 years. Scanning is always my thing with film. Have you seen the Platon doc on Netflix? His whole look is based on his scanner.
I missed film the first time around and got in to photography in the digital age. There's no logical reason to shoot film these days but the creative process isn't always about being the most logical, doing it the easy way or the cheapest way. My go to film stock is Ilford xp2 for B&W and Kodak ultramax for colour.
I primarily shot Tri-X for 400 and Acros for 100 along with Portra, 400D and 800T for color. I develop BW myself in D-76 or XTOL to control grain and HC-110. I recently tried Acufine which increases film speed and really like the results for Tri-X exposed and developed at 800. I will add this to my rotation as well.
HC-110 was always the developer I used back in the day. Went down that rabbit hole via an Ansel Adams book. Ended that part of my career with TMax dev and TMax films.
I bought Exodus a few years back. Phenomenal images like all his photography.
Salgado is the first talent I seen and was blown away with back in 98 when I started to shoot film. Legendary
He is.
I love to shoot large format. I enjoy the process and the resolution blows away digital.
5x4?
I now reserve film for portraits or some family occasions, it’s too expensive for me to shoot full time now. Ilford hp5 is my preferred film as it takes pretty much anything you can throw at it.
Wim Wenders made an incredible documentary about Salgado called “salt of the earth”.
His images in Africa are probably the most emotionally charged I have ever seen.
I should add I grew up shooting film as I was a 70s kid,
I’ve mentioned Salt of the Earth several times in the comments. There’s another doc called ‘Meeting Sebastiao Salgado’ which is also worth a watch. You see his place in Paris. His prints. Anecdotes about Bresson. Really good doc.
@@WalkLikeAlice thanks, I ll check that other documentary out for sure !
I shoot both film & digital, I like film for the simplicity of the process & slowing me down, I shoot tri-x BW & Potra both 400 iso, still I have to admit digital is a lot easier especially when changing from color to BW. Talking about gear I shoot film on Nikon Leica digital on Fuji & Nikon
I was so pissed off at waiting over a year to get my M9 repaired, I sold it when I got it back. Now I regret it.
I saw that Salgado show at ICP in NYC in 2001 and it was mind-blowing.
Fortunately we haven’t had any problems with M9 stuff taking too long.
I retired wedding photography after 14 years. It was 99% digital. I've sold off my digital equipment. I now have several Nikon cameras and a handle full of lenses. I recently bought the Leica MP, with 35mm, 50mm Voigtlander. I shoot mostly trix-x at 1600. I like the esthetics, the process, loading unloading, that I love. I started shooting film as a kid in early 1970's but never mastered it. I feel like I'm continuing the process where I left off. I also don't like the perfect, clinical look of digital.
I just started film for the first time ever purely out of anger for the redicoulous prices everybody is asking for new or used cameras and the very limited compact, fun to use and appealing options.
I still shoot a high volume of bw film & develop it myself, with the end goal hopefully being a silver gelatin print. My composition is generally better on film because it forces me to slow down and think. As for favorite films I like Foma 400, mainly for economical reasons but also for the high contrast look if you combine it with the right lens. However good old Tri X is usually not far behind.
Tri-X is about 4x more expensive than Foma in the UK. I always shoot Foma. I think it scans really well. Although, it does feel like when we used to bulk load film into canisters back in college. You are never sure how many frames you are going to get, the film never stays tight in the canister and it's easy to rip off the spool if you are too aggressive on that last frame wind on :D
@@WalkLikeAlice Oh I absolutely know what you talking about. It's always a suprise if you going to get 32 or 40 frames on a roll, and I had a a roll or two rip off the spool. Tri X is wacky expensive here in Asia as well, so it's only an occasional treat.
@@frankdekock1127 have you tried the kentmere emulsions? I've got a few rolls of Foma left, but I might try the Kentmere.
@@WalkLikeAlice Kentmere is another solid option. IMO it doesn't quite have the punch that Foma has. It does offer more leeway in the highlights and shadows. It really comes down to which look you prefer.
@@frankdekock1127 cheers, thank you. I tend to like the scans on the flat side and push the contrast in photoshop, so I'll give it a go.
I don't shoot film myself, mostly because it's so expensive here, but i really do like the look of it,especially b&w.
Salgado's work is great! Have you ever did a video about Sergio Larrain? I like his work even more.
No. I don’t have any of his work. I don’t recommend books that I don’t have.
@@WalkLikeAlice I didn't ask for a recommendation, I know his work.
Tnx, 1 word : inspiring.
Thank you. 🙏
I haven't shot film since 2005 I bought a Spotamatic SP11 camera kit mainly for the Takumar lenses that came with the camera. I put the camera in a backpack for two years until the Pentax 17 film camera came out I decided to take a look at the Spotamatic it needed new light Seals that I replaced the light for $ 8.00 in supplies. The first roll of film I shot all the pictures were properly espoused and in focus . I would rather have a full frame interchangeable lens camera than a half frame camera
The half frame camera was a bit of a weird choice from Pentax. Not many scanners or enlargers have those neg carriers but I guess you get 72 photos per roll and that doesn’t seem so bad economically.
Fantastic vidéo, and yes i practise film with om1 and fomapan 200 because is more magic and unperfect
Thank you
@WalkLikeAlice what about olympus om1 ?
Never used one but I know people that have and they loved them.
Film and B&W is art. No digital can “paint” like a film does. Digital though is so convenient and easy.. Love both, however film provides a wonderful and rewarding experience. Digital is great for clients, friends and family. Film is great for me :) Egoistic I know.. but art is a bit like that I guess. Thx for the video!
Thank you for watching 🙏
I shoot film only because it's the simplist path from what I want to shoot to final product. Shoot film stock I love, run through Silverfast with proper film preset, a bit of LR and done. I've never found a digital workflow that I consistenly like, and I've tried many. I just prefer the look of film and have a few favs (BW400CN, Tri-X, Delta 400) But, I'll go one further. For the past 6 months or more I've mainly been shooting BW Polaroid with my refurbished SX-70 (by Retrospekt). The film has gotten stellar and the look of Polaroid is something nothing else can emulate and I love it. I still shoot street with it, but I've had to change a few things on how I do it. Hard to be stealthy with an SX-70.
Ahh Polaroid. I have a book of Helmut Newton Polaroids. The colour stuff is epic. A bit different from the Polaroid cameras but the look it amazing.
@@WalkLikeAlice Yes, peel-apart Polaroids like Helmut shot were even better than the integral SX-70 stuff and I shot that until it was discontinued. The BW film had amazing tonal range. But now with the newer BW emulsions, I'm really enjoying my final output...and shooting an SX-70 is just one of the greatest photo experiences ever. :)
I do more landscape than street but have tried street with colour film (fuji 200 and kodak ektar 200) and found both slightly uninspiring to be honest. I am going to try b&w ilford 400 but if I don’t get on with that I’ll stick to digital.
I am using some velvia 50 in a pentax 645n for landscape and while some of the shots are really nice they don’t seem to be such vivid, saturated colours as what you read online.
For me the frustrating thing about it is not being able to get a shot out of the camera until I’ve finished the roll, which might be weeks. I know, you could say “well shoot more then”, but then I feel the urge to go and take some shots just to use up the film, and they then become worse shots than they otherwise would have been. This is what seems quite good about 4x5 film, cos it’s just in sheets, but those cameras look a bit of a PITA, the lens choices are limited and third party at that and you generally seem to have to ‘know what you’re doing with them’.
I personally don’t find the enjoyment of winding, manual operation etc to be a deciding factor because while it is enjoyable, the image is the most important thing at the end of the day , so operating something that I know is going to produce a worse image detracts from said enjoyment for me.
Maybe I find my colour street images uninspiring because I’m often shooting for the sake of having the enjoyment of operating the film camera, rather than because there’s something interesting going on. That’s possibly one of the most important effect gear has- the way it makes you think about how you operate - like what you said about slowing down.
I shoot colour film mainly because digital cannot replicate it well enough for me. I shoot Nikon FM2N and FE2. I wanted to go back to shooting slide film but the cost is way to much. I miss my Monday mornings at my local pro lab where we'd have a coffee and a chat with the staff and fellow pros whlie waiting for our precious negs to come out of the film processor. Good times. More shooting in those days.
I'm a conservative. I started with film in the late 80s with the film M6 etc. I cursed when digital emerged in the early to mid-2000s (?). I swore to myself that I would never migrate to digital. To the present day, I am firm with digital Leica M, full frame and medium format as the film is too costly to purchase and digitize. I still have rolls of 135 and 120 in my freezer - the cost of developing is insane. Now with digital, I take my time - slow and deliberate. And I enjoy the view. I'm moving on and I'm not looking back. Cheers
Same for me, it's not for results in the objective sense. It's the experience. I shoot an MP. My first film camera was a Minolta 126 rangefinder I bought in 1974. While I would never want to entirely lose the flexibility and possibilities offered by digital, film is a nice quiet place to go now and then, maybe mostly noistalgia. I like BW films that give me great contrast. Experimenting now with Ferrania P30.
Nostalgia for us older guys, trendy for the younger ones 😉
@ spot on, yes!
One of your best videos! TX for tip on Service guy in UK! See news. I am not sending my gear to USA! Being Canadian, guess not!
Salagado! I could never do what he does! We've met and I snapped Salgado and wife Leila.. Maybe the greatest photographer..! I've met a few old Magnum shooters.
Film! Film? I still shoot and develope film HP5 and scan on old scanner! Needs an XP! No! It's off line! Film is not worth it! But seeing images, I'm hooked! Bravo.
Thank you, Jason. I'm jealous if you got to photograph salgado. Have you watched Salt of the Earth?
I use a Canon F1 and shoot Tri-X and/or Portra 400. Been using film (35 mm) since 1979, family snap shots using 110 cameras before that.
Oh the F1. Never had one of those but I know a few folks that still have them. Great camera. My last canon film camera was the EOS 1V. I still have that.
@@WalkLikeAlice One reason that I shoot film now, is all my (old) gear is for film. I have an inexpensive Olympus point and shoot digital that I use sometimes, but cannot see spending the $ to go with a new digital setup of camera and lenses. Using film is expensive, but I use a lab for development and scans, then print off my computer, as I do not have a darkroom. Hybrid, but it works for me, b&w or color.
You’ve got 4 leica m6 rangefinders…forgive the obvious question, but why do you need 4? Do each have their own strengths/weaknesses? or are they just different focal lengths if not ILC?
I'm going to guess here - but as a wedding photographer, you need backups. Weddings are a one time thing. Also when shooting film, you can't just change settings like iso, or b&w/colour at the flick of a switch, you have to load each type of film in each camera and switch cameras based on the film type you need for each shot. Just my uniformed guess of course.
@@UnCoolDad I suppose. But is that still today’s problem? It sounded like he didn’t want to send one of them off for repair, and I could only guess at that being because it had something special one of the others couldn’t provide, I just wondered out of interest what that was
Shooting weddings. Different bodies have different film in them and different lenses.
@uncoolDad. Correct.
I have four but two are my favourite cameras. One is a 0.58 mag viewfinder. The other is a 0.85 mag viewfinder in silver. The other two are a 0.72 viewfinder and another 0.85 which I don’t trust enough to use. It needs a service.
Shot film for years.... however the recent costs even with self dev and scan jist don't seem worth it. Got a pile of awesome cameras and lenses and I find my self fitting my leica glass on my sony. The cost per click really makes me doubt any photo I take.
Still love it tho. But I'm seriously considering since I only look at the photos on a phone or Instagram these days to just switch to digital and stop shooting film every day.
In my workflow film gets less and less percentage. I usually load a roll of film (Tri-X) into the camera and may be take 1-2 photos a months with it. I like the delay in gratification and usually by the end of the roll (1+ year usually) I don't even know what on the first 20 frames. I found it is helpful to insert a card into a hot shoe to know what film stock is in there and at what ISO. I don't like/use colour negative film and my favourite slide film (Velvia) is hard to get. Also issues with labs scratching film, films scanning and storage. I don't like digital workflow for the amount of time I have to spend on the computer screen but the positives outweight the negatives
A good lab is really important. I’m toying with developing my films myself but making the time would be an issue at the moment. I’ll end up like Garry Winogrand.
@@WalkLikeAlice ending famous like Winogrand might not be a bad idea :)
I just keep an M4 these days as my only film camera. The M3 and 2 went a few years ago. I keep meaning to use it and intend to shoot a few rolls this summer . Why ? Well apart from the experience I need to keep the thing ticking over . My Epson V850 Pro seems to be ticking over and I found a lab in Didsbury (old home town) a few years ago for the development. They tell me that one has opened up in Blackpool but I haven`t checked it out yet. Its the developing which is the biggest problem for me. I did (as did everyone) do my own for years but never enjoyed that part of the process.
Which is the lab you are using?
@@WalkLikeAlice This is odd I`ve posted the link twice now but it hasn`t been posted .DS colour Labs
Cheers. Sometimes comments with links get hidden by UA-cam.
I’ve done film back in the 80’s, 90’s and I don’t really understand this infatuation with it nowadays. I have worked in 1 hour development stores and it’s a dirty dirty business. The chemicals were terrible (still are). As a photographer I appreciate the hassle free of digital. There’s just less friction and if you want the look it’s fairly easy to replicate close enough. I do appreciate the analog of it, the sound of the camera, the feel of the crank (I still have my old Nikon FM) but that’s why I have the most analog of all the digital cameras with me, an M10. Now I will contradict myself BUT if I were very rich I would probably get an M6 and build myself a darkroom in spare room of my mansion 😂.
Haha. It’s that nostalgia. It will bite you in the a$$
Honestly, if you’re not going to print in a darkroom, digital is clearly more convenient. I would very likely shoot digitally if darkroom printing wasn’t my passion.
I like shooting film but hate the darkroom 🙂
Do you print your images?
@@mike747436 You mean personally? I used to, mainly with Canon large format pro inkjet printers. The same printers I used to print stuff for Don McCullin with. Now I send the files to the lab for them to do it. I don't have the time to do it myself.
@@WalkLikeAlice I’m retired now so I have plenty of time to devote to the darkroom.
I shoot about 85% film, mostly B&W that I develop and scan at home. I have a few good film cameras, 35mm and medium format, but I do my best to only have two cameras loaded at a time or I make myself crazy. I keep a Leica R7 loaded with color film for a project that I expect will take about a year in total; I'm about five months into it. The best way for me to organize my brain (and cameras) is to assign a project to a specific camera. I have a project for my digital camera, kind of a landscape with quirks project, so it only leaves the house when I've made a note of a place I need to revisit. I was developing C41 color at home but I don't shoot enough color to beat the expiration dates of the chemicals. I drop color rolls at a camera shop, develop only, uncut.
That's an interesting concept. Sarah is the same. She applies certain cameras to projects. Mostly it's the Leica monochrom but she's got a project lined up for just the Xpan.
Went back to film in 2015 so 10 years ago, and then stopped shooting film during Covid. Some of my favourite images are film, there's something magical in that look that we all chase. But the costs today basically priced me out and it isn't worth the cost to benefit ratio anymore for me sadly. I've still got my bulk loader filled with Tri-X in my fridge.... I'm not sure how much of it remains, maybe I need to force myself to finish it when finances allow!
Yep. Finish it. Otherwise it’s a waste!! Tri-X is so over priced at the moment.
Would say shot 2 was Film.Great video thanks for info.
✔
Thanks I shoot both on Canon Digital and film with a great EOS 1V. I do like both and agree about taking time and thought with film.
I still shoot with film (mostly 6x6 nowadays, and perhaps 4x5 later) for fun. Especially if you like color, a properly exposed slide is simply gorgeous.
For me, film kinda "forced" me to think and think more carefully because no instant feedback (unless you also carry a polaroid or digital camera), which is fine because I mostly shoot static objects like trees, architectures, rocks etc. Sure it's super annoying when the light is fine, your camera is ready, but unfortunately your film is moldy/have backing paper issue/etc. What a way to waste few rolls :D
We all waste a few rolls!!
Last year I purchased one roll of film, 24 exposure. By the time I had it developed it cost $40.00 US! I got one keeper and my proofs were sent to me digitally in jpeg! WTF?!!!
Honestly, it’s crazy how much it costs to shoot film. Especially colour.
I gave up on colour films , luckily I love B & W . If I develop a roll of film in Rodinal then the combined cost of all the chemicals would probably cost less than one dollar . My other developer I use ( 510 pyro ) is more expensive and probably costs me 3 dollars a roll . My Epson V 700 will scan up to 4 x 5 neg and cost me less than 100 dollars second hand
Developing your films becomes a serious part of the process , when Im shooting a scene Im thinking about what developer will work to create the mood , will I over develop , will I under develop , fine grain vs heavy grain etc etc , its an important part of the craftsmanship , using a lab is the lazy uncreative method IMO
@@AustenGoldsmithPhotography I think that a good lab will do a more consistent job than I can when it comes to development. Plus the fact I wouldn't have a clue what I've shot on a roll of film to make those kind of decisions :D
I shoot film because I am using medium format ,much better than 35mm film .Medium format digital it very very expensive that why I am still shooting with film .
Sometimes, when I'm hungry, I like to enjoy food that has already been prepared, so I can quickly combine and heat it with other prepared food or ingredients. Or maybe go to a restaurant that serves the food the way I like it, again, where it is already or promptly prepared, and all I have to do is decide and enjoy the meal.
Other times I like to think about what ingredients I can buy, how to chop or process those ingredients, combine and cook them myself to my own satisfaction.
Both examples are ways to enjoy food, but one way requires more use of your imagination, of calculation, and sometimes frustration.
Digital processors and presets feels like the prepared portions or options, while film, the way I shoot it, is a much more involved, and determined way to photograph that requires you to BE the processor, instead of relying on external, digital ones.
Not sure how we’ve gone from taking photos to preparing food but thanks for the comment.
@ Well, proper digestion takes time.✌️
I recently purchased my first digital Leica last year. Its a completely different mindset shooting the digital. When shooting digital, I will linger on a street scene and shoot it from multiple angles and perspectives. So at the end of the day I end up with 400 images on my SD card. When I shoot film however, I'll walk up to a scene and take a few moments to study it waiting for something to evolve. I'll only bring my camera up when I know my shot is about to happen. At the end of the day I'll end up with one or two rolls of film. However my hit rate on film is 80% or more. My digital hit rate is about 30%. I consider my digital Leica as a fishing net and my film Leicas as spears. Each has a purpose.
Why do i shoot film: the permanency of it. When it is on film, it is for eternity; no digital mombo-jumbo. At any point in time somebody can use that negative to show your photo.
This came to me the other day, my father passed away some weeks ago; the image we used of him was a photo made with my Pentacon Six TL in my studio. Whatever happens, that negative will always be the safest storage of his image. I also use other film and digital cameras, FF, rangefinder and AF medium format. I love all my camera's for what they are, i love using them all. It is the joy of making the image; I made that image, i did not take it! ;-) Film i use is mostly Delta100, T-Max100, Tri-X 400, Portra 160 & 400; in 35 and 120.
Great point. Thank you. 🙏
Digital encourages technical excellence, but for artistic work a much looser approach with film is all that’s required.
I don’t know. 35mm yes. Larger formats and I would say film encourages it more. But either way I think film is more of an artistic choice for many.
I’ve been shooting for over 29 years, and yes the whole experience from loading, shooting, developing etc etc is what I LOVE. However I have never been able to come close to a film look from digital I have to disagree with your comment.
Many years ago, I was part of a group exhibition at the world renowned Getty Images Gallery in London. We had to submit photos from canon digital cameras as they were sponsoring the exhibit. I sent my files in and I got an email back from the printers at Getty asking me to not send medium format film scans but canon digital files. Which they were. So if my digital images can fool some of the best eyes in the exhibition game into thinking they were film, then I am going to disagree with you 😉
Let's face it, buying, processing, and digitizing film is a headache and costly. And digital images can be made to look like film.
The truth is, it's the shooting experience that makes it worth it for those of us who shoot film. That's it. Call it nostalgia for those of us who shot film in the past, or call it a novelty for those too young to have shot on film. Some of us may just want to get back to analog tech.
Either way, the experience is what it's all about. Plus, film cameras are relatively affordable, so while the cost of shooting film stinks, it may be a while before one has spent the same amount of money for film and developing than he would have for a digital camera, unless one chooses to empty one's wallet on a Leica film camera, in which case one takes a hit with both the camera and the film/developing costs. But if anyone wants to dabble in film, there are plenty of affordable film cameras out there that are built better than Leicas, so one can get into film without going broke.
Pretty much what I said in the video. 🙏
Hey,
Great video, thanks a lot ! I totally agree on one important point you mentionned : when shooting film, you think more, ou create your image with a more concious mind, if I can say so. And yes, indeed, the rate of « good » pictures is higher than when shooting digital. I’m using and m6 and digitally an m10-r. I observe exactly what you said ! Quite strange, I’m not checking each image on screne after the shot, my lcd is switched off most of the time…. Often wondering where this difference comes from !… i still don’t have the answer !
Again thanks for sharing your experiences !
Thanks for watching.
Two gripes about film, the first being the cost. The second, however, is the impact of airport scanners. I've lost track of the number of occasions i have given up on using film because of the sheer hassle factor, in fact the same liability to which you refer. This is particularly disappointing because film is ideal for exploring new places. Travel encourages the imagination and it's sad that film can't be an integral part of an overseas journey.
Airport scanners were the main reason Salgado gave for going over to digital.
I started shooting film seriously in 1960, digital didn’t exist. Your choice was B&W film, which I could process myself, or color, which was more exan😂d had to be processed in a pro lab. Due to my job as a photo-journalist I got to use one of the first digital cameras, the Nikon/Kodak rig. It was big, heavy and slower to use than my film version of the Nikon. But back then, when my work was for news publication, the digital rig allowed me to get a photo on the wire quicker than a film camera, which had to have the film processed and printed, a several hour process. Fast forward to today, I still prefer film, over its ability to archive, my negs will be useable 50 years from now, but my digital images will no doubt get lost as storage media fails. I have already lost shots to failed hard drives, CDs you can read anymore and have to have a 15-year old computer to run my Pro Nikon Cool Scan, which does not have software updates available to run on newer platforms. Yes Digital is more convenient, quicker and gets you instant results (something I had to use Polaroid backs to do before digital).
For street photography using film, consider getting the original Olympus Pen F, gets you 72 shots on a 36 exp. roll of film, is small and has excellent Lica quality optics. I used one in 1968 to shoot a series of photos in San Francisco, as seen from a Cable Car, ridding on Hyde St line and California St line, got some amazing shots. Cheers
Shooting film is highly impractical. That said, I now shoot lots of films and have a home lab where I process and scan them. Digital is amazing, but it is also a sanitizing process. Film requires so much more from a photographer. 1-2 frames of keepers per 36 exposures roll is about right. I like that you point out that Salgado's best work doesn't need laser-focused skin pores to be engaging and amazing. Film is acapella poetry, it's not for everybody, but what it gives to. the photographer is priceless.
Exactly. If it makes us go and take photos then it’s a good thing.
We can get digital to look like film but there is something missing still. The images don't feel the same. Btw saw a video of you from 2003 I believe where you were shooting weddings with your 4 M6's. OG of wedding documentary photography. Cool before it was cool to shoot like that. 👍
Correct, they don't feel the same but for a lot of folks, the convenience of digital and the look of film is a good compromise. Yeah, two years after that video was released, I was shooting with two Canon DSLRs. The cost side of things I couldn't ignore. I was shooting about 70 weddings a year at that point. Saved myself about £20K in film and processing!!
@@WalkLikeAlice that's a lot of weddings! Switching to digital made sense back then. I think shooting weddings on film today makes sense again because it has become so "luxe". Loving your channel btw! Cheers from NY.
I am old and started my film photography in 1966 in Eastern Europe during the height of communism. I had very little money so I could not afford to shoot too many rolls of Kodachrome in Europe with my Grandmother's old Kodak rangefinder fix lens camera. Then I became a student newspaper photographer using Tri-X 400 film exclusively. I was paid US$2 for each proof sheet image that was circled. I paid for my Minolta gear with 2 lenses, film and paper, but the University paid for all chemicals. By the end of 1967 I had US$8000 in my bank account from photography.
In 2009 I lost my eyesight in one eye and nearly in the second eye which at the time I had a 65% chance of total blindness. Then I got an M9 and wanted to create prints in case I did become blind so I could leave something behind. I am not blind today and have embraced digital, but when Leica reintroduced the M6 (which I could never afford back when the originals came out) I got one an old one. Film photography today brings back old memories for me which means I love digital photography even more especially while traveling by plane. I still cannot replicate grain in my digital files like I remember from the 60's probably because I am not great at Processing.
The grain is actually the easy part. The highlight transition and sharpness is the hard part when replicating film with digital especially with the large digital sensors. I was born in 67. Christmas Day. Great story. Thank you 🙏
@@WalkLikeAlice Agree and that is why I now search for older classic style lenses which help me create more film-like images or images more to my liking.
I have been shooting g film for nearly 55 years and digital for roughly 25 years. Even when everyone else had sold their film cameras for a penny and embraced the new technology, I still did not give shooting film. But, since the latest announce by Kodak( yet again) and sadly Ilford whose film prices have crept up almost as fast as Kodak, I have made the decision not to buy film as much as possible. I have about 9 months supply of film in all formats, and once they have been used up, I look at the situation again. I love film photography, but I also have price not to be taken the lies of!!!
The prices are shocking. I use Fomapan a lot. It’s cheap but it scans really well. I think that’s the big difference today, as long as we get a reasonable negative, any film will do.
Based on lots of experience, i still love my only Leica left and hate the company.
I don’t hate them. I just think they could do things a lot better than they do at the moment.
Developing at lab is a bitch to pay ; but I prefer the look of film , for many projects. If you need a camera fixed Leica in USA try Camera Doctor NYC .... or KANTO in Japan.
Thx for the recommendations
Making digital images look like film is a bit of a fake, isn't it? It's a bit like early photographers who tried hard to make their pictures look like paintings. I'm a faker too but feel uneasy about it. My excuse: unless I twist the digital images to faux film, they won't fit in series with my real film images. That has calmed me down so far, since I mostly shoot film. But if I shot significantly more digital than film, that excuse would go down the drain. What then? The question really bothers me. I think there is something deeply wrong (misleading, kitschy, dishonest, unauthentic ... ?) with iPhone images that look like salt prints. Where is the line?
No it's not fake. Digital capture is monumentally sh*t unless you treat it in some way. If you like your images to have a certain aesthetic, then that's what you apply to them. Moriyama is a great example, and so is Salgado. They formed their aesthetic with film and carried it over into digital.
I started like you with film begin of the 80’s. And did shoot film prime for all those years. Just did never stop. Digital came but was about 20%. But last year I started to notice in an natural way I did go to digital more and more. Making film digital was starting to be a think I was getting tired off. Having no darkroom anymore was another part. And well, sounds silly but the younger shooters with film making it as it is not just a format to get a image but a holy hipster grail was a so annoying. As if you only can shoot with a Leica M6 and film. Come on puppy’s, we have been there done that. And you are also not doing phonecalls with a black phone with dail and curled telephone cord.
Yes but as we all know, they invented photography 😂
@ 🙈🙈😂😂😂😂
@@WalkLikeAlice😂
Shoot to make art because flim force u to shoot interesting thing in interesting way while digital is snap everything so u are not force to make thing interesting.
I prefer film aesthetically and I can support it 2-4 roll per month.
10-11 months to repair!? Leica (film) isn't worth the effort/expense. I come from the golden age of film/photojournalism as well. As the saying goes: "The (analog) juice isn't worth the squeeze"
It seems they are doing everything they can to make things difficult for people. That’s for sure!!
@@WalkLikeAlice I truly miss the days of shooting with my M4-P and M2 with 28, 50 and 90mm lenses. I sold them a long time ago and I regret that decision. I've applied much of what I learned shooting those cameras to my Fuji system. Set my advance to single frame only, And try my best to get things in focus since hyperfocal focusing is only available on 16 and 23mm Fuji lenses. I'm also playing now with shooting JPG+RAW to learn how close I can get to the experience of shooting film by having a JPG image with a baked in look much on the way of shooting film. If I feel compelled to shoot monochome, I set the profile accordingly. It's by no means the full experience of shooting analog, but it's been a sufficient length of time that how we shot film back in the day is really more for those who can afford it. I know I can't these days. If I could, I would.
There is NO objective reason to photograph with film nowadays, it is a waste of time, money... and lots of water.
I started photographing in the 80s and now I have everything I wanted when I did reports today with digital: light equipment, not having to carry dozens of rolls of film, being sure that everything is working and not having a knot in my stomach until the film arrives developed. Imagine this in 4.5x6 or 6x6 equipment (you triple everything). And not to mention the amount of chemical waste that pollutes our waters.
From 2004 to 2013 I worked exclusively in digital and in the fever of Jonathan Canlas' #filmisnotdead I returned to photographing with film, I bought equipment and used it for personal things, it was cool, of course! But there are few things you can't really do digitally.
If I want to shoot slowly, I cover my screen and I carry four or five 8gb cards. If I want grain, I underexpose or use grain emulator software. If I want blur, I open aperture, focus manually if I feel like it.
Salgado is a Master and a wise man and there is a reason why he adapted to the digital one.
Greetings and thanks for the video ❤
There are several good reasons to shoot film. The actual enjoyment of the experience is a major one for most people and with the vast majority of people talking photos as a hobby, this is a big one. With AI looming larger, I think negatives will start to retain a certain value particularly in some art circles. The environmental issue is one that works both ways, the destruction of habitats for the materials required for digital components and batteries is pretty bad.
Salgado still has his digital files copied to film.
Ilford have a wash process for B&W that uses very little water.
No
A man of few words 😂
Great talk.
My "PTSD" is related to processing, scanning and spotting film.
Is it worth it? I think this is extremely relevant to those of us who started shooting when film was the only game in town.
I kept uo with 8x10 until 2021, then sold everything and never looked back.
The benefit for me was learning the discipline and getting right what I could in-camera.
If you shot film professionally, it gives the whole “worth it” thing a different slant. It’s like darkroom printing, I have no desire to work in a darkroom as I got burned out working in a darkroom six days a week when I started.
Aperture in London. Job done in 2 weeks
👍
I would say no, because of how expensive films are compared to before
As much as i love film texture, it is simply too expensive
Black and whites are pretty cheap though