I love the mistakes and the light bleeds on the film. I especially like the film one in the alley were she is laughing and slightly leaning over with her arm out. It was such a sincere moment. Great shots
somehow i really don't care about the latest technology in camera, yes it's important it makes life easier bla bla bla, but i'm absolutely fascinated by the tech in my old kodak camera from 1910 that i got from my family, this thing is a piece of mecanical art!
more videos like that pleaseee , i agree in every single word you said about the technical side and the organic part of photographs and YES the film photography community is so good because the are only about the creation and not the specs !! I'm so glad that i found your channel
When I got back to film from all these fancy digital high MP cameras, I also realised, that digital is so boring... I started to use film presets on digital images and try to add film grain... But it's just not the same, so I shoot manly film. I am thinking to get one old digital leica M8 or M9, they have the most film alike images. LCD is very old, so I could also put some black tape over it, to make it look like digital M-D version 😄
I’m a newer photographer. I got into at after high school. I’m 24 now and have been doing photography for about 6 years now. Whenever I thought of film cameras I would equate it to low res, grainy photos so I just never got into it. When I met good friend of mine now, for the first time, he shot film. And I wondered why but then he showed me the photos and I understood why. He got me into it a little bit and even let me use his XA2 for a while. I had it for about 2 years and shot 1 roll, never got it developed. Until about the end of June this year, I picked up the XA2 again. The roll still in there. I went and got it developed. And fast forward to today I have a Canon AE-1 and a Mamiya 645 for myself and fridge stocked full of Portra 😂 I’ve been contemplating getting rid of my Sony A7ii, but I still like to do my portrait sessions with the digital camera as most of the models I deal with want to see the photos and stuff.
@@sebm2334 yes, I had some fujifilm cameras, the last one was xpro2. They are nice, but still you get this digital look with film simulation... It's not bad, this weekend I had X100V for test. Good camera, maybe I will buy it, but still I am not completely happy with images... Film has more life in it, digital looks so sterile
Or you could get a Leica R8 or R9 and the DMR digital back. That way you can choose between film and a digital image with Kodak’s CCD sensor and Imacon colour technology that people like Thorsten Von Overgaard raved over. He claimed the colour was very film like and printed beautifully.
Your comment makes no sense. If you want digital images to have a certain appearance to your liking, then do them to your liking. It is literally the point of digital imaging.
I absolutely love film but its both for me. One thing to keep in mind is the way different sensors work-I've noticed the Sigma cameras with the old Foveon sensors renders images with that organic look because they are built like film and don't have the usual filters that a Bayer filter sensors would have and of which most cameras have. They were APSC format cameras that produced medium format images. Sigma was suppose to release a newer version of their Foveon tech but went back to the drawing board so, the latest they have out now is the Sigma FP of which has a Bayer sensor. I have a Fuji GFX 50S which has a super/pro/turbo charged Bayer filter sensor. lol
@Frank Silvers That's awesome sauce! I've always wanted the DP3M and the SD1 Merrill. I remember a company that would mod your DPs so that it could accept other lenses... ...This is it:www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/04/02/sigma-dp-merrill-heavily-modded-to-take-leica-lenses
Tight. Nice to hear. Even though I have this nice digital camera, I've still been leaning toward film on most shoots. (I keep at least one film camera on me during every shoot, lately)
Interesting in the attempts to revive film use is that no one talks about the chemicals used in the development and printing processes, and their disposal. Especially the C41 process. EDTA isn't nice stuff. None of the chemistry in any colour film process is good to put into the environment, or even to breathe the vapour. Re the film versus digital question, as a professional film photographer and printer for 30+ years I'd say modern digital sensors win hands down every time. So does digital image development. Nothing romantic about using film imo. I've scanned probably thousands of old negatives and transparencies too. But why use film today then digitise it rather than print it properly in a wet dark room? The characteristics that people seem to admire in old prints from film are largely lost in digital prints and on screen unless they're digitally recreated (which you can do to digital images anyway). That's because scanning effectively transfers a stochastic image structure to a pixel grid. I think if people want to use film they should learn wet printing too.
I love your philosophizing at the end. It highlights the artist in you in an accidental way. This video is artfully charming as well and slightly rugged. A lot of depth.
I love shooting with cameras from the 30s-50s especially and I love TLRs. The old cameras are just beautiful and a joy to use. There is a certain level of craftsmanship that goes into them. I don't have to worry about shutter count on a camera 70 years old. If it is well maintained it will outlive me. I also find older optics give a look that is hard if not impossible to replicate and medium format film has a special place for me. I also enjoy developing my own black and white film. I don't do many enlarger prints anymore but that is the biggest change. I also shoot on an Olympus for digital because the ergonomics are the same as a film camera. Olympus figured out that a camera has been designed a certain way for 80 years for a reason. Cameras like Nikon or Canon or Sony feel like cameras with a lens bolted onto it. I also like that I can use all my old film camera lenses on my mirrorless camera.
Large format film with an equivalent of 1,200 Megapixels or 1,2 Gigapixels 8x10 inch film is stil completely unmatched. The pictures and extremely shallow depth of field are just something from another dimension. This guy here made a very good comparison: ua-cam.com/video/4PTIXDhdQes/v-deo.html
Loving these 907x videos dude! Would love to see a video on your process of creating the film emulations you're using for the digital shots. Looks sick.
It's lovely work. And, of course, I can't speak to what speaks to you. But you might be entertained to know that when we ancient photogs shot for film, we wanted it as clean and error-free as digital would one day be. No end-of-roll. No light leaks. We craved the colors of Portra, or VPS (Vericolor Professional Type-S), but with zero grain, and quadruple the sensitivity. And we kept our Rolleis tuned to the max. (And light-tight) At the same time, there was this buncha neck-beards who shot "old-fashioned" media--wet plates and platinum. And they loved peeling emulsion and glitches that added soul. See how little has changed? :-)
Fantastic images my friend. I have the X1D & 907x myself. I also shoot a 501cm. I prefer the film shots for portraits for one reason and that’s the organic feel, the anomalies and the imperfections. The images you’ve made here are timeless and capture a wonderful time in life. Thanks for sharing. Like the format of this video very much. Look forward to seeing what’s next. Take care.
Sam McGhee of late I’ve not used it all that much but it’s my preferred choice for portraits. I find the results from the medium format digital much more preferable for my landscape prints. But some of the most memorable images I’ve made of people are on film. They have a timeless quality to them in my opinion.
"I found the community of film photographers on UA-cam fascinating and enjoyable....!" You're right man! I am one of them.... Using film from 35mm to 5x4 format! It is fascinating! Shooting digital as well though!
That's a great comparison, thanks for doing that. However, if you're going to just scan the negatives then it's not a real test. Film was made to be printed on an optical printer with silver coated paper. I know people will say it won't matter, but it does. There is a difference between a scanned negative and a photo that was printed with an optical printer. Yes, you'll still need to scan the resulting print, but it will show the difference.
That's my hope. Honestly. There were some I preferred film more or digital more... nothing to really critique about, just something to enjoy. Thanks for the positive response.
I am a film guy myself, I have a Rolliflex 2.8 F C, a Bronica RF645, good medium formats and for large format my Graflex 1956 Crown Graphic with the BIG 4x5 negatives. I am always carrying my street camera, my 1951 Lecia lllF.
Very nice shots! Both cameras do very well but Rolleicord surprasingly makes a very good job... you need more time to get the final image but... I like very much the results.
I'm old. When I went to school for photography ALL WE HAD WAS FILM: MORNING, NOON AND NIGHT, fucking FILM. I had a nice instructor who started his first class one day. He said "You want to know what photography is?" He preceeded to pull a real twenty dollar bill out of his pocket. "I'll tell you what photography is". Holding up the bill for all to see, grasping it end to end in both hands above his head, he crumpled the bill in his right hand, and tossed it across the room into a waste basket in the corner. "That's what photography is." (True story).
You'll get about 10% more contrast if you put the proper lens hood on the 'Cord. The old single-coated lens would compare very favorably if shielded. The digital Hasselbad is probably 50 times as costly as the Rolleicord, so it's an unfair comparison. I've been shooting 120 TLRs since 1947 and today continue with the Rollei 3.5F Planar and Rolleicord VB, Series II, which still hold their own against medium format digital, if you know what you're doing. My chromes from 73 years ago are as bright and colorful as the day they came back from Kodak's Hollywood lab. Digital capture is fugitive and degrades relatively quickly. That why the studios still shoot major pictures on film and the Library of Congress Archives have found no way to guarantee preservation of digital images anywhere as long as old-fashioned film. Digital capture is cheaper, if you are not concerned with leaving a body of work for posterity, as am I after 79 years behind the camera. Your model shoot was entertaining and I enjoyed it. Thanks!
Beautiful work, Sir! I really enjoy work from people who respect both mediums, because they are art forms, and use different process to render results. Im waiting to see some motion picture comparison between formats, can also include the third VHS one and interchanging lenses between them for interesting "Alternate Reality" results
Great job. Could you do some zoom in and show us the best detail possible, something into the eyes of your model, in order to see the graininess, and the digital appereance? It would be really useful, given that this medium is really LoFi. Thanks!
4 роки тому
0:07 The color negative strip on the left looks under exposed. Alway OK to even overexposed negative film, especially that used to short portraiture.
Much appreciated, great video. Please do more comparisons with Rolleicord compared with. Overall I do not see a ton of difference here. I suspect the film images required less preparations. It would appear that the digital images have a bit more spontaneity. Please zoom in to your images more for the final videos. Cheers from Canada.
Enjoyed the video, thank you. I liked your film shots, they had character and soul. A group of us went on a trip and one of us had an old Polaroid Instamatic, something still magical about that developing in front of your eyes and the uneven border around the shots. He stuck them in a book with handwritten notes on the pages regarding the setting and circumstances for the photos. Very organic.
Glad you found me on the wide world of the web. I may not get into the basics that much. There's tons of great people to learn from out here. The photography school of UA-cam is ripe.
shooting film is awesome i still use 35mm in my three film cameras . minolta x700 . nikon f3hp , nikon f5 . love the simplicity ( untill you get the cibachrome developer and agfa daylight loader out , ) . dont get me wrong i have nikon d850s and modern gizmos .. but dont edit my digi stuff only in camera
Great video Sam! Love the cinematography of your videos, it's very enjoyable to watch! I found out about your channel while looking for infos about the 907x. Photos were good too ~ I've been shooting most of my personal work on film for the past year now. Like you said, it's less about the technical aspect and more about the feeling of shooting/creating.
Love this particular comparison as it is exactly what I am doing right now, same Hassi, then Rolleiflex & Leica II , M3, so fun to do both, plus am into B&W, so my M10p monochrome is perfect in totality! I have relearned the art of focusing on taking pictures not the technical stuff! So much more rewarding! 👍🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
nice video as usual. thanks for putting it together. have you tried some old v-series hasselblad lenses or maybe even an x-pan lens of the 907x? now THAT would be interesting too. cheers from germany.
Young lady good to photograph as she was not camera shy, which makes all the difference. For me, the film seemed to pull out more detail in her hair than the digital did, but I’m not sure impact from any post processing. I will have to play it back at a very slow speed or stop it to examine the files in more detail to see how film and digital compare, but I think film was better, more organic and less bland. Good idea to compare them. 👍
Awesome episode Sam stunning Images both film and digi. I shoot digitally at work (newspapers) I cross between film and digi on my own time, I'm finding digital is almost too easy in that you get instant feedback and can adjust things to improve the shot, there's almost no challenge, I enjoy film for the way it slows the whole process down, you have to concentrate make sure everything as right as poss before pressing the shutter then the nervous wait to either process the BnWs myself or send colour to the lab. I am increasingly aware that I enjoy recording content for my channel featuring film more than using digital, it just seems more fun. Anyway cracking vid mate top model, top photography liked and subbed for more. Cheers Paul
End of the day who cares what I think or what you think, Sam. The real question is what did your cousin think of the shots? In all honesty they both window beautifully. Are you enjoying the hasselblad? Second to that, will you be getting the handgrip which will allow more functionality at your fingertips? Thanks very much for doing this - they are really good fun to watch & informative.
Man theres just no soul in digital, it captures sharpness but no dimensions. Where film captures at times up to 5 multiple hidden dimensions in colors, sharpness, and apertures especially when you get that photo at the right time at the right place it has so much depth it feels alive and realistic.
I have a problem here. Having the film negatives scanned you are converting them to digital images. This means you are comparing one method of producing a digital image with another. To compare film with digital you should compare a photographic print from the film negative with a print made via a computer and printer from the data file produced by the digital camera.
@@SamMcGhee My Vibe? As an amateur, I'm very happy that digital cameras allow me to take images as I want to without worrying about cost. The downside is it makes you profligate, I try hard not to take 100 images to produce 1 good one, but it's difficult to resist. If money was no problem, I'd rent a small industrial space, convert it to a studio and darkroom, buy a 5x4 camera, and spend my days exposing developing and printing photographs. For me it's not a photograph until you can mount it in a frame and hang it on the wall.
why bother comparing , would your really compare a vintage rolls from the 60s and 70s against a new BMW 7 series ..... no you wouldn't ... so why do it in photography... film will not die , people love it and even those living under photography rocks , know that people are flocking back to it .. and for numerous reasons , only 1 being the results ... the experience of shooting with old cameras, owning something that has been crafted and designed with thought and detail that you do not see today,along with the processes of using them ,developing and printing to metering your light and scene manually .. film has been good enough results wise since the 60s and popular general consumer digital cameras still cannot close to large format in terms of detail and quality ... if you don't believe me watch this..... ua-cam.com/video/HXSWNXtDsOE/v-deo.html.... spoiler the quality and detail questions over film are a mute question... the movie industry last year signed a long term multi million a year contract with kodak for the supply of film across various studios .. films such as james bond , star wars , joker , once upon a time in hollywood, little women, the lighthouse , ad astra, first man , blackkklansman, mission impossible, ready player one , wonder woman 1984, death on the nile, and tenet have all recently been shot using various film formats ... people need to stop wasting time with justifying film or comparing it to digital ,and start prompting its unique abilities and formats and the positives and characteristics of each ,from pinhole, to 35 mm, medium format to large format , and wet plate (and associated methods) to polaroid etc etc ... painters don't just use one format( oil, water, charcoal, acrylics) neither should photographers ,... variety ,artistic and creative vision is all that counts ...pick the tool that suites you, or will produce your vision and run with it ...
Gaius. The classic movies from Hollywood were filmed with Taylor, Taylor & Hobson lenses from England, these lenses provide that special look that no digital lens can replicate.
Forget about the technical side of things and just go make some art: well said. I find the idea of shooting film very romantic and appealing and artsy, but film is messy, expensive, time consuming and then what do you do with the negatives? Scan them and convert to digital files and process on your laptop? Might as well shoot digital in the first place. Print them? How do you share the prints? We're in a digital age so shooting digital just makes the most sense. I for one like shooting older 12-16mp cameras or sticking to a retro film simulation on my Fujis. You don't get the grain of print film but I was never a fan of grainy images anyway.
“It’s not about posing, it’s about directing.” That just unlocked something for me. Beautiful content. Keep it coming.
Feels a bit like vinyl vs CD sound.
Digital is "better", but film has magic powder in its pockets.
Beautiful lady. The blurred film shot in the alleyway was quite magical.
I just love the colours and the dynamic range that film produces.
I love the mistakes and the light bleeds on the film. I especially like the film one in the alley were she is laughing and slightly leaning over with her arm out. It was such a sincere moment. Great shots
Film's a lot more challenging, especially in low light, but the results you got were more magical.
awesome model too
somehow i really don't care about the latest technology in camera, yes it's important it makes life easier bla bla bla, but i'm absolutely fascinated by the tech in my old kodak camera from 1910 that i got from my family, this thing is a piece of mecanical art!
Absolutely. With film, you have nothing to rely on but yourself. Nothing automatic about vintage equipment....and it's beautiful.
Ah yes, those lovely 4.25 x 2.5 negatives from 116 film.
more videos like that pleaseee , i agree in every single word you said about the technical side and the organic part of photographs and YES the film photography community is so good because the are only about the creation and not the specs !! I'm so glad that i found your channel
Love this. I’m trying. Sorry for the late reply.
I love it all, both digital and film 😍
Would have been great if you had a Hasselblad 500CM + CF Lenses to swap digital and the film back with.
Kudos to you and Sofia. Great modeling and composition. Thanks to your film crew too. Keep up the good work. All the best. 😀
I fall in love with medium format everytime you post a video, images are unreal
Glad you like them! Do you shoot the format at all? Full frame? Digital over film? What's up?
@@SamMcGhee full frame! Your hasselblad 907x shots get me in an economically dangerous state of mind though hahahah. Love your stuff!!!
When I got back to film from all these fancy digital high MP cameras, I also realised, that digital is so boring... I started to use film presets on digital images and try to add film grain... But it's just not the same, so I shoot manly film. I am thinking to get one old digital leica M8 or M9, they have the most film alike images. LCD is very old, so I could also put some black tape over it, to make it look like digital M-D version 😄
I’m a newer photographer. I got into at after high school. I’m 24 now and have been doing photography for about 6 years now. Whenever I thought of film cameras I would equate it to low res, grainy photos so I just never got into it. When I met good friend of mine now, for the first time, he shot film. And I wondered why but then he showed me the photos and I understood why. He got me into it a little bit and even let me use his XA2 for a while. I had it for about 2 years and shot 1 roll, never got it developed. Until about the end of June this year, I picked up the XA2 again. The roll still in there. I went and got it developed. And fast forward to today I have a Canon AE-1 and a Mamiya 645 for myself and fridge stocked full of Portra 😂 I’ve been contemplating getting rid of my Sony A7ii, but I still like to do my portrait sessions with the digital camera as most of the models I deal with want to see the photos and stuff.
Actually, and to be more precise, the M9 (and make sure you get one with the sensor replaced) imitates the look of Kodachrome 25 slide film.
If you want fuji also make digital cameras that can emulate film look very well for way less than a leica lol
@@sebm2334 yes, I had some fujifilm cameras, the last one was xpro2. They are nice, but still you get this digital look with film simulation... It's not bad, this weekend I had X100V for test. Good camera, maybe I will buy it, but still I am not completely happy with images... Film has more life in it, digital looks so sterile
Or you could get a Leica R8 or R9 and the DMR digital back. That way you can choose between film and a digital image with Kodak’s CCD sensor and Imacon colour technology that people like Thorsten Von Overgaard raved over. He claimed the colour was very film like and printed beautifully.
Digital pictures are so sharp and
"sterilized" they tend to loose "poetry" compared to film. It's like photograph vs painting. I prefer film.
Your comment makes no sense.
If you want digital images to have a certain appearance to your liking, then do them to your liking. It is literally the point of digital imaging.
I absolutely love film but its both for me. One thing to keep in mind is the way different sensors work-I've noticed the Sigma cameras with the old Foveon sensors renders images with that organic look because they are built like film and don't have the usual filters that a Bayer filter sensors would have and of which most cameras have. They were APSC format cameras that produced medium format images. Sigma was suppose to release a newer version of their Foveon tech but went back to the drawing board so, the latest they have out now is the Sigma FP of which has a Bayer sensor. I have a Fuji GFX 50S which has a super/pro/turbo charged Bayer filter sensor. lol
@Frank Silvers That's awesome sauce! I've always wanted the DP3M and the SD1 Merrill. I remember a company that would mod your DPs so that it could accept other lenses... ...This is it:www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/04/02/sigma-dp-merrill-heavily-modded-to-take-leica-lenses
I'm a simple man so here it goes..."Love film"...
Tight. Nice to hear. Even though I have this nice digital camera, I've still been leaning toward film on most shoots. (I keep at least one film camera on me during every shoot, lately)
@@SamMcGhee That 907x + CFV 50c ii is pretty sweet too though...:)
Interesting in the attempts to revive film use is that no one talks about the chemicals used in the development and printing processes, and their disposal. Especially the C41 process.
EDTA isn't nice stuff. None of the chemistry in any colour film process is good to put into the environment, or even to breathe the vapour.
Re the film versus digital question, as a professional film photographer and printer for 30+ years I'd say modern digital sensors win hands down every time. So does digital image development. Nothing romantic about using film imo.
I've scanned probably thousands of old negatives and transparencies too. But why use film today then digitise it rather than print it properly in a wet dark room? The characteristics that people seem to admire in old prints from film are largely lost in digital prints and on screen unless they're digitally recreated (which you can do to digital images anyway). That's because scanning effectively transfers a stochastic image structure to a pixel grid.
I think if people want to use film they should learn wet printing too.
I love your philosophizing at the end. It highlights the artist in you in an accidental way. This video is artfully charming as well and slightly rugged. A lot of depth.
I love shooting with cameras from the 30s-50s especially and I love TLRs. The old cameras are just beautiful and a joy to use. There is a certain level of craftsmanship that goes into them. I don't have to worry about shutter count on a camera 70 years old. If it is well maintained it will outlive me. I also find older optics give a look that is hard if not impossible to replicate and medium format film has a special place for me. I also enjoy developing my own black and white film. I don't do many enlarger prints anymore but that is the biggest change. I also shoot on an Olympus for digital because the ergonomics are the same as a film camera. Olympus figured out that a camera has been designed a certain way for 80 years for a reason. Cameras like Nikon or Canon or Sony feel like cameras with a lens bolted onto it. I also like that I can use all my old film camera lenses on my mirrorless camera.
Large format film with an equivalent of 1,200 Megapixels or 1,2 Gigapixels 8x10 inch film is stil completely unmatched. The pictures and extremely shallow depth of field are just something from another dimension. This guy here made a very good comparison:
ua-cam.com/video/4PTIXDhdQes/v-deo.html
Loving these 907x videos dude! Would love to see a video on your process of creating the film emulations you're using for the digital shots. Looks sick.
It's lovely work. And, of course, I can't speak to what speaks to you. But you might be entertained to know that when we ancient photogs shot for film, we wanted it as clean and error-free as digital would one day be. No end-of-roll. No light leaks. We craved the colors of Portra, or VPS (Vericolor Professional Type-S), but with zero grain, and quadruple the sensitivity. And we kept our Rolleis tuned to the max. (And light-tight)
At the same time, there was this buncha neck-beards who shot "old-fashioned" media--wet plates and platinum. And they loved peeling emulsion and glitches that added soul. See how little has changed? :-)
Love the film shots. Portra is great stuff.
As the photos weren't on screen long enough to make a judgement call btwn film and digital. But I loved the end result of all the images. Nice work.
Fantastic images my friend. I have the X1D & 907x myself. I also shoot a 501cm. I prefer the film shots for portraits for one reason and that’s the organic feel, the anomalies and the imperfections. The images you’ve made here are timeless and capture a wonderful time in life. Thanks for sharing. Like the format of this video very much. Look forward to seeing what’s next. Take care.
How often do you shoot the 501cm? I hope you use it regularly! Such a great spread of cameras there. Thanks for the connection here!
Sam McGhee of late I’ve not used it all that much but it’s my preferred choice for portraits. I find the results from the medium format digital much more preferable for my landscape prints. But some of the most memorable images I’ve made of people are on film. They have a timeless quality to them in my opinion.
Sam McGhee I have two of my favourite film portraits mid way through my latest vlog published today.
How often do you use the digital back on the 500? I’m about to buy the back to use on the 500CM but wonder if I’ll end up not using it that way.
"I found the community of film photographers on UA-cam fascinating and enjoyable....!" You're right man! I am one of them.... Using film from 35mm to 5x4 format! It is fascinating! Shooting digital as well though!
These are beautiful. My only problem was that I keep pausing the video to watch your photos.
Well done.
Who is the model ?
Your photos are spectacular and cousin’s gorgeous.... ART
😏 I gotchu.
That's a great comparison, thanks for doing that. However, if you're going to just scan the negatives then it's not a real test. Film was made to be printed on an optical printer with silver coated paper. I know people will say it won't matter, but it does. There is a difference between a scanned negative and a photo that was printed with an optical printer. Yes, you'll still need to scan the resulting print, but it will show the difference.
Love your videos. Love drooling over the hasselblad. Please tell more about the 907X
I needed that philosophical outro. Thank you! And I agree on the ruined frames. They’re awesome. I wasn’t very popular in photo school. Oh well 😂
I used one ruined frame as a business card. It’s a conversation starter.
i love both digital and film
It's just nice to experience both. Sincerely.
I agree, there is too much focus on the tech. The film ‘mistakes’ are one of a kind, never to be duplicated ART. Thanks
How true.
I found myself enjoying the photos more than analyzing the differences between them
That's my hope. Honestly. There were some I preferred film more or digital more... nothing to really critique about, just something to enjoy. Thanks for the positive response.
Sam McGhee my pleasure!
The quality in this video is gorgeous
super beautiful portraits
the race is finding new old things. you can't stop it.
I am a film guy myself, I have a Rolliflex 2.8 F C, a Bronica RF645, good medium formats and for large format my Graflex 1956 Crown Graphic with the BIG 4x5 negatives. I am always carrying my street camera, my 1951 Lecia lllF.
can you please post some of these raw images so we can download them end edit them to look like film?
Very nice shots! Both cameras do very well but Rolleicord surprasingly makes a very good job... you need more time to get the final image but... I like very much the results.
I'm old. When I went to school for photography ALL WE HAD WAS FILM: MORNING, NOON AND NIGHT, fucking FILM. I had a nice instructor who started his first class one day. He said "You want to know what photography is?" He preceeded to pull a real twenty dollar bill out of his pocket. "I'll tell you what photography is". Holding up the bill for all to see, grasping it end to end in both hands above his head, he crumpled the bill in his right hand, and tossed it across the room into a waste basket in the corner. "That's what photography is." (True story).
Your photos are all great. It's hard to judge the camera by been digital or analog, all shots were awesome.
You'll get about 10% more contrast if you put the proper lens hood on the 'Cord. The old single-coated lens would compare very favorably if shielded. The digital Hasselbad is probably 50 times as costly as the Rolleicord, so it's an unfair comparison. I've been shooting 120 TLRs since 1947 and today continue with the Rollei 3.5F Planar and Rolleicord VB, Series II, which still hold their own against medium format digital, if you know what you're doing. My chromes from 73 years ago are as bright and colorful as the day they came back from Kodak's Hollywood lab. Digital capture is fugitive and degrades relatively quickly. That why the studios still shoot major pictures on film and the Library of Congress Archives have found no way to guarantee preservation of digital images anywhere as long as old-fashioned film. Digital capture is cheaper, if you are not concerned with leaving a body of work for posterity, as am I after 79 years behind the camera. Your model shoot was entertaining and I enjoyed it. Thanks!
I'm 64 and I still prefer the look of film even though 99.9% of my photography is digital these days. Your model was awesome!
Ok this makes me finaly descides to go analog. Succes beautiful photo's, love your work!
Beautiful work, Sir! I really enjoy work from people who respect both mediums, because they are art forms, and use different process to render results. Im waiting to see some motion picture comparison between formats, can also include the third VHS one and interchanging lenses between them for interesting "Alternate Reality" results
I agree too much focus on the tech! I think it’s about capturing light and color...mostly.
Great Pictures Both👍
Great job. Could you do some zoom in and show us the best detail possible, something into the eyes of your model, in order to see the graininess, and the digital appereance? It would be really useful, given that this medium is really LoFi. Thanks!
0:07 The color negative strip on the left looks under exposed. Alway OK to even overexposed negative film, especially that used to short portraiture.
I'd like to see this done with 35mm compared to a full frame and a crop frame Canon cameras.
super luv these comparisons...ur funny + video informative
Glad to hear. 🤘🏻😂
Much appreciated, great video. Please do more comparisons with Rolleicord compared with. Overall I do not see a ton of difference here. I suspect the film images required less preparations. It would appear that the digital images have a bit more spontaneity. Please zoom in to your images more for the final videos. Cheers from Canada.
Hi Sam
Please, how do you sync flash with the 907x, how do you attach the trigger ?
but why medium format? you don't get more unsharpness than with an f 1,2 lens in ff.
Great video!
Do you have a video or advises about scanning?
Might be the best ending of any video I've ever seen...
I love medium format too!!!
Enjoyed the video, thank you. I liked your film shots, they had character and soul. A group of us went on a trip and one of us had an old Polaroid Instamatic, something still magical about that developing in front of your eyes and the uneven border around the shots. He stuck them in a book with handwritten notes on the pages regarding the setting and circumstances for the photos. Very organic.
You can do that with digital. Instax camera or Instax printers.
What made you chose the 907x over the x1d?
The form factor. WLVF gives me the fizz. I was that reply worth waiting a year for?
Love your vids man just subbed! Will you make a video explaining what Aperture etc is and so :) I just started Photography
Glad you found me on the wide world of the web. I may not get into the basics that much. There's tons of great people to learn from out here. The photography school of UA-cam is ripe.
shooting film is awesome i still use 35mm in my three film cameras . minolta x700 . nikon f3hp , nikon f5 . love the simplicity ( untill you get the cibachrome developer and agfa daylight loader out , ) . dont get me wrong i have nikon d850s and modern gizmos .. but dont edit my digi stuff only in camera
Great video Sam!
Love the cinematography of your videos, it's very enjoyable to watch! I found out about your channel while looking for infos about the 907x.
Photos were good too ~
I've been shooting most of my personal work on film for the past year now.
Like you said, it's less about the technical aspect and more about the feeling of shooting/creating.
I appreciate the kind words. I really dig your film vibes. Stoked to go through all your videos now.
@@SamMcGhee Hope you enjou my videos haha. Can't wait to see the photos you'll get from pairing the new digital back to a Hasselblad V serie back!
Both great all is in your hands, you know how. I'm an old Kodachrome guy, another experience never matched
Love this particular comparison as it is exactly what I am doing right now, same Hassi, then Rolleiflex & Leica II , M3, so fun to do both, plus am into B&W, so my M10p monochrome is perfect in totality! I have relearned the art of focusing on taking pictures not the technical stuff! So much more rewarding! 👍🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
Wow. What an awe inspiring setup. Such a great line up. Classic vibes. Thanks for reaching out!
Well, how refreshing. Guess it's like and sub from me. You could keep this format going for awhile and I'd be in. Substance, depth, art. Perfect dude.
FILM all the way!! The roll off, the grit, the color! The softness but at the same time, the definitive light value!
nice video as usual. thanks for putting it together. have you tried some old v-series hasselblad lenses or maybe even an x-pan lens of the 907x? now THAT would be interesting too. cheers from germany.
What digital camera he used someone ans me please
These are great...Thanks.
Young lady good to photograph as she was not camera shy, which makes all the difference. For me, the film seemed to pull out more detail in her hair than the digital did, but I’m not sure impact from any post processing. I will have to play it back at a very slow speed or stop it to examine the files in more detail to see how film and digital compare, but I think film was better, more organic and less bland. Good idea to compare them. 👍
This model is beautiful. Is she of Iranian, Afgany background?
Hey Sam, very insightful video. Thanks so much.
i really like the images. good job
Awesome episode Sam stunning Images both film and digi. I shoot digitally at work (newspapers) I cross between film and digi on my own time, I'm finding digital is almost too easy in that you get instant feedback and can adjust things to improve the shot, there's almost no challenge, I enjoy film for the way it slows the whole process down, you have to concentrate make sure everything as right as poss before pressing the shutter then the nervous wait to either process the BnWs myself or send colour to the lab. I am increasingly aware that I enjoy recording content for my channel featuring film more than using digital, it just seems more fun. Anyway cracking vid mate top model, top photography liked and subbed for more. Cheers Paul
How did I not see this till now. What kind words. Thank you.
haha all good mate keep shootin @@SamMcGhee
Dope dope dope 🔥 I think that summarizes well my thoughts 😬
...06:37 Yes. Beautiful shoot...
End of the day who cares what I think or what you think, Sam. The real question is what did your cousin think of the shots?
In all honesty they both window beautifully.
Are you enjoying the hasselblad? Second to that, will you be getting the handgrip which will allow more functionality at your fingertips?
Thanks very much for doing this - they are really good fun to watch & informative.
Sam - we share a lot of the same interest. Great video!
very intresting!
Digital is just too... perfect
it isnt though .. if you didnt have computers to polish your photos to within an inch of their lives , most photographers would be shite
@@tomhughes5123 of course
If enough natural light to shoot, film is undefeated
This was great
Yeah man. Love your words at the end there... now get back to work!
Loved what you said, enjoyed your video.
Got me. This is a Gem.
Man theres just no soul in digital, it captures sharpness but no dimensions. Where film captures at times up to 5 multiple hidden dimensions in colors, sharpness, and apertures especially when you get that photo at the right time at the right place it has so much depth it feels alive and realistic.
I’m about that. Great words.
With today's digital cameras, they do everything for you. With an old medium format TLR, you have to earn it.
Earn it. I love it.
I love prints straight from film, with NO post manipulation(!)
Nice photos and video i loved the effect you got with the diffuser but pleeeeaaase stop leaving so much space above the subjects head in your photos
I have a problem here. Having the film negatives scanned you are converting them to digital images. This means you are comparing one method of producing a digital image with another. To compare film with digital you should compare a photographic print from the film negative with a print made via a computer and printer from the data file produced by the digital camera.
Great point; though, I’m mostly comparing the differing experience of shooting either format. It’s about the vibe. What’s your vibe Neil?
@@SamMcGhee My Vibe? As an amateur, I'm very happy that digital cameras allow me to take images as I want to without worrying about cost. The downside is it makes you profligate, I try hard not to take 100 images to produce 1 good one, but it's difficult to resist. If money was no problem, I'd rent a small industrial space, convert it to a studio and darkroom, buy a 5x4 camera, and spend my days exposing developing and printing photographs. For me it's not a photograph until you can mount it in a frame and hang it on the wall.
Neil Fulcher now we’re talking! Let’s go!
Thumbs up, subscribed. Film has magic to it
I used 4x5 press and 8x10 sheet film use over head projector it better than dightal camra dightal pixels that I hate
Pixels are annoying to see it like stading in front of net watching a game
Now this is quality content. Great stuff Sam!
Not posible to get such a clear face
the blad is obviously better in terms of quality, but film has more fun and is cheaper :)
why bother comparing , would your really compare a vintage rolls from the 60s and 70s against a new BMW 7 series ..... no you wouldn't ... so why do it in photography... film will not die , people love it and even those living under photography rocks , know that people are flocking back to it .. and for numerous reasons , only 1 being the results ... the experience of shooting with old cameras, owning something that has been crafted and designed with thought and detail that you do not see today,along with the processes of using them ,developing and printing to metering your light and scene manually .. film has been good enough results wise since the 60s and popular general consumer digital cameras still cannot close to large format in terms of detail and quality ... if you don't believe me watch this..... ua-cam.com/video/HXSWNXtDsOE/v-deo.html.... spoiler the quality and detail questions over film are a mute question... the movie industry last year signed a long term multi million a year contract with kodak for the supply of film across various studios .. films such as james bond , star wars , joker , once upon a time in hollywood, little women, the lighthouse , ad astra, first man , blackkklansman, mission impossible, ready player one , wonder woman 1984, death on the nile, and tenet have all recently been shot using various film formats ... people need to stop wasting time with justifying film or comparing it to digital ,and start prompting its unique abilities and formats and the positives and characteristics of each ,from pinhole, to 35 mm, medium format to large format , and wet plate (and associated methods) to polaroid etc etc ... painters don't just use one format( oil, water, charcoal, acrylics) neither should photographers ,... variety ,artistic and creative vision is all that counts ...pick the tool that suites you, or will produce your vision and run with it ...
Gaius. The classic movies from Hollywood were filmed with Taylor, Taylor & Hobson lenses from England, these lenses provide that special look that no digital lens can replicate.
Forget about the technical side of things and just go make some art: well said. I find the idea of shooting film very romantic and appealing and artsy, but film is messy, expensive, time consuming and then what do you do with the negatives? Scan them and convert to digital files and process on your laptop? Might as well shoot digital in the first place. Print them? How do you share the prints? We're in a digital age so shooting digital just makes the most sense. I for one like shooting older 12-16mp cameras or sticking to a retro film simulation on my Fujis. You don't get the grain of print film but I was never a fan of grainy images anyway.
For me film looks amazing it has more light and bright… digital are over exposed and too dark some area
Something tells me you're the next big thing in film photography at UA-cam.