วีดีโอ

Damn…. Never knew

I'm surprized that you didn't chose the 81A filter which is less agressive than the 812.

Robert M Ditto did my Bolex RX 4

I'm surprised there are so few TH-cam tutorials that take into account viewing distance. I've been printing "poster prints" for years at resolutions well below 100 ppi and never been disappointed.

My man! Idk if i have the balls to do this but ya my a1 sounds like a whimpering baby. Nice work

You ever try sprocket 35 in there?

I just want to use the flash forever

Scanning film is extralimiting. If you print the GFX file inkjet and the Portra in darkroom... you'll notice an extreme difference!

For gum bichrome, laser printed transparencies are good enough. Even if "raster" is visible. Precise cyanotypes on good paper may show the difference between laser and inkjet.

Hi, very good and interesting video and a rather cool presentation of this art. Good job. 👍 I do prefer the prints showing the brush strokes and showing that they are original handmade platinum prints. Keep up with your work! Greetings from Luxembourg.

it keepd rerolling by itself, does anyone know why that is? dud i fck up and need a new film ? or am i missing something?

Great video, I have a Leica M3 and a Canon AE-1 Program I just started shooting film with! It’s been fun but getting film developed is a little pricey now

Beard, messy hair, skinny jeans, fixed gear bike, several film cameras … OMG! I’m a hipster … Anyway, shoot mostly digital for work, unless it’s a special project, or long deadline. To me, film is a creative choice, meaning certain lenses and film combinations, like choosing tubes of paint and brushes for an oil painting.

Good tip. What about the ambient light in the editing room?

This is what I love about, so called disposable gadgets, that can be used, over, & over, & over, etc. Years ago, I aquired a bagfull from an old film processing shop, I didn't know then what i know now, after watching your video. I got rid of them because I got fed up of how many times I touched the charged capacitor in them! Its like a jolt pulse of electricity that goes right up to the elbow! I heard you can build an actual zapper out of one!

Interesting points! Film definitely has it's own charm 👏

Do what you like. If you like film, good. If you don’t, so what. All this whining is a symptom of “give me attention” pandering on TH-cam and the rest of social media. See ya for something useful some day. Cheers!

I started back in film because I missed it, I'm now in my mid forties and have shot on film since I was a kid. Before digital I had collected quite a few cameras. I've also been able to add a few during the time when the prices bottomed out. A few I wished I had gotten during that time. I use fomarts from 35mm all the way up to 4x5. I do process film and someday I'd like to be able to have a full darkroom.

💯 and also… camera movements!

For this content and the vibe. Y’all should have way more than 3k subs. There is some terrible content out there including mine ;-) …. This is not that

Great presentation.

The joy of film culminates under darkroom red lights, when the image first appears on the print during developments. That, my friend, is photographic Nirvana.

I'm absolutely not and never have been a hipster. Also I've shot film consistently since 1978, or before if you count my grandmother forcing me to use her 110 Kodak while on holiday. All of this has been in Black and White. 1978 is when I bought my first SLR. I have tried digital and decided real fast the only thing it's good for is digitising negatives. Autofocus has never been a thing I've liked, but after so many years of using cameras of multiple formats without it I don't need it. When using a negative that's going to be expensive no way am I going to leave the job of focus to an algorithm. For a start apart from composition that's a big part of the fun. Where should the main point of focus be? I don't need a defined focus point to tell me this, at least not any more. The same would be true of anyone if they stepped away from the force feeding of camera tech companies, bought older lenses for many less money that in many cases use exactly the same lens formula and are built better. For example I own a number of lenses from the sixties that I wouldn't even slightly consider swapping for modern ones. Admittedly these are all Hasselblad glass, made by Zeiss. But I've compared their output to a more recent Hasselblad lens I own and can't see any difference. I don't do the zoom 500% to look for differences thing, because in my opinion most people who look at images aren't in the habit of rubbing up against them erotically while they inspect them for quality.

Digital fakery only goes so far, though a lot of the "film look" is less about the film, and more about vintage lens designs. Putting an ancient lens on a modern digital camera will get you closer than popping in a roll of portra will. I'll admit, I'm a fan, to the extent of picking up the M6 reissue. Cameras like the M6 have another advantage though, on a camping trip they're mechanical, no batteries to recharge (button cell powered light meter not-withstanding). Though you will need extra rolls of film, and that might cancel out with trying to buy/carry extra batteries. That and you can shoot IR without modding a digital camera, just pop in a roll of Retro 80 or SFX 200.

The most important question: What’s in the (Nikon) BOOOXXXX???

6x24 for life

I shot film back in the 80s up to about 4 years ago. Film was as cheap as chips back in the day, but now, it’s too stupidly expensive. It’s day light robbery. With the trend of ever rising cost of living, it’ll be out of reach for most people. Film will soon be rare, deader than a dead thing from dead land.

I’ve observed that film renders light and shadows differently than digital. I assume this is due to the uniquely analog science behind film. This difference shows up in all formats, even 135. It’s not just about resolution. I love the way film renders an image. That’s why I shoot film.

For me, film is the most affordable way to join the medium format club. But the price of used gears like Fuji GFX 50S or Hasselblad X1D are getting more affordable. I still shoot film for fun, but considering digital is more practical, perhaps one day I'm done with film.* * unless I join the 4x5 club, too :D

66 yr old hipster here, been shooting , processing and printing film since I was 14!!!! I was hipster before the word was invented. Real authentic hipsters also have a wet darkroom, just sayin.........

For me, I shoot both digital and film, the attraction of film for me ia partly the look/experience, but also the fact that my film camera (Leica M4), is many decades older than my digital camera, but will probably outlive it with correct care and maintenance (not true of every film camera, those that use electronics are just as likely to break).

I shoot both but shooting film just gives you that feeling of "this is important", "this is serious", "I'm creating something that I hope looks special". Though after spending all that time and money and getting maybe one banger and not much else and feeling disappointed. I would load up again and go out there. Maybe its more about feeling the good in yourself when you indulge in this serious hobby.

Choose film over digital, when time, cost and risk-of-failure allow it, simply because the pictures can look more pleasing and more evocative whereas digital is too often perfect; too matter-of-fact. However, if image resolution is important, bare in mind that 35mm colour negatives are equivalent in resolution to around 4 Megapixels which means that the grain and other sharpness limitations of the emulsion will start to be apparent with prints or on-screen displays larger than A4 size. 6 x 4.5 cm raises the resolution to around 11 Mp and 6 x 7 raises it to around 17 Mp. Meanwhile, 6 x 9 cm takes it to around 22 Mp which puts one into modern professional digital territory and enables prints of up to A2+ size to be viewed without visible grain. When using a camera like the Fujica GL690 rangefinder, with its excellent lenses, the quality really shows. And as for cool looks, nothing quite beats this so-called "Texas Leica", if you can find one in smart condition. But be prepared to pay $3 per negative!

I shoot mostly medium format (645 and 6x6), but it is fun to also shoot every once in a while 35mm. resolution is not important in general if you get the frame correct in camera. In digital terms this would translate into ~10 MP and above is enough. That is why I still use my Nikon D700 (12 MP) when going digital. And 35mm is in that ballpark regarding resolution. So it all comes down to esthetics and what motivates you to pick up a camera in the first place Whatever it is: GO OUT AND TAKE PICTURES.

Shot film for 35 years. Worked in photo lab that catered to professionals in the late seventies and early eighties. Switched to digital in 2004. I can do thousands of things to any image today in a well lit room. Thanks to the software. Things I could never do using photochemistry. I have full control of everything. If you shoot film to get a look similar to the master printers of the twentieth century you have to process the film yourself and dodge and burn your heart. Have fun guys, but I’ve been there done that. If you want to get excited about film go to a good museum and look at prints made by Paul Strand, Edward Steichen, Ansel Adams, Man Ray, Cecil Beaton. Don’t look on line. You must see the actual prints to truly understand what the medium is capable of producing.

I'm coming!!!!

TH-cam algorithms bring me here, look like they supporting small channel now.

Is digital photography better than 35mm film? Why? because you get more detail or resolution? Is that better? Is that what matters about photography? Is digital even cheaper than film? And more importantly, does it make you feel better? Does it help you learn more about photography than film? To all those questions I say no. And don't get me wrong, i don't think digital is bad. But with digital you don't get the delayed gratification, the gorgeous grain, tones and contrast, and you may have the ability to take 2000 pictures in an hour, but doing that you're not giving value to your photos, and that's what is all about, giving the value that photography deserves

🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩😘

I love film photography because it limits me! I can't just take a few shots and that forces me to look for the best of the best photos. Also those colors omfg

I guess I am a 68 year old hipster. Loving film shot in antique cameras and pin hole. I too had jean shorts that were in fashion back in the early 70s. Guess you could call me vintage hipster.

I've got some cut off Jean shorts being held together with a generous amount of red tuck tape and they're the absolute best (everyone I know hates them)

I'm less distracted with film photography. All I focus on is the image in front of me. I'm always in the moment when I take pictures on film.

Shoot film on a well overhauled 35mm mechanical cameras if you enjoy things that are well made. Things that do not need to be replaced on a regular basis. Things that do not need recharging and extra batteries. Things that do not need firmware upgrades to work properly. Put all the nonsense behind you and enjoy photography.

Just a side note, the way you pronounce Arches in German it means ass. You made me laugh 😂.

I am not totally sure on the archival quality of the oil-based ink transfer prints but those could give one the deepest blacks. And if one just stippled in the deepest black initially one should then be able to go back the next day and roll on a lighter tone of black and work back to ones liking for more range before transferring to your paper.