This film was a school project, it is by no means a flawless representation of the film photo community or the history of the industry. Regardless, I hope you all enjoy it.
Great video. I grew up o film, and when digital came along WOW!. As a wedding and contract photographer, this was great. After retiring, I got burned out on digital, wasting too much time editing. So, 3 years ago, i got some of my old film cameras out and CLA. It is great to slow down and create again. Thanks KB
@@durango-CODEBUILDER accepting your premise that there is some categorical distinction (I do not); you still run into the fact that value and aesthetics are subjective, and to some extent normatively anchored. It's really not.
@@kaczynski2333 The only thing that should matter is whether or not you connect with the work that youre looking at on a basic level. Anything beyond that is bullshit.
To me, film photography is like putting pen to paper or paint to canvas, rather than drawing with a stylus on a digital tablet. Both can create amazing art, but only analog methods get you into the process. I like the process as much as the product. Also, when I have film on hand, it's like having cash in my wallet, as opposed to my debit card. When I have cash, I feel the need to spend it. My debit card I can use whenever. Same thing with film. When I have film, I feel the need to go out and shoot it, whereas with my digital cameras, I can take pictures with them anytime, so I rarely feel the need.
Analog really doesn't need to be defended. It never actually went away. Leica never actually stopped making film cameras because they knew there was a base of film shooters that wasn't going away. You don't need to be a Luddite to appreciate the subtleties of film. Digital tries to capture the film look but when you need that look only film can give you that.
Film should be defended. If it's not companies will focus on giving you a digital film look as opposed to seeing even though that's available, as analog photographers we want the real thing. A lot goes into producing real film and if a company can get by producing film simulations (not directly talking about fuji) they will. We need more companies producing new stocks and that's not gonna happen if we just sit back and watch more and more stocks get discontinued. There needs to be an uproar and a demand.
True that, film never died! That being said it definitely was looking grim for the industry in the early tens. We have experienced a resurgence, but its still a small community. The more support film can garner, the more film stocks can be reintroduced, labs opened and artists born!
@@NothingTooSpiffy And what about the equipments? Leica rangefinders and some custom made 4x5 is no doubt expensive for lots of hobbyists. Most of us are still using 30-40-50 years which are practically only supported by 3rd party techs these days. No new spareparts made means we have to rely on existing parts usually acummulated by repairmen, or cannibalizing broken bodies. Eventually we'll run out of them. Perhaps I overstate this issue?
Yep, we definitely missed the mark on the history of the industry part. While the information itself is fine, I can see how it's presentation is misleading. This was a project for school, but I am tempted to revisit it in greater depth later!
Film is not analog. Analog is part of electronics, a.k.a. analog signaling. The sensor in your digital camera is analog, it uses ADC to turn that signaling into a digital signal that is then PP in software. Film is a physical medium with chemical layers and film photography is an optochemical process taken with mostly mechanical cameras on a physical medium. Literary 0 'analog'. Why are people insisting on calling physical/mechanical stuff 'analog' is beyond me. The opposite of digital is not analog, the same way the opposite of sweet is not salty.
To preface this- I agree completely- Weirdly enough though, some dictionaries have adopted analog as an antonym for words like digital/computerized. The Film Photography community also strongly identifies with the word "analog" for this reason.
If the sensor in your digital camera is analog which converts the signal to digital, why is a film sensor then not also an analog detector? A mechanical clock (no electronics) is referred to as analog because it represents time in a continuous range of values as opposed to discreet units. I think the usage in film photography is justified. Maybe a more accurate alternative would be to refer to them as chemical vs electrical photography. But I doubt artists of either type are going to buy into that. (And they shouldn't.)
BTW @alexolesky, great film. Keep it up. I think there are festivals that would accept this. Also, I got my first TLR restored at Seawood Photo. If I lived closer, I'd be hanging out there a lot (and I'd have too many cameras.)
Analogue is in opposition of digital. It's only a definition used in communications engineering to define things that don't use digital boundaries but take the pure noisy signals exactly like they enter the system, in this case, the light that goes through the lens to be focused straight onto a photosensitive layer.
This film was a school project, it is by no means a flawless representation of the film photo community or the history of the industry. Regardless, I hope you all enjoy it.
Great video. I grew up o film, and when digital came along WOW!. As a wedding and contract photographer, this was great. After retiring, I got burned out on digital, wasting too much time editing. So, 3 years ago, i got some of my old film cameras out and CLA. It is great to slow down and create again. Thanks KB
I totally agree that shooting film is more rewarding than shooting digital, and I hope that film never die!
Still angry that they took my Kodachrome away.
very cool mini doc. keep up the interviews!
A good picture is a good picture no matter how it was taken
If only it were that simple.
@@kaczynski2333 it can be that simple!
@@durango-CODEBUILDER accepting your premise that there is some categorical distinction (I do not); you still run into the fact that value and aesthetics are subjective, and to some extent normatively anchored.
It's really not.
@@kaczynski2333 The only thing that should matter is whether or not you connect with the work that youre looking at on a basic level. Anything beyond that is bullshit.
@@durango-CODEBUILDER your assertion is internally inconsistent, and you clearly didn't understand my statement.
You should quit while you're behind.
To me, film photography is like putting pen to paper or paint to canvas, rather than drawing with a stylus on a digital tablet. Both can create amazing art, but only analog methods get you into the process. I like the process as much as the product.
Also, when I have film on hand, it's like having cash in my wallet, as opposed to my debit card. When I have cash, I feel the need to spend it. My debit card I can use whenever. Same thing with film. When I have film, I feel the need to go out and shoot it, whereas with my digital cameras, I can take pictures with them anytime, so I rarely feel the need.
Digital photography is a technical experience, film photography is an emotional experience
digital photography can definetly be an emotional experience in my opinion
my biggest fear is that there will be no one left who knows how to repair old mechanical cameras and lenses..
Analog really doesn't need to be defended. It never actually went away. Leica never actually stopped making film cameras because they knew there was a base of film shooters that wasn't going away. You don't need to be a Luddite to appreciate the subtleties of film. Digital tries to capture the film look but when you need that look only film can give you that.
Film should be defended. If it's not companies will focus on giving you a digital film look as opposed to seeing even though that's available, as analog photographers we want the real thing. A lot goes into producing real film and if a company can get by producing film simulations (not directly talking about fuji) they will. We need more companies producing new stocks and that's not gonna happen if we just sit back and watch more and more stocks get discontinued. There needs to be an uproar and a demand.
True that, film never died! That being said it definitely was looking grim for the industry in the early tens. We have experienced a resurgence, but its still a small community. The more support film can garner, the more film stocks can be reintroduced, labs opened and artists born!
@@NothingTooSpiffy And what about the equipments? Leica rangefinders and some custom made 4x5 is no doubt expensive for lots of hobbyists. Most of us are still using 30-40-50 years which are practically only supported by 3rd party techs these days. No new spareparts made means we have to rely on existing parts usually acummulated by repairmen, or cannibalizing broken bodies. Eventually we'll run out of them. Perhaps I overstate this issue?
15 years ago every rich kids hobby was vinyl, now its film😂
Flash is the greatest
I only wish to find a quicker way to develop films.
How quick do you want? DIY maybe?
Lots of incorrect info in this
Yep, we definitely missed the mark on the history of the industry part. While the information itself is fine, I can see how it's presentation is misleading. This was a project for school, but I am tempted to revisit it in greater depth later!
For its purpose, it is very informative: hearing experienced photographers say why they choose film. 👌
Film is not analog. Analog is part of electronics, a.k.a. analog signaling. The sensor in your digital camera is analog, it uses ADC to turn that signaling into a digital signal that is then PP in software. Film is a physical medium with chemical layers and film photography is an optochemical process taken with mostly mechanical cameras on a physical medium. Literary 0 'analog'. Why are people insisting on calling physical/mechanical stuff 'analog' is beyond me. The opposite of digital is not analog, the same way the opposite of sweet is not salty.
To preface this- I agree completely- Weirdly enough though, some dictionaries have adopted analog as an antonym for words like digital/computerized. The Film Photography community also strongly identifies with the word "analog" for this reason.
If the sensor in your digital camera is analog which converts the signal to digital, why is a film sensor then not also an analog detector? A mechanical clock (no electronics) is referred to as analog because it represents time in a continuous range of values as opposed to discreet units. I think the usage in film photography is justified. Maybe a more accurate alternative would be to refer to them as chemical vs electrical photography. But I doubt artists of either type are going to buy into that. (And they shouldn't.)
BTW @alexolesky, great film. Keep it up. I think there are festivals that would accept this. Also, I got my first TLR restored at Seawood Photo. If I lived closer, I'd be hanging out there a lot (and I'd have too many cameras.)
Analogue is in opposition of digital. It's only a definition used in communications engineering to define things that don't use digital boundaries but take the pure noisy signals exactly like they enter the system, in this case, the light that goes through the lens to be focused straight onto a photosensitive layer.
Outstanding!