If Ansel Adams was alive today, he would have used digital photography. DS: Have you ever felt held back by the technology available at the time? ADAMS: Yes. I have ideas many times that just won’t translate into film. I have an inspiration and can visualize my print, but then, when I take the photometer and measure it, I realize I can’t control the values and the film won’t hold them. Film cannot come close to capturing what the eye can capture. DS: Will that change with new technologies? ADAMS: I don’t think you’ll ever get that; the human eye is incredible. But in electronics, the technology we have now can do far more than film. As the world’s silver resources are depleted, these new technologies are particularly important. They’re coming already. I’ve seen a Kodak electronic disc that can be seen instantly after exposure on your television screen. The color is better than in a print. Sony has something similar, perhaps more sophisticated. The electronic image can be transferred to tape and then can be seen on a screen. From that, you can make a hard copy. It’s a major revolution. You could put the image on a large screen and have exhibits that showed an image as close to the original as possible. DS: What else do you see coming in photography? ADAMS: There’s no end in sight. Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics. Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again! www.davidsheff.com/ansel-adams
Yes, but he never did get to experience digital photography as we know it, so we have no idea if he would have actually liked it. It's all speculation based on his speculation.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Why should he not like it ! I did analogue photography for several decades both as a professional and as an allround hobby photographer, I have not touched films since 2006 and I do not miss it !
As I primary film shooter, I think Ansel Adams would be shooting digital if he were alive today. In one of the documentaries, he was talking about electronic cameras (basically digital) cameras when he was alive in his later years. So there is no doubt that Ansel would have went digital.
@cameraprepper7938 After viewing Micheal Kenna's photographs in person last Thursday and after careful examination of my digital and silver black and white matted and framed prints from over the years, digital looks digital and silver looks silver. It's the edges of things and the mid tones where digital has a different look, and I don't like it. Ansel might have liked it. as I said it's all speculation. But I could see where he might have objections.
@@CalumetVideo I think there's a lot of doubt that Ansel would be shooting digital. His comments from way back were based on his speculation of what digital would be. We have the benefit of knowing what digital actually is. I prefer the look of silver prints and so does Michael Kenna. I can't say for sure though, it's all speculation on Ansel's speculations.
I enjoy a hybrid workflow. Medium-format film > high-quality scan > digital print. To me, that's the best of both worlds. But other approaches have their place too, of course.
Interestingly, digital prints from film scans solve the two biggest issues I have with digital capture: The edges of things look weird and the midtones are always missing a couple of zones. I have a print made digitally from a Pentax 67 scan of the inside of Bonneville Dam that is really quite nice and hard to tell from a silver print.
Vivian Maier would have never been discovered if her images were on a laptop. The password would have been unknown. The computer would have been so old it would have been considered ejunk.
That’sa dumb argument. What if her suitcase burned in a fire? Film is photography, and so is digital. I spent 30 years in film, was a paid printer, and not I enjoy digital. It’s wonderful too
I have never understood why people think Maier’s photography is so much better than anyone else’s. It’s a case of the people who found the stuff making money off fake mystique.
If you’re concerned about the longevity of your work, the solutions are simple: Print it. Sign and date those prints. Share those prints; sell them, if you can.
I like film and digital. There is, however, in my view, an additional difficulty with digital that is not often addressed. And that is that photographers in that medium find themselves, foolishly or not, in a perpetual upgrade cycle--essentially, in the realm of consumer electronics. One would think that the more expensive the digital camera, the more bombproof it would be, but this assumption doesn't jive with reality. I've often hear of photographers needing to return their digital Leicas and Hasselblads for expensive and lengthy repairs. And on the printing side of things, the equipment seems increasingly prone to planned obsolesence. I was eyeing a new 24-70mm zoom but dismissed the idea because I didn't want to shell out a bunch of money for something that could arrive decentered or that would stop working if I dropped it in the mud. In the realm of film, you can buy a camera of whatever format and remain proud of it despite the passage of time. You can also keep your chemicals fresh, refine your dark room practices, and reasonably expect that your results will be repeatable and consistent. I'm thinking of the simplified contact printing that Edward Weston did in a small room of his house. A basic developer can be made with metol and sodium sulfite, both of which are readily available; a stop, with two parts white vinegar to three parts water. If you think film is expensive, try keeping up with the Joneses as the TH-camrs play show-and-tell with the latest gadgets that they received for free from manufacturers' marketing departments. My philosophy in regard to digital these days seems to involve the following: shoot with quality primes, ignore all the marketing hoopla, and send files out for printing at reputable shops. If one holds to that, digital is plenty cheap, and the camera can be a decade old and do the job just fine.
This is part of the reason I never "upgraded" to a full frame camera. After about three weeks with all of them the parable of the Emperors new clothes starts ringing in my subconscious... 1995 Hasselblads can be had for $0.05 cents on the dollar (in 2024 dollars) in like new condition from Japan right now. They still are as magnificent as they ever were, probably the best and sharpest cameras ever made. All mechanical and pretty much an unlimited service life. A condenser enlarger can be had for under $100 and requires a light bulb. Even a new LED will work. But the real issue for me, is I have top grade silver prints matted and framed on my walls. I also have top grade digital prints, same thing. All my digital prints look "off" to me. It's the edges of things. Film has soft transitions, digital has harsh transitions. Some people won't care or won't see it or have never seen a top grade silver print. But I know what I want my work to look like and digital aint it for the most part. The other part of the equation is film is no big deal for me, no learning curve anymore, that price was paid 35 years ago. So for all those reasons, film is a better choice - for me.
I shoot both, depending on a bunch of different factors. Started with film, switched to digital, and haven't abandoned digital, but shoot, process, and print mostly analog. I also have access to a Mimaki printer capable of printing up to 4'x8', very high definition, UV cured prints. It's an impressive beast. Makes the most detailed, colorful prints I've seen. Yet, I still prefer to make my own prints in the darkroom. Why? Because to me it is less about the materials, and more about the process. Someone complements me on a digital image and print, I'm appreciative, but also, proverbially, shrugging my shoulders. A few menu or camera processor adjustments. Some other taps on the computer keyboard, hit button and print. I fell like I've accomplished nothing. I am unfulfilled. The image itself, however good, means less to me as well. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it, though I am respectful when praised. I still feel like I it has less to do with me and more to do with those convenient processors. I feel the total opposite with film, for the exact opposite reasons. So you're right, the medium doesn't matter. But you're also wrong. Because while your work may or may not be validated by others, and you may not become famous, I found it is better to be praised for something you actually created, with your own hands, as well as heart and mind. Not just simply captured and relayed electronically.
Well, that is the elephant in the corner nobody wants to talk about. A digital print is a machine print and I don't really care that the galleries think that that's sellable. It might be commercially viable, but really so what? A silver print is inherently hand made. So should matter, but it doesn't. But that's the world we live in, makes no sense. I do know that in the future I'll be more inclined to use film for my work. Digital just still feels like a waste of my time, probably even more so now.
That’s pretty much how I work, I just don’t see the advantage of shooting 35mm color film. I see more advantage to shooting medium and large format film.
Interesting and thought provoking discussion Edward. I shoot both digital and film with my travel and portrait photography simply because I can't afford to shoot film exclusively. Having said that I embrace both mediums as a means and process for creative expression. As for me the quest is about capturing the light, composition and hopefully an evocative quality in the image. Why not embrace both mediums for creative expression. Thanks again Edward for the stimulating topic.
To me a good photograph is one that elicits an emotion, memory, or feeling in the individual viewing it. How that photo was created becomes totally irrelevant. As a "photographer", you're lucky if you create one of more of these in your lifetime. I've never had a gallery showing, never really sold one of my photographs, am terrible at sales, marketing, producing videos, etc., etc. I enjoy photography and trying to create an image that meets the criteria I've stated above. (by the way, the same applies to music.. there are so many parallels between photography and music, two of my personal passions. The richest, "most successful (?)", most famous musicians are frequently very far from the best musicians while awesome, gifted musicians are left undiscovered, busking on the street corner for tips. Another topic for debate entirely.
Great videos, lots of truth here. I mostly shoot black and white film, and color digital. I think either film or digital is good for prints, in the end it’s how does the print look to the viewer.
If you know what you're looking for, you can see a digital print from across the room. That is not a good thing in my opinion. Most people won't care. But for those who do, it matters.
It's not about "cotton" vs. "wood based" fibers - it's about the purity of the cellulose fibers. Which is easier to achieve with cotton fibers, granted. The end result is what matters to me, and pigment ink prints on cotton rag paper (which has a gelatin coating that resembles silver emulsion papers) have a very similar durability. That said, I still prefer using film for creating my base images (negatives), and go digital from there. Printing is a step I still have to make, and I would go digital there too (I did darkroom prints decades ago, but now I'm lacking the room and patience to resume doing it). Best of both worlds for me. Edit: I love the part about Peter Lik … 😂
I started shooting film back in the 60’s and today at 68 I still shoot both film and digital. I believe there are different advantages of each one. I like both and use both. On most of what I have shot I like the digital prints much better. However I have a few film prints that I am absolutely stunned with. I have both film and digital prints of my children and grandchildren hanging in my home. No one ever ask me if they are film or digital. I don’t believe it matters to most people. I do prefer shooting my black and white in film. I much enjoy your videos.
I turned 70 yesterday I shot my first roll of film since 2005 last month I ended up with a Pentax Spotamatic SP11 when I bought a Spotamatic setup mainly for the full set of Takumar lenses that came with the camera . I had to put new light Seals in the camera and I see no advantages to photographing with film over digital . In 2005 I bought my first DSLR and I put my film cameras away and sold them a couple years later as I quit using them . I still have that Pentax *istDL from 2005 and I still use it I've never had any problems with the camera and with modern editing programs I can't tell if my pictures were shot on a 6 megapixel camera or a 25 megapixel camera
Interesting discussion. I'm returning to photography after a long break. In this, I am realizing that Black and White work may be more significant. I have also realized that color is just not archival. I found an old B&W print from 1928 and it's perfect. Anything color that I have going back to the 50s has either been attacked by mold, fungus, and mildew, or has color shifted. The very organic chemistry nature of color makes it non-archival from what I've gathered. I'm still going to shoot with color film along with B&W, but it will be scanned and stored digitally and if printed, printed on a modern pigment based printer as those will actually produce archival quality color prints. So it will be a hybrid approach for me going forward as I don't have space for a darkroom. I do have friends who have darkrooms and I think it is a fantastic thing!
Digital color is really the only way to go for color. B&W I prefer the handmade silver prints vs the machine made digital prints, but that's just my preference.
I'm glad you made this video and came to this conclusion, or truth. I absolutely agree that it really "doesn't" matter if it's digital or film. Time is a huge factor in all of this too, the ways of the past and the way things are done today. One of the coolest and most unique prints "film" I have is an 8 x 10 photo of my Mother on her wedding day, 1957. The photographer was from Chicago and made this specific photo in color and it really is a fabulous work of art. It can NOT be reproduced today no matter how hard one tried to copy it. The styling, camera, film, formula etc., cannot be replicated and or just doesn't exist anymore. It really is a one of a kind majestic print. The photographer is unknown, the print only names the company that was hired to photograph my parents wedding. I guess what I'm trying to say is; in todays world it's a completely different animal when it comes to photography and many other things. In another 40 or 60 years from now what we are doing today in the photography world will likely not be able to be exactly replicated and will be done a lot differently. Digital photography will absolutely have an incredible place in history with most people doing it being completely unknown and forgotten many years from now.....and a very very few being remembered throughout the years in to the future.
Actually for the sole reason that a silver print is handmade and a digital print is a machine print, I think I personally prefer film. Digital just really feels like a complete waste of my time.
I used film from my early teens to the late 40's, for the last 17 years I have used a variety of digital cameras, I own a variety of full frame, APSC & 4/3 cameras, I photograph a variety of subjects and for a period of over five years I photographed Weddings along with many other events. when photographing events clients want to be able to share their digital files on social media, they no longer look for countless 4x6 or 5x7 inch prints. I photographed events by myself and from the day I photographed an event in a two-week time the files were edited and i had a packet of prints in the mail to the clients. shooting a wedding with film would cost way too much and take too long to deliver.
But digital printing is more like a poster of a photograph, where a silver print is actually hand made by the photographer. So they are different mediums with very different attributes. And I think hand made is better than machine made in the art world.
True. I am still processing that experience. The prints were indescribable. They were more heavily zone 4 weighted which I found surprising. It gave them a richness. Like I said, still processing.
Photography is not a race! I visit Northern California wine country for a few days 1-2 times a year. I visit only 2 wineries a day (I also shoot 5x7). Some of my friends are proud that they get to 6 wineries in a day (they shoot digital). Not too sure if they remember much at the end of the day. Both are valid ways to taste wine, just different.
As an aside, in 1980 I drank 2 bottles of 1945 Leoville Lascasa. Nothing I have tasted since nor probably ever will in future, will come close to equaling or exceeding that experience.
I'm not really a fan of Kenna, but he has a something. I've just found him to be too close to his accountant and it shows in his work sometimes. Glad he gave you some direction when it comes to digital. It's all good.
But when I really take a hard look at digital prints I do find them lacking. Digital is fine for photos of my cats, for my art work I think I'll shift back to film in future.
Don't tell anyone but I did get a new Hasselblad in the mail today... Well, new to me. I'll post more details on Patreon when I get a chance. I'm off to Boise today to play country music star tonight. 🙂🎸
I like digital better myself for a few reasons. One it's cheaper and I can practice more. Also getting to a lab is aa pain to deal with plus you have to go back and pick up your film. Digital is still better when it comes to highlights. I saw a video here on TH-cam and someone was photographing Las Vegas and all those neon lights did look better on film. There is a filter called the Everyday Filter. Evan Ranft here on TH-cam reviewed that filter. And it kind of getting you in the ball park of getting the film look.
When it comes to creative work, I find--and this might be true only for me--that constantly evaluating one's own work relative to the output of this or that TH-camr-photographer or writer or whatever is a major drag and motivation killer. If the artist is dead, I can get on well with their work, generally, and maybe learn something from it, because, as they say, I live dog is better than a dead lion. That sounds terrible, and it is, but one can waste a lot of time chewing one's nails while looking at other people's work.
Talking trash about Portland merely implies that you should unplug your television, it's not helping you. Or unplug from wherever you received that idea.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography You're a toxic, gross, idiot. Thank you for leaving. I've unsubscribed from your channel because I don't support gross people.
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Been taking pictures for 50 years and Im happy to use both and enjoy both.
Just treated myself to a Leica Monochrom.
If Ansel Adams was alive today, he would have used digital photography.
DS: Have you ever felt held back by the technology available at the time?
ADAMS: Yes. I have ideas many times that just won’t translate into film. I have an inspiration and can visualize my print, but then, when I take the photometer and measure it, I realize I can’t control the values and the film won’t hold them. Film cannot come close to capturing what the eye can capture.
DS: Will that change with new technologies?
ADAMS: I don’t think you’ll ever get that; the human eye is incredible. But in electronics, the technology we have now can do far more than film. As the world’s silver resources are depleted, these new technologies are particularly important. They’re coming already. I’ve seen a Kodak electronic disc that can be seen instantly after exposure on your television screen. The color is better than in a print. Sony has something similar, perhaps more sophisticated. The electronic image can be transferred to tape and then can be seen on a screen. From that, you can make a hard copy. It’s a major revolution. You could put the image on a large screen and have exhibits that showed an image as close to the original as possible.
DS: What else do you see coming in photography?
ADAMS: There’s no end in sight. Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics. Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again!
www.davidsheff.com/ansel-adams
Yes, but he never did get to experience digital photography as we know it, so we have no idea if he would have actually liked it. It's all speculation based on his speculation.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Why should he not like it ! I did analogue photography for several decades both as a professional and as an allround hobby photographer, I have not touched films since 2006 and I do not miss it !
As I primary film shooter, I think Ansel Adams would be shooting digital if he were alive today. In one of the documentaries, he was talking about electronic cameras (basically digital) cameras when he was alive in his later years. So there is no doubt that Ansel would have went digital.
@cameraprepper7938 After viewing Micheal Kenna's photographs in person last Thursday and after careful examination of my digital and silver black and white matted and framed prints from over the years, digital looks digital and silver looks silver. It's the edges of things and the mid tones where digital has a different look, and I don't like it. Ansel might have liked it. as I said it's all speculation. But I could see where he might have objections.
@@CalumetVideo I think there's a lot of doubt that Ansel would be shooting digital. His comments from way back were based on his speculation of what digital would be. We have the benefit of knowing what digital actually is. I prefer the look of silver prints and so does Michael Kenna. I can't say for sure though, it's all speculation on Ansel's speculations.
I enjoy a hybrid workflow. Medium-format film > high-quality scan > digital print. To me, that's the best of both worlds. But other approaches have their place too, of course.
Interestingly, digital prints from film scans solve the two biggest issues I have with digital capture: The edges of things look weird and the midtones are always missing a couple of zones. I have a print made digitally from a Pentax 67 scan of the inside of Bonneville Dam that is really quite nice and hard to tell from a silver print.
Vivian Maier would have never been discovered if her images were on a laptop. The password would have been unknown. The computer would have been so old it would have been considered ejunk.
That’sa dumb argument. What if her suitcase burned in a fire? Film is photography, and so is digital. I spent 30 years in film, was a paid printer, and not I enjoy digital. It’s wonderful too
I have never understood why people think Maier’s photography is so much better than anyone else’s. It’s a case of the people who found the stuff making money off fake mystique.
If you’re concerned about the longevity of your work, the solutions are simple: Print it. Sign and date those prints. Share those prints; sell them, if you can.
Very refreshing views, lots of common sense as well, shoot, print what makes you happy
Thanks!
I like film and digital. There is, however, in my view, an additional difficulty with digital that is not often addressed. And that is that photographers in that medium find themselves, foolishly or not, in a perpetual upgrade cycle--essentially, in the realm of consumer electronics. One would think that the more expensive the digital camera, the more bombproof it would be, but this assumption doesn't jive with reality. I've often hear of photographers needing to return their digital Leicas and Hasselblads for expensive and lengthy repairs. And on the printing side of things, the equipment seems increasingly prone to planned obsolesence. I was eyeing a new 24-70mm zoom but dismissed the idea because I didn't want to shell out a bunch of money for something that could arrive decentered or that would stop working if I dropped it in the mud. In the realm of film, you can buy a camera of whatever format and remain proud of it despite the passage of time. You can also keep your chemicals fresh, refine your dark room practices, and reasonably expect that your results will be repeatable and consistent. I'm thinking of the simplified contact printing that Edward Weston did in a small room of his house. A basic developer can be made with metol and sodium sulfite, both of which are readily available; a stop, with two parts white vinegar to three parts water. If you think film is expensive, try keeping up with the Joneses as the TH-camrs play show-and-tell with the latest gadgets that they received for free from manufacturers' marketing departments. My philosophy in regard to digital these days seems to involve the following: shoot with quality primes, ignore all the marketing hoopla, and send files out for printing at reputable shops. If one holds to that, digital is plenty cheap, and the camera can be a decade old and do the job just fine.
This is part of the reason I never "upgraded" to a full frame camera. After about three weeks with all of them the parable of the Emperors new clothes starts ringing in my subconscious... 1995 Hasselblads can be had for $0.05 cents on the dollar (in 2024 dollars) in like new condition from Japan right now. They still are as magnificent as they ever were, probably the best and sharpest cameras ever made. All mechanical and pretty much an unlimited service life. A condenser enlarger can be had for under $100 and requires a light bulb. Even a new LED will work.
But the real issue for me, is I have top grade silver prints matted and framed on my walls. I also have top grade digital prints, same thing. All my digital prints look "off" to me. It's the edges of things. Film has soft transitions, digital has harsh transitions. Some people won't care or won't see it or have never seen a top grade silver print. But I know what I want my work to look like and digital aint it for the most part.
The other part of the equation is film is no big deal for me, no learning curve anymore, that price was paid 35 years ago. So for all those reasons, film is a better choice - for me.
I shoot both, depending on a bunch of different factors. Started with film, switched to digital, and haven't abandoned digital, but shoot, process, and print mostly analog. I also have access to a Mimaki printer capable of printing up to 4'x8', very high definition, UV cured prints. It's an impressive beast. Makes the most detailed, colorful prints I've seen. Yet, I still prefer to make my own prints in the darkroom. Why? Because to me it is less about the materials, and more about the process. Someone complements me on a digital image and print, I'm appreciative, but also, proverbially, shrugging my shoulders. A few menu or camera processor adjustments. Some other taps on the computer keyboard, hit button and print. I fell like I've accomplished nothing. I am unfulfilled. The image itself, however good, means less to me as well. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it, though I am respectful when praised. I still feel like I it has less to do with me and more to do with those convenient processors. I feel the total opposite with film, for the exact opposite reasons. So you're right, the medium doesn't matter. But you're also wrong. Because while your work may or may not be validated by others, and you may not become famous, I found it is better to be praised for something you actually created, with your own hands, as well as heart and mind. Not just simply captured and relayed electronically.
Well, that is the elephant in the corner nobody wants to talk about. A digital print is a machine print and I don't really care that the galleries think that that's sellable. It might be commercially viable, but really so what? A silver print is inherently hand made. So should matter, but it doesn't. But that's the world we live in, makes no sense. I do know that in the future I'll be more inclined to use film for my work. Digital just still feels like a waste of my time, probably even more so now.
Thought-provoking discussion, well worth your time and ours. Keep the faith!
Thanks! 👍🙏
Film < large format.
Digital > 35mm or smaller.
That’s pretty much how I work, I just don’t see the advantage of shooting 35mm color film. I see more advantage to shooting medium and large format film.
Interesting and thought provoking discussion Edward. I shoot both digital and film with my travel and portrait photography simply because I can't afford to shoot film exclusively. Having said that I embrace both mediums as a means and process for creative expression. As for me the quest is about capturing the light, composition and hopefully an evocative quality in the image. Why not embrace both mediums for creative expression. Thanks again Edward for the stimulating topic.
To me a good photograph is one that elicits an emotion, memory, or feeling in the individual viewing it. How that photo was created becomes totally irrelevant. As a "photographer", you're lucky if you create one of more of these in your lifetime. I've never had a gallery showing, never really sold one of my photographs, am terrible at sales, marketing, producing videos, etc., etc. I enjoy photography and trying to create an image that meets the criteria I've stated above. (by the way, the same applies to music.. there are so many parallels between photography and music, two of my personal passions. The richest, "most successful (?)", most famous musicians are frequently very far from the best musicians while awesome, gifted musicians are left undiscovered, busking on the street corner for tips. Another topic for debate entirely.
Great videos, lots of truth here. I mostly shoot black and white film, and color digital. I think either film or digital is good for prints, in the end it’s how does the print look to the viewer.
If you know what you're looking for, you can see a digital print from across the room. That is not a good thing in my opinion. Most people won't care. But for those who do, it matters.
@ I agree, there’s something characteristic of a film print.
@@CalumetVideo I think it's because 99% of all digital prints are over sharpened and overcooked. I'm guilty as well.
It's not about "cotton" vs. "wood based" fibers - it's about the purity of the cellulose fibers. Which is easier to achieve with cotton fibers, granted. The end result is what matters to me, and pigment ink prints on cotton rag paper (which has a gelatin coating that resembles silver emulsion papers) have a very similar durability. That said, I still prefer using film for creating my base images (negatives), and go digital from there. Printing is a step I still have to make, and I would go digital there too (I did darkroom prints decades ago, but now I'm lacking the room and patience to resume doing it). Best of both worlds for me. Edit: I love the part about Peter Lik … 😂
Though a digital print is a machine print vs a handmade print, so if that's OK, then OK.
I started shooting film back in the 60’s and today at 68 I still shoot both film and digital.
I believe there are different advantages of each one.
I like both and use both.
On most of what I have shot I like the digital prints much better.
However I have a few film prints that I am absolutely stunned with.
I have both film and digital prints of my children and grandchildren hanging in my home.
No one ever ask me if they are film or digital.
I don’t believe it matters to most people.
I do prefer shooting my black and white in film.
I much enjoy your videos.
Thank you! 👍🙏
I turned 70 yesterday I shot my first roll of film since 2005 last month I ended up with a Pentax Spotamatic SP11 when I bought a Spotamatic setup mainly for the full set of Takumar lenses that came with the camera . I had to put new light Seals in the camera and I see no advantages to photographing with film over digital . In 2005 I bought my first DSLR and I put my film cameras away and sold them a couple years later as I quit using them . I still have that Pentax *istDL from 2005 and I still use it I've never had any problems with the camera and with modern editing programs I can't tell if my pictures were shot on a 6 megapixel camera or a 25 megapixel camera
Interesting discussion. I'm returning to photography after a long break. In this, I am realizing that Black and White work may be more significant. I have also realized that color is just not archival. I found an old B&W print from 1928 and it's perfect. Anything color that I have going back to the 50s has either been attacked by mold, fungus, and mildew, or has color shifted. The very organic chemistry nature of color makes it non-archival from what I've gathered. I'm still going to shoot with color film along with B&W, but it will be scanned and stored digitally and if printed, printed on a modern pigment based printer as those will actually produce archival quality color prints. So it will be a hybrid approach for me going forward as I don't have space for a darkroom. I do have friends who have darkrooms and I think it is a fantastic thing!
Digital color is really the only way to go for color. B&W I prefer the handmade silver prints vs the machine made digital prints, but that's just my preference.
I'm glad you made this video and came to this conclusion, or truth. I absolutely agree that it really "doesn't" matter if it's digital or film.
Time is a huge factor in all of this too, the ways of the past and the way things are done today.
One of the coolest and most unique prints "film" I have is an 8 x 10 photo of my Mother on her wedding day, 1957. The photographer was from Chicago and made this specific photo in color and it really is a fabulous work of art. It can NOT be reproduced today no matter how hard one tried to copy it. The styling, camera, film, formula etc., cannot be replicated and or just doesn't exist anymore. It really is a one of a kind majestic print. The photographer is unknown, the print only names the company that was hired to photograph my parents wedding.
I guess what I'm trying to say is; in todays world it's a completely different animal when it comes to photography and many other things. In another 40 or 60 years from now what we are doing today in the photography world will likely not be able to be exactly replicated and will be done a lot differently.
Digital photography will absolutely have an incredible place in history with most people doing it being completely unknown and forgotten many years from now.....and a very very few being remembered throughout the years in to the future.
Actually for the sole reason that a silver print is handmade and a digital print is a machine print, I think I personally prefer film. Digital just really feels like a complete waste of my time.
I used film from my early teens to the late 40's, for the last 17 years I have used a variety of digital cameras, I own a variety of full frame, APSC & 4/3 cameras, I photograph a variety of subjects and for a period of over five years I photographed Weddings along with many other events. when photographing events clients want to be able to share their digital files on social media, they no longer look for countless 4x6 or 5x7 inch prints. I photographed events by myself and from the day I photographed an event in a two-week time the files were edited and i had a packet of prints in the mail to the clients. shooting a wedding with film would cost way too much and take too long to deliver.
Agreed. Since 2005 I've shot digital at weddings.
Film and digital are just different mediums. Asking which one is better is like asking whether painting is better than drawing?
Or is oil paint better than acrylic...
But digital printing is more like a poster of a photograph, where a silver print is actually hand made by the photographer. So they are different mediums with very different attributes. And I think hand made is better than machine made in the art world.
What about a poster of an oil painting or an acrylic painting? Because that's what digital actually is.
What camera does M. Kenna use? Is it large format?
Michael Kenna is mostly a Hasselblad photographer. He has used 4x5 and a Holga. But the majority of his work is 6x6 Hasselblad.
Thanks!!
Great take on the Crazy World we live in 😂
Micheal Kenna is a Special guy 🖖
True. I am still processing that experience. The prints were indescribable. They were more heavily zone 4 weighted which I found surprising. It gave them a richness. Like I said, still processing.
Photography is not a race! I visit Northern California wine country for a few days 1-2 times a year. I visit only 2 wineries a day (I also shoot 5x7). Some of my friends are proud that they get to 6 wineries in a day (they shoot digital). Not too sure if they remember much at the end of the day. Both are valid ways to taste wine, just different.
As an aside, in 1980 I drank 2 bottles of 1945 Leoville Lascasa. Nothing I have tasted since nor probably ever will in future, will come close to equaling or exceeding that experience.
Someone once boasted to me that he had shot 300 digital pictures in a mornings landscape photography. I had used 2 sheets of 5x4.
Seems correct to me!
Thanks! 👍🙏
Nothing wrong with RC, the new Ilford is impressive. I use it and love it, saves time and water. I use it all
I use RC for work prints. It does save time.
My take:
It's not about the galleries now. It's not about the sales.
It's about the galleries 100 years from now.
Oooh interesting idea. So what do you think that would look like? First thought is that it's all silver based prints ...
I'm not really a fan of Kenna, but he has a something. I've just found him to be too close to his accountant and it shows in his work sometimes. Glad he gave you some direction when it comes to digital. It's all good.
But when I really take a hard look at digital prints I do find them lacking. Digital is fine for photos of my cats, for my art work I think I'll shift back to film in future.
Interesting discussion. I was sucked in by the thumbnail. 🤔🤠
Don't tell anyone but I did get a new Hasselblad in the mail today... Well, new to me. I'll post more details on Patreon when I get a chance. I'm off to Boise today to play country music star tonight. 🙂🎸
I like digital better myself for a few reasons. One it's cheaper and I can practice more. Also getting to a lab is aa pain to deal with plus you have to go back and pick up your film.
Digital is still better when it comes to highlights. I saw a video here on TH-cam and someone was photographing Las Vegas and all those neon lights did look better on film.
There is a filter called the Everyday Filter. Evan Ranft here on TH-cam reviewed that filter. And it kind of getting you in the ball park of getting the film look.
When it comes to creative work, I find--and this might be true only for me--that constantly evaluating one's own work relative to the output of this or that TH-camr-photographer or writer or whatever is a major drag and motivation killer. If the artist is dead, I can get on well with their work, generally, and maybe learn something from it, because, as they say, I live dog is better than a dead lion. That sounds terrible, and it is, but one can waste a lot of time chewing one's nails while looking at other people's work.
Well, it might not be gnashing of teeth and just an exploration of where and how everything relates to everything else for the sake of discussion.
Yes, it is. End of the video. 😂
I agree, but I need the video so I become famous and people will respect me regardless of what crap photography I make.
@EdwardMartinsPhotography absolutely. I was just being silly 😄
@@gianlusc Me too! 🙂 It's all good!
No, film photography is not “better”, it’s just its own medium
for the sole reason that a silver print is hand made vs a digital print is always a machine print, film is actually better in my opinion.
Talking trash about Portland merely implies that you should unplug your television, it's not helping you. Or unplug from wherever you received that idea.
Portland is a shithole compared to what it was 30 years ago. Lived there from 1988 to 2008 and by 2005 I couldn't get out of there fast enough.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography You're a toxic, gross, idiot. Thank you for leaving. I've unsubscribed from your channel because I don't support gross people.