I shot plenty of 35mm film in the past. When I got a 6mp D100 around 2002, I never shot another roll of film. If you want to spend the money on film and processing, and the time required to scan, and clean up the images... that is your choice, but I would argue the way you become a better photographer is to shoot as much as you can... learn about light and composition instead of obsessing over the medium. The cost and time involved in shooting film will constantly be in the back of 99% of every film shooters mind these days.
Yup I have 5 d200s maybe I have too many backups but I've never missed film I agree shoot until the shutter tears itself apart I think people are obsessed with the other the out of reach the less attainable for the perceived challenge,my personal and professional life is hard enough I don't want to fight for my fun too lol
Yes, especially some will argue that flim will make u intentional shooting cause the cost! What the crap? Why? Digital offer far more from intentional shooting than flim. It is just a man want to pay for photograph more than photography for free! Every legend photographer do spray and pray for their own photograph in street photography. Many legend shoot an entire roll may be 3 in a roll for single moment photograph. So arguement that flim help u in develop photograph is invalid as hell. It is number of intentional shooting and experience which digital develop u faster. Also flim chemical is somewhat destroying earth right now. Flim must die out as analog medium!
Flim will never improve photography skill but making it more enjoyable to shoot than digital! The way to learn is to shoot as much as possible. I despite every Flim shooter who spend the hard earn money just to go back. If u want to shoot without instant gratification and limited shooting capacity. Purchase a 1-2 go sd card then shoot jpeg to raw and closed the review photo button. Flip the screen and that it’s u got a handicap like shooting Flim! It is non sense to shoot Flim!
With black and white film scans you almost always have to raise the black point and fine tune the contrast. Glass filters are also game changing but you have to know when to use them.
I was heavily into shooting medium format in the past, but nowadays, I predominantly use 35mm. The shooting experience with 35mm is superior for me. With a wide array of lenses available, achieving a quality comparable to medium format is entirely feasible. Opting for film photography is purely a personal choice. While it might entail higher costs, it's ultimately your money, and you have the freedom to spend it as you please-whether it's on that stunning Fuji or the Pentax. Keep indulging in film photography and creating those videos.
Ya I just commented exactly the same about 35mm vs medium format. It's nice to do big negs sometimes but much more restrictive and inevitably way less productive.
I’ve said a few times now. I have a stack of dead hard drives with pictures of my kids. From the last 20 years. Hopefully to recover them in the future. That’s the main reason why we now have so many cloud services. My stack of negatives from when I was a kid. I can scan or print and see it. They only get destroyed when the house burns down.
I’m an instant film photographer. Yes I shoot with the iPhone as well, however I still enjoy the instant experience that’s not at the mercy of a drive crash.
Switching to digital was all I needed. But then I am a relic from the film days when cost of film was the limiting factor - with digital I can expose and experiment without limits. True film photographers do not scan - that is cheating... Digital photographers do not cheat - digital from capture to output - wonderful. 😊
I always take one of my film cameras on my trips! They results always just have so much character that’s hard to get from digital..and also the process of film is fun!
Great video. I started off in film back in my college days and shot Kodachrome 64. I had one camera, a nifty fifty lens and I had a ball learning photography. Today, I shoot digital, instant film, 35mm and 120 film. Although I love my digital camera, a Fuji XT-2, there’s nothing like shooting film. For me, it slows me down and brings back the joy of photography.
Really enjoyed this. Subscribed!! There’s a calmness to your video and it’s relaxing and engaging. However, if you’ve watched this video and read this comment. Ignore the 35mm comment. 35mm is the original. It’s got character that medium format can not replicate. I shoot both formats and my 35mm tends to hold the memory and the emotion. The medium formats can end up being an expensive way to shoot photos that resemble a similarity to digital which is what you don’t want. None the less… all types of film is great. As it’s all about the process. Once you shoot film, digital feels cheating and you lose a little appreciation for those who shoot it. Finally…. There will always be a place for both digital and analogue in this world. Anyway, thanks again for a great video and glad you have found your love for the game again! J
For people who came from the analogue era, there is nothing in terms of analogue process that you can't replicate with digital i.e. you can choose to work slower, not chimp one's images etc. That's all well and good for photographic styles that lend themselves to that approach. But it fails miserably for a lot of jobbing photographic work that needs speed and consistent accuracy. I love all the film videos on youtube, but having shot film for thirty years, I don't miss it compared to MF digital for "slow" work and FF where speed and/or a wider lens range is needed. In case I come across as anti-film, film does have a different look to original digital images, even when scanned - though, at it's best, that can really be seen on large format sheet film. However, the fact that some people in the art community prioritise the film look on the basis that it is more authentically artistic is something that I do have issues with.
But film is archival. Digital is only a bunch of 0s and 1's which are prone to bit rot. If Vivian Maier would have used a Sony , there would not be a Vivian Maier
@@jonaskuprys2902 Digital files, not stored on an archival file system designed to prevent bit rot (look up ZFS), can become corrupted. Film, not properly stored (acid free sleeves, correct humidity to prevent fungus) and handled to prevent dust and scratches can become easily damaged as well.
@@jonaskuprys2902but there are digital Vivian Maiers. Yes, digital data may corrupt but when stored on a high quality hard disk drive, putting it into a safe place, they will last decades. In that time, film also fades, gets scratched, colours will shift, silver will corrode, etc. Yes, if it is analog, you can see at least something even though the quality may be bad and with digital it is gone. But at the end, everything will go. P.S. Digital is not necessarily 0 and 1. This is just a wrong simplification. Your fingers are literally also digital ;)
At current film prices film really slows me down (it always has done that, but now more than way back). I tend to take a photo I assume is good. A few better more thought photos give me much better photos than digital where it is so easy to just take a few different variants and come back with 200 average photos. I shoot much less junk with film because I think more. I think I've learned most from the photos I chose to not take. Especially with large format prices I really think is it worth the cost or not. (and all the work like developing and scanning the film).
I have two old film cameras. An Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP and a Pentax ME Super. Nice cameras for sure. The issue for me is getting the film developed. Here in south Texas there are no places to get film developed... that I am aware of. I had to send the film to a place in California.
I have been taking photographs for nearly 50 years, 60 years if you count my days with Instamatic 50. I use both, film and digital. I use film in all formats, from 135 to 5X7 and have a few digital cameras, from Nikon, Canon, Olmypus and Leica. My heart is with film. It is special, difficult, expensive and keeps you on your toes. Digital appears to be easy, but if you fall for that trap, crap is the end result. So use the film discipline for digital and enjoy it.
I've been parroting your last point a lot whenever this type of debate/topic shows up. People act like film makes you slow down and digital makes you shoot with no discipline. In reality you can shoot as fast as you want with film and as slow and methodical with digital, it's all mental. I pretty much shoot the same way digitally as I did when I learned and shot only film before DSLRs became affordable. When I got my first dslr (Nikon d70s) it felt so incredibly liberating to have a seemingly endless ability to take photos and not be chained to a singular iso or color palette. I do agree that for archival purposes film does win if stored well. I find developing and scanning film a chore and it matters so much how well it's done. I just edit to get the same vibe I miss from film, although I do pine after a Nikon fm3a with a 28/50 lens set and 1000ft of bulk b/w film.
@@ledheavy26 Absolutely, I can turn the motor drive on my F3, F4 or F5 and waste film at a rate of nearly 7 frames per second, or I can stop and think about what it is exactly that I am photographing with either film or digital? But to be fair, there is a certain push with all these new digital cameras to just shoot. Many of them now do twenty frames per second with no problem, and one of them will be compositionally acceptable and reasonably sharp. But if the problem is when everyone makes acceptable composition and sharpness the end goal of a photograph. It's up to us to change the goal post and set the bar high enough for ourselves.
I use 35mm to shoot a manual rangefinder contax ii which would be crazy expensive in digital (like a Leica M10?). I agree about film SLRs though. I shoot 120 also and TLRs via Yashica are a good entry into 6*6. I develop myself to keep costs down and let the lab do the scans
I do both. Havent used my 35mm k1000 yet but just got it. Amd working on which lenses for my kit. But i also use my K50. And the k50 dod great. I do most of everything manually.
Don't knock 35mm, printing A3 was never a problem but I printed in the Darkroom, that is where film really comes alive (B+W). However using Ektachrome and printing to Cibachrome is a joy to behold. But I will never go back to it, with the price of film these days High quality SD cards seem cheap. See if you can find a Zorki 4K an amazing 35mm rangefinder camera, you can even use the old Leica lenses on it. Keep shooting.
With good technique and a decent scanner you can get perfectly acceptable results from 35mm. Moreover you are far more likely to use it more often because of compactness, portability and number of shots on a reel. Just look at the all but infinity of classic 35mm photography taken by the great exponents of the art.
Great video, very entertaining as well as informative. I love my film cameras too. I have a Nikon F and F2 and various lenses..... I get your point about medium format. More in keep with the higher megapixel digital cameras. Now a sub by the way.
Disagree about film putting me in the moment more. I think I fell out of love with film and in love with videography when I took 2 minutes away from watching the most beautiful sunset I'd ever seen to pull my camera out of my backpack, meter light, compose the shot, make sure the lens cap wasn't on, carefully compose again, and finally shoot, whereas either before or after doing that I also took a video, pointed in the same direction I was looking, with only a glance necessary to make sure my aim was good, and I actually captured that moment, in a way that I could not have with photography, film or digital, and I was still totally present in the moment while doing so because I wasn't looking through my camera but over it. It's the best thing I'd ever captured on my phone and I bought a (semi)pro video camera shortly after. Aside from the time consumption I'm also pretty unsatisfied with lab scans but it seems like if I'd want to scan them myself I'd need a pricey Photoshop subscription to get the colors right. I wish it was as simple as inverting colors and increasing contrast but it isn't. I really wanted to like film and I've occasionally seen a glimmer of what makes it special, but in the end I found it even more unsatisfying than digital photography. I think if you want a film look without using film, using vintage lenses will get you halfway there, and there are a lot of vintage lens mount converters out there.
I agree with you commented and with the camera and lens selection you have today you can have the same experience that he is talking about, I bought a Nikon ZF and most of the glass I have for this camera are Voightlander manual focus lens and a few Viltrox lens, the Voightlander lens are manual focus and many of them will give you a film like rendering to your photos. The ZF is just one of many different cameras that I have. You can also take the back screen and flip it so that it is not exposed so you won't be constantly looking at a preview of your photo until you get home and put it on the computer. The diles on the ZF are similar to that of a film camera and you can shoot in total manual mode if you like, the camera also makes it easy to shoot in B&W and to slow your self down you can set the camera to take a single photo every time you press the shutter. To limit yourself even more set the ISO to a setting and don't change it and limit your photos to a total of 36 this will make you think about every photo that you take if you shoot this way. Lastly if you're looking to get into event photography today a digital camera is a must because the expectations of clients today in a digital world is different than when film was the only game in town, besides with the cost of film today I could not afford to photograph events it would be to costly and time consuming.
@@jamesmlodynia8757 agreed, if voigtlander wasn't making new lenses I'd be way more concerned about the lifespan of my vintage lenses, but it's comforting knowing if my voigtlander lenses ever break down they're still easily fixable and affordably replaceable.
Digital photos can easily considered etrash like the electronic cameras that took them. Digital photos will be lost on failed hard drives and do to security on those devices. Negatives will last the test of time. Digital users should ask themselves if I died today would anyone be able to access my photos?
I don't consider any form of camera either film or digital trash, each one has their own unique way of capturing an image. And their are many different ways of backing up your files that if you have a computer problem that they won't be lost. You wonder about people accessing your photos when you have expired, chances are that they won't care about your photos after your gone.
Full electronic is super nice for sure …….until ! Right ? Looks like a killer camera for sure . I am shooting the Nikon F5 that’s full electronic and with certain Nikon af lenses you also have af. I mainly shoot manual focus glass . Then my other bodies are the Nikon fe it needs electricity mostly. But I mainly shoot with two different cameras one a rangefinder that has no electronics the Fujifilm GW690ii medium format 6x9 negative. Then a main carry with the F5 is the Nikkormat or Nikomat ftn 2 . It has a meter but can shoot without electronics. The Nikkormats are great cameras , built like tanks . I’ve been looking at the Leica M5 or the Pentax 6x7 mup ttl. Thinking the medium format is the better way to go but it’s big and bulky 5 lbs .
I shoot both 35mm and medium format. It all depends on the situation. Medium format for landscape and architectural photography, 35mm for street photography. Do you have any views on medium format for street photography?
I use Medium format for Street becuase of the resolution where buildings and architecture come to light. At the moment *video pending* I am even using 645 for wildlife... but you can save those questions for later haha
@@William-Stewart I live in Thailand. Tomorrow I'm heading down into Malaysia for three weeks, taking my Fuji X-H2s (and 16 - 55mm lens - the ideal travel lens for Fuji cameras) and my Olympus OM2n (with 28mm and 50mm lenses and four rolls of Ilford Delta 100). I thought of taking either my Pentax 645 or Bronica SQ Ai - plus a couple of lenses until I thought about the weight I'd have to carry around with me....although I could take my Yashica Mat 124G? A thought. Nope. My trusty Olympus will do fine. :-)
I just completed a camp out in Wales, took my gear and all my camping gear - pack came in at 18KG... so save weight where you can friend haha@@colinclark3218
I think Rollei is wonderful , I shoot Leica 35mm M bodies , I think 6x6 is more rewarding , also I have roll backs for the 4x5 cameras. Film costs more , but if you know what you're doing , it is more rewarding.
I'm in the process of scanning film from the late 80s to early 2000s. Mostly medium format but some 4x5 and 35mm. I would say that medium format might equal my Canon R8. I'm scanning also with the R8 and EF50 macro lens. 35mm doesn't look that great but I was using mediocre cameras and lenses. I won't ever shoot film again. If you want to slow down put your digital camera on a tripod and slow down. No need to spend 1-5 dollar a pic anymore.
I continued to shoot BW on film and for colour switched to digital. The self-developing and printing is the nice side of film photography and besides I better like manual cameras. Apart from that film photography doesn't make much sense.
You are young and discovering your life! I HAD to use film. I'm old and look back at all film problems! Wrong colors! ASA/ISO not always accurate! Pro films came with different ASA/ISO! Old cameras and shutters may be/are inaccurate! Very poor Labs!! Film as does digital, have healthy leeway! 120 an exercise in expenditure! I used 120 in Mamiya C- Twin Lens. Film Verichrome Pan was magnificent! It was 27c a roll of film, 120. (about 50p)! I did many high end advertising and Industrial assignments! Lord I wish there had been Digital! Being stingy with exposures cuts one off, of getting better, seeing better and happier with your work.. When my pro printer couldn't tell me which image was 35 and the other 6x7 , I quit medium format! Digital is so easy to share! I do still shoot film.. but very little!
I think the value of film is the bottleneck. A parallel concept happened in car design. Cars used to be designed by hand with clay/wax and you had to be really thoughtful about each move you made because you can’t just add the medium back. Now you have CAD and can just CTRL Z. And while it’s more efficient, I think there is something lost there.
Welcome to Film mate. You might last longer. Might… Your first mistake is to think no great work can be done with 35mm film. WRONG. All newbies who start Film all want megapixels and large negatives etc. I once was you. Then I saw photo books and art gallery work shoot on 35mm. I have a friend who believes no great work can be shoot on any Film period. FYI, last year I made over 6k with my 35mm setup alone. That’s all I shoot now anyways. Sold all MF, LF and ULF. A wise man once said, 35mm is no longer for newbies… it’s for veterans. Cuz newbies only think in terms of details, bragging rights, the excitement of a large negative etc.
It's more so that the work I do has focus on more (MP). I photography Wildlife and landscape, as often as I can, which benefits from larger frames. I would love to do both, but in my experience, the cost of FF telephoto glass is so expensive that being able to have the crop freedom with Medium format I get better results more often.
They are scanned because of the medium in which we share the photos rather than the other way around. But I think Digital has a real benefit and film is more a feeling. I will explore more of this in a coming video
Scanning? Get yourself a wet darkroom and stop playing about with "film". You are not experiencing film until you see that image slowly appearing on a sheet of photo paper.
The new digital cameras of today looks artificial to me. Too sharp, too contrasty, not real world. That is why I bought a 12 mp Nkon D700, from 2008. It has a different sensor then other Nikons and the colors are film like. My lense of choice is a cheap Panagor 28mm 2.8 mf lens. Hazy and soft at 2.8, very sharp at F8. Lenses like these give me amazing film like results.
Boy, you must have a limited supply of money to be able to afford all of those little goodies that you got. I’m an old man on retirement and yet I watch what I spend too deep in debt, buddy. It’s hard to get out.
Try Half Frame 35mm. Try tiny fully mechanical Cameras. It is incredibly fun. Welta Penti 0 or Rollei 35SE. Absolute pleasure to have that in your pocket at all times.
I shot plenty of 35mm film in the past. When I got a 6mp D100 around 2002, I never shot another roll of film. If you want to spend the money on film and processing, and the time required to scan, and clean up the images... that is your choice, but I would argue the way you become a better photographer is to shoot as much as you can... learn about light and composition instead of obsessing over the medium. The cost and time involved in shooting film will constantly be in the back of 99% of every film shooters mind these days.
Yup I have 5 d200s maybe I have too many backups but I've never missed film I agree shoot until the shutter tears itself apart I think people are obsessed with the other the out of reach the less attainable for the perceived challenge,my personal and professional life is hard enough I don't want to fight for my fun too lol
Yes, especially some will argue that flim will make u intentional shooting cause the cost! What the crap?
Why? Digital offer far more from intentional shooting than flim.
It is just a man want to pay for photograph more than photography for free!
Every legend photographer do spray and pray for their own photograph in street photography.
Many legend shoot an entire roll may be 3 in a roll for single moment photograph.
So arguement that flim help u in develop photograph is invalid as hell.
It is number of intentional shooting and experience which digital develop u faster.
Also flim chemical is somewhat destroying earth right now.
Flim must die out as analog medium!
Flim will never improve photography skill but making it more enjoyable to shoot than digital!
The way to learn is to shoot as much as possible.
I despite every Flim shooter who spend the hard earn money just to go back.
If u want to shoot without instant gratification and limited shooting capacity.
Purchase a 1-2 go sd card then shoot jpeg to raw and closed the review photo button.
Flip the screen and that it’s u got a handicap like shooting Flim!
It is non sense to shoot Flim!
With black and white film scans you almost always have to raise the black point and fine tune the contrast. Glass filters are also game changing but you have to know when to use them.
I was heavily into shooting medium format in the past, but nowadays, I predominantly use 35mm. The shooting experience with 35mm is superior for me. With a wide array of lenses available, achieving a quality comparable to medium format is entirely feasible. Opting for film photography is purely a personal choice. While it might entail higher costs, it's ultimately your money, and you have the freedom to spend it as you please-whether it's on that stunning Fuji or the Pentax. Keep indulging in film photography and creating those videos.
Ya I just commented exactly the same about 35mm vs medium format. It's nice to do big negs sometimes but much more restrictive and inevitably way less productive.
I’ve said a few times now.
I have a stack of dead hard drives with pictures of my kids. From the last 20 years. Hopefully to recover them in the future. That’s the main reason why we now have so many cloud services.
My stack of negatives from when I was a kid. I can scan or print and see it.
They only get destroyed when the house burns down.
I’m an instant film photographer. Yes I shoot with the iPhone as well, however I still enjoy the instant experience that’s not at the mercy of a drive crash.
Switching to digital was all I needed. But then I am a relic from the film days when cost of film was the limiting factor - with digital I can expose and experiment without limits.
True film photographers do not scan - that is cheating...
Digital photographers do not cheat - digital from capture to output - wonderful. 😊
I always take one of my film cameras on my trips! They results always just have so much character that’s hard to get from digital..and also the process of film is fun!
Great video. I started off in film back in my college days and shot Kodachrome 64. I had one camera, a nifty fifty lens and I had a ball learning photography. Today, I shoot digital, instant film, 35mm and 120 film. Although I love my digital camera, a Fuji XT-2, there’s nothing like shooting film. For me, it slows me down and brings back the joy of photography.
Really enjoyed this. Subscribed!! There’s a calmness to your video and it’s relaxing and engaging. However, if you’ve watched this video and read this comment. Ignore the 35mm comment. 35mm is the original. It’s got character that medium format can not replicate. I shoot both formats and my 35mm tends to hold the memory and the emotion. The medium formats can end up being an expensive way to shoot photos that resemble a similarity to digital which is what you don’t want. None the less… all types of film is great. As it’s all about the process. Once you shoot film, digital feels cheating and you lose a little appreciation for those who shoot it. Finally…. There will always be a place for both digital and analogue in this world. Anyway, thanks again for a great video and glad you have found your love for the game again! J
Thank you! I can agree with you on 35mm, for me it's the size of the format that I dislike for all the work I do.
Awesome video - and VERY well said.
For people who came from the analogue era, there is nothing in terms of analogue process that you can't replicate with digital i.e. you can choose to work slower, not chimp one's images etc. That's all well and good for photographic styles that lend themselves to that approach. But it fails miserably for a lot of jobbing photographic work that needs speed and consistent accuracy. I love all the film videos on youtube, but having shot film for thirty years, I don't miss it compared to MF digital for "slow" work and FF where speed and/or a wider lens range is needed. In case I come across as anti-film, film does have a different look to original digital images, even when scanned - though, at it's best, that can really be seen on large format sheet film. However, the fact that some people in the art community prioritise the film look on the basis that it is more authentically artistic is something that I do have issues with.
But film is archival. Digital is only a bunch of 0s and 1's which are prone to bit rot. If Vivian Maier would have used a Sony , there would not be a Vivian Maier
@@jonaskuprys2902 Digital files, not stored on an archival file system designed to prevent bit rot (look up ZFS), can become corrupted. Film, not properly stored (acid free sleeves, correct humidity to prevent fungus) and handled to prevent dust and scratches can become easily damaged as well.
@@jonaskuprys2902archives are prone to disasters such as fires and earthquakes.
@@jonaskuprys2902but there are digital Vivian Maiers. Yes, digital data may corrupt but when stored on a high quality hard disk drive, putting it into a safe place, they will last decades. In that time, film also fades, gets scratched, colours will shift, silver will corrode, etc. Yes, if it is analog, you can see at least something even though the quality may be bad and with digital it is gone. But at the end, everything will go.
P.S. Digital is not necessarily 0 and 1. This is just a wrong simplification. Your fingers are literally also digital ;)
@@thomasa.243 Now if I could only find a Zip Drive, because i've just come across 3 shoeboxes of old Zip disks full of photographs.
At current film prices film really slows me down (it always has done that, but now more than way back). I tend to take a photo I assume is good. A few better more thought photos give me much better photos than digital where it is so easy to just take a few different variants and come back with 200 average photos. I shoot much less junk with film because I think more.
I think I've learned most from the photos I chose to not take. Especially with large format prices I really think is it worth the cost or not. (and all the work like developing and scanning the film).
I have two old film cameras. An Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP and a Pentax ME Super. Nice cameras for sure. The issue for me is getting the film developed. Here in south Texas there are no places to get film developed... that I am aware of. I had to send the film to a place in California.
I have been taking photographs for nearly 50 years, 60 years if you count my days with Instamatic 50. I use both, film and digital. I use film in all formats, from 135 to 5X7 and have a few digital cameras, from Nikon, Canon, Olmypus and Leica. My heart is with film. It is special, difficult, expensive and keeps you on your toes. Digital appears to be easy, but if you fall for that trap, crap is the end result. So use the film discipline for digital and enjoy it.
I've been parroting your last point a lot whenever this type of debate/topic shows up. People act like film makes you slow down and digital makes you shoot with no discipline. In reality you can shoot as fast as you want with film and as slow and methodical with digital, it's all mental. I pretty much shoot the same way digitally as I did when I learned and shot only film before DSLRs became affordable. When I got my first dslr (Nikon d70s) it felt so incredibly liberating to have a seemingly endless ability to take photos and not be chained to a singular iso or color palette. I do agree that for archival purposes film does win if stored well. I find developing and scanning film a chore and it matters so much how well it's done. I just edit to get the same vibe I miss from film, although I do pine after a Nikon fm3a with a 28/50 lens set and 1000ft of bulk b/w film.
@@ledheavy26 Absolutely, I can turn the motor drive on my F3, F4 or F5 and waste film at a rate of nearly 7 frames per second, or I can stop and think about what it is exactly that I am photographing with either film or digital? But to be fair, there is a certain push with all these new digital cameras to just shoot. Many of them now do twenty frames per second with no problem, and one of them will be compositionally acceptable and reasonably sharp. But if the problem is when everyone makes acceptable composition and sharpness the end goal of a photograph. It's up to us to change the goal post and set the bar high enough for ourselves.
I use 35mm to shoot a manual rangefinder contax ii which would be crazy expensive in digital (like a Leica M10?). I agree about film SLRs though. I shoot 120 also and TLRs via Yashica are a good entry into 6*6. I develop myself to keep costs down and let the lab do the scans
I do both. Havent used my 35mm k1000 yet but just got it. Amd working on which lenses for my kit. But i also use my K50. And the k50 dod great. I do most of everything manually.
Don't knock 35mm, printing A3 was never a problem but I printed in the Darkroom, that is where film really comes alive (B+W). However using Ektachrome and printing to Cibachrome is a joy to behold. But I will never go back to it, with the price of film these days High quality SD cards seem cheap. See if you can find a Zorki 4K an amazing 35mm rangefinder camera, you can even use the old Leica lenses on it. Keep shooting.
With good technique and a decent scanner you can get perfectly acceptable results from 35mm. Moreover you are far more likely to use it more often because of compactness, portability and number of shots on a reel. Just look at the all but infinity of classic 35mm photography taken by the great exponents of the art.
genuinely though, when I tried resarch onto this. I found it really hard to find widlife shot on 35mm film
@@William-Stewart Oh I agree. Wildlife is now completely and forever in the realm of digital.
I am genuinely surprised to see only 146 subs and 4 likes on such a relatively high quality video.
Thanks! I haven't uploaded to this channel in a long time but YT isn't new to me
I went back. Actually I have tried to go digital on several occasions and failed each time!
Great video, very entertaining as well as informative. I love my film cameras too. I have a Nikon F and F2 and various lenses..... I get your point about medium format. More in keep with the higher megapixel digital cameras. Now a sub by the way.
Thanks! I have a few hikes and trips planned over the next 35 days so more to come.
Disagree about film putting me in the moment more. I think I fell out of love with film and in love with videography when I took 2 minutes away from watching the most beautiful sunset I'd ever seen to pull my camera out of my backpack, meter light, compose the shot, make sure the lens cap wasn't on, carefully compose again, and finally shoot, whereas either before or after doing that I also took a video, pointed in the same direction I was looking, with only a glance necessary to make sure my aim was good, and I actually captured that moment, in a way that I could not have with photography, film or digital, and I was still totally present in the moment while doing so because I wasn't looking through my camera but over it. It's the best thing I'd ever captured on my phone and I bought a (semi)pro video camera shortly after.
Aside from the time consumption I'm also pretty unsatisfied with lab scans but it seems like if I'd want to scan them myself I'd need a pricey Photoshop subscription to get the colors right. I wish it was as simple as inverting colors and increasing contrast but it isn't. I really wanted to like film and I've occasionally seen a glimmer of what makes it special, but in the end I found it even more unsatisfying than digital photography.
I think if you want a film look without using film, using vintage lenses will get you halfway there, and there are a lot of vintage lens mount converters out there.
I love video for similar reasons. :)
I agree with you commented and with the camera and lens selection you have today you can have the same experience that he is talking about, I bought a Nikon ZF and most of the glass I have for this camera are Voightlander manual focus lens and a few Viltrox lens, the Voightlander lens are manual focus and many of them will give you a film like rendering to your photos. The ZF is just one of many different cameras that I have. You can also take the back screen and flip it so that it is not exposed so you won't be constantly looking at a preview of your photo until you get home and put it on the computer. The diles on the ZF are similar to that of a film camera and you can shoot in total manual mode if you like, the camera also makes it easy to shoot in B&W and to slow your self down you can set the camera to take a single photo every time you press the shutter. To limit yourself even more set the ISO to a setting and don't change it and limit your photos to a total of 36 this will make you think about every photo that you take if you shoot this way. Lastly if you're looking to get into event photography today a digital camera is a must because the expectations of clients today in a digital world is different than when film was the only game in town, besides with the cost of film today I could not afford to photograph events it would be to costly and time consuming.
@@jamesmlodynia8757 agreed, if voigtlander wasn't making new lenses I'd be way more concerned about the lifespan of my vintage lenses, but it's comforting knowing if my voigtlander lenses ever break down they're still easily fixable and affordably replaceable.
Digital photos can easily considered etrash like the electronic cameras that took them. Digital photos will be lost on failed hard drives and do to security on those devices. Negatives will last the test of time. Digital users should ask themselves if I died today would anyone be able to access my photos?
I don't consider any form of camera either film or digital trash, each one has their own unique way of capturing an image. And their are many different ways of backing up your files that if you have a computer problem that they won't be lost. You wonder about people accessing your photos when you have expired, chances are that they won't care about your photos after your gone.
Full electronic is super nice for sure …….until ! Right ?
Looks like a killer camera for sure .
I am shooting the Nikon F5 that’s full electronic and with certain Nikon af lenses you also have af. I mainly shoot manual focus glass . Then my other bodies are the Nikon fe it needs electricity mostly. But I mainly shoot with two different cameras one a rangefinder that has no electronics the Fujifilm GW690ii medium format 6x9 negative. Then a main carry with the F5 is the Nikkormat or Nikomat ftn 2 . It has a meter but can shoot without electronics. The Nikkormats are great cameras , built like tanks .
I’ve been looking at the Leica M5 or the Pentax 6x7 mup ttl. Thinking the medium format is the better way to go but it’s big and bulky 5 lbs .
love manual for travel, get a 645 and you should be alright.
I shoot both 35mm and medium format. It all depends on the situation. Medium format for landscape and architectural photography, 35mm for street photography. Do you have any views on medium format for street photography?
I use Medium format for Street becuase of the resolution where buildings and architecture come to light. At the moment *video pending* I am even using 645 for wildlife... but you can save those questions for later haha
@@William-Stewart I live in Thailand. Tomorrow I'm heading down into Malaysia for three weeks, taking my Fuji X-H2s (and 16 - 55mm lens - the ideal travel lens for Fuji cameras) and my Olympus OM2n (with 28mm and 50mm lenses and four rolls of Ilford Delta 100). I thought of taking either my Pentax 645 or Bronica SQ Ai - plus a couple of lenses until I thought about the weight I'd have to carry around with me....although I could take my Yashica Mat 124G? A thought. Nope. My trusty Olympus will do fine. :-)
I just completed a camp out in Wales, took my gear and all my camping gear - pack came in at 18KG... so save weight where you can friend haha@@colinclark3218
I think Rollei is wonderful , I shoot Leica 35mm M bodies , I think 6x6 is more rewarding , also I have roll backs for the 4x5 cameras. Film costs more , but if you know what you're doing , it is more rewarding.
I'm in the process of scanning film from the late 80s to early 2000s. Mostly medium format but some 4x5 and 35mm. I would say that medium format might equal my Canon R8. I'm scanning also with the R8 and EF50 macro lens. 35mm doesn't look that great but I was using mediocre cameras and lenses. I won't ever shoot film again. If you want to slow down put your digital camera on a tripod and slow down. No need to spend 1-5 dollar a pic anymore.
I continued to shoot BW on film and for colour switched to digital. The self-developing and printing is the nice side of film photography and besides I better like manual cameras. Apart from that film photography doesn't make much sense.
You are young and discovering your life! I HAD to use film. I'm old and look back at all film problems! Wrong colors! ASA/ISO not always accurate! Pro films came with different ASA/ISO! Old cameras and shutters may be/are inaccurate! Very poor Labs!! Film as does digital, have healthy leeway! 120 an exercise in expenditure! I used 120 in Mamiya C- Twin Lens. Film Verichrome Pan was magnificent! It was 27c a roll of film, 120. (about 50p)! I did many high end advertising and Industrial assignments! Lord I wish there had been Digital! Being stingy with exposures cuts one off, of getting better, seeing better and happier with your work.. When my pro printer couldn't tell me which image was 35 and the other 6x7 , I quit medium format! Digital is so easy to share! I do still shoot film.. but very little!
light bed ,loope, then dark room and print young man!!
I love Film
RB6,4...RB65.? 🤔
I think the value of film is the bottleneck. A parallel concept happened in car design. Cars used to be designed by hand with clay/wax and you had to be really thoughtful about each move you made because you can’t just add the medium back. Now you have CAD and can just CTRL Z. And while it’s more efficient, I think there is something lost there.
Welcome to Film mate. You might last longer. Might…
Your first mistake is to think no great work can be done with 35mm film. WRONG.
All newbies who start Film all want megapixels and large negatives etc. I once was you. Then I saw photo books and art gallery work shoot on 35mm.
I have a friend who believes no great work can be shoot on any Film period.
FYI, last year I made over 6k with my 35mm setup alone. That’s all I shoot now anyways. Sold all MF, LF and ULF.
A wise man once said, 35mm is no longer for newbies… it’s for veterans. Cuz newbies only think in terms of details, bragging rights, the excitement of a large negative etc.
It's more so that the work I do has focus on more (MP). I photography Wildlife and landscape, as often as I can, which benefits from larger frames. I would love to do both, but in my experience, the cost of FF telephoto glass is so expensive that being able to have the crop freedom with Medium format I get better results more often.
Film or Digital? they are just mediums for photography. If you scan them they are digital.
They are scanned because of the medium in which we share the photos rather than the other way around. But I think Digital has a real benefit and film is more a feeling. I will explore more of this in a coming video
yes digital scans from a film negative that looks completely different than a digital sensor...
Scanning? Get yourself a wet darkroom and stop playing about with "film". You are not experiencing film until you see that image slowly appearing on a sheet of photo paper.
The new digital cameras of today looks artificial to me. Too sharp, too contrasty, not real world. That is why I bought a 12 mp Nkon D700, from 2008. It has a different sensor then other Nikons and the colors are film like. My lense of choice is a cheap Panagor 28mm 2.8 mf lens. Hazy and soft at 2.8, very sharp at F8. Lenses like these give me amazing film like results.
Omg, that is a level of overthinking that borders on the ridiculous, did you watch back this video before posting, please stop talking
II I
Boy, you must have a limited supply of money to be able to afford all of those little goodies that you got. I’m an old man on retirement and yet I watch what I spend too deep in debt, buddy. It’s hard to get out.
Try Half Frame 35mm. Try tiny fully mechanical Cameras. It is incredibly fun. Welta Penti 0 or Rollei 35SE. Absolute pleasure to have that in your pocket at all times.