I’ve shot film since 1976 and I still love it for the tactile feeling of having a physical media in the hand, and for the simplicity of my SLR’s . I own 70 film cameras and 8 digital cameras, and most of the time it’s the film cameras I reach for. You are completely right the two media’s are very different. Both have their strength and weaknesses. Fine video. ❤❤
I am new to the film scene and photography in general. The main reason I shoot film is because I have a film camera. I’m not good at it and my phone takes better quality photos than what I can. However I think it’s neat and I’m having fun learning.
Had my own darkroom for 25 years and sold it in 2002. I don’t know how many times a bit of dust ruined a print. So easy to remove in Photoshop. Never going back to film as I sold all my film cameras 5 years ago.
I shoot film because its how I learned photography nearly 30 years ago. It's nostalgia sure but its tactile nature is far more rewarding to me to achieve a good image than pointing a digital camera that will auto focus, auto expose, auto iso, auto-think-for-me! Shooting digital has become all too easy, I can get the results I want with very little effort and get rewards instantly. Film makes you wait, makes you work for it, it makes you think about your intentions before you fire that shutter. Cost aside, we all pay for our hobbies, why shouldn't film photography be the same way. ✌🏽
I've never used or bought a modern autofocus lens for my mirrorless. Lol. Have you seen what they charge for those? I looooove being able to magnify the live image for focusing vs film. It's insane. Still have to be intentional. Not like my cost savings has me using anything newer than about a decade old on the body front either. I'm basically saying I agree with your ideas about your process, but it's just not really cost effective for number of exposures I do a year. So I've hybridized.
I started out in the early '80's with film, for both b&w and slides. Had my own darkroom and used to develop and print my own monochromes. Loved it all. Nowadays it's the Sony A7RIII, but I find myself pretty much exclusively using vintage analogue lenses, and love that tactile, hands on experience of shooting with them. I'm curious about the lens on the Minolta you're holding in your hand. Is it an MD ZOOM 35-70mm f3.5? I have that one myself, and it's an absolute gem. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Well observed, that is indeed the MD 35-70mm. The X300 was my late father's camera and I just did a video about shooting film with it for the first time in decades. A future video I am planning will be to shoot the MD 35-70 on the Sony a7RV. The Minolta being an ancestor of the modern Sony cameras
@@JasonRowPhotography I'm a huge fan of that lens, and am always amazed by the images it can produce. Looking forward to seeing how it holds up on the A7RV,
I have been shooting film for over 50 years and digital for over 25 years. Film for me is a personal passion. A means to have control over the end results which I have a physical influence in. This is not so with digital, no matter how you look at it. Digital is more convenient , far cheaper and much much easier to work with, but the experience and the satisfaction is not there. Digital is not an organic, and tangible media, film is. It has a physical presence in your hands. I am not disagreeing with you, but I think that your view of why people are going back to film V digital is rather simplistic. The two media are fundamentally different and the only common factor is that they produce an image. They should not be compared, and there is room for both.
I shot film for years and got serious about it in the mid 90's the first time I took a photography course. In about 2009 I started shooting digital and I've also enjoyed that. Last December I got back into film because I got a medium format camera. I'm finding the change of aspect ration to 6x7 and the slower pace to be helping me produce more interesting images than digital where it's too easy to just shoot anything.In a world were everything is digital and being taken over by AI, the authenticity and physicality of film is more attractive. I will continue to shoot both, but shooting 6x7 film is inspiring me and I have access to multiple darkrooms. Getting back into a darkroom after 30 years was such a joy and I was amazed at the quality I was able to achieve compared to 35mm taken to 1 hour photo labs.
I mostly agree with you but there is something about film that digital can't quite replicate. It's hard to describe but with film and even a scanned negative or slide, you get this feeling of being able to peer into infinity. I just don't get that feeling with digital. Like I said hard to describe and yes I shoot digital almost exclusively.
I agree. I have recently rediscovered film but in all honesty, use it for the one in a hundred shots suited to the format. Digital will always produce a more accurate rendition of what a subject looked like. Once in a while, however; 35mm film will produce a more accurate rendition of what the subject felt like. Toss in the satisfying ceremony involved in taking a film image and I don't think there will ever be the time that I completely give up film again.
You can always pick out one of these film snobs because their images always include the rebate. I started on film and still shoot some but it neither makes my photography better or worse.
I'm not really in a financial position to have the most relevant comments, but I'll try. Currently I shoot with a sony A7S, the original, with adapted single coated M mount lenses. I ended up here going for the film aesthetic, but without the real ability to spend the money necessary on the long term. The only physical aspects I use to get there are the single coated lenses, other than that its all my standard edits in, surprisingly, the free program Darktable. Like you said if you shoot raw it can be done with any camera. Just shoot raw, use manual mode, and youre forced to learn both ends, exposure and post processing. Ive gotten great results, and have less than $1000 invested in my camera bag.
I understand what you have said on this channel perfectly and agree to it 100%. Digital is definitely better less expensive and the results are immediate. Cheers.
I agree at 100%. I have been practicing black and white photography in the dark room for many years and and it made me understand how each step from seing an image to make a print are related, how important it is to choose the right exposure to get the final result you expect. I turned to digital because I wanted to shoot in color and I thought that it would be easier to get a similar control. I had no idea how to achieve this in the darkroom. Now I'm going back to black and white in digital. It's OK but I think that my old analog prints were better. In my opinion, nothing really matches the beauty of a FB paper but I probably lack some knowledge to be completely satisfied.
I was a commercial shooter during the film days, I was there during the digital transition and id agree with your assessments. I still shoot my Hasselblads but I still have my film backs and like it as a hobby these days but the work involved of going from shot to fine art print is time consuming compared to tweaking a raw in Capture One and going to print from that. I love both but for different reasons. My 20 year old Phase One back yields much better shadows than any 400 iso film……
Thanks for your comments. I agree, and there will always be a place for film, but the workflow and the image quality is surpassed by digital. The only real win for film is the aesthetic, but it's not difficult to replicate in PS or LR. Would loved to have had a Blad back in the day - actually would love to have one now.
Thank you, "its just different'. But digital, and I shoot both, does not have the life in the photo as film. This comment came from my friend who now shoots your Sony A7@#$%
Thanks a lot for this very interesting point of view. I started shooing film on my dad's camera in the 70's. There wasn't any photolab nearby, so we had a darkroom at home. Today I shoot only digital (mostly wildlife) and the only reason I'd ever get back to film would be for large format, and that would be only for the experience of it, not for the result, the practicality, the creative options, or the cost. In terms of result, digital is just way better in terms of dynamic range, resolution, and modern lens selection. In terms of creative options, with film, in order to achieve the desired luminance, the exposure is constrained by the sensitivity of the film loaded in the camera at the time the photo opportunity happens. Since exposure has a direct effect on depth of field and motion blur, that's a severe limitation in terms of creative options when shooting film.
A film camera is a box the directs light onto emulsion. The lenses are important. I used a Praktica for 20 years and used it for commercial work as my hobby stuff, I didn't work as a photographer, people just asked me to work for them. I *adore* film, and still use it, but my *god* is it expensive. I enjoy using my Shen Hao 6x17, but I can't produce prints from every photograph I take, because I just don't have that much money. In spite of using B+W by choice since I started in the late 70's it's just got more expensive. I'm not going to stop, it's far too much fun, and I doubt anyone will be making a 6x17 digital sensor any time soon. I have a folder with my top 100 images, and there are a few digital images in there. Those are from digital cameras from the early 2000's though. I have a Mirrorless now and it has far too many options that I wish I could just disable. I might just sell it and buy an old Nikon DSLR instead. Either way I always choose film first. I've used digital images for scientific research since 2000, and my work has evolved from manipulating the live intake from a camera to using AI to detect signs of C*v*d 19 in people to develop rapid triage diagnostic methods for field hospitals in third world countries. Whether it will ever replace my pootling around taking photographs for fun is a thing I seriously doubt, since the end product (image) is only a small part of the pleasure for me. I rarely share anything, this is the first year I've considered putting photographs in frames on the walls. I must be going soft.
The fact that film is expensive and you're forced to think twice before pressing the shutter button and then have to wait for development is often given as an advantage of film photography: on the other hand with digital you can take more pictures and can get instant feedback allowing one to LEARN and Improve.
Similar types of gatekeeping exists in a lot of other formats and domains as well. Vinyl records vs digital music, books vs e-books, old sports cars vs modern sports cars, etc. The list goes on endlessly but it's always the same, a small group of people who want to feel like they are special and in the know will talk about how great this older format was (that they happen to be heavily invested in) while completely downplaying all of the advantages of the modern equivalents. They act like anyone who likes the modern formats is a moron and not part of their special club. Of course there is nothing wrong with the older formats, and there is nothing wrong with the newer formats either. The newer stuff always has significant advantages for the majority of consumers or it wouldn't be selling. If film cameras were truly the better option for every consumer (as the gatekeepers would have you believe) then companies would still be mass producing film cameras and selling them in bestbuy.
"They act like anyone who likes the modern formats is a moron and not part of their special club" This is exactly what I am seeing in certain sections of film photography. Those that have been doing it years and truly understand it, make much more sense about its pros and cons than those that have recently joined the "club"
I couldn't and wouldn't go back to film, even though i loved it at the time. The only thing i miss are the lovely simple cameras. Manual/apeture. ONLY.
I agree completely and a lot of what you said about processing labs goes much of the way towards explaining why many of my early prints were absolute rubbish. The cost, time, inconvenience and variable quality all contributed to me shelving a hobby in 1982 before resuming it properly in 2009. Without the advent of digital, I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered.
The picture quality of film was surpassed years ago by digital. But digital images will be hard to archive compared to film. I have negatives dating back to 1949. I can scan them or print them if I still had my darkroom. I cannot see people keeping a digital file for 76 years. Although I've archived a lot of my digital pics onto Blu~Ray, I won't be around long enough to see if they have survived. I've still got my Olympus OM1, that I purchased secondhand in 1979, when I worked on British Railways. I also have an OM4 and OM20. Plus a Mamiya C330. The only medium format camera I've kpt. But they never get used now. I've got ten rolls of Ilford FP4 sitting in the fridge, that I may sell soo, as I can't be bothered to go out and shoot anything.
Yes. My neighbor, (who is an idiot), takes great snapshots with his iPhone. That does NOT make him a photographer. He doesn't know an f-stop from a door-stop.
I shoot mostly film. Not because it’s better, but because it’s what I learned on, and so it’s easier for me to get the results I want. I was away from photography for a long time; as I am learning digital techniques and editing I will probably shoot more and more digital over time. For now, when something is really important to me I still choose film.
I think what people are saying is that film cameras are more fun to use. The post processing sucks but there’s something unique in the way film cameras feel and function. We’ve seen more engaging digital cameras being made as a result. It’s sad that to get the simple and enjoyable interface of a Leica you have to pay a fortune. Imagine a $2000 Fujifilm camera just as intuitive. We like the look, the analog dials but not the menus of homage cameras. (I hate EVFs too). Fix that and people won’t wax poetic any more.
AH Film... Yeah not going back. Unless it is for some really odd crazy BW film that is. Because digital cameras these days are just better in so many ways. My A7 is awesome at getting files that come out pretty darn good to start with. Process it a bit and ... wow. The Lattitude of that sensor! Even the first A7, nothing special but it is already so good.
Interesting... I use both film and digital - although I've noticed that my Canon 6D leads me into bad habits (spray and pray, chimping, over-editing, fix it in post etc). So this morning I took out my Kodak Box Brownie No 2 Model F, slammed in a roll of Ilford HP5 and limited myself to the 8 frames. I enjoy it.. sure the images are not as 'good' but I had a lot of fun and there's an different feel to the results. I liken it to digital music vs vinyl (or may I say LPs!). I have thousands of hours of lossless music that I can play anywhere via wifi, yet I still enjoy the act of cleaning a LP and lowering the needle into the groove followed by some decent Scotch. So there's a difference in the process - analogue makes you work for the results whereas digital is (almost) instant gratification. Put another way I can listen to Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony with Karajan and the Berlin Philharomic - it's perfect, every note in place, intonation spot on... it's just sleek and glossy. Or I can listen to Mravinsky conducting the Leningrad Philharmomic in a 50s recording in mono - the brass and woodwind instruments are technically inferior but there's character in the rough edges - probably similar to what the composer heard when first played. Neither is better - just different. I can enjoy both the process and final result of both 🙂
Old ex-film fart here. With digital I can practice a lot with color and black&white without breaking the bank. To become a better photographer I need to practice - a lot. Like a musician. Ever heard of a master pianist mastering the piano without practicing - a lot. What matter is the final image and with digital I have full control from start to finish. Be it slides (projection or screen) or prints. Color or black and white. Hooooray - digital save my day and leave me with a few shillings in the bank too...
Yes, full control of the whole process is important and unless you are developing and printing your own films, element of the process can be highly variable
I started in 1970 and frankly am sick to death of all the folks saying film is dead, film is better, M43 is dead, M43 is making a great comeback, medium format is better, more megapixels is always better, full frame is the only format, you have to shoot in manual to have total control. I’ve stopped listening to any of the vide………..
With film in a film camera you get the "film look" straight away. Why do people want to get the "film look"? Because its better! LOL It costs me more to get decent prints from digital images than prints from film.
You only get the film look if you are printing directly from a negative on to photographic paper. Most labs use equipment that digitises the image first. As I said in the video film is not better, its different
Never understood why anyone would digitise film as you now have a digital image that's poorer quality compared to a 100% digital image!unless it's for achieve. Coming from digital to film I have to say I really don't like digital now I'm working in film, The reason is every one is so obsessed in digital with getting things super sharp almost razor sharp and to me it's too clinical and doesn't look natural. I've now gone down the root of 35mm and contact printing with a Sanderson half plate camera 1880s and I just love it, all hands on work, with Dichromate and Silver Nitrate and I find this is so much nicer even the mistakes look good rather than sitting at a computer screen and working in P.S. No real skills required to achieve a fairly decent image in digital that nobody really wants to look at. The secret is to go ALL manual and enjoy either digital or film, your correct they are totally different mediums but you can enjoy both worlds.
Hi Jason, you're absolutely right. I'm still an active photographer at 61, shooting with a Nikon Z6ii and a 50mm f/1.2 lens. Back in the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, I used film for my work with Elle and other magazines. It was a real hassle-the costs, developing, scanning, and producing exhibition prints at 160 x 120 cm were no small feat. Younger generations today often see using film as a way to differentiate themselves, almost like artisans crafting something unique. However, modern digital cameras are vastly superior in both quality and cost-effectiveness.
In my case, I have more fun with my film cameras and processing my bulk loaded film and printing in my darkroom. I like both types of photography. So, Jason is NOT "absolutely right".
Digital is better, I switched from an EOS3 to a EOS 350D and used the same lenses. The quality of the digital prints from this 8 MPx Kamera was much better than the ones from slide or color film.
Personally I agree for most metrics, digital is better but there is still very much a place for film, and I think all new photographers, should shoot some film if they are serious about learning photography
I have top line Canon digital cameras, 1DXMkII, 5DmkIV, 1DXMk, 6D, R5, and about fifteen L Series lenses, (up to a 500mm f4), and some R Series. I also have about 15 35mm film cameras with a full range of lenses, Nikons, (F3, F2, a couple of F's, two Nikkormats), Canons, (A-1, F1, rangefinder with 2 M39 lenses), small fun rangefinders of various types, and an Olympus XA2. All in all, I love my film cameras more, and enjoy working in my real Darkroom and B22, more than with my Lightroom. So don't presume to pronounce which type of photography is better. It's up to me to decide, not you.
I wonder if you actually watched the video. Because in it i do not presume to pronounce which medium is better, in fact I actively encourage people to shot film.
I believe I mentioned Threads once, no more than twice and in reference to the particular type of photography this video is talking about. Given I started this particular conversation, I am clearly not disqualified, you however , are due to not bringing anything useful to it. Good day to you.
I’ve shot film since 1976 and I still love it for the tactile feeling of having a physical media in the hand, and for the simplicity of my SLR’s .
I own 70 film cameras and 8 digital cameras, and most of the time it’s the film cameras I reach for.
You are completely right the two media’s are very different.
Both have their strength and weaknesses.
Fine video.
❤❤
Thank you so much
I am new to the film scene and photography in general. The main reason I shoot film is because I have a film camera. I’m not good at it and my phone takes better quality photos than what I can. However I think it’s neat and I’m having fun learning.
Film is a good way to learn photography
Had my own darkroom for 25 years and sold it in 2002. I don’t know how many times a bit of dust ruined a print. So easy to remove in Photoshop. Never going back to film as I sold all my film cameras 5 years ago.
Yes, dust was a killer wasn't? Even these days scanning negs or slides can be a real pain.
You are typical. I am not.
I shoot film because its how I learned photography nearly 30 years ago. It's nostalgia sure but its tactile nature is far more rewarding to me to achieve a good image than pointing a digital camera that will auto focus, auto expose, auto iso, auto-think-for-me! Shooting digital has become all too easy, I can get the results I want with very little effort and get rewards instantly. Film makes you wait, makes you work for it, it makes you think about your intentions before you fire that shutter. Cost aside, we all pay for our hobbies, why shouldn't film photography be the same way. ✌🏽
I agree, I do like the tactile feel of film and digital is definitely not cheap
Is it too difficult to switch to manual mode on digital?
I've never used or bought a modern autofocus lens for my mirrorless. Lol. Have you seen what they charge for those? I looooove being able to magnify the live image for focusing vs film. It's insane. Still have to be intentional. Not like my cost savings has me using anything newer than about a decade old on the body front either.
I'm basically saying I agree with your ideas about your process, but it's just not really cost effective for number of exposures I do a year. So I've hybridized.
I shoot all manual on my Nikon ZF. The results are quite striking...
I started out in the early '80's with film, for both b&w and slides. Had my own darkroom and used to develop and print my own monochromes. Loved it all. Nowadays it's the Sony A7RIII, but I find myself pretty much exclusively using vintage analogue lenses, and love that tactile, hands on experience of shooting with them. I'm curious about the lens on the Minolta you're holding in your hand. Is it an MD ZOOM 35-70mm f3.5? I have that one myself, and it's an absolute gem. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Well observed, that is indeed the MD 35-70mm. The X300 was my late father's camera and I just did a video about shooting film with it for the first time in decades. A future video I am planning will be to shoot the MD 35-70 on the Sony a7RV. The Minolta being an ancestor of the modern Sony cameras
@@JasonRowPhotography I'm a huge fan of that lens, and am always amazed by the images it can produce. Looking forward to seeing how it holds up on the A7RV,
Yes, it will certainly be interesting. I will actually compare it shooting the same scene on both film and digital with that lens.
I have been shooting film for over 50 years and digital for over 25 years. Film for me is a personal passion. A means to have control over the end results which I have a physical influence in. This is not so with digital, no matter how you look at it. Digital is more convenient , far cheaper and much much easier to work with, but the experience and the satisfaction is not there. Digital is not an organic, and tangible media, film is. It has a physical presence in your hands. I am not disagreeing with you, but I think that your view of why people are going back to film V digital is rather simplistic. The two media are fundamentally different and the only common factor is that they produce an image. They should not be compared, and there is room for both.
I shot film for years and got serious about it in the mid 90's the first time I took a photography course. In about 2009 I started shooting digital and I've also enjoyed that. Last December I got back into film because I got a medium format camera. I'm finding the change of aspect ration to 6x7 and the slower pace to be helping me produce more interesting images than digital where it's too easy to just shoot anything.In a world were everything is digital and being taken over by AI, the authenticity and physicality of film is more attractive. I will continue to shoot both, but shooting 6x7 film is inspiring me and I have access to multiple darkrooms. Getting back into a darkroom after 30 years was such a joy and I was amazed at the quality I was able to achieve compared to 35mm taken to 1 hour photo labs.
I mostly agree with you but there is something about film that digital can't quite replicate. It's hard to describe but with film and even a scanned negative or slide, you get this feeling of being able to peer into infinity. I just don't get that feeling with digital. Like I said hard to describe and yes I shoot digital almost exclusively.
I agree. I have recently rediscovered film but in all honesty, use it for the one in a hundred shots suited to the format. Digital will always produce a more accurate rendition of what a subject looked like. Once in a while, however; 35mm film will produce a more accurate rendition of what the subject felt like. Toss in the satisfying ceremony involved in taking a film image and I don't think there will ever be the time that I completely give up film again.
I agree completely. Plenty of space for both mediums, my beef is with relative newcomers to film proclaiming that it is better than sliced bread i
I think everyone should try and have their own opinion, it's as you said different medium, no point saying better or worse - just different.
Exactly. Opinions are vital, but forcing an opinion based on a few shoots and to follow a trend carries much less weight
Thank you, Jason. Exactly this.
Thanks :)
You can always pick out one of these film snobs because their images always include the rebate. I started on film and still shoot some but it neither makes my photography better or worse.
I'm not really in a financial position to have the most relevant comments, but I'll try. Currently I shoot with a sony A7S, the original, with adapted single coated M mount lenses.
I ended up here going for the film aesthetic, but without the real ability to spend the money necessary on the long term. The only physical aspects I use to get there are the single coated lenses, other than that its all my standard edits in, surprisingly, the free program Darktable.
Like you said if you shoot raw it can be done with any camera. Just shoot raw, use manual mode, and youre forced to learn both ends, exposure and post processing. Ive gotten great results, and have less than $1000 invested in my camera bag.
I understand what you have said on this channel perfectly and agree to it 100%. Digital is definitely better less expensive and the results are immediate. Cheers.
Thanks, I think both mediums have their place but relative newcomers to film shouting about how it is better is clearly wrong.
I agree at 100%. I have been practicing black and white photography in the dark room for many years and and it made me understand how each step from seing an image to make a print are related, how important it is to choose the right exposure to get the final result you expect. I turned to digital because I wanted to shoot in color and I thought that it would be easier to get a similar control. I had no idea how to achieve this in the darkroom. Now I'm going back to black and white in digital. It's OK but I think that my old analog prints were better. In my opinion, nothing really matches the beauty of a FB paper but I probably lack some knowledge to be completely satisfied.
I was a commercial shooter during the film days, I was there during the digital transition and id agree with your assessments. I still shoot my Hasselblads but I still have my film backs and like it as a hobby these days but the work involved of going from shot to fine art print is time consuming compared to tweaking a raw in Capture One and going to print from that. I love both but for different reasons. My 20 year old Phase One back yields much better shadows than any 400 iso film……
Thanks for your comments. I agree, and there will always be a place for film, but the workflow and the image quality is surpassed by digital. The only real win for film is the aesthetic, but it's not difficult to replicate in PS or LR. Would loved to have had a Blad back in the day - actually would love to have one now.
Thank you, "its just different'. But digital, and I shoot both, does not have the life in the photo as film. This comment came from my friend who now shoots your Sony A7@#$%
Thanks a lot for this very interesting point of view.
I started shooing film on my dad's camera in the 70's. There wasn't any photolab nearby, so we had a darkroom at home. Today I shoot only digital (mostly wildlife) and the only reason I'd ever get back to film would be for large format, and that would be only for the experience of it, not for the result, the practicality, the creative options, or the cost. In terms of result, digital is just way better in terms of dynamic range, resolution, and modern lens selection. In terms of creative options, with film, in order to achieve the desired luminance, the exposure is constrained by the sensitivity of the film loaded in the camera at the time the photo opportunity happens. Since exposure has a direct effect on depth of field and motion blur, that's a severe limitation in terms of creative options when shooting film.
A film camera is a box the directs light onto emulsion. The lenses are important. I used a Praktica for 20 years and used it for commercial work as my hobby stuff, I didn't work as a photographer, people just asked me to work for them.
I *adore* film, and still use it, but my *god* is it expensive. I enjoy using my Shen Hao 6x17, but I can't produce prints from every photograph I take, because I just don't have that much money. In spite of using B+W by choice since I started in the late 70's it's just got more expensive.
I'm not going to stop, it's far too much fun, and I doubt anyone will be making a 6x17 digital sensor any time soon.
I have a folder with my top 100 images, and there are a few digital images in there. Those are from digital cameras from the early 2000's though. I have a Mirrorless now and it has far too many options that I wish I could just disable. I might just sell it and buy an old Nikon DSLR instead. Either way I always choose film first.
I've used digital images for scientific research since 2000, and my work has evolved from manipulating the live intake from a camera to using AI to detect signs of C*v*d 19 in people to develop rapid triage diagnostic methods for field hospitals in third world countries.
Whether it will ever replace my pootling around taking photographs for fun is a thing I seriously doubt, since the end product (image) is only a small part of the pleasure for me. I rarely share anything, this is the first year I've considered putting photographs in frames on the walls. I must be going soft.
The fact that film is expensive and you're forced to think twice before pressing the shutter button and then have to wait for development is often given as an advantage of film photography: on the other hand with digital you can take more pictures and can get instant feedback allowing one to LEARN and Improve.
Yes, this is very true
Similar types of gatekeeping exists in a lot of other formats and domains as well. Vinyl records vs digital music, books vs e-books, old sports cars vs modern sports cars, etc. The list goes on endlessly but it's always the same, a small group of people who want to feel like they are special and in the know will talk about how great this older format was (that they happen to be heavily invested in) while completely downplaying all of the advantages of the modern equivalents. They act like anyone who likes the modern formats is a moron and not part of their special club.
Of course there is nothing wrong with the older formats, and there is nothing wrong with the newer formats either. The newer stuff always has significant advantages for the majority of consumers or it wouldn't be selling. If film cameras were truly the better option for every consumer (as the gatekeepers would have you believe) then companies would still be mass producing film cameras and selling them in bestbuy.
"They act like anyone who likes the modern formats is a moron and not part of their special club" This is exactly what I am seeing in certain sections of film photography. Those that have been doing it years and truly understand it, make much more sense about its pros and cons than those that have recently joined the "club"
I couldn't and wouldn't go back to film, even though i loved it at the time. The only thing i miss are the lovely simple cameras. Manual/apeture. ONLY.
I agree completely and a lot of what you said about processing labs goes much of the way towards explaining why many of my early prints were absolute rubbish. The cost, time, inconvenience and variable quality all contributed to me shelving a hobby in 1982 before resuming it properly in 2009. Without the advent of digital, I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered.
Yes, unless you shoot film, process and print yourself, you are very much at the mercy of outside factors
The picture quality of film was surpassed years ago by digital. But digital images will be hard to archive compared to film. I have negatives dating back to 1949. I can scan them or print them if I still had my darkroom. I cannot see people keeping a digital file for 76 years. Although I've archived a lot of my digital pics onto Blu~Ray, I won't be around long enough to see if they have survived. I've still got my Olympus OM1, that I purchased secondhand in 1979, when I worked on British Railways. I also have an OM4 and OM20. Plus a Mamiya C330. The only medium format camera I've kpt. But they never get used now. I've got ten rolls of Ilford FP4 sitting in the fridge, that I may sell soo, as I can't be bothered to go out and shoot anything.
The beauty of imperfection. That's why I prefer film. By the way, here in Bangkok, process and scan costs 5 USD
To be fair, Bangkok is cheaper for many things - I was there las September
Amen!
Thank you :)
Try doin fast action shots with burst shooting, and taking 1000 frames in a day with film and it gets very expensive
It does indeed.
Totally agree
I wouldn't switch back from digital
It's much easier to get decent images nowadays with digital
Yes. My neighbor, (who is an idiot), takes great snapshots with his iPhone. That does NOT make him a photographer. He doesn't know an f-stop from a door-stop.
Do you shoot film? Is that a relatively new thing or did you cut your teeth in the days before digital?
I shoot mostly film. Not because it’s better, but because it’s what I learned on, and so it’s easier for me to get the results I want. I was away from photography for a long time; as I am learning digital techniques and editing I will probably shoot more and more digital over time. For now, when something is really important to me I still choose film.
I think what people are saying is that film cameras are more fun to use. The post processing sucks but there’s something unique in the way film cameras feel and function.
We’ve seen more engaging digital cameras being made as a result.
It’s sad that to get the simple and enjoyable interface of a Leica you have to pay a fortune. Imagine a $2000 Fujifilm camera just as intuitive. We like the look, the analog dials but not the menus of homage cameras. (I hate EVFs too). Fix that and people won’t wax poetic any more.
"We like the look, the analog dials but not the menus of homage cameras" 100% agree, I made a whole video about that as well
AH Film...
Yeah not going back. Unless it is for some really odd crazy BW film that is.
Because digital cameras these days are just better in so many ways.
My A7 is awesome at getting files that come out pretty darn good to start with. Process it a bit and ... wow. The Lattitude of that sensor! Even the first A7, nothing special but it is already so good.
Interesting... I use both film and digital - although I've noticed that my Canon 6D leads me into bad habits (spray and pray, chimping, over-editing, fix it in post etc). So this morning I took out my Kodak Box Brownie No 2 Model F, slammed in a roll of Ilford HP5 and limited myself to the 8 frames. I enjoy it.. sure the images are not as 'good' but I had a lot of fun and there's an different feel to the results.
I liken it to digital music vs vinyl (or may I say LPs!). I have thousands of hours of lossless music that I can play anywhere via wifi, yet I still enjoy the act of cleaning a LP and lowering the needle into the groove followed by some decent Scotch. So there's a difference in the process - analogue makes you work for the results whereas digital is (almost) instant gratification. Put another way I can listen to Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony with Karajan and the Berlin Philharomic - it's perfect, every note in place, intonation spot on... it's just sleek and glossy. Or I can listen to Mravinsky conducting the Leningrad Philharmomic in a 50s recording in mono - the brass and woodwind instruments are technically inferior but there's character in the rough edges - probably similar to what the composer heard when first played. Neither is better - just different. I can enjoy both the process and final result of both 🙂
Old ex-film fart here.
With digital I can practice a lot with color and black&white without breaking the bank.
To become a better photographer I need to practice - a lot. Like a musician. Ever heard of a master pianist mastering the piano without practicing - a lot.
What matter is the final image and with digital I have full control from start to finish. Be it slides (projection or screen) or prints. Color or black and white.
Hooooray - digital save my day and leave me with a few shillings in the bank too...
Yes, full control of the whole process is important and unless you are developing and printing your own films, element of the process can be highly variable
I started in 1970 and frankly am sick to death of all the folks saying film is dead, film is better, M43 is dead, M43 is making a great comeback, medium format is better, more megapixels is always better, full frame is the only format, you have to shoot in manual to have total control. I’ve stopped listening to any of the vide………..
Did you actually watch the vid…..?
Better, as vinyl is better than cds.
Different not better, as the video says.
With film in a film camera you get the "film look" straight away. Why do people want to get the "film look"? Because its better! LOL
It costs me more to get decent prints from digital images than prints from film.
You only get the film look if you are printing directly from a negative on to photographic paper. Most labs use equipment that digitises the image first. As I said in the video film is not better, its different
Never understood why anyone would digitise film as you now have a digital image that's poorer quality compared to a 100% digital image!unless it's for achieve. Coming from digital to film I have to say I really don't like digital now I'm working in film, The reason is every one is so obsessed in digital with getting things super sharp almost razor sharp and to me it's too clinical and doesn't look natural. I've now gone down the root of 35mm and contact printing with a Sanderson half plate camera 1880s and I just love it, all hands on work, with Dichromate and Silver Nitrate and I find this is so much nicer even the mistakes look good rather than sitting at a computer screen and working in P.S. No real skills required to achieve a fairly decent image in digital that nobody really wants to look at. The secret is to go ALL manual and enjoy either digital or film, your correct they are totally different mediums but you can enjoy both worlds.
Hi Jason, you're absolutely right. I'm still an active photographer at 61, shooting with a Nikon Z6ii and a 50mm f/1.2 lens. Back in the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, I used film for my work with Elle and other magazines. It was a real hassle-the costs, developing, scanning, and producing exhibition prints at 160 x 120 cm were no small feat.
Younger generations today often see using film as a way to differentiate themselves, almost like artisans crafting something unique. However, modern digital cameras are vastly superior in both quality and cost-effectiveness.
In my case, I have more fun with my film cameras and processing my bulk loaded film and printing in my darkroom. I like both types of photography. So, Jason is NOT "absolutely right".
Digital is better, I switched from an EOS3 to a EOS 350D and used the same lenses. The quality of the digital prints from this 8 MPx Kamera was much better than the ones from slide or color film.
Personally I agree for most metrics, digital is better but there is still very much a place for film, and I think all new photographers, should shoot some film if they are serious about learning photography
I have top line Canon digital cameras, 1DXMkII, 5DmkIV, 1DXMk, 6D, R5, and about fifteen L Series lenses, (up to a 500mm f4), and some R Series. I also have about 15 35mm film cameras with a full range of lenses, Nikons, (F3, F2, a couple of F's, two Nikkormats), Canons, (A-1, F1, rangefinder with 2 M39 lenses), small fun rangefinders of various types, and an Olympus XA2.
All in all, I love my film cameras more, and enjoy working in my real Darkroom and B22, more than with my Lightroom.
So don't presume to pronounce which type of photography is better. It's up to me to decide, not you.
I wonder if you actually watched the video. Because in it i do not presume to pronounce which medium is better, in fact I actively encourage people to shot film.
This dead horse again? Come on people, move on. Use what you want and stop obsessing over being "right"...
Perhaps watch the video before commenting. Then you would realise I am not saying either is right or wrong but that they are different.
The fact you keep mentioning “Threads” immediately disqualifies you from this conversation. Good day, sir!
I believe I mentioned Threads once, no more than twice and in reference to the particular type of photography this video is talking about.
Given I started this particular conversation, I am clearly not disqualified, you however , are due to not bringing anything useful to it. Good day to you.