One thing about processing. It's odd, but that time between taking and seeing actually adds a lot. You have to revisit that journey, and those moments, and it's a real thrill. I've just started darkroom printing my photos, and once again that's another layer, picking those most valued of pictures, and then spending 2 hours really studying them, and bringing the best out of them. You can get that experience digitally, but I think all to often it's a far faster, and more shallow experience (or perhaps I'm usually in too much of a hurry, so have to force myself to slow down to enjoy the hobby)
Team digital here! But honestly, when I see a photograph, it does not matter which medium it was shot on, if it is a good photograph, it is a good photograph!
This is why it's great to be a hobbyist. The only justification needed is "because I want to". In the old days (back when horse buggies were the family car, the early 90's) I used to use a film recorder. This projected high resolution digitally originated images onto film stock. The film was then developed as usual for print or for projection. Maybe I'll pick up a machine when one comes around on EBay. Pretty cool right? Break out that old Kodak Carousel projector. Show my AI fixed, S1R originated, but Ektachrome translated slides at the next dinner party.
Great video! And thanks for fixing my underexposed film photos, Mattie. Putting aside the debate over whether digital can truly replicate the pleasing quality of film, what I’ll say is that shooting 35mm really forces me to slow down, be present, and strongly consider my composition (especially due to the price!) Digital photography has become so cheap and mindless-the camera’s computer figuring almost everything for you. By contrast, a manual film camera will re-teach you the basics, allowing you to become a better photographer overall. I see film in 2023 as an exercise in technique, art, and being purposeful in your captures. I now own the OM-1 (2022) and the OM-1 (1972) and recommend them both highly.
I’ve purchased three cameras this year. Two digital and one medium format film camera. You both reminded me why … PHOTOGRAPHY IS FUN! Thanks guys. Great video
I love this video. I recently bought a Bronica SQ (which is the older brother of Ricardo's SQ-A1) and I'm getting the hang of medium format photography. I appreciate all the pros and cons raised by Matti and Ricardo for and against film. The biggest cons for me are the delay in film processing and the cost of shooting film. I also own a Lumix GX7 and with a 20mm 1.7 which I use for street photography, so that's kinda similar to Matti's camera in this video. Thanks Matti for covering film photography :)
There's really only one major advantage with digital - you can check the screen to see if you got the picture or not. Of course, variable ISO and the ability to switch from colour to black and white are also advantages, but a photographer could carry two film cameras and overcome those limitations.
I like both. I have both kinds of cameras. For film, I have 35mm, medium format and large format. For digital, I have full frame, aps-c, mft, and small sensor point and shoot. Each camera has a place. Like a workman with a large bag of tools, I can grab the right tool for the job I want to accomplish. 35mm film is about 30 megapixel equivalent, but you can go higher with microfilm engineered products like Adox II. Medium format has the resolution of the best digital cameras. Large format has ludicrous theoretical resolution, but is really a function of the resolving power of the lens. With a film camera, you can drop in a roll of Adox II, infrared, or Lomo purple and you have a completely different camera. People whine about the cost of film, but a one day trip to a location dwarfs that cost. Film slows you down and makes you think. All that having been said, most of my images are digital. But sometimes I want film. It's nice to have choices.
I shoot both digital and film. I love the whole film process (started shooting back in the early 70s). I started using mostly digital about 5 years ago. Depending upon the needed end results, I will use either digital or film. My customers get a shocked look on their faces when I ask them if they want digital or film.
Thanks for your work and uploading (now that I know how difficult the video editing process can be)! 5:35 shows a nice angle for 2 peoples talking, better than the usual "selphy-stick-angle"! Analogue is simple, you just have to follow few simple recipes, but, yes, there are many ways you can screw up everything, like not loading the film right away, or film might not be completely spooled back in your camera (believe me, just an "experienced" guy can screw that up with a camera he is not used to, like me and my "new" Zorki-6) or using not enough developer in the development tank. But each single step is easy and you can learn everything on YT. I personally love analogue because of the simple fun with those old cameras. Even if you don't like your analogue cam any more, you will probably get more from selling it than you originally spent on it 😄😁😄
Nice video! With a digital camera you have certainly more options. With an analog camera you have to think more in detail and in advance, what film will you use which b/w film, which color film. If you even prozess the film in your home lab... which developer. Film and developer have different effect on the final photo. Is it more cold or warm, does it have a blueish touch, what about grain/noise etc. But as I said earlier, you are also limited with an analog camera. Focus stacking i.e. I photograph analog and digital. I just started with analog. Analog has a diffent touch and feeling on the photos what you cannot get with a digital camera neither with lightroom. A very nice video!
For me, film was far, far simpler than digital. I could pick up any film camera and know instantly how to operate it. Find a subject, point your camera at it, focus, set the shutter speed and f-stop, and press a button. That was it. That cameras can now do 10,000 things, for me, makes learning how to operate one complicated, confusing and very frustrating . . . producing both shame and rage . . . sometimes even thoughts of suicide. That said, I do like how compact digital can be (who wants to walk around with a Bronica? . . . sorry, Ricardo). I like the cost of digital processing, obviously . . . and the versatility of digital. But, I do still miss the peace and quiet and isolation of my darkroom.
It's about the format. There simply is no digital camera that can be made to look like something shot on 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 - unless you spend tens of thousands of dollars on a Phase One or true 6x6 digital Hasselblad back. Digital "medium" format really is only full frame+, it's not even close to 6x4.5. Hence you cannot replicate the look of the larger analog formats with digital. If you've ever shot Velvia 50 on 6x9 or large format, there is no comparison to digital. It's two different worlds. I agree that 135 has limited or no advantages over digital nowadays - other than maybe getting the tone and color results easier than with digital where you might spend a lot of time to approximate the results you want by making it look like a particular film look. If you shoot that film, you get that look with a lot less effort and over many different shots and lighting situations, your film results will be consistent.
Use great lenses, photograph with intent and print your work, that levels the playing field. The photographic ‘journey’ is experienced by the photographer, the ‘destination, by the viewer who pretty much doesn’t care what camera made the image.
People don't get it - that the easy and convenient-ness of digital is an argument AGAINST digital. Those of us who started in the 1960's and shot medium and large format for the early years of our career can love digital, but we also love that we learned on film. Large format, especially. If you go out with just two sheets of 4x5, and you know you have to get the money-shot in one of those two exposures, it has a way of forcing you to get it right first time. It exercises the brain into becoming intuitive with the exposure triangle, and using the eye as the basic exposure meter. The cost of film is also an argument FOR film. When it is expensive to take a photograph, it forces the mind to make to most of the moment. No room for spray and pray there. You shoot less images, but the images that are shot tend to be a lot more thoughtful. Those who learn on digital learn to just press the shutter, with minimal thoughts, like maybe rule of thirds, and allow the chip in the camera to do the rest of the thinking for them. This is often very short-sighted. Ultimately, however, it is never the type of camera that takes the picture, it is the nexus between the heart and the mind that makes the picture. The camera is just metal, glass, and plastic. No more, no less, and is worth no more than a poet's vision. In the hand of a poet, however, it transcends its physical characteristics, and becomes a vehicle for creating magic.
In a digital camera you cannot change the sensor (unless you buy a new camera).. with film photography, you can “choose” your sensor - b/w, orthochromatic, panchromatic, color with different ranges, etc.. at the only price of a new film with the same camera.. and if you develop on your own, the price for each film is really low…
Mechanical cameras have benefits, like working when the batteries are flat (assuming you can gestimate light level, with is not that difficult with latitude film has). Films has different asthetics. On quickly changing situations latitude of films can be so useful! Digitals are cheap to shoot, you can even have real time display of what it is going to look (unless using mirrored cams). You can change the ISO on the fly too, with film I used to carry 2 cameras always (one with slow and one with fast film). None of that developing hassle either. If I go to extremes like large format, I can get a huge amount of details. Even my 4x5" give easily 4 GB size scans per shot. A sheet of slide film is probably 10€/shot and development another (if not at least double nowadays). I think my hit/miss ratio on large format is huge and I've learned most from the shots I did not take, that were almost great but not quite. I shoot digital now. No hassle of developing (that was quite quick when batch processing similar films). The convenience and costs keep me digital. I still have analog gear a lot that I'm sure to take out some day.
Both Matti's and Ricardo's photos look great -- but I do have to say that Ricardo seemed to capture a little more 'sparkle' -- reflections/highlights without being blown out. Not that that is necessarily due to his using a film camera, more likely his composition choices -- yet the images were captured very well on film. I shoot both film and digital.
@@mattisulanto It would be interesting to create a gallery of say 6 shots each, mix them up and then have viewers guess which are film and which are digital. I would have to say that without pixel-peeping, I would have a hard time. Your pictures had a look of say HP4+ or Kodak Tmax 100 -- if I were to think of them as film shots....
I did analog still film photography for 37 years both for hobby and as a pro, I do not miss analog film and I think digital photography are much easier and fun to do, I can check the result at once and I do not need chemicals which is a big concern or my environmental conscience.
Amusing & friendly argument;-)) Taking into account all costs, old but golden analogue cameras with a set of fine old lenses are enormously cheaper than today's digitals, and there is no cost with batteries or any other sort of energy for you if you can handle a fully mechanical body without electric metering or/and shutter. That starts with looking through the finder: You mustn't switch on electric power to get what you'll see on a screen - you are just looking through the finder and see what you want to. To reach an equilibrium of cost between analogue & digtal you can buy now and develop hundreds of films -maybe for years. Finally you ask yourself: What kind of photography pleases me more? For me, digital is my everyday photography, and analogue is the trick to slow myself down, to concentrate myself on discipline and knowledge about physical and chemical nexus, about some regularities of optics. Last not least I enjoy heavy metal camera bodies and lenses, I enjoy manualfocusing and setting the sharpest point without outside help. I don't need any artificial intelligence because I like to be savvy and totally responsible to all I handle with care and affection. If you like fast food don't switch to analogue, but if you can imagine to frequent a gourmet restaurant: go analogue and taste this much more extended feeling of pleasure!
The bottom line is how the print looks in the end. It doesn't matter how you got there. There are things you can achieve with film you can't 100% replicate in digital and vice-versa. Neither is better; they're just different. The current state of that art is such that no digital camera can match the dynamic range one can get with B&W film (IF you know what you're doing). On the other hand, no film emulsion/process has never been able to accurately render color (not that that really matters--"accurate" color is irrelevant from an artistic standpoint). I shot film (both color and B&W) for decades and once I felt that digital could produce comparable results to film (and it certainly didn't in the early days), I made the switch and haven't really looked back. Digital simply makes it so much easier to reliably realize my vision (especially with mirrorless--why would anyone not want to know if they got a usable shot before moving on, plus film processing chemicals aren't exactly innocuous). I understand the different psych of the two modalities, but I don't need to "slow down" the process by imposing restrictions in order to achieve a mindset. I totally agree that learning how to shoot film can help develop (sorry) your photography skills in general and I'd highly recommend books such as Ansel Adams' "trilogy" (The Camera, The Negative, and The Print) to really learn the process (you can skip through some of the sections regarding developer dilution, agitation, etc.), especially previsualization and the Zone System as such principals apply to any form of photography.
Thanks for sharing your experience and opinion. I'd really love to see your B&W film work. Do you have an online portfolio or can I see your work anywhere?
I think film is harder and more expensive. Sometimes I like the fact that film can be stored without the need for electricity or hard drives that might fail. I note some institutions still archive their images on film for this reason only. Some film cameras do not need batteries to use. Apart from these, there's probably no reason to use film...except..... you know......art is a never ending mystery maybe?
I’m grateful to have learned photography on film cameras and loved the experience of finessing the physical effect of photons on the silver halide crystals in film emulsions. It felt like a very hands-on artistic process, whereas digital photography - for all of its amazing convenience and capability - seems almost entirely cognitive to me.
I would love to shoot film again. But it's too expensive. And scanning is also not as good as it should be. Although it depends on the lab. Film, or at least b&w film, needs a big DR boost. I'm pretty sure it can be done fairly easily - just add more layers. BTW medium format digital is also getting very cheap. A GFX 50s is practically superior to 6x6 film in almost every way. You can also get reasonably priced Phase One and Hasselblad digital kits.
Oh, you should try scanning at home. Unless your lab is doing Flextight or true drum scans, DIY will provide much higher quality results. Pick up an appropriate film holder. Use your current digital camera to digitize. I really like cams like the Panasonic G9 for this. It’ll do 80MP high res shots with no Bayer filter interpolation, so the result is every bit of spatial and color information and dynamic range of the film. Pick up a S1R to digitize MF or larger film. That camera will do ~200MP in high res mode.
@@RobertLeeAtYT I don't disagree. Thanks to the excellent features of MFT cameras, like you said (and also Live ND which is basically frame averaging), that will work beautifully. But it isn't automated enough and you will need a dust-free room (you really think I'm going to do manual dust removal? LOL). Admittedly, having a dust-free room isn't that difficult, so that is not the deal breaker. It's just too much effort. There is no photo scanner that exists which gives you fuss-free, high quality, deep scans. If you're shooting movie film, things are so much easier. Cine labs give you superb scans. Better than a lot of high end photo labs, that is for sure.
@@Biosynchro If you decide to get into shooting film in volume, pick up a used Nikon CS5000 or CS9000. I have both. These were the best film scanners available to serious hobbyists at the end of the film era. For C-41/E-6 process film, both have a fourth, infrared channel used for automatic dust removal. It works well. The CS5000 is particularly great for 135 format film. It'll scan an entire roll (with the right adapter) unattended in about 45 minutes.
No it wasn't. In 120 film rolls you have the backing paper that is what you see me attaching to the loader. The film itself is only in place of exposure after you cranck the camera to start shooting. However this is different in 35mm and you always do loose a piece of the roll when loading the camera.
People focus way too much on these things. Focus on composition and a story. Most people take snapshots. If I want to see snapshots I use google street view. Tell the story!
Not fair putting a 6x6 camera up against a quarter-frame digital. I've shot film from 35 mm up to 8x10 view camera. I love view camera work, but I've had my hands in chemicals and breathed in the fumes enough in life that I don't want to do that again. At low ISO, in black and white, film can be great. I really liked Ilford FP4 which had smooth, creamy gray scale. At higher ISO, digital is far better, and that's black and white. With color there is no comparison. Kodachrome 25 and Fuji Velvia 50 were very good, but any high ISO color film is worthless. I love looking at old glass plate 8x10 photos at Shorpy. The level of detail is great, limited by the softness of some of the old lenses. But look at old Kodachrome slides, even ASA 10 versions, and they're not as good as even a point and shoot digital.
One thing about processing. It's odd, but that time between taking and seeing actually adds a lot. You have to revisit that journey, and those moments, and it's a real thrill. I've just started darkroom printing my photos, and once again that's another layer, picking those most valued of pictures, and then spending 2 hours really studying them, and bringing the best out of them.
You can get that experience digitally, but I think all to often it's a far faster, and more shallow experience (or perhaps I'm usually in too much of a hurry, so have to force myself to slow down to enjoy the hobby)
Team digital here! But honestly, when I see a photograph, it does not matter which medium it was shot on, if it is a good photograph, it is a good photograph!
Thanks my friend. I agree, if it's good it's good😀
A sub-sized M43 versus a medium format! In the end the “winner” is … both. You both deserve a prize for being the Congenial Duo of Street Photography.
Thanks so much.
This is why it's great to be a hobbyist. The only justification needed is "because I want to".
In the old days (back when horse buggies were the family car, the early 90's) I used to use a film recorder. This projected high resolution digitally originated images onto film stock. The film was then developed as usual for print or for projection. Maybe I'll pick up a machine when one comes around on EBay. Pretty cool right? Break out that old Kodak Carousel projector. Show my AI fixed, S1R originated, but Ektachrome translated slides at the next dinner party.
That device sounds really cool.
I would salute each and every enthusiast who is shooting film. I, personally, do not have the patience for it. Good for them they do 😄
They keep film alive😀
Great discussion and a nice shoutout for Ricardo's channel,.
Thanks!
I learned a lot during my film days, but I would not switch back.
Thanks. I feel the same.
Great video! And thanks for fixing my underexposed film photos, Mattie. Putting aside the debate over whether digital can truly replicate the pleasing quality of film, what I’ll say is that shooting 35mm really forces me to slow down, be present, and strongly consider my composition (especially due to the price!) Digital photography has become so cheap and mindless-the camera’s computer figuring almost everything for you. By contrast, a manual film camera will re-teach you the basics, allowing you to become a better photographer overall. I see film in 2023 as an exercise in technique, art, and being purposeful in your captures. I now own the OM-1 (2022) and the OM-1 (1972) and recommend them both highly.
Thank you for watching.
I’ve purchased three cameras this year. Two digital and one medium format film camera. You both reminded me why … PHOTOGRAPHY IS FUN! Thanks guys. Great video
Thanks. I guess photography is fun😀
I love this video. I recently bought a Bronica SQ (which is the older brother of Ricardo's SQ-A1) and I'm getting the hang of medium format photography. I appreciate all the pros and cons raised by Matti and Ricardo for and against film. The biggest cons for me are the delay in film processing and the cost of shooting film. I also own a Lumix GX7 and with a 20mm 1.7 which I use for street photography, so that's kinda similar to Matti's camera in this video. Thanks Matti for covering film photography :)
Thanks. Nice to hear you also have a Bronica.
Hm, about half a year ago I loaded a b/w film in my old, still perfecrly working K1000. I haven't taken a singe shot since then, but digitally. 😮
There's really only one major advantage with digital - you can check the screen to see if you got the picture or not. Of course, variable ISO and the ability to switch from colour to black and white are also advantages, but a photographer could carry two film cameras and overcome those limitations.
I like both. I have both kinds of cameras. For film, I have 35mm, medium format and large format. For digital, I have full frame, aps-c, mft, and small sensor point and shoot. Each camera has a place. Like a workman with a large bag of tools, I can grab the right tool for the job I want to accomplish. 35mm film is about 30 megapixel equivalent, but you can go higher with microfilm engineered products like Adox II. Medium format has the resolution of the best digital cameras. Large format has ludicrous theoretical resolution, but is really a function of the resolving power of the lens. With a film camera, you can drop in a roll of Adox II, infrared, or Lomo purple and you have a completely different camera. People whine about the cost of film, but a one day trip to a location dwarfs that cost. Film slows you down and makes you think. All that having been said, most of my images are digital. But sometimes I want film. It's nice to have choices.
Thanks for your insights on this.
I shoot both digital and film. I love the whole film process (started shooting back in the early 70s). I started using mostly digital about 5 years ago. Depending upon the needed end results, I will use either digital or film. My customers get a shocked look on their faces when I ask them if they want digital or film.
I bet no one expects film any more😀
Digital is for the industry, film is for personal passion
I would never say it’s better just fun all around.
Well said.
Thanks for your work and uploading (now that I know how difficult the video editing process can be)!
5:35 shows a nice angle for 2 peoples talking, better than the usual "selphy-stick-angle"!
Analogue is simple, you just have to follow few simple recipes, but, yes, there are many ways you can screw up everything, like not loading the film right away, or film might not be completely spooled back in your camera (believe me, just an "experienced" guy can screw that up with a camera he is not used to, like me and my "new" Zorki-6) or using not enough developer in the development tank. But each single step is easy and you can learn everything on YT.
I personally love analogue because of the simple fun with those old cameras. Even if you don't like your analogue cam any more, you will probably get more from selling it than you originally spent on it 😄😁😄
Thanks for dropping by and sharing your opinion.
Nice video! With a digital camera you have certainly more options. With an analog camera you have to think more in detail and in advance, what film will you use which b/w film, which color film. If you even prozess the film in your home lab... which developer. Film and developer have different effect on the final photo. Is it more cold or warm, does it have a blueish touch, what about grain/noise etc.
But as I said earlier, you are also limited with an analog camera. Focus stacking i.e.
I photograph analog and digital. I just started with analog. Analog has a diffent touch and feeling on the photos what you cannot get with a digital camera neither with lightroom.
A very nice video!
Thank you so much for sharing and for your kind words too.
For me, film was far, far simpler than digital. I could pick up any film camera and know instantly how to operate it. Find a subject, point your camera at it, focus, set the shutter speed and f-stop, and press a button. That was it. That cameras can now do 10,000 things, for me, makes learning how to operate one complicated, confusing and very frustrating . . . producing both shame and rage . . . sometimes even thoughts of suicide.
That said, I do like how compact digital can be (who wants to walk around with a Bronica? . . . sorry, Ricardo). I like the cost of digital processing, obviously . . . and the versatility of digital. But, I do still miss the peace and quiet and isolation of my darkroom.
Thanks for sharing. I have another video that might interest you😀: th-cam.com/video/YfJClTBLdkM/w-d-xo.html
It's about the format. There simply is no digital camera that can be made to look like something shot on 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 - unless you spend tens of thousands of dollars on a Phase One or true 6x6 digital Hasselblad back. Digital "medium" format really is only full frame+, it's not even close to 6x4.5. Hence you cannot replicate the look of the larger analog formats with digital.
If you've ever shot Velvia 50 on 6x9 or large format, there is no comparison to digital. It's two different worlds.
I agree that 135 has limited or no advantages over digital nowadays - other than maybe getting the tone and color results easier than with digital where you might spend a lot of time to approximate the results you want by making it look like a particular film look. If you shoot that film, you get that look with a lot less effort and over many different shots and lighting situations, your film results will be consistent.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on this.
Use great lenses, photograph with intent and print your work, that levels the playing field. The photographic ‘journey’ is experienced by the photographer, the ‘destination, by the viewer who pretty much doesn’t care what camera made the image.
Thanks. You summarized it really well.
People don't get it - that the easy and convenient-ness of digital is an argument AGAINST digital. Those of us who started in the 1960's and shot medium and large format for the early years of our career can love digital, but we also love that we learned on film. Large format, especially. If you go out with just two sheets of 4x5, and you know you have to get the money-shot in one of those two exposures, it has a way of forcing you to get it right first time. It exercises the brain into becoming intuitive with the exposure triangle, and using the eye as the basic exposure meter.
The cost of film is also an argument FOR film. When it is expensive to take a photograph, it forces the mind to make to most of the moment. No room for spray and pray there. You shoot less images, but the images that are shot tend to be a lot more thoughtful.
Those who learn on digital learn to just press the shutter, with minimal thoughts, like maybe rule of thirds, and allow the chip in the camera to do the rest of the thinking for them. This is often very short-sighted.
Ultimately, however, it is never the type of camera that takes the picture, it is the nexus between the heart and the mind that makes the picture. The camera is just metal, glass, and plastic. No more, no less, and is worth no more than a poet's vision. In the hand of a poet, however, it transcends its physical characteristics, and becomes a vehicle for creating magic.
Thanks for your thoughts and for sharing your experience.
In a digital camera you cannot change the sensor (unless you buy a new camera).. with film photography, you can “choose” your sensor - b/w, orthochromatic, panchromatic, color with different ranges, etc.. at the only price of a new film with the same camera.. and if you develop on your own, the price for each film is really low…
Mechanical cameras have benefits, like working when the batteries are flat (assuming you can gestimate light level, with is not that difficult with latitude film has). Films has different asthetics. On quickly changing situations latitude of films can be so useful!
Digitals are cheap to shoot, you can even have real time display of what it is going to look (unless using mirrored cams). You can change the ISO on the fly too, with film I used to carry 2 cameras always (one with slow and one with fast film). None of that developing hassle either.
If I go to extremes like large format, I can get a huge amount of details. Even my 4x5" give easily 4 GB size scans per shot. A sheet of slide film is probably 10€/shot and development another (if not at least double nowadays). I think my hit/miss ratio on large format is huge and I've learned most from the shots I did not take, that were almost great but not quite.
I shoot digital now. No hassle of developing (that was quite quick when batch processing similar films). The convenience and costs keep me digital. I still have analog gear a lot that I'm sure to take out some day.
Thank you.
Both Matti's and Ricardo's photos look great -- but I do have to say that Ricardo seemed to capture a little more 'sparkle' -- reflections/highlights without being blown out. Not that that is necessarily due to his using a film camera, more likely his composition choices -- yet the images were captured very well on film. I shoot both film and digital.
Thanks!
@@mattisulanto It would be interesting to create a gallery of say 6 shots each, mix them up and then have viewers guess which are film and which are digital. I would have to say that without pixel-peeping, I would have a hard time. Your pictures had a look of say HP4+ or Kodak Tmax 100 -- if I were to think of them as film shots....
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 Maybe one day we'll do such a gallery😀
I did analog still film photography for 37 years both for hobby and as a pro, I do not miss analog film and I think digital photography are much easier and fun to do, I can check the result at once and I do not need chemicals which is a big concern or my environmental conscience.
Like Ricadro said, if you want the convenience for for digital😀 That's my choice too. I have exposed enough film to know what it is, like you.
☺@@mattisulanto
What city and country did you shoot this video in? I enjoyed it.
That is Helsinki Finland in all its glory😀
Amusing & friendly argument;-)) Taking into account all costs, old but golden analogue cameras with a set of fine old lenses are enormously cheaper than today's digitals, and there is no cost with batteries or any other sort of energy for you if you can handle a fully mechanical body without electric metering or/and shutter. That starts with looking through the finder: You mustn't switch on electric power to get what you'll see on a screen - you are just looking through the finder and see what you want to. To reach an equilibrium of cost between analogue & digtal you can buy now and develop hundreds of films -maybe for years. Finally you ask yourself: What kind of photography pleases me more? For me, digital is my everyday photography, and analogue is the trick to slow myself down, to concentrate myself on discipline and knowledge about physical and chemical nexus, about some regularities of optics. Last not least I enjoy heavy metal camera bodies and lenses, I enjoy manualfocusing and setting the sharpest point without outside help. I don't need any artificial intelligence because I like to be savvy and totally responsible to all I handle with care and affection. If you like fast food don't switch to analogue, but if you can imagine to frequent a gourmet restaurant: go analogue and taste this much more extended feeling of pleasure!
Thanks so much for sharing your extensive opinions and experience.
The bottom line is how the print looks in the end. It doesn't matter how you got there. There are things you can achieve with film you can't 100% replicate in digital and vice-versa. Neither is better; they're just different. The current state of that art is such that no digital camera can match the dynamic range one can get with B&W film (IF you know what you're doing). On the other hand, no film emulsion/process has never been able to accurately render color (not that that really matters--"accurate" color is irrelevant from an artistic standpoint). I shot film (both color and B&W) for decades and once I felt that digital could produce comparable results to film (and it certainly didn't in the early days), I made the switch and haven't really looked back. Digital simply makes it so much easier to reliably realize my vision (especially with mirrorless--why would anyone not want to know if they got a usable shot before moving on, plus film processing chemicals aren't exactly innocuous). I understand the different psych of the two modalities, but I don't need to "slow down" the process by imposing restrictions in order to achieve a mindset. I totally agree that learning how to shoot film can help develop (sorry) your photography skills in general and I'd highly recommend books such as Ansel Adams' "trilogy" (The Camera, The Negative, and The Print) to really learn the process (you can skip through some of the sections regarding developer dilution, agitation, etc.), especially previsualization and the Zone System as such principals apply to any form of photography.
Thanks for sharing your experience and opinion. I'd really love to see your B&W film work. Do you have an online portfolio or can I see your work anywhere?
I think film is harder and more expensive. Sometimes I like the fact that film can be stored without the need for electricity or hard drives that might fail. I note some institutions still archive their images on film for this reason only. Some film cameras do not need batteries to use. Apart from these, there's probably no reason to use film...except..... you know......art is a never ending mystery maybe?
Thanks for your insights. To each their own😀
I’m grateful to have learned photography on film cameras and loved the experience of finessing the physical effect of photons on the silver halide crystals in film emulsions. It felt like a very hands-on artistic process, whereas digital photography - for all of its amazing convenience and capability - seems almost entirely cognitive to me.
Thanks!
I would love to shoot film again. But it's too expensive. And scanning is also not as good as it should be. Although it depends on the lab.
Film, or at least b&w film, needs a big DR boost. I'm pretty sure it can be done fairly easily - just add more layers.
BTW medium format digital is also getting very cheap. A GFX 50s is practically superior to 6x6 film in almost every way. You can also get reasonably priced Phase One and Hasselblad digital kits.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Oh, you should try scanning at home. Unless your lab is doing Flextight or true drum scans, DIY will provide much higher quality results.
Pick up an appropriate film holder. Use your current digital camera to digitize. I really like cams like the Panasonic G9 for this. It’ll do 80MP high res shots with no Bayer filter interpolation, so the result is every bit of spatial and color information and dynamic range of the film.
Pick up a S1R to digitize MF or larger film. That camera will do ~200MP in high res mode.
@@RobertLeeAtYT I don't disagree. Thanks to the excellent features of MFT cameras, like you said (and also Live ND which is basically frame averaging), that will work beautifully. But it isn't automated enough and you will need a dust-free room (you really think I'm going to do manual dust removal? LOL).
Admittedly, having a dust-free room isn't that difficult, so that is not the deal breaker. It's just too much effort. There is no photo scanner that exists which gives you fuss-free, high quality, deep scans.
If you're shooting movie film, things are so much easier. Cine labs give you superb scans. Better than a lot of high end photo labs, that is for sure.
@@Biosynchro If you decide to get into shooting film in volume, pick up a used Nikon CS5000 or CS9000. I have both. These were the best film scanners available to serious hobbyists at the end of the film era. For C-41/E-6 process film, both have a fourth, infrared channel used for automatic dust removal. It works well.
The CS5000 is particularly great for 135 format film. It'll scan an entire roll (with the right adapter) unattended in about 45 minutes.
So at a moment Ricardo was loading his film who a good part was exposed to the ambient light?
I'm not sure I understand what you say😀
No it wasn't. In 120 film rolls you have the backing paper that is what you see me attaching to the loader. The film itself is only in place of exposure after you cranck the camera to start shooting. However this is different in 35mm and you always do loose a piece of the roll when loading the camera.
People focus way too much on these things. Focus on composition and a story. Most people take snapshots. If I want to see snapshots I use google street view. Tell the story!
Thanks for sharing!
Not fair putting a 6x6 camera up against a quarter-frame digital. I've shot film from 35 mm up to 8x10 view camera. I love view camera work, but I've had my hands in chemicals and breathed in the fumes enough in life that I don't want to do that again. At low ISO, in black and white, film can be great. I really liked Ilford FP4 which had smooth, creamy gray scale. At higher ISO, digital is far better, and that's black and white. With color there is no comparison. Kodachrome 25 and Fuji Velvia 50 were very good, but any high ISO color film is worthless. I love looking at old glass plate 8x10 photos at Shorpy. The level of detail is great, limited by the softness of some of the old lenses. But look at old Kodachrome slides, even ASA 10 versions, and they're not as good as even a point and shoot digital.
This is not head to head camera comparison as you may have noticed if you watched the full video.
Film? No thanks. Not until Fotomat reopens. 😂
Once you print either one I bet most couldn’t tell a difference except with pure luck.
That's true, but also not important.