for me, personally, almost three years ago i spent a month travelling through spain .. i took around 5000 photos, i went on to edit about 2000 and nearing three years later i’m still posting them in chronological order ..my instagram is far outdated as a result whereas the last year or two of shooting film, i’ve come to appreciate the photos i take more, and instead of 300, at the end of a day or event, i have maybe 30, or a full roll, never more than two the limitations have allowed me to take better, more meaningful, but more manageable photos 💛 ✌️
I shoot both digital (color) and film (black and white). I love and hate both. Photography has made me rich and poor. It is my comfort in hard times as well as bringer of hard times. It is my addiction and religion. Heaven and hell. My wife and mistress.
Digital: A professional medium that lets you control every aspect and see what your image looks like. Film: I have no idea what my image looks like, but it doesn't matter because... because... grain.
I think it makes more sense to use film as a cherry on the cake if you are already a fantastic photographer who knows exactly what you want. Like Alec Soth or, in another genre, Daniel Arnold. They both started out shooting digitally and after producing great photos and developing their own style, they give them even more personality with the extra effort of film. If you haven't reached that point yet, you run the risk of taking mediocre photos for crazy money.
I don't understand why people keep referring to film as this extra level of professionalism and art, or that it is better in any way. Even if you're an analog fanatic, and take a photo on film, you then have to take a digital photo of your film to digitalise it (Doesn't matter if you call it "scanning"), and then you also probably spend hours colour correcting that digital photo in Lightroom of Photoshop. In the end it's just an illusion of analog. I don't understand why anyone would want to waste a bunch of money, go through so much trouble, when they in the end could have take the EXACT same photo with a digital camera.
@@larbgai75 The thing is, if I showed you a beautiful photo that I shot with a medium format film camera and put it next to a digital photo of the exact same thing, you would then probably say the medium format camera picture, and the softness and grain and all of the characters of analog film, makes you like that one best, right? But then if I suddenly told you that both are in fact digital and that I took the film photo on my Sony A7RV, and made it look like film in post, all of a sudden you would not like the image as much as you did before when you thought it was true film. It is because its all an illusion in your head.
@@laurencewhite4809 If you feel better thinking that it is ok. Thank you for lecturing me and telling me it is an illusion in my head. Also I emphasized that it's about the picture and that shooting film if you're not a good photographer does not make much sense. But to say color post processing looks like Film is simply not true in my experience. Also it's not true that I prefer pictures for the format and not for the picture itself. Be happy that you have such a nice psychological illusion theory, saves you money.
I completely agree with you. I shot my first rolls of black and white film back in my university's film photography elective class in 2012. It was a hell of an experience that I hope to relive or even own one day. In 2018, I finally got myself a digital mirrorless camera, the A7III, and used it for a few years until 2023. I gained a lot of experience in understanding the post-processing process. Slowly, I found myself gravitating towards making my photos look like they were shot on film. However, I could never achieve the same look and feel as those pictures, and the fact is that digital can never quite achieve them because they are simply different as you mentioned. The ability to preserve highlights, the super-smooth light-to-shadow transition on any surface, the skin tones, the colors (even though you still have the freedom to manipulate them to your liking if you scan your film stock with really good scanners like the Hasselblad X5), and the unique grains and subtle imperfections all contribute to the beauty of what we love as film photographers. Simply saying it is just an illusion does not do film photography justice.
As someone who only got into photography for the novelty of film, I agree with everything you said. I just enjoy the process and I don't like consider my photos art or anything, it's just a hobby. I will say the only thing I never understood was the need to shoot as you say a thousand photos on a walk. Like I don't even wanna look at those once, let alone all of them years later. I understand if your a wedding photographer or something, but I really don't get shooting thousands of photos a week as a hobby.
Eh, I get where you are coming from but I think some people enjoy chasing as perfect as a shot as they can per scene even if that means taking quite a few images to accomplish that. I used to come back from a 4 hour photo walk with say 700-900 photos but now it's more 150-300 images most of the time. If I go out shooting solely film I'll still shoot nearly the same amount because regardless of medium why would I let it restrict me from the photos I would take? I guess overall what I was trying to get at is everyone shoots their own way and even back when film was the only option a lot of shooters didn't just shoot less due to film they still shot whatever they needed or wanted.A couple of old photogs I knew would easily blow 100+ rolls a week with a mix pleasure and work shooting.
Hi Andre, I started shooting film 2 years ago after my son was born because I realized that I was going to have all the photos on my phone. I don’t shoot every day but only for holidays or events. I use a konica which is an automatic (I just point and shoot) and the result is great. This makes me want to use more the manual mode on my digital camera before I buy a more expensive analog camera. I really enjoy this video and the way you express your thoughts.
I started with film, got excited when Digital came along, so I got me a DSLR and it was awsome!. Once Medium format camera prices came down I got me a couple, and have been having fun. Then film prices went crazy up so now im shooting less, buy film stock when I find a specials, but I havent touched my DSLR in a long time. My iPhony takes great pictures so that takes care of my digital needs. I understand your reasons, even a few years ago film prices prices were alot lower so it was easier.
Same - I shot mostly on film for a long time. I really like the photos, nothing to complain there. Developed myself, stood myself in the darkroom. But after some time I found to process too cumbersome and when I was sitting in my room pressing the shutterbutton of my digital camera scanning negatives, sitting in Lightroom removing the last dust particles... I thought... that's such a time waste what I'm doing here. And that was it - I have still some rolls, I'm going to shoot them, but not going to buy any film stock anymore
As someone who uses both film and digital cameras, there’s no denying the flexibility and convenience of digital. I recently went on a day trip with some family and friends, where my micro 4/3rds (MFT) camera was passed around amongst the kids whilst I took photos with my Minolta SLR. Whilst I managed to capture some real heartwarming moments on the Minolta, I only took 18 shots, so I now need to fill the other half of the roll before I can get it developed! The photos taken on the MFT, however, have already been shared out. That roll of film cost close to £20, and will cost £20 to be developed/scanned at my local lab. It’s so bloody expensive!! Additionally, I’m stuck with ASA 100 film. For some, that restriction might be a bonus… for some, a real hinderance.
Many people think that they are producing much better results than they are simply because they are shooting film… that’s why film related hash tags on instagram are packed with uninspired boring photos of random stuff like bushes gas stations and random old stuff…
This has been my exact experience. I’m glad I re-acquainted myself with film after a couple of decades away, but I’ve now sold almost all my film gear to concentrate on digital.
In art and in life, anything worth doing and doing well could be described as a pain in the ass. That sweat, that process and the frequently gorgeous results that are impossible to achieve with cold, sterile digital, are what makes it so rewarding. But you’re young, I’m 100% certain that you’ll look at your film images years from now and decide it was worth it after all.
As someone who's shot tons of film and digital along my father who is well into his 70's I disagree that from a pure result stand point that digital can't produce frequent gorgeous shots compared to film. As far as looking back on images go I tend to look at prints from both and still feel the exact emotions and nostalgia those photos provide no matter the original medium they were taken on.
@@TheRebelBagel Both are great, and what's better would depend on one's needs. A couple years ago, when asked why he still shot on film, Tyler Shields, one of the most famous fine art photographers in the world, answered he was just being pragmatic. He said he didn't care about being a romantic, or the process, or whatever, he just wanted the best results for his Art, the process that would please Art Buyers the most. So he conducted an experiment a few times (in his own words): He shot the same photograph on both film (medium or large format I guess) and digital (we're talking Digital Medium Format Hasselblad here, not your average Pro Mirrorless/DSLR). He asked people which print was their favorite one, and if they picked the Digital photograph, they would get it for free (each print he sells is worth $50,000 minimum). He said they all thought they were picking the Digital Photograph, thinking it should obviously be the best-looking one: But they all picked the Film Print. Every. Single. Time. But he's not shooting a World Cup Final or a Wedding.
@@guillaumerauxYeah I don't disagree with Tyler Shields results either as I agree with him that film is the correct medium for him as his test shows that for him and the wonderful and stunning works he creates film is the only answer. My comment was more so to the general photography hobby and niches where there have been a ton of videos where photographers and non-photographers try to pick between film shots and digital versions of the same composition that usually ends in a wash as far as results go. Most people being handed a print of a moment that matters to them probably would not feel any more connected to a print from film or a print from digital. The photographer might themselves as it is a different workflow so they may feel connected more to the print made from a negative due to enjoyment or hassle that workflow brought them, Either way it is always a fantastic time to talk anything photography especially the non-gear heavy topics.
If you cant take the exact same photo on film and digital, and produce the exact same emotion and look, that means you're a bad photographer, not that digital is bad.
I like both digital and film. Both are unique in there own ways. Shoot on Leica m11 for digital, and contax t3 for film. They serve different purposes for me.
I stopped shooting film. Colour film. I now only shoot B&W film and only 6x6 via my Hasselblad 500 c/m. 2 x stocks. Ilford FP4+ and Delta 400. Dev and enlarge print in my shed. Digital for both paid and fun, is via my R6 and or 907x. It has taken my 4 years to figure out what I like best and what works for me as a workflow. Film is very much a hobby unless a client specifically wants a film image / print. 907x is my current fave for colour work. Stunning output.
i just wanna shoot film but money is a big problem. i don’t have a camera capable of doing scanning properly. buying a roll of hp5 + dev + scan + scan costs me around 1€ per photo which is absurd. out of 36 photos i’m usually happy with 4/5 of them. unfortunately not worth it. but in the future if i’ll be able to afford it i would totally shoot film only, the look does it for me. and that look is not obtainable through lightroom editing on digital files.
Couldn’t agree more with this. I’m very much a digital photographer and film feels unnecessarily restrictive in just about every way. My advice to those who want a film-like shooting experience is to buy an older FF dslr, only use manual lenses and turn off image preview. This gives a similar feel to film shooting in the field but still gives the flexibility of digital in post. Great video, mate🖖
There’s also differences when it comes to digital vs film. Film colours are already pretty much baked and takes less time to edit to get it right whereby digital files is a blank canvas where you need to really massage the files. With film, you shoot less and make more effort and work into getting the image.
@@tomatoisred6966negatives and digital printing services isn’t exactly the same. You also technically can’t darkroom digital files so the hands on process is totally different as well.
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.
One can open an arguement, that a combination of "slowing down by technical restriction" and the low cost of digital photography might be the best of both worlds. I recently revived my old Nikon DSLR (D3300) and attached a manual lens (Nikkor-H 50mm F2) that does not communicate at all with the body. This results in the necessity to learn the 'sunny 16' rules and meter by gut feeling. I noticed that this makes me more selective in the whole shooting process (subject selection, composition, etc.). At the same time, I can experiment and have the results right away to learn from them. Another plus: It is cheap AF - The digital pictures are for free and the camera and lens are very affordable (body ~200 bucks, lens ~80 bucks). My two cents.
You made a lot of good points in this video. At the end of the day, digital is the best professional today, except in some situations where film may still have an edge (large format I guess). Film has its educational side and enjoyment.
If at the end of the process you scan the film, then it does not make much sense, you then better shoot directly digital. I stopped shooting film 20 years ago (after 30+ years shooting film) because the digital technology did not convince me. Since one year I have a digital mirrorless camera, it’s fantastic, it is so easy to use when you have 30 years of experience with analog cameras.
I shot film throughout my early life. Then transitioned over to digital point and shoots. Eventually picked up a DSLR, but went back to film when i found out some places were still development film, and that i could develop at home. The biggest reason i still shoot film is because full mechanical cameras feel great to use. I have an X-E3 and it's.................not the same.
I would still shoot film if it was cheaper. It's just going to get more expensive as time marches on. Its future is way too unpredictable for me to invest in.
I started to be an amateur photographer in the early nineties, and got 2 cameras (Zenit 11 and later a Canon EOS Elan). At that time there was only film, so tried to learn all the basic technical knowledge to improve my pictures. Later, when digital photography became prominent bought a Canon Rebel Xt and later a Canon T2i. I have never developed film, I am just a shooter. Recently thought of shooting film again, and started watching UA-cam videos trying to find what people doing it think about it. I agree with most of what Andre said, that film photography is nowadays an expensive hobby with several inconveniences. Traveled recently to Spain an Portugal for 13 days. I took exactly 1843 pictures, so if I had to shoot with film I had to carry 52 rolls of 36 pics (1843/36 = 51.2). That's a lot of rolls and a lot of money! Not to dismiss it completely, I thoroughly understand the appeal of doing something different. It's like a painter who specializes in oil wants to experiment with watercolors, or tempera, etc. Nothing against trying a different medium. I still have the Zenit 11 (my Canon Elan was stolen), so after many years started considering using it again, since it is practically new (used only a few years). In conclusion, I'm not against film photography, but I consider it just a niche space and definitely not a religion! I don't think that a grainy photo is necessarily better than a crispy one.
I love shooting film because I have control of the entire process. From taking the photo, all the way to printing it in my darkroom (which is just one of my unused bathrooms). There is something different when you create it yourself. I have also shot digital for years and have many aluminum panoramic prints but they dont feel the same because I didnt create them. I just pointed a computer (sony a7riv) at the sunset and let it do its job. Then stitched the 1s and 0s together and sent it off to another company to print. Dont get me wrong... Digital is very important and has FAR more use cases in photography. Just my .02. Liked and subscribed.
Wonderful video! I agree completely with the video overall as I feel like film during this resurgence as been touted as if you shoot your images on film they'll be better images and you'll be a better photographer for it. It has begun to come across as pretentious more often in the mainstream of social media at least to me. I do still love shooting film as an occasional thing because there's not digital equivalents for some of my favorite camera bodies such as my Yashica 635, Pentax ME, or Minox 35GT. I do have a variety of digital cameras to keep feeling fresh in choice as I have a Fuji X-T5, Nikon D700(with split prism focus screen), D7200, & Canon Poweshot G10.
I learned on a digital SLR and now shoot mirrorless. I shoot street/ landscape, flora/ fauna, and macro things, so I'm all over the place. I picked up film a bit ago as well because I was also curious what the big deal was and I love mechanical manual things so it made sense to try since I started to have some extra cash and that cash soon disappeared. Over a good period of time I went though the formats moving up slowly from a half frame, to 35mm, 645, 6x9 than a lastly landing on 6x6 Bronica SQ-Ai (mostly because less photos means less time self scanning and editing which is the biggest time suck and the waist level view finder is just so fun) I really enjoy it, but it is a pain, time consuming, errors are expensive and you really feel it. I mostly just shoot film when I go somewhere special, like a planned trip. I still bring digital with me but have to be very strategic what I bring and don't bring on the day. It has improved my shooting and being more conscience and have a better technical understanding, even though I shot manual before on digital, so now I have a greater appreciation and what it all means. That all said, the most annoying thing to me with Film is metering. Using a spot meter is very time consuming because you really want to make sure or settings are correct and your not doing something dumb like using the wrong iso, which really slows shooting in a bad way and end up missing opportunities.
Agree with every point you've made. The highlight to me is that I prefer to focus on being a better photographer and getting great shots. I consistently get much better results with digital and feel free to focus on the actual photography. I'm sure this is probably the complete opposite for those who love the process of film. Film itself doesn't make the photos any better.
And with digital if your lens cap is on you’ll know soon enough. Just turned 60, started in photography around 13 and never stopped shooting film. Learned darkroom in art school , invested a lot of time in film, and just dig the whole mindfulness aspect. Got the whole adobe package negative lab pro silverfast etc and developed a flow on my 2011 iMac with photoshop 6 from a cd rom, but once I got the latest i Mac (birthday gift) a couple years ago it was just another (re-) learning curve I didn’t have time for. Electronic limbo. Do digital too, whenever it suits, but as a non pro I don’t do other than crop, straighten and tap the enhance button on my jpegs . then print.
I like the experience and the look of film. I shoot it now and then. But I hate the develop process. I don't have a local lab so it has to be shipped off. That's the only inconvenience I personally find in shooting film. Other than that I don't mind. Not as my primary form, but as an alternative to shooting digital. The cost is high but I don't do it often so it's all good.
I like to shoot both. Film makes me a better photographer, forces me to think, to slow down. Digital makes a better photographer, fast feedback, results are more guaranteed. If I have to deliver, I shoot digital. If I am shooting for myself, I use film. These days, I do more film. Before I had Apple Music, I was enjoying my music more than now. Unlimited supply has its downsides. We strive in limitations and cherish what we have.
I have been shooting both for years. More often than not if I want portability I will take out my Pentax DSLR. That being said for more artistic and portrait work I love my medium format cameras. And I even enjoy street photography with a TLR. I shoot alot of black and white so the price is also not so bad since the film is cheaper and I do my own development and scans. For me the medium is sometimes dictated by what I am looking to photograph and the results I want. I found with shooting film it often reduced the time I spent on my final photos because editing consisted of dust removal and done. I like that I have the option of trying and experimenting with many different cameras and tools. As for limitations. I find with digital giving you the option to take hundreds of photos can often result in just having hundreds of crappy photos to delete later. My keeper rate is about the same whether I shoot digital or my Rolleiflex.
I've been priced out of shooting colour film, it's just too expensive now. But more importantly, I make *better* photos when shooting digital. I get the freedom to shoot bursts, experiment and make mistakes without burning a hole in my wallet. Going back to digital from film is incredibly liberating. I'll still shoot film, it's great fun at parties and those on-camera flash shots have such a fun different vibe than cellphone photos (although you can still get the same shots with a digicam), or when I'm shooting by myself and want to take it slow.
Film is a niche of a niche. I am tired of the "film is not dead" meme, it's very much dead. Enjoyed your video, and all of the points you made are pretty much the same for me. The real nail in the coffin for me at least, was shooting family pics with my Hasselblad while on holiday. No one cared that it's medium format, film or a Hasselblad. Then there was explaining the length of time, cost and difficulty getting the pictures dev'd, scanned and printed. It's a complete joke. Digital processing software can easily mimic the effects of film.
I shot film for over thirty years with first a Leica M3 and then a Nikon F2. For me, film is quite expensive as I prefer to have a lab develop my film optically and having premium scans done. Total cost is over $100 a roll including film and shipping! That`s why I bought a Leica MD 262, digital with no screen. I enjoy both formats but not the cost associated with film. The SD card from the MD that only shoots RAW connected to my computer shows amazing images that are different from film. Film is more organic, less perfect and sharp than digital. Digital is sometimes too perfect. I shoot more digital now but will shoot film in the Fall to bring out amazing colors only film can give...!
If anyone wants a 'film' shooting experience, enjoys the look and feel of film, but doesn't want the inconvenience and cost associated with it, then have a look at older CDD based DSLR's like the Pentax K10D or something similar. They can be had for peanuts and the quality of the images from those older CCD sensors are superb. I picked up the K10D for £80 earlier this year and it's a highly capable bit of kit. I prefer CCD to CMOS, the images have a look that's so much more pleasing to the eye.
Best thing to do (at least for me) was to learn on film and then take the film workflow to a digital camera ( I bought a fuji xt-2 and I adapted my vintage lenses)
I definitely understand, lol. As much as I like shooting film, it is a bit of an expensive hassle, and if you don't develop on your own, running back and forth to the film lab can seem like running an errand.
I applaud you! Of course I agree about 1,945,543% This is 2024, digital IS THE WAY TO GO! To be fair and balanced, I try to shoot a roll of film every year! Thanks for posting your video.
Can we please move on from this discussion We live in a time where both technology’s are plentiful and readily available Let’s have both and get back to taking photos ❤
I can only guess hkw much more you would have nit like it if you done all 100% analog, no scanning or sending it to somebody else. I used to print and develop my film (35 mm and 120) and it was fun, but it we were in the 1990's and i had free time, like you , i will bever go back to film, maybe when i have nothing else in life and have my own dark room. Thanks for the video
I respect your opinion. The video started off well and then just turned into a (quite long) rant as you mentioned. It’s fairly obvious to say film is not for everyone and I would argue that shooting film, even part of the time, does generally make people better photographers. A more well-rounded, knowledge and thoughtful photographer. Knowing how light works and the relationship it has with exposure is invaluable. Spray and pray, shooting hundreds or thousands of photos and relying on modern bodies to compensate sounds like shortcuts. It should go without saying that doesn’t go for everyone. Plenty of amazing digital photographers that know what they’re doing. I shoot film. I shoot digital. You can shoot both and not use ironic air quotes when talking about film shooters to feel superior about your decision.
I see many shots on flickr with mediocre scanning quality according to my own standards. That would be such a turn off if my shots looked like that. With good scans it's worth it for me. (Digital camera scanning)
You seem to be talking more about the benefits of "practicality," which digital offers. Film is not practical. We use film for our photography even though it is expensive and impractical because it offers a more artistic and appealing look that digital cannot provide. If it is expensive for you, not everyone else has the same problem.
First of all digital images aren’t photography, if you are a wedding image taker yes film is pointless if you are an artist film is the only way, there is no comparison in image quality (for color has to be positive film negatives are horrible in color) yes the trendy shit film is dumb. If your inconvenience is “i cant shot thousands of images” then you should consider think and compose more your takes, do you shoot on automatic? Because your winning sound like you cant do the math in manual modes, it is concerning what you said here because is more about you are a mode “photographer” and really don’t understand what is this form of art.
Yeah. If you like sitting photoshopping 1000s of photos in post editing sounds like a waste of a day. And digital is ever changing. Everything coming out now the technology is already obsolete.
Nearly all statements regarding the “benefits” of film are BS in my opinion. Digital has many more benefits, when your goal is to take photos. When your goal is “the process” then film is better. However photography is about the end product, not about taking mediocre photos and glorifying them just because they were shot on film.
@@gc2161 yep. and you can finally discover that the biggest talent in photography is (and has always been) to trash 99% of your images pretendind the remaining 1% are the only shots you actually took. no magic before, no magic now.
After switching to film, I've come to realise that most moments are simply not worth taking photos of so i take a lot fewer frames. I hate the process of culling my thousands of digital photos.
I am surprised Digital painters never say to traditional painters. "Why do you use a brush, canvas and real paint when you can do it on a computer?" And all the digi heads say film is not environmentally friendly. Neither is digital. Obsolete technology at break neck speeds so the land fills are filling up faster with digital technology that is obsolete a year ago. It is not biodegradable and have lead and cadmium in them. Printers and computers are listed as hazardous waste where I live so it cannot be thrown out with regular trash.
I really don't understand the need to rationalize to the world why you "don't" want to do something. I use film, I use a DSLR, I use my phone. different tools for different things and different moods. Some people use canvas, brush, and paint to capture a scene. I don't. some people create music entirely on their computer, I prefer a guitar and amp. whatever floats your boat.
I shoot both, 80% digital, 20% BW film. One is convenient, the other is meditative. One is intangible, the other is tangible. There is no right or wrong. Just pros and cons. Everyone has their reasons as to why they do it and to be honest the reasons are just not that interesting. It's about the image. It doesn't matter how you get there unless it does.
It's odd to me the way you describe film as "novel" or 'trendy' and you say things like 'everyone has been doing it recently' From my perspective, 'everyone' stopped using film 20 years ago. It's a piece of history not some momentary fad.
Did you do any darkroom printing because if not then you didn't complete the job at hand. Analogue is analogue. Your experience is like buying a record player and getting software to digitalise the vinyl and then listening to the music on a computer. BW darkroom prints are like pure gold. Colour darkroom prints are like platinum. I feel you didn't do film the real way. Grain is too dirty to just digitalise, my gawd.
Yeah I can pick up ten cameras from a few years ago with lenses for the price of a new one. I can get a 36mp tomorrow and it won't even put a dent in my wallet
Digital photography is way way easier to do than film photography. It's the reason it was invented in the first place. Anyone with half a brain can do digital photography. So in the words of John F Kennedy, " We don't do it because it is easy, We do it because it is hard". So if you like cheap and easy, stick with digital.
Speaking as a film photographer the only reason film still exists is because we are old stubborn bastards who won't stop buying it. There is objectively no practical reason to use it unless you just feel like it.
I shot film for 20 years. Prices have more than doubled and will continue to. It has become insane. In a few years, we will all be paying Usd 30 for a roll.
Digital photographers are editors, film photographers are artists. To each their own. To me, film is inherently better due to its flaws, its limitations and its unmatched aesthetics. You are absolutely wrong when you said, I quote: "..Film is not synonymous with good photography" - that is a very immature statement. Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Garry Winogrand, and many other famous photographers used film. Will you become one of them? I doubt it.
for me, personally, almost three years ago i spent a month travelling through spain .. i took around 5000 photos, i went on to edit about 2000 and nearing three years later i’m still posting them in chronological order ..my instagram is far outdated as a result
whereas the last year or two of shooting film, i’ve come to appreciate the photos i take more, and instead of 300, at the end of a day or event, i have maybe 30, or a full roll, never more than two
the limitations have allowed me to take better, more meaningful, but more manageable photos
💛 ✌️
You can do that with digital too
You could also limit yourself in digital too....
I heard this reason many times. It’s quite nonsense you can do that with digital.
i am so glad you all totally missed the point, outlining to us that you're not photographers
maybe just a different kind of photographers :) @@MrHaydnSir
I shoot both digital (color) and film (black and white). I love and hate both. Photography has made me rich and poor. It is my comfort in hard times as well as bringer of hard times. It is my addiction and religion. Heaven and hell. My wife and mistress.
Digital: Shoot First, Think Second - Film: Think First, Shoot Second!
Digital: A professional medium that lets you control every aspect and see what your image looks like.
Film: I have no idea what my image looks like, but it doesn't matter because... because... grain.
I see... Not enough experience shooting with Film?
@@laurencewhite4809
@@laurencewhite4809nah. I definitely know what images will I get. even before I pickup the camera.
With experience film is just as predictable as digital. It’s all we had for many years
Looking at everyphoto is called chimping. Models and people who hire you hate that you spray and pray.@@laurencewhite4809
I think it makes more sense to use film as a cherry on the cake if you are already a fantastic photographer who knows exactly what you want.
Like Alec Soth or, in another genre, Daniel Arnold. They both started out shooting digitally and after producing great photos and developing their own style, they give them even more personality with the extra effort of film.
If you haven't reached that point yet, you run the risk of taking mediocre photos for crazy money.
I don't understand why people keep referring to film as this extra level of professionalism and art, or that it is better in any way. Even if you're an analog fanatic, and take a photo on film, you then have to take a digital photo of your film to digitalise it (Doesn't matter if you call it "scanning"), and then you also probably spend hours colour correcting that digital photo in Lightroom of Photoshop. In the end it's just an illusion of analog. I don't understand why anyone would want to waste a bunch of money, go through so much trouble, when they in the end could have take the EXACT same photo with a digital camera.
@@laurencewhite4809 I think you're wrong. I am shooting both and it's simply not the exact same.
@@larbgai75 The thing is, if I showed you a beautiful photo that I shot with a medium format film camera and put it next to a digital photo of the exact same thing, you would then probably say the medium format camera picture, and the softness and grain and all of the characters of analog film, makes you like that one best, right? But then if I suddenly told you that both are in fact digital and that I took the film photo on my Sony A7RV, and made it look like film in post, all of a sudden you would not like the image as much as you did before when you thought it was true film. It is because its all an illusion in your head.
@@laurencewhite4809 If you feel better thinking that it is ok. Thank you for lecturing me and telling me it is an illusion in my head. Also I emphasized that it's about the picture and that shooting film if you're not a good photographer does not make much sense. But to say color post processing looks like Film is simply not true in my experience. Also it's not true that I prefer pictures for the format and not for the picture itself. Be happy that you have such a nice psychological illusion theory, saves you money.
I completely agree with you. I shot my first rolls of black and white film back in my university's film photography elective class in 2012. It was a hell of an experience that I hope to relive or even own one day. In 2018, I finally got myself a digital mirrorless camera, the A7III, and used it for a few years until 2023. I gained a lot of experience in understanding the post-processing process. Slowly, I found myself gravitating towards making my photos look like they were shot on film. However, I could never achieve the same look and feel as those pictures, and the fact is that digital can never quite achieve them because they are simply different as you mentioned. The ability to preserve highlights, the super-smooth light-to-shadow transition on any surface, the skin tones, the colors (even though you still have the freedom to manipulate them to your liking if you scan your film stock with really good scanners like the Hasselblad X5), and the unique grains and subtle imperfections all contribute to the beauty of what we love as film photographers. Simply saying it is just an illusion does not do film photography justice.
It was harder to learn photography with film back in the day. Because you can only practice so much.
Is photography your job? Then film is pointless. Is photography your passion? Then nothing compares to film.
Agree. Also I wont spend thousands dollars for a camera that I only shoot not even a hundred images in a month.
Well said!
@@masekologiyou don’t need to spend thousands of dollars on a camera, film or digital.
Your philosophy is all over the place
You nailed it. It’s fun to explore and I use film and digital.
As someone who only got into photography for the novelty of film, I agree with everything you said. I just enjoy the process and I don't like consider my photos art or anything, it's just a hobby. I will say the only thing I never understood was the need to shoot as you say a thousand photos on a walk. Like I don't even wanna look at those once, let alone all of them years later. I understand if your a wedding photographer or something, but I really don't get shooting thousands of photos a week as a hobby.
Eh, I get where you are coming from but I think some people enjoy chasing as perfect as a shot as they can per scene even if that means taking quite a few images to accomplish that. I used to come back from a 4 hour photo walk with say 700-900 photos but now it's more 150-300 images most of the time. If I go out shooting solely film I'll still shoot nearly the same amount because regardless of medium why would I let it restrict me from the photos I would take?
I guess overall what I was trying to get at is everyone shoots their own way and even back when film was the only option a lot of shooters didn't just shoot less due to film they still shot whatever they needed or wanted.A couple of old photogs I knew would easily blow 100+ rolls a week with a mix pleasure and work shooting.
Hi Andre, I started shooting film 2 years ago after my son was born because I realized that I was going to have all the photos on my phone.
I don’t shoot every day but only for holidays or events.
I use a konica which is an automatic (I just point and shoot) and the result is great.
This makes me want to use more the manual mode on my digital camera before I buy a more expensive analog camera.
I really enjoy this video and the way you express your thoughts.
I started with film, got excited when Digital came along, so I got me a DSLR and it was awsome!. Once Medium format camera prices came down I got me a couple, and have been having fun. Then film prices went crazy up so now im shooting less, buy film stock when I find a specials, but I havent touched my DSLR in a long time. My iPhony takes great pictures so that takes care of my digital needs. I understand your reasons, even a few years ago film prices prices were alot lower so it was easier.
you got it pretty right, the arrival of digital was heaven sent,
"We're kind of going against the grain today"
I see what you did there 😂
Haha I caught that too
Same - I shot mostly on film for a long time. I really like the photos, nothing to complain there. Developed myself, stood myself in the darkroom. But after some time I found to process too cumbersome and when I was sitting in my room pressing the shutterbutton of my digital camera scanning negatives, sitting in Lightroom removing the last dust particles... I thought... that's such a time waste what I'm doing here. And that was it - I have still some rolls, I'm going to shoot them, but not going to buy any film stock anymore
As someone who uses both film and digital cameras, there’s no denying the flexibility and convenience of digital.
I recently went on a day trip with some family and friends, where my micro 4/3rds (MFT) camera was passed around amongst the kids whilst I took photos with my Minolta SLR. Whilst I managed to capture some real heartwarming moments on the Minolta, I only took 18 shots, so I now need to fill the other half of the roll before I can get it developed! The photos taken on the MFT, however, have already been shared out.
That roll of film cost close to £20, and will cost £20 to be developed/scanned at my local lab. It’s so bloody expensive!!
Additionally, I’m stuck with ASA 100 film. For some, that restriction might be a bonus… for some, a real hinderance.
Many people think that they are producing much better results than they are simply because they are shooting film… that’s why film related hash tags on instagram are packed with uninspired boring photos of random stuff like bushes gas stations and random old stuff…
This has been my exact experience. I’m glad I re-acquainted myself with film after a couple of decades away, but I’ve now sold almost all my film gear to concentrate on digital.
well done, keep selling film gear
In art and in life, anything worth doing and doing well could be described as a pain in the ass. That sweat, that process and the frequently gorgeous results that are impossible to achieve with cold, sterile digital, are what makes it so rewarding. But you’re young, I’m 100% certain that you’ll look at your film images years from now and decide it was worth it after all.
As someone who's shot tons of film and digital along my father who is well into his 70's I disagree that from a pure result stand point that digital can't produce frequent gorgeous shots compared to film. As far as looking back on images go I tend to look at prints from both and still feel the exact emotions and nostalgia those photos provide no matter the original medium they were taken on.
@@TheRebelBagel Both are great, and what's better would depend on one's needs.
A couple years ago, when asked why he still shot on film, Tyler Shields, one of the most famous fine art photographers in the world, answered he was just being pragmatic.
He said he didn't care about being a romantic, or the process, or whatever, he just wanted the best results for his Art, the process that would please Art Buyers the most.
So he conducted an experiment a few times (in his own words):
He shot the same photograph on both film (medium or large format I guess) and digital (we're talking Digital Medium Format Hasselblad here, not your average Pro Mirrorless/DSLR).
He asked people which print was their favorite one, and if they picked the Digital photograph, they would get it for free (each print he sells is worth $50,000 minimum).
He said they all thought they were picking the Digital Photograph, thinking it should obviously be the best-looking one:
But they all picked the Film Print.
Every. Single. Time.
But he's not shooting a World Cup Final or a Wedding.
@@guillaumerauxYeah I don't disagree with Tyler Shields results either as I agree with him that film is the correct medium for him as his test shows that for him and the wonderful and stunning works he creates film is the only answer.
My comment was more so to the general photography hobby and niches where there have been a ton of videos where photographers and non-photographers try to pick between film shots and digital versions of the same composition that usually ends in a wash as far as results go.
Most people being handed a print of a moment that matters to them probably would not feel any more connected to a print from film or a print from digital. The photographer might themselves as it is a different workflow so they may feel connected more to the print made from a negative due to enjoyment or hassle that workflow brought them,
Either way it is always a fantastic time to talk anything photography especially the non-gear heavy topics.
If you cant take the exact same photo on film and digital, and produce the exact same emotion and look, that means you're a bad photographer, not that digital is bad.
I like both digital and film. Both are unique in there own ways. Shoot on Leica m11 for digital, and contax t3 for film. They serve different purposes for me.
I stopped shooting film. Colour film.
I now only shoot B&W film and only 6x6 via my Hasselblad 500 c/m.
2 x stocks.
Ilford FP4+ and Delta 400.
Dev and enlarge print in my shed.
Digital for both paid and fun, is via my R6 and or 907x.
It has taken my 4 years to figure out what I like best and what works for me as a workflow.
Film is very much a hobby unless a client specifically wants a film image / print.
907x is my current fave for colour work. Stunning output.
i just wanna shoot film but money is a big problem. i don’t have a camera capable of doing scanning properly. buying a roll of hp5 + dev + scan + scan costs me around 1€ per photo which is absurd. out of 36 photos i’m usually happy with 4/5 of them. unfortunately not worth it. but in the future if i’ll be able to afford it i would totally shoot film only, the look does it for me. and that look is not obtainable through lightroom editing on digital files.
Couldn’t agree more with this. I’m very much a digital photographer and film feels unnecessarily restrictive in just about every way. My advice to those who want a film-like shooting experience is to buy an older FF dslr, only use manual lenses and turn off image preview. This gives a similar feel to film shooting in the field but still gives the flexibility of digital in post.
Great video, mate🖖
But the big thing is ,after you develop film you have photo negatives in your hand, opposite to files on disk. So what is better to have?
@@aantonic ever heard of printing services?
There’s also differences when it comes to digital vs film.
Film colours are already pretty much baked and takes less time to edit to get it right whereby digital files is a blank canvas where you need to really massage the files.
With film, you shoot less and make more effort and work into getting the image.
@@tomatoisred6966negatives and digital printing services isn’t exactly the same. You also technically can’t darkroom digital files so the hands on process is totally different as well.
@@zKMotion what do you think the Lightroom process is all about. Jxckxss
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.
Great. More film for us
One can open an arguement, that a combination of "slowing down by technical restriction" and the low cost of digital photography might be the best of both worlds.
I recently revived my old Nikon DSLR (D3300) and attached a manual lens (Nikkor-H 50mm F2) that does not communicate at all with the body. This results in the necessity to learn the 'sunny 16' rules and meter by gut feeling. I noticed that this makes me more selective in the whole shooting process (subject selection, composition, etc.).
At the same time, I can experiment and have the results right away to learn from them. Another plus: It is cheap AF - The digital pictures are for free and the camera and lens are very affordable (body ~200 bucks, lens ~80 bucks).
My two cents.
You made a lot of good points in this video. At the end of the day, digital is the best professional today, except in some situations where film may still have an edge (large format I guess).
Film has its educational side and enjoyment.
If at the end of the process you scan the film, then it does not make much sense, you then better shoot directly digital. I stopped shooting film 20 years ago (after 30+ years shooting film) because the digital technology did not convince me. Since one year I have a digital mirrorless camera, it’s fantastic, it is so easy to use when you have 30 years of experience with analog cameras.
I shot film throughout my early life. Then transitioned over to digital point and shoots. Eventually picked up a DSLR, but went back to film when i found out some places were still development film, and that i could develop at home. The biggest reason i still shoot film is because full mechanical cameras feel great to use. I have an X-E3 and it's.................not the same.
I would still shoot film if it was cheaper. It's just going to get more expensive as time marches on. Its future is way too unpredictable for me to invest in.
I started to be an amateur photographer in the early nineties, and got 2 cameras (Zenit 11 and later a Canon EOS Elan). At that time there was only film, so tried to learn all the basic technical knowledge to improve my pictures. Later, when digital photography became prominent bought a Canon Rebel Xt and later a Canon T2i. I have never developed film, I am just a shooter. Recently thought of shooting film again, and started watching UA-cam videos trying to find what people doing it think about it. I agree with most of what Andre said, that film photography is nowadays an expensive hobby with several inconveniences.
Traveled recently to Spain an Portugal for 13 days. I took exactly 1843 pictures, so if I had to shoot with film I had to carry 52 rolls of 36 pics (1843/36 = 51.2). That's a lot of rolls and a lot of money! Not to dismiss it completely, I thoroughly understand the appeal of doing something different. It's like a painter who specializes in oil wants to experiment with watercolors, or tempera, etc. Nothing against trying a different medium. I still have the Zenit 11 (my Canon Elan was stolen), so after many years started considering using it again, since it is practically new (used only a few years). In conclusion, I'm not against film photography, but I consider it just a niche space and definitely not a religion!
I don't think that a grainy photo is necessarily better than a crispy one.
I love shooting film because I have control of the entire process. From taking the photo, all the way to printing it in my darkroom (which is just one of my unused bathrooms). There is something different when you create it yourself. I have also shot digital for years and have many aluminum panoramic prints but they dont feel the same because I didnt create them. I just pointed a computer (sony a7riv) at the sunset and let it do its job. Then stitched the 1s and 0s together and sent it off to another company to print. Dont get me wrong... Digital is very important and has FAR more use cases in photography. Just my .02. Liked and subscribed.
Shoot LF, that’s where it’s at when it comes to film. 👍🏼👍🏼
Ladies' Feet? Low Frequency? Limit Fixed? Last Frame???
Wonderful video! I agree completely with the video overall as I feel like film during this resurgence as been touted as if you shoot your images on film they'll be better images and you'll be a better photographer for it. It has begun to come across as pretentious more often in the mainstream of social media at least to me. I do still love shooting film as an occasional thing because there's not digital equivalents for some of my favorite camera bodies such as my Yashica 635, Pentax ME, or Minox 35GT. I do have a variety of digital cameras to keep feeling fresh in choice as I have a Fuji X-T5, Nikon D700(with split prism focus screen), D7200, & Canon Poweshot G10.
I learned on a digital SLR and now shoot mirrorless. I shoot street/ landscape, flora/ fauna, and macro things, so I'm all over the place.
I picked up film a bit ago as well because I was also curious what the big deal was and I love mechanical manual things so it made sense to try since I started to have some extra cash and that cash soon disappeared. Over a good period of time I went though the formats moving up slowly from a half frame, to 35mm, 645, 6x9 than a lastly landing on 6x6 Bronica SQ-Ai (mostly because less photos means less time self scanning and editing which is the biggest time suck and the waist level view finder is just so fun)
I really enjoy it, but it is a pain, time consuming, errors are expensive and you really feel it. I mostly just shoot film when I go somewhere special, like a planned trip. I still bring digital with me but have to be very strategic what I bring and don't bring on the day. It has improved my shooting and being more conscience and have a better technical understanding, even though I shot manual before on digital, so now I have a greater appreciation and what it all means.
That all said, the most annoying thing to me with Film is metering. Using a spot meter is very time consuming because you really want to make sure or settings are correct and your not doing something dumb like using the wrong iso, which really slows shooting in a bad way and end up missing opportunities.
Agree with every point you've made. The highlight to me is that I prefer to focus on being a better photographer and getting great shots. I consistently get much better results with digital and feel free to focus on the actual photography. I'm sure this is probably the complete opposite for those who love the process of film. Film itself doesn't make the photos any better.
Couldnt agree more!
And with digital if your lens cap is on you’ll know soon enough.
Just turned 60, started in photography around 13 and never stopped shooting film. Learned darkroom in art school , invested a lot of time in film, and just dig the whole mindfulness aspect.
Got the whole adobe package negative lab pro silverfast etc and developed a flow on my 2011 iMac with photoshop 6 from a cd rom, but once I got the latest i Mac (birthday gift) a couple years ago it was just another (re-) learning curve I didn’t have time for. Electronic limbo.
Do digital too, whenever it suits, but as a non pro I don’t do other than crop, straighten and tap the enhance button on my jpegs . then print.
I like the experience and the look of film. I shoot it now and then. But I hate the develop process. I don't have a local lab so it has to be shipped off. That's the only inconvenience I personally find in shooting film. Other than that I don't mind. Not as my primary form, but as an alternative to shooting digital. The cost is high but I don't do it often so it's all good.
I like to shoot both. Film makes me a better photographer, forces me to think, to slow down. Digital makes a better photographer, fast feedback, results are more guaranteed. If I have to deliver, I shoot digital. If I am shooting for myself, I use film. These days, I do more film.
Before I had Apple Music, I was enjoying my music more than now. Unlimited supply has its downsides. We strive in limitations and cherish what we have.
I have been shooting both for years. More often than not if I want portability I will take out my Pentax DSLR. That being said for more artistic and portrait work I love my medium format cameras. And I even enjoy street photography with a TLR.
I shoot alot of black and white so the price is also not so bad since the film is cheaper and I do my own development and scans.
For me the medium is sometimes dictated by what I am looking to photograph and the results I want.
I found with shooting film it often reduced the time I spent on my final photos because editing consisted of dust removal and done.
I like that I have the option of trying and experimenting with many different cameras and tools.
As for limitations. I find with digital giving you the option to take hundreds of photos can often result in just having hundreds of crappy photos to delete later.
My keeper rate is about the same whether I shoot digital or my Rolleiflex.
I've been priced out of shooting colour film, it's just too expensive now.
But more importantly, I make *better* photos when shooting digital. I get the freedom to shoot bursts, experiment and make mistakes without burning a hole in my wallet. Going back to digital from film is incredibly liberating.
I'll still shoot film, it's great fun at parties and those on-camera flash shots have such a fun different vibe than cellphone photos (although you can still get the same shots with a digicam), or when I'm shooting by myself and want to take it slow.
Film is a niche of a niche. I am tired of the "film is not dead" meme, it's very much dead. Enjoyed your video, and all of the points you made are pretty much the same for me. The real nail in the coffin for me at least, was shooting family pics with my Hasselblad while on holiday. No one cared that it's medium format, film or a Hasselblad. Then there was explaining the length of time, cost and difficulty getting the pictures dev'd, scanned and printed. It's a complete joke. Digital processing software can easily mimic the effects of film.
I shot film for over thirty years with first a Leica M3 and then a Nikon F2. For me, film is quite expensive as I prefer to have a lab develop my film optically and having premium scans done. Total cost is over $100 a roll including film and shipping! That`s why I bought a Leica MD 262, digital with no screen. I enjoy both formats but not the cost associated with film. The SD card from the MD that only shoots RAW connected to my computer shows amazing images that are different from film. Film is more organic, less perfect and sharp than digital. Digital is sometimes too perfect. I shoot more digital now but will shoot film in the Fall to bring out amazing colors only film can give...!
If anyone wants a 'film' shooting experience, enjoys the look and feel of film, but doesn't want the inconvenience and cost associated with it, then have a look at older CDD based DSLR's like the Pentax K10D or something similar. They can be had for peanuts and the quality of the images from those older CCD sensors are superb. I picked up the K10D for £80 earlier this year and it's a highly capable bit of kit. I prefer CCD to CMOS, the images have a look that's so much more pleasing to the eye.
Best thing to do (at least for me) was to learn on film and then take the film workflow to a digital camera ( I bought a fuji xt-2 and I adapted my vintage lenses)
I use a Ricoh GR digital camera from 2005.
I love the results and the pocketability of the camera.
I definitely understand, lol. As much as I like shooting film, it is a bit of an expensive hassle, and if you don't develop on your own, running back and forth to the film lab can seem like running an errand.
I applaud you!
Of course I agree about 1,945,543%
This is 2024, digital IS THE WAY TO GO!
To be fair and balanced, I try to shoot a roll of film every year!
Thanks for posting your video.
36 intentional and honest photos vs 5000 irrational photos
Give me a break, I’m sure the 36 “honest photos” are of random old stuff, bushes, maybe a gas station and a few signs.
This is BS every honest former professional film photographer can instantly dismantle.
Can we please move on from this discussion
We live in a time where both technology’s are plentiful and readily available
Let’s have both and get back to taking photos ❤
I can only guess hkw much more you would have nit like it if you done all 100% analog, no scanning or sending it to somebody else. I used to print and develop my film (35 mm and 120) and it was fun, but it we were in the 1990's and i had free time, like you , i will bever go back to film, maybe when i have nothing else in life and have my own dark room. Thanks for the video
You can buy a cheap DSLR so digital is cheaper.
But it's all about the process. LMFAO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I respect your opinion. The video started off well and then just turned into a (quite long) rant as you mentioned. It’s fairly obvious to say film is not for everyone and I would argue that shooting film, even part of the time, does generally make people better photographers. A more well-rounded, knowledge and thoughtful photographer. Knowing how light works and the relationship it has with exposure is invaluable. Spray and pray, shooting hundreds or thousands of photos and relying on modern bodies to compensate sounds like shortcuts. It should go without saying that doesn’t go for everyone. Plenty of amazing digital photographers that know what they’re doing. I shoot film. I shoot digital. You can shoot both and not use ironic air quotes when talking about film shooters to feel superior about your decision.
I used to shoot on film. I even learned how to develop film. Then it got too expensive. I have a canon m6 mark II mirrorless camera now.
I dunno just do both? 🤷🏻♂️
I see many shots on flickr with mediocre scanning quality according to my own standards. That would be such a turn off if my shots looked like that.
With good scans it's worth it for me. (Digital camera scanning)
You seem to be talking more about the benefits of "practicality," which digital offers. Film is not practical. We use film for our photography even though it is expensive and impractical because it offers a more artistic and appealing look that digital cannot provide. If it is expensive for you, not everyone else has the same problem.
First of all digital images aren’t photography, if you are a wedding image taker yes film is pointless if you are an artist film is the only way, there is no comparison in image quality (for color has to be positive film negatives are horrible in color) yes the trendy shit film is dumb. If your inconvenience is “i cant shot thousands of images” then you should consider think and compose more your takes, do you shoot on automatic? Because your winning sound like you cant do the math in manual modes, it is concerning what you said here because is more about you are a mode “photographer” and really don’t understand what is this form of art.
You:
"Maybe film died for a reason."
Also you:
Here are some of my favorite film simulations...
Those are not contradictory
Yeah. If you like sitting photoshopping 1000s of photos in post editing sounds like a waste of a day. And digital is ever changing. Everything coming out now the technology is already obsolete.
Nearly all statements regarding the “benefits” of film are BS in my opinion. Digital has many more benefits, when your goal is to take photos. When your goal is “the process” then film is better. However photography is about the end product, not about taking mediocre photos and glorifying them just because they were shot on film.
The only good thing with film is it teaches you why we switched to digital.
true, now we can shoot 10bn photos per minute
@@gc2161 yep. and you can finally discover that the biggest talent in photography is (and has always been) to trash 99% of your images pretendind the remaining 1% are the only shots you actually took. no magic before, no magic now.
@@Francois15031967 no point taken
After switching to film, I've come to realise that most moments are simply not worth taking photos of so i take a lot fewer frames. I hate the process of culling my thousands of digital photos.
"we're kind of going against the grain [...]" - quite literally, i'd say :D
It wasnt a lot cheaper .. we just didnt spam 300 photos when we went out
Simple. I agree. 😆
Shooting film really only makes sense if you love to print in the darkroom. If I didn't, it would be digital all the way.
I am surprised Digital painters never say to traditional painters. "Why do you use a brush, canvas and real paint when you can do it on a computer?" And all the digi heads say film is not environmentally friendly. Neither is digital. Obsolete technology at break neck speeds so the land fills are filling up faster with digital technology that is obsolete a year ago. It is not biodegradable and have lead and cadmium in them. Printers and computers are listed as hazardous waste where I live so it cannot be thrown out with regular trash.
I really don't understand the need to rationalize to the world why you "don't" want to do something. I use film, I use a DSLR, I use my phone. different tools for different things and different moods. Some people use canvas, brush, and paint to capture a scene. I don't. some people create music entirely on their computer, I prefer a guitar and amp. whatever floats your boat.
I shoot both, 80% digital, 20% BW film. One is convenient, the other is meditative. One is intangible, the other is tangible. There is no right or wrong. Just pros and cons. Everyone has their reasons as to why they do it and to be honest the reasons are just not that interesting. It's about the image. It doesn't matter how you get there unless it does.
nice vide changed my mind 180°
It's odd to me the way you describe film as "novel" or 'trendy' and you say things like 'everyone has been doing it recently'
From my perspective, 'everyone' stopped using film 20 years ago. It's a piece of history not some momentary fad.
Film: Acoustic guitar
Digital: Electric guitar
Did you do any darkroom printing because if not then you didn't complete the job at hand. Analogue is analogue. Your experience is like buying a record player and getting software to digitalise the vinyl and then listening to the music on a computer. BW darkroom prints are like pure gold. Colour darkroom prints are like platinum. I feel you didn't do film the real way. Grain is too dirty to just digitalise, my gawd.
Wait untill AI takes over, film will be gold again
Show me the negative or it didnt happen LOL.
@@cfwheezy You could just print a digital photo and put it in a copy stand. How do you think we used to make copies of pictures?
Yeah I can pick up ten cameras from a few years ago with lenses for the price of a new one. I can get a 36mp tomorrow and it won't even put a dent in my wallet
Why ride a horse when you got a car.
Nothing like the feel of a horse man
Digital photography is way way easier to do than film photography. It's the reason it was invented in the first place. Anyone with half a brain can do digital photography.
So in the words of John F Kennedy, " We don't do it because it is easy, We do it because it is hard".
So if you like cheap and easy, stick with digital.
Did you go into the darkroom?!? THAT`S the MAIN reason to shoot film.. PRINTING!
lol maybe film died for a reason. hahah you out here trying to fight people lol. but its 100% true.
Speaking as a film photographer the only reason film still exists is because we are old stubborn bastards who won't stop buying it. There is objectively no practical reason to use it unless you just feel like it.
How do you create such eloquent sentences off the top of your head? I could never
In other words , you are lazy
Enjoy your digital photography while it lasts. Once AI becomes the norm there will be no skill necessary in taking a good photo!
I shot film for 20 years. Prices have more than doubled and will continue to. It has become insane. In a few years, we will all be paying Usd 30 for a roll.
Digital photographers are editors, film photographers are artists. To each their own. To me, film is inherently better due to its flaws, its limitations and its unmatched aesthetics. You are absolutely wrong when you said, I quote: "..Film is not synonymous with good photography" - that is a very immature statement. Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Garry Winogrand, and many other famous photographers used film. Will you become one of them? I doubt it.
Who cares what medium you use? Nobody cares about the brushes Rembrand used.