วีดีโอ

Feherheit isn't out-moded. It's based on silly assumptions. Like the meter. 1/1,000,000th of the distance between the theoretical equator and the theoretical north pole based only on a survey of France is as dumb as a doctor using hospital patients to calculate the average body temperature. Anyway, the units we use are like language and contribute to the texture of the culture. (Great video, BTW.)

It is interesting to me the practice of getting rid of objects from photographs. While I get rid of small unwanted textures and objects it still *sort of* makes me a bit uncomfortable when I use that tool. I agree it can be useful to the final version of the image however I can't ignore that I feel a bit dishonest when I use it. I would rather not use it, but sometimes it's necessary for the best image possible. People are doing cool things with it and it is expanding photography as an art form but why not paint if you're going to alter the reality of the photograph in such a way? I think it furthers the distance between photography and life. It's something I think about and struggle with when editing. Also for what it's worth I really like the original image with the boats in the background at 9:42 Really interesting video, thanks for the upload!

When it comes to photography as art, there really are no rules beyond what the artist/photographer wants to create. When it comes to photography as journalism, altering a photo is akin to peddling fake news, because the purpose of the photo is to communicate what was really there, not create a pretty picture. Changing a picture in such instances misrepresents the facts and misinforms the viewers. To be clear, this has as much, if not more, to do with the journalism side of things and less to do with the craft of photography.

In my opinion Photography for the purpose of art has no restrictions. Remove, add, heal, dodge, burn, whatever you wanna do, just do it. The only thing wich is not acceptable is lying towards an audience and actually to yourself about your process (I always have to think about certain Hollywood actors saying they don’t use steroids and just eat chicken and work out at 6am daily). Most people don’t care anyway, so staying true to yourself and owning your piece of art is key. All photography with an informative character is different tho. If you have an obligation towards informing the public about topics you need a certain integrity (wich is hard to build and easy to lose) how you process your photos.

I don't think there are any rules in photography. There are rules in journalism, science and so on. Those are fields where editing of pictures can become very, very wrong. Anyone else can just do what the hell they want. I just see one *rule*: If you claim to be an analog photographer and want your pictures seen as analog, don't edit them digitally. Go in the darkroom and work on the negative, manipulate to your heart's content, just don't scan your negative, do everything you would do to a digital photo and call yourself an analog photographer. Then again, there is no law against it. It's just what people claim about themselves and the reality that isn't in line anymore then.

long term digital photographer here who hasn't dipped my toes in film photography much yet. this is such a fantastic video. i'm a happy new subscriber.

Love your reminder of fundamental principals like prescriptive vs descriptive language. That's a concept most people are unconscious of, and it actually is at the root of a lot of authoritarian dogma that polices how people lives in more significant ways than grammar on signs.

It ethically matters if you're falsifying documentary work. Look into the controversies around Steve Mccurry's beautiful manipulated images as a photo JOURNALIST. And even then there's a spectrum of how meaningful the alteration may be. Editing the sky to influence the viewers mood is less deceptive than removing background building to misrepresent a real community as more isolated or poor than they actually are. Or using AI to replace the background people who are wearing western-style clothes that don't fit with the exotic narrative you're selling to viewers who get their impression of the world through your media. I think logs or no logs in an art photo is a pretty trivial call to make. Unless it's environmental journalism about the lumber industry or something.

A photograph is to provoke emotion. Just make it happen.

Editing starts when you choose which camera to use, which lens, which film. The time of day you take the picture, your viewpoint and a whole load of decisions that affect the outcome, so why should that stop at the negative.

Long live the film industry, but when Kodak innovated the digital world they disrupted their film technology. Thank you Kodak professionals, we live in the best of both worlds. Enjoy it while you can because tomorrow will bring another tech disruption.

Great talk - thank you. It's absolutely not 'cheating'. I think it depends on if you are interested in creating images or documents - but very interesting that you frame not touching up as 'perfectionism'. I do photography to document important moments for me, so it would seem odd for me to want to drastically retouch/edit: as if the world is deficient. When removing objects from images, are we not also striving for 'perfectionism' but in a different way?

Thank you! You hit the nail on the head. I've been vocal for years that there is nothing sacred about the medium of film. Journalistic integrity is the best argument I think for little to no manipulation of a photo but as far as artistic expression I think anything goes. I often say for me film is just an analog sensor. A tool in service of an artistic vision. I've even experimented with color correcting polaroids with quite a bit of success! But I have to agree with you that there's not much that can be improved on when it comes to the beautiful colors of a raw polaroid.

Alcohol is far better than water for extracting compounds from organic matter. For example, it takes 13.35 oz of vanilla beans (split lengthwise) soaked in 1 gal of at least 80 proof vodka, for six months to make vanilla extract. Vodka is used as it is tasteless and does not alter the flavor. 91% rubbing alcohol will do better than 70%. Similarly, the higher proof vodka will do better than lower. Note: Some items need to soak longer than others. For example, vanilla can be used in as little as four to six weeks. But six months is generally the minimum time you want. So you may want to do a long soak and check once a month to see if longer is better. P.S. I have some vanilla extract that's been soaking for more than 12 years... Dang is it good!

Sure it's cute but even with the flash it still takes terrible dark pictures. Outside on the sunniest of days it does a halfway decent job but indoors it's not possible to get a good pic. One of the most disappointing purchases I've ever made. The Fuji instax line is miles ahead. Never trust these YT reviews. Do further research!

0:37 And yet, these same people will NOT consider Ansel Adams a cheater.

Painters retouch and revise their works. Writers revise and rewrite their works. Composers revise and rework their compositions. Filmmakers have editing and reshooting as accepted tools in their works. But retouching or otherwise improving a photograph is lazy and blasphemous - even though it's been accepted as part of creating photographs for nearly two centuries. That's as fussy and ridiculous as saying a chef isn't allowed to taste the soup he's making and adjust its flavour. Best wishes from Vermont ❄️💙❄️

Im excited for kodak to be launching soon their own KODAK SMARTCAMERA/PHONE. Cant wait.

The boomers and the children of the boomers need to "rethink" their idea of hard copy. Digital is great, but has it own problems. Since it's so easy to create and duplicate, it's easy to put off content management. Like buying a new house for more closets. More closets doesn't make finding stuff easier. When confronted by a mass of "data", I find it more fatiguing to review/manage docs onscreen than from boxes. Happy Thanksgiving. When I give someone a print, whether from a image on film or an image by sensor, they can deduce that the print is more personal than a winged image on the internet. Merry Christmas. If an Ancient returned to life, they might find their stone statues, even if there was no electricity. Or no adapters. Happy New Year. I loved Kodachrome. It was worth it. What will National Geographic do with their Kodachromes?

Thank you, was looking forever for an explanation like that for polaroid 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

And I think the vehicle subscription thing is not the best comparison I have a base model Subaru Forester that didn't come with fog lights and it's simply has covers where they would normally be and if I wanted to add them I could either have the dealer do it or do it myself since the wires are already there.

I’d encourage people to minimise the volume of expired film. Keep industry going rather than hoovering up the old crap.

I love that my Olympus OM2 SP has a spot meter built into the meter. Very helpful. Great tips man!

@ 1:05 Wrong!! It's the only analog color film producer in the US! But not world wide!!!

Hi I found some Kodak tx and t max the film expired in 2020 could I use and do u have video on using exp film ? Ty

There’s an app for a light meter ??

Been supporting Reflx Lab. Why pay overpriced Cinestill SGD29 to SGD31 in Singapore? It’s nothing original. No brainer.

I have a bunch of film stocks available in store here that I have no idea what they're worth. Like Vetrokam 400, which I thought would be the poor man's Cinestill 400 but it turns out to look quite different (I bought one roll and I'll be sending it to the lab today). Vibe 200-400-800 , from the examples I saw online, they look close to Cinestill and are like 12.50, about as expensive as rolls of Lomo. Not a fan of Cinestill particularly, it's just an alternative to Lomo 800, although costs about the same... Vetrokam too, except it has only 27 exposures (but the end of the roll was at 26 for me). I just started film photography, so I was curious to try these stocks with my style (and I'm most likely going to stick with Fuji400/Kodak Ultramax)

Excellent video, but I wouldn't say color is disctracting, no way. Exectly the opposite, since we have no color in BW (film) photos color will not help us to separate the elements on the resulting BW photo, and it is burtally challenging how to take meaningful photos without colors. Your number one tip is the key, I think: simplify your scene, since colors will not be available in the final photo. On a digital camera, it is easy since, you simply disable colors in the screen or EVF, but in a film camera, you really have to learn to "see" without colors.

Shooting in B&W has made me be more patient and choose my shots more carefully. I enjoy it. Really pulls me into the moment and allows me to not feel as though I’m wasting shots

Kodak is a GREAT company with a GREAT history which ultimately failed because of very poor management, and very poor decisions made in times of great change regarding photography, such as failing to go digital soon enough, and steadfastly remaining on that path for good. All things considered ... photographic film is STILL well beyond the capabilities of even the best digital. The VERY BEST of digital at least might be able to compete with medium format film. The VERY BEST of digital meaning no less that a full 100 megapixels using a medium format style digital camera. And that's ONLY after tweaking it to the max, and getting your file perfect in every way, which is generally not quite a piece of cake with digital. You need to be a geek on steroids to get everything perfect, and a bit less than such a geek for medium format film.

The only thing I can identify in the blind test with 100% accuracy is which two photos are shot in Lomo/Portra 800. I just pick two photos that are alike

I can always guess which one is the funsaver (not taking into account the fuji), because it has lower contrast than the lomography and portra.

I still don't understand how when I look at sample night photos of say Cinestill 800t, I see lots of shots with moving subjects, people, cars, etc. And no blur, and no flash. How? Even some other youtubers walking around at night and snapping without a tripod. I'm missing something.

I'm colour blind so I'm already one third of the way there

Saying that a point and shoot camera is better at snapshots than a medium format camera is like saying hammer is better at driving nails than a sock.

Saying that a point and shoot camera is better at snapshots than a medium format camera is like saying hammer is better at driving nails than a sock.

Two things I see across different comparisons is that Gold isn't as sharp as ColorPlus, and Gold has more reds where ColorPlus has more blues. Very much like the blue light filters that are popular with phones and computers these days.

would you be down to do a video on how to smelt your own silver from the silver recovery tanks? (the ones that use steel wool)

Interesting video, but the “background” music is too loud.

this is for b&w film correct?

I'm pretty😊 sure you shouldn't pour that down the drain..

Letting you know I want to know about the chemistry (but I feel like you might already have made the video

There is also Kodak 500t, the motion picture film

According to a recent video I saw from “In An Instant” , if I remember correctly, the films are identical except that there is an extra layer that acts as a ND filter added to the SX 70 film to decrease ISO value.

This video is amazing. Thanks for doing these tests! Just 1 question- what camera did you use to take these images?

Hard to spot any real difference. Might as well just buy whatever is cheaper.

Bbut... But should I make portrait with sun behind person? The face will be visible? And my polaroid 1000 doesn't have flash bar 😢

How can I take better photos on the polaroid go gen 2, as my photos keep coming out either too dark or too bright

Why the music it's waaay too loud.!