Film vs Digital (medium format comparison)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 кві 2024
- Shooting two cameras today, the Mamiya 7 along side a Pentax 645z. No pixel peeping here, just talking about experience and process.
Use my code "RVT" at theFINDlab for 10% off your first order!
Thanks Austin for the rad presets! Check them out below!
www.austinvisual.com
sorry for the obnoxious license plate blur I tried using UA-cams autoblur and its horrible. don't go stalk my friend who lent me their car to drive on the beach k thanks
Streisand effect 😢
I really enjoy both film and digital. It all matters for me how i feel for that day. I really enjoy your videos. Thank you.
I will put my 2c in. I am a beginner with a minimum of knowledge. I would love to be outside like you doing medium format film. I learnt something, with your comments on a blue sky. I saw another video similar to yours. The guy was out in some desert region in bright sun taking medium format film photos. They were everything that I would want. That would be my goal. Two issues, I don't have the knowledge and I don't have the money. Maybe some day. At the moment, digital is the appropriate tool for me, because I don't care about the final product. Of course I do but that isn't my goal. My goal at the moment is to photograph things that mimic the lessons I am looking at. For example I want to photograph converging lines. I am trying to sensitise my brain to seeing in the environment. So digital is perfect. I was so impressed by this guys desert photos I had to look into it. In my mind, I can describe what I was seeing that was attracting me. when I tried to look into it I believe I was right. The larger sensor or negative in medium format allows for the inclusion of a broader colour palate. Or to put it in other words, there are more graduations across the photo and not the sharp changes in tints and shades. That is what thrills me.
Love the fact that you call out that making these videos is a great reason to go out and shoot! Really enjoyed your perspective of film vs digital photography.
thanks so much my friend! i love photography to the core, but sometimes it’s hard to get myself out there. thinking of a fun video idea and following through with it has really given new life to creating things i’m excited about! appreciate the encouragement
@@robertvonthaden Motivation is a good thing, and giving yourself deadlines is a great way as a creative to make things happen.
Can relate to this so much haha. Just got a medium format digi for client safety because the Mamiya 7 was used in some interesting situations for me but once you get that lab relationship / workflow down it’s so enjoyable. Digi editing also such a learning curve
For me it always comes down to two things too... the process of film... there's a rhythm that just cannot be replicated. And second, film just handles bright light so much better, especially in the highlights. I love shooting my Fuji GFX too but there's just something sterile about it.
this! totally agree with you, thanks for sharing your experience! sometimes I think I may be stuck up, but when I import from digital I just think... "so what?..." it seems too easy hahaha
I really like the gradients in the digital skies. The hue is a bit off, but that‘s easily fixed in post
Great video, thank you so much
glad you enjoyed! thanks for support!
I think the really saturated blue is a Pentax thing. I have been shooting Nikon D850 for years and Zf since launch, and I noticed sky in 645Z is very blue the day I bought it. When I was doing my research of 645Z, I saw a lot of very blue skies and I assumed they pulled saturation slider too far. Apparently that is not the case.
very interesting, it could be! i felt like i yankkkked the blues out of these files for the video and stillll much deeper blue than the film scans! i see it often from the people i follow on insta who shoot digital Leica M’s too. but it could just be their editing style!
@@robertvonthaden Dehaze slider will make sky very blue in post. Another factor is a lot of people may have a "vivid" or some film simulation profile selected in camera and shoot only JPG which has the styles applied. I shoot flat/standard profiles without any processing in camera body, and I only shoot RAW format.
Great film is still light-years ahead of digital with regard to the end quality results.
The main problem with film is the constant associated cost, and then storage after the fact.
Another great video bro! Loved it!
thanks so much brother!
I feel like medium format film is quite close to medium format digital once edited properly because of the sharpness. But 135mm film is hard to mimic using digital sensors. Yes you can unsharp the image but the grain is always different.
Great video ! Look forward to more videos !
thanks so much! another one comin’ sunday!
I struggle with wanting to use my full frame digital camera, I see it more as a tool for video and my film cameras for photos but there is nothing wrong with incorporating both into your work flow. Whatever gets you out to shoot and enjoy the process.
this this this. 100000% agree. the best tools are the ones that get ya out there!
They are quite different processes even if film is scanned and there are many aspects to film that are difficult to replicate with digital and vice versa.
agreed! even tho screen-viewing is most my work flow, still love the film every time!
I can relate to your point about photographs on film either coming out way worse or way better than I remember. It's what makes me keep shooting film and chasing those outstanding, almost magical results that pop-up every so often unexpectedly. And of course, often times the photo just doesn't work on film and I feel defeated. But through understanding different film stocks, light conditions, exposure, scene elements, and just having shot with film enough times, I kind of know what will work and my hit rate is always increasing.
totally agree man! i’ve pretty much spent the past 1000 rolls totally committed to portra 400 & 800 for this exact reason. glad you related and thanks for sharing!
I have 3 TLRs for 6*6. Sometimes I do quibble about the price, but that's only because I use them regularly. I feel if I got a really good digital like a Leica (I have 2 contax rangefinders with lens already)I may not use it enough to justify the price over a number of years. If I get tired of my film cameras I have already got enough values and enjoyment out of them. Of course I do have digital cameras when I need to be fast at 5 FPS, but medium format should be a slower process in film or digital
I want to like film but digital is just so affordable that I can't be bothered to buy film and then get it developed, I grew up with film cameras and remember having to save the coins I got as change to get them developed when I was a kid.
I hear you! It's funny, when I started shooting film in 2011ish it was the other way around. I bought my medium format camera because it was $800 and and most full frame digital cannon cameras with a lens were multiple thousands of dollars. a 5 pack of ektar 100 was $24 and developing was still cheap. now the whole market has flipped upside down, but I'm still hooked on film! cheers and happy shooting!
Always film. Price must be into consideration
I agree! there's something about having to budget the little money I have for the thing I love, it makes it feel even more special!
@@robertvonthaden medium format there is tlr. Not that expensive
Very relateable!! I'm not ashamed to admit that If i didn't have film, i wouldn't be out shooting at all. I really appreciate how much film made me more interested in everything around me! But funny enough, a good number of fav photography pages to follow on instagram shoot digital lolll 🙈
10000% agree with you on this! it seems so silly, but I think everything in life is more valuable when you worked harder for it, and film is def one of those things for me! happy shooting man!
Good stuff homie! Preesh the shout out too
thanks man! always spreading the world of people doing great work!
Film of course cuz im cool
film adds +2HP to the cool level
Now I understand!
Also you should try lomo 100 cn if you want film a bit cheaper. It's good in 35mm or 120
Did you use UV filter for the digital? I’ve seen it taking this digital blue out for this time of the day
i didn’t! good to know, i’ve never tried a UV filter!
First I just wanna say excellent work. @ around 1:10 is that the dune shack trail? I’m also a local film photographer (south shore) been shooting street and Boston in general for years now. recently I’ve been feeling burned out on the street and started exploring the cape and working on more long term projects. Glad to find more local film photographers with similar mindsets.
hey thanks so much for the comment Jamie! I was driving out on the South Side (ORV) of Nauset beach! long stretch of sand roads that wind through the dunes. The shacks were built in the 30's (I think) as duck camps! Back in the day, people would come from Boston to stay in the camps and learn to duck hunt with a guide! its actually really what started the tourist industry on the cape. pretty cool, glad to connect with you! and appreciate the kind words
Enjoyed this. If you slightly desaturated the blues and perhaps shot the digital with a half-stop more light and lift the shadows, you are there.
absolutely, seeing these side by really made me realize it doesn't matter how the picture was made, but more so comes down to which one makes me more excited about photography. appreciate the kind words, cheers!
I prefer film but color is way too expensive, that's why I shoot film in B&W (bulk load and develop myself) and shoot color with digital. I stopped trying to imitate film with digital, it doesn't work for me. I have Fujifilm cameras but I don't bother with film simulations. I wish there was a camera with 1:1 sensor who could shoot like kodachrome 25 direct in camera. This would be a dream really :-)
To my eyes, in your video, which I really enjoyed, all the film shots were the best. The digital just looked, well, digital; slightly unreal, too perfect, computerised ???
I do film and digital with Fuji X, Leica M and Nikon. Film is just better IMO, even when it's not so good, it has more character and more surprises.
absolutely agree! thanks for the kind words!
If you had shot on Kodak chrome or ektar chrome then you would see how sky would be more saturated and darker like digital camera !
very true! i always have thought when i shoot slide film it looks a bit more like it came from a digital sensor! not my favorite but i want to revisit it again soon!
@@robertvonthaden negative films have much higher latitude that’s why looks different from digital or slide film!
been struggling with this lately. every once in a while ill grab my digital and i think the editing process is actually pretty fun and relaxing, but it doesn't hit the same as shooting film. guess we'll just keep emptying the bank account ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i feel you man! there’s just something about it, maybe jumping through hoops and breaking the bank is really what keeps me hooked hahaha
1.Film was never designed to viewed on a screen,print film then you will see why it is superior to digital.(and not forget dynamic range,resolution and highlights on film,they just better).
2:03 the blur really went: And I oop
hahahahaha yo bro chilllll
The price difference has never been a factor for me. Digital images that aren't scans (most digitised negatives are taken with a specialised digital sensor after all, if not with an actual digital camera), are just different, they lack *something* film has. No preset can bring that back.
Mostly I prefer the experience of shooting film. I have a mirrorless camera for my negatives and streaming, but couldn't use it instead of Tmax, Tri-X, Portra or Ektar.
I hear ya man, there's just something so special about using oil,, makes photography feel more real!
I do understand his point in making this video, but in absolute comparison terms, it really is a pointless exercise. The reason? The film, once processed, is necessarily run through a digital imaging process which places a complete layer of "digital" between the film image and the final positive result. That digital processing, whichever technology you choose, is going to automatically insert image affecting adjustments to the final digital image of the film negative. (No, I'm not a digital Luddite. I shoot my social shapshots on an old Canon Powershot. I shoot my serious color photography on a Pentax 67, then either make traditional prints in my darkroom, or I scan the negative in a high end Minolta MF scanner and do an ink-squirt print.) Tip: It takes less time to do it in the darkroom.
yeah i mean, that’s pretty much the point of the video. seeing them side by side on the screen makes ya realize it doesn’t matter what the images were made with. they’re both just photos on a screen. but a hydrid process is still loved by many people. you don’t need a darkroom to still enjoy parts of the film process!
Its not film if you scan it ! never had a scanner in the old days ! Print it .
pretty sure my film negatives are still film negatives after being scanned! there’s a whole world of people enjoying a hybrid proces!