I could listen to you talk about film for 10000 years. Please do more of these! Fools like me still enjoy film and the process. For me it separates the drag of digital work from the enjoyable side of photography that got me hooked on it to start with.
Balance my friend, and you have it. Most people would be very envious of your commercial side. And for that the digital is key but for the rest.....another life awaits.
Always enjoy hearing your perspective on film. It is knowledge that is getting harder and harder to find these days and its great to put it out of there
Please do share any knowledge you have on film. It would be a shame if much of that info went away. Also, as you mentioned there is a lot of malarkey out there about film and it is good to have actual knowledge out there.
I don’t shoot film, though I shot heaps of it in the past. Never developed any myself either though I am tempted to revisit that omission from my photographic journey. Anyway, while not invested in the subject I’m absolutely loving these videos and happy to have discovered your channel. Thanks!
Film is a unique experience. The darkroom can be your best friend or worst nightmare. Make good negs and you will love it. Make bad negs and you will beg for mercy.
I think putting this kind of knowledge out is really important. The sad truth is that this knowledge is slowly dying out as the years progress and is taken to the grave by a lot of people, so putting it out for everyone to see for decades to come is fundamentally important to keeping film alive, even if it might attract the hipster crowd.
As someone who learned most of their photography through the wonderful world of film TH-cam I am at a crossroads at the moment. I have seen firsthand how a following can be built around film, gear, and talking and now I am left wondering what I even want to say with my photos. Not sure what I'm even trying to say with this comment but thank you for the wonderful discussion. Love hearing the history. I get wrapped up in the current all too often.
Those following people are doing what they know which seems to mostly be how to build a following which is no easy task. So give them credit but if you are looking for great work you might have to keep looking. But getting good takes time and many of the online film folks are very young and new to photography.
You got moxy, Milnor! I don’t know what in hell you’re talking about half the time, but as I sit here improperly scanning my negatives (usually under beer related circumstances), there’s no one I’d rather listen to. Hand inspections!!! lead bags!! Improper box speed!!!! This channel has everything! I APPRECIATE YOU, DAN! Cheers~! pr
Just pure Gold Daniel! I shoot both. But being a materials scientist, I can’t help but love film. Don’t get me wrong when I’m at -30C on top of any Colorado mountain, I don’t care if it’s film or digital. I need the shot. When I was wildlife in Africa, it was Kodachrome 64. I shot at 50. It was hard getting keepers. I could shoot 30 to 40 rolls a day, take it to Beath in Johannesburg to process and be lucky to get 1 or 2 good shots. And I felt fortunate! The film was always better than I. And still is….
The funniest thing was from the get go all I could think of was bubbles from trailer park boys, the way your glasses looked. Great stuff as usual thanks Dan
@@DANIELMILNOR505 I know you don't shoot much film anymore but we are all loving your insights. I grew up shooting film until the early 2000's when digital changed us. I still shot film on and off but am getting back into it more now. I still have all my cameras and love using them. Please don't stop talking about film, it's very motivating.
Hey Dan- Me again. Everything you've said is true and I thank you for saying it. I worked at ProColor, a pro lab in Minneapolis in the late 80s. Part of how I got the courage to shoot professionally was seeing the work of pro slides on the lightbox, but I digress, and I always do. There was a huge wave of people shooting Kodak 160T outside because they loved cold tone. Velvia was hot with everyone especially the landscape guys. K200 was AMAZING. You are probably aware of this, but the financial incentive Kodak and Ilford came out with TMAX and Delta films, respectively, was the silver shortage (and resulting rising price of silver) of the 80s. The old pros who loved Tri-X *hated* TMAX at first. Shortly after, Kodak quietly reduced the amount of silver in Tri-X, reducing contrast noticeably. Ralph Gibson used to refer to this 3rd (unofficially, of course, as it was called TX still) as "TMAX Tri-X." Off topic, my favorite process at the time was Agfa Scala B&W *positive* slide film and Polaroid Polapan *positive* B&W slide film with Cibachrome prints.
There was a Scala lab near my house! And yes, TRI-X took a silver beating as did the Kodak papers for things like Cadmium and other heavy metals. I used to shoot 320T outside then power over it with warming gels on my strobes. Kinda gave me the hot/cold look.
This is absolutely fascinating stuff. Love hearing all the stories, and about all the box speeds and how different films were designed and used. I started out with digital, so I never really got the film experience. I shoot some film now because I love how it looks. Looking forward to trying all that stuff you said about pushing and pulling Portra because so far I've only ever shot it at... yes... box speed.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 If you were to ever write a guide about the currently available Kodak films, and your experience of rating them differently etc... that's something I'd buy in a heartbeat. Being able to do all that testing firsthand is prohibitively expensive. A guide like that would probably help many people not only understand film better, but be able to hone in more quickly on how to achieve their desired results. Not even just Kodak films, but whatever films that are available currently that you have experience with or knowledge about from your career.
What's really funny is that the old guy (not me) asked a question with no basis in fact, in two ways. It's the _base_ of the film, acetate in particular, that can turn to vinegar, not the emulsion.* And the problem isn't associated with any specific temperature - a variety of things conspire to do it. I bet _NOW_ you care! *Although emulsion doesn't turn to vinegar, with enough of it scraped off the base you can make a really nasty bowl of Jell-O. Glad I could help. Ektapress is what prompted us to switch from transparency to negative at the PB Post. So much nicer to get your film in 10 minutes rather than an hour. K200 was my guess. I never shot it under fluorescent but I have pushed it to 800. Trivia: Kodachrome was invented in the early 1930s by two musicians, Leopold Godowsky Jr. and Leopold Mannes. I wonder if they ever got confused, answering themselves when saying "Hey Leopold."
Someone needs to do a film history book, a cool one with interviews and culture. Not me, someone skilled. There were lots of "stump the Kodak guy" out there but photography has always appealing to the geek in all of us.
They should have not brought back E100. I always questioned that myself. They should have brought back Kodachrome 200. People have to send their film off to labs nowadays anyway (unless you're processing at home), so they could have brought back Kodachrome and opened a couple of labs for processing it. People would have been all over it. I know I would have been. As always, thanks Dan!
I would have loved to see a few others films but as Andrew mentions below many of the projects, films, papers, chemicals, were ushered out by environmental updates.
Great video Daniel. I use Black and white film because I love the look of a true non- digital photograph. Keep up the good work - you are the ress as l deal. 🇦🇺
Loved hearing all of the stuff about box speed. I'm an old guy who grew up using point-and-shoot cameras, especially the kind that used DX codes. For me, that meant that if all that the Murphymart on US 6 had was 400 ISO film, what I got back were horribly grainy 400 ISO pictures. Most of the time, they looked as if they'd been smeared with baby poop too, though some of that might have been my fault. Anyway. A few years ago, I returned to film, determined to learn to use manual cameras that didn't limit me with the DX coding. I came into possession of a quirky, cheap Russian camera for student photographers, a Smena 8M, that really could not care less what the box speed was. It was aperture priority, and it slowed the film down as much as it needed to in order to get something decent. That was a revelation. So yes, no surprise, I guess, that box speed is a suggestion more than anything else.
Fun video. The best part of film (and yes, I’m not earning a living shooting, I just love it)? It’s using the CAMERAS that shoot it. No digital feels the same. Not even the M10 I can’t afford and will sadly never own.
Sorry for yet another idiotic question, but when pushing/pulling film at a "true" box speed, I basically set the ISO at what I think is "true" speed, push/pull accordingly, meter how I prefer, and then mark the roll as "push/pull" however many stops I adjusted so that the lab can develop accordingly. Or, rather, shoot at the speed without adjusting ss/aperature for push/pull but mark the roll as I did to get the desired look? And, do I then add the correct push/pull stops in accordance to what I view as true box speed or in accordance with what is labeled by Kodak/Fuji/Ilford on the roll? I am just making sure I do this correctly before I send off a bunch of rolls to the lab haha. Again, sorry to bombard you yet again with this idiotic question. The internet has very little on these logistical questions.
Let's keep it simple AND help you avoid push/pull charges at the lab. And let's use TRIX as the sample. The real film speed of TRIX isn't 400 it's actually a bit slower. So, use the film speed setting dial on your camera and set it at either 250 or 320. Then, just shoot normal and tell the lab to process normal. All you are doing is giving the film a bit more light. With negative film you want to expose for the shadow and process for the highlight, so overexposing the film is helping you make sure your shadows get enough light. Now, let's say you are out at night doing horrible things in dark alleyways. You realize that you need more speed. So the next roll you rate at 640 instead of 320. NOW you must tell the lab to push process that roll one stop. Pushing films, in my experience, is far more common than pulling. And when pushing I rarely went more than one stop if possible. Otherwise films can get a bit contrasty for my liking. Let me know if this helps.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 this makes perfect sense. I appreciate your time and effort in helping my thick skull understand what is probably a fairly easy concept to grasp. Also, doing devious, horrid things in alleyways is a great past time
Back in the catalog days, we shot EPN like crazy. Like you, I hated it. But the clients (clothing and electronics) loved it for the color perfection. I was not a fan of Kodachrome 200, but then I shot a far different type of image. EPP... ah, the patina... the damn patina of that film. Headshots under tungsten. Gelled. In 120. On a bigass Mamiya. Handheld...) I shot so much Kodachrome 25 when I was doing fashion and people... then one day, for seemingly no particular reason, I moved to E6 and never went back. K14 was one of the weirdest tech ever, but it did indeed make great images. The last 5 years of my photo business (while creating the agency) saw a lot of Portra being shot. I Never pulled it but pushed it a quarter stop (shooting at 100) for a touch of contrast. Never shot the E100 line. Too many issues with skin tones. Not enough difference to make the change. Favorite films: Kodak 100 Pro, TMax 3200, Panatomic (sigh), TMax 100, Polapan 35mm BW slide film (Positive), Polaroid Type 55PN. Truly a good video, Dan
EPN looked like death. PKL was awesome but I was a doc shooter so it was one of the only and best options. Processing sucked but oh well. EPP is still be skin I've seen on a transparency film. T55 was incredible and just fun to use. And subjects loved it. I shot entire jobs with T55 and crowds would build as I dunked it in the bath.
The thing that I don't understand about the whole box speed "debate" if you want to call it that is that if none of these films were meant to be shot at box speed, what did film companies stand to benefit from having their films work better at the non-advertised speeds? Like if Portra 400 only gives you those creamy skin tones when overexposed a stop then why did they not just call it Portra 200? Curious on your thoughts!
Well, I think it's a combination of things. Routine, history, simplicity. It's not like you CAN'T use the films at box speed. Most photographers are amateurs and are probably totally happy. But those who go beyond or are looking for nuance begin to realize the box speed is only a suggestion. Like a traffic light in Italy.
Film speed is determined by scientifically standard methods as defined by ASA, DIN, ISO etc. But there were many practical reasons why individual photographers chose a different working film speed, which were derived empirically. Different publishers would prefer working from slightly darker or lighter transparencies. With black and white films, different developers, subject contrast, development time and personal preferences for contrastier or softer results could all affect your chosen working film speed. Over time, most films gained a working film speed reputation that most people would start their personal testing from. e.g. Velvia 50 had a working film speed of 40 and FP4 (labelled as 125) was 80. The final working film speed for individual photographers varied depending on their personal working practices and the type of photographs they produced. There were always some who ended up using the speed on the box, but most of us usually ended up close to what was considered the "real" or "working" film speed.
This may be a dumb question, but can you explain the in-camera process of pushing and pulling? My film camera’s light meter doesn’t work. Most of the info in the web is “just set your iso dial to the speed you want, and presto.” I assume if I were to push Tri-X 400 to 800, for example, in my case, I would just under expose my roll by 1 stop either by shutter speed or aperture? I wouldn’t even need to bother with the iso dial since my internal meter doesn’t work. Am I correct?
Yep, you are underexposing in-camera than compensating by "pushing" or extending the process time. You can also shoot at your standard rating and still push. The Portra films are the best example of this.
I spent the first half of this episode curious about “speed” and I assume it’s the same reason we say “fast lenses” the higher the speed the higher you can run your shutter for any given exposure. I did shoot film in high school but I barely remember a thing. For a while I’ve been thinking what the hell is the point of the ISO selector on the camera when it’s fixed in the film. Then it dawned on me… it’s to adjust the meter for the desired over or under exposure. If I’m wrong let me know please.
Sure. That's what I used it for. Rating the film at whatever speed you want, then using internal meter then processing to match what push/pull or normal rating you had.
Always cool to hear the “behind the scenes” / lesser known facts of films! Is there any sort of rule of thumb when rating film if they shouldn’t be shot at box speed for best results?
It's almost always giving a little more light to the film, or rating it UNDER the box speed. There are a few rare exceptions but most of those films are gone.
You bet it was interesting, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with so many things about photography in one hit, EVER ! So interesting to revisit these issues after so long. For goodness sake keep it up, it’s a pros Holliday?
I like when you share your knowledge on Kodak. Couldo you, please, consider talking about true film speeds someday. I believe many would like to know more on this too. Thanks!
Love the channel as always and am simply genuinely curious, for a film like E100 where it's finnicky to expose correctly and doesn't hold up to pushing or pulling all the much, how is the box speed not the "true" speed of the film? Thanks for sharing!
It just means if you shoot it at 100 you slides might be slightly underexposed. Rate it at 80 and see how it looks. Now, the wrinkle here is processing. Labs vary. Some are purposely slow while others run hot or even a specific tone of warm or cold so it takes testing to nail it.
I have 200 sheets of frozen E64T, same emulsion lot... Interesting hearing about it on this video not being box speed. I'll have to do some experimenting.
Two rolls of Tri-x shot at varying speeds of 200 and 400 depending on conditions, semi stand developed and both rolls came out fine. Box speed? Didn’t care. Next time maybe I’ll vary from 100 to 800. ;-)
Yes, push the boundaries. I was never a huge fan of TRIX beyond about 800. Got too contrasty but also wasn't using stand developer and was most often on deadline so I needed a more standard processing time.
You can achieve 400 with any brand but if you rate at 400 and process "normal" you won't get there. Very, very rarely is a film the actual box speed. But once you know that it comes down to testing to determine your look. Change any point of the process and you need to test once again. time, temp, agitation, rating, developer, etc. But that's one of the fun things about using film.
Box speed for black and white really is missing the point entirely. Different developers give different tonal scales, depending on what's in them (and how long they're run). So what speed to shoot TMX souped in Rodinal would be different from using D76, which would then be different than TMAX. Getting the tonality you wanted was a matter of testing a bunch of combinations. I always pushed my TMX a little bit; 5 min @ 75ºF in D76, rated 400 (sometimes 320 for a touch more shadow density). And then I figured out how to push it to 3200, which was a whole different thing. I also shot a whole project on E100; night cityscapes lost to time, but the weirdness of the film worked with the weirdness of the lights.
That's the key. TESTING. Throw in paper and paper chemistry and you have ANOTHER layer of complexity and beauty. But all this takes time and a lot of folks want following NOW.
I heard, I can't recall where, that the Vision3 stocks, or at least 500T, are slightly underrated. So technically if you shoot 5219 at box speed, you're slightly overexposing it. BTW this video is very quotable. 👍
It will depend on the line and the look. Certain directors are adamant about certain stocks but will then torture those same stocks to get a specific look.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 I heard from a DP just recently that Kodak already has a replacement for 5219, and its native rating is 1000. They even used it on a shot in Dunkirk. The problem is that nobody knows why it hasn't been released yet. I don't suppose you heard anything?
I just bought ten rolls of frozen epp100, if not box speed to shoot it at then what? And yes, I have a very specific, mildly insane reason for shooting a load of transparency film right now.
I don't know what you're talking about, but it's delivered very poetically :) If Box B was that bad, why didn't everyone just use Box A? Did you come across Big Head Taco at Kodak conferences? He mentioned he worked there - presumably in Canada.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Yeah, I thought it was a longshot :) He is Japanese Canadian, so his name is "Take" hence Taco. He has a youtube channel, and writes for Fuji Love. If you make it to Vancouver you should look him up. I'd love to see you as a guest on his livestream or an expert interview subject on projects or printing. Anyway, just a random thing. Ciao!
I dont shoot film, WHY arent they true to box speed. It seems ridiculous that they arent. I assume Kodak knew/knows what theyre doing. It seems very bizzare.
Well, you CAN shoot a box speed and most photogs are consumer level and are happy as can be. But other folks start looking for nuance, or start printing their negs and then things begin to change. Pros just assumed it wasn't true to speed.
Every film has a look until it's expired then boy oh boy does it have a look! Anyways, just putting 10 rolls of outdated E6, stored in my humid basement, for sale on Facebook, very rare, $35 a roll.
Kodak ProImage 100. A grainy(!), actual 50-speed, and super-cheap film. But: vivid colours with decent skin tones. And: according to Kodak it isn’t too picky about temperature. What’s not to love….?
Hi Daniel, I'm just curious...how much post processing do you do today, on images you take in the field on film? You strike me as the type of professional who tries to do "all that" in camera, as opposed to doing a lot of tweaking afterwards in post. With that said, I know you also shoot digital - so, what is your overall post processing position when taking digital shots? - Do you do as much as you can in camera, or get close to what you want...then, tweak as necessary in post?
You are correct. In camera was how I was taught. But I did print in the darkroom where manipulation is real. I will do a film on my post processing and you will laugh. It takes less than one minute. The editing takes a bit longer.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Thanks, that's what I thought. I think a lot of the newer photographers have grown up with post production apps, and in part have relied on them to get the best result...vs just shooting better. I myself, am guilty of being corrupted by them. Although I do it (heavy post editing) to obtain more of a artistic result. Sometimes the photos don't always come out well, but I do try to make them as best as I can. Years ago, photographers could just focus on photography, but in todays world they also have to learn post editing. What advice would you give someone on how to go back to traditional 'in camera' shooting from a position of relying heavily on post production software? Is there even a way back? Ha
As I mentioned the other day, my dad traded his Ricoh XR-P for my Canon AE1 Program back in the 80s. Like many when life happens, I put the camera away for years, shooting vacation snapshots on an Olympus XA2. Then digital happened. I got back into film in 2018. After a rocky start, I’m slowly getting an idea of what I like. I am an admitted hobbyist, and only talk about the gear when asked. In the meantime, I’ve been gifted a bunch of old 35mm cameras, including a Nikon FM that came with a roll of EPY 64T with maybe 1-2 frames shot. It currently sits in my fridge. I’ve taken a liking to Kodak 5222 (Double X), and have shot it up to 1600, though I like it pushed to 400 a lot. Allegedly an ASA 250 film (200 under tungsten), I’m going to guess that its true rating isn’t 250. :) Finally, to your point about good composition…I see this in the digital infrared community…poorly composed, uninteresting snapshots aren’t made better just because they’re in infrared. Same goes with film. I try never to be That Guy. Really happy that I discovered this TH-cam channel. It’s been very interesting, in a good way.
Hey Tim, I agree. I see film images being promoted for no other reason than they were made on film. It's just noise to me. I understand why people do that but when you do this for a living, for so long, there is no time for nonsense. I just keep looking, looking for something good, and good work it out there, for sure.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Good work is good work, irrespective of the method of capturing it or whether it was an old Canon Powershot G6 (which I used in the mid-2000s), my Nikon D610, my Sony a6000 IR conversion, or an old Nikon FM. And none of those will save a bad shot from being a bad shot. It took me a couple years to really get that.
Why folks would be reluctant to not listen to someone like you with decades of experience as pro shooting film when so many you tubers start out their video saying it''s the first time they've shot this film/camera. I just click out of those videos. You have sent me off experimenting with the next rolls of portra 400, starting with a baseline roll shot at 400 and developed at 400, shooting at 100 and dev at 400 or shooting at 200 and pulling in dev to 800 to see my favorite result. How would you meter Portra 400 when pull/pulling? Dome of meter under chin towards camera, metering dome towards shadows, averaging shadow/highlight metering which is usually about under chin?
Why would they be reluctant? Hmm, I'm not cool. I don't shoot slow motion pans of my camera gear. I don''t focus on the camera and the film. I want to see images and publications. That eliminates about 85% of all YT photography traffic. Plus, I don't want to only talk photography, which means YT will never present my channel to the masses. As for metering, it depends on the meter. With a handheld I would just meter off the light falling on the subject. If you have a great in camera meter like the Nikon Matrix then you can just shoot.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Thanks Dan, incorporating that in some film/iso/dev tests. One YT guy keeps talking about his "snaps" and "pics" "coming out." That bozo holds himself out as a "professional!" You are concerned about the image and not the gear because you ARE a photographer. after all, the image is the goal. I am on a number of sites aimed at particular cameras. More photos of the camera, like everyone doesn't know what they look like, than anything else. If it is people, it is inevitably a girl who is apparently poor so wears few clothes and is skinny because she can't afford food. She is cranky because she hasn't eaten so has a blank cranky expression. The hunger gives her a headache so she is touching her head in what I call my ex wife pose, not tonight, I have a headache. I am always chasing my vision and look to film to take it to the highest level I can. it's the look I am seeking to match everything else in the image, composition, lighting/ratio, posing, background, expression. I love the skin tones from portra 400 and wish the hipsters would find another hobby, they have been driving the cost off the chart and often it is unavailable. I started shooting on a Kodak brownie hawkeye in 1960, a boxy camera that my Mamiya 645 pro tl looks like with some improvements added like great lenses. manual or power winder, waist level or eye level finder. Funny you liked Kodak 3200, I love Ilford 3200 that is made in 120 for the grain in 645, not 35, not 67. It is how that film renders my portraits. You are a diamond in the YT rough, someone who actually knows photography and has walked the walk. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Anti film hipster manifest :-) People worship film in a way that they believe it capable of unworldly things. And internet people love to rage about stuff. To them I say, go create something instead of raging at someone you don't agree with. Spend the energy on that. Keep going at this we love these insights, it's very different from 99% youtubers that say the same stuff (about gear generaly) and all seem to be shooting abandoned gas stations.
In the words of Bruce Lee, and I"m going to use this in an upcoming film. "Boards don't hit back." Gas stations, old houses, all fine and dandy but humans are where my heart lives, at least with a camera in hand. Exponentially more difficult. But a much higher reward.
I go by a philosophy of: don’t believe what anyone says... take it for checking. When you first pointed out about box speeds, I checked it out. That was golden advice, and my negatives love you for that.
Good to hear someone else say that just because it’s shot on film doesn’t make it a good photo. And what’s with the latest craze of shooting heavily expired film?
Those are just hooks for following. Like digital guys trashing a new camera. Click bait. Many of the folks hyping film images just don't know what good is, or their history, context, etc. But it works.
@@joeltunnah I’m talking about people worrying about gear all day and night. There’s a difference between learning your materials and obsessing over “new gear” or the grass is greener on the other side of gear. I guess I should be clear.
@@nickfanzo it’s actually possible to enjoy “obsessing” over gear, and obsess over making great photographs at the same time. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. For most of us it’s a hobby, and all aspects of it are fun.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I could listen to you talk about film for 10000 years. Please do more of these! Fools like me still enjoy film and the process. For me it separates the drag of digital work from the enjoyable side of photography that got me hooked on it to start with.
Balance my friend, and you have it. Most people would be very envious of your commercial side. And for that the digital is key but for the rest.....another life awaits.
Always enjoy hearing your perspective on film. It is knowledge that is getting harder and harder to find these days and its great to put it out of there
Yep, it's like a lost language.
Please do share any knowledge you have on film. It would be a shame if much of that info went away. Also, as you mentioned there is a lot of malarkey out there about film and it is good to have actual knowledge out there.
Yes, quite the rage now this film thing. Entire careers, online, built around it, but hey if it keeps it alive then so be it.
I don’t shoot film, though I shot heaps of it in the past. Never developed any myself either though I am tempted to revisit that omission from my photographic journey. Anyway, while not invested in the subject I’m absolutely loving these videos and happy to have discovered your channel. Thanks!
Film is a unique experience. The darkroom can be your best friend or worst nightmare. Make good negs and you will love it. Make bad negs and you will beg for mercy.
I think putting this kind of knowledge out is really important. The sad truth is that this knowledge is slowly dying out as the years progress and is taken to the grave by a lot of people, so putting it out for everyone to see for decades to come is fundamentally important to keeping film alive, even if it might attract the hipster crowd.
I'm filled with all kinds of odd things.
As someone who learned most of their photography through the wonderful world of film TH-cam I am at a crossroads at the moment. I have seen firsthand how a following can be built around film, gear, and talking and now I am left wondering what I even want to say with my photos. Not sure what I'm even trying to say with this comment but thank you for the wonderful discussion. Love hearing the history. I get wrapped up in the current all too often.
Those following people are doing what they know which seems to mostly be how to build a following which is no easy task. So give them credit but if you are looking for great work you might have to keep looking. But getting good takes time and many of the online film folks are very young and new to photography.
You're so dark, sarcastic and downright negative. I like it. New sub here.
I'm only getting warmed up....
I got out of the industry around about when Portra came out , enjoyed the film film, still play with APX 100 every now and again.
Not a bad time to depart, actually. And it's still out there, for $9,000 per roll.
You got moxy, Milnor! I don’t know what in hell you’re talking about half the time, but as I sit here improperly scanning my negatives (usually under beer related circumstances), there’s no one I’d rather listen to. Hand inspections!!! lead bags!! Improper box speed!!!! This channel has everything! I APPRECIATE YOU, DAN! Cheers~! pr
Hey, we must be related. The beer related circumstances. Sounds familiar. I forgot a bunch of odd film things so there will be more.
Loved this rant and revisiting these old films.
I forgot to mention the best cross process film.........maybe for next round.
Just pure Gold Daniel! I shoot both. But being a materials scientist, I can’t help but love film. Don’t get me wrong when I’m at -30C on top of any Colorado mountain, I don’t care if it’s film or digital. I need the shot. When I was wildlife in Africa, it was Kodachrome 64. I shot at 50. It was hard getting keepers. I could shoot 30 to 40 rolls a day, take it to Beath in Johannesburg to process and be lucky to get 1 or 2 good shots. And I felt fortunate! The film was always better than I. And still is….
I love both as well. It's all about the logistics.
Love the knowledge! Thanks for sharing.
thx for this wonderful talk, lots of interesting facts, lots of good points and wonderful use of my time!
The funniest thing was from the get go all I could think of was bubbles from trailer park boys, the way your glasses looked.
Great stuff as usual thanks Dan
I like reflection. And my eyes can be bloodshot and nobody knows.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 I know you don't shoot much film anymore but we are all loving your insights.
I grew up shooting film until the early 2000's when digital changed us.
I still shot film on and off but am getting back into it more now. I still have all my cameras and love using them.
Please don't stop talking about film, it's very motivating.
Awesome video. Thank you for your time and effort making it.
Hey Dan- Me again. Everything you've said is true and I thank you for saying it. I worked at ProColor, a pro lab in Minneapolis in the late 80s. Part of how I got the courage to shoot professionally was seeing the work of pro slides on the lightbox, but I digress, and I always do. There was a huge wave of people shooting Kodak 160T outside because they loved cold tone. Velvia was hot with everyone especially the landscape guys. K200 was AMAZING. You are probably aware of this, but the financial incentive Kodak and Ilford came out with TMAX and Delta films, respectively, was the silver shortage (and resulting rising price of silver) of the 80s. The old pros who loved Tri-X *hated* TMAX at first. Shortly after, Kodak quietly reduced the amount of silver in Tri-X, reducing contrast noticeably. Ralph Gibson used to refer to this 3rd (unofficially, of course, as it was called TX still) as "TMAX Tri-X." Off topic, my favorite process at the time was Agfa Scala B&W *positive* slide film and Polaroid Polapan *positive* B&W slide film with Cibachrome prints.
There was a Scala lab near my house! And yes, TRI-X took a silver beating as did the Kodak papers for things like Cadmium and other heavy metals. I used to shoot 320T outside then power over it with warming gels on my strobes. Kinda gave me the hot/cold look.
Soon, TRI-X will pass plutonium in cost per ounce.
This is absolutely fascinating stuff. Love hearing all the stories, and about all the box speeds and how different films were designed and used. I started out with digital, so I never really got the film experience. I shoot some film now because I love how it looks. Looking forward to trying all that stuff you said about pushing and pulling Portra because so far I've only ever shot it at... yes... box speed.
Ha, well you've got an entire range of film life ahead of you!
@@DANIELMILNOR505 If you were to ever write a guide about the currently available Kodak films, and your experience of rating them differently etc... that's something I'd buy in a heartbeat. Being able to do all that testing firsthand is prohibitively expensive. A guide like that would probably help many people not only understand film better, but be able to hone in more quickly on how to achieve their desired results. Not even just Kodak films, but whatever films that are available currently that you have experience with or knowledge about from your career.
What's really funny is that the old guy (not me) asked a question with no basis in fact, in two ways. It's the _base_ of the film, acetate in particular, that can turn to vinegar, not the emulsion.* And the problem isn't associated with any specific temperature - a variety of things conspire to do it. I bet _NOW_ you care!
*Although emulsion doesn't turn to vinegar, with enough of it scraped off the base you can make a really nasty bowl of Jell-O. Glad I could help.
Ektapress is what prompted us to switch from transparency to negative at the PB Post. So much nicer to get your film in 10 minutes rather than an hour.
K200 was my guess. I never shot it under fluorescent but I have pushed it to 800.
Trivia: Kodachrome was invented in the early 1930s by two musicians, Leopold Godowsky Jr. and Leopold Mannes. I wonder if they ever got confused, answering themselves when saying "Hey Leopold."
Someone needs to do a film history book, a cool one with interviews and culture. Not me, someone skilled. There were lots of "stump the Kodak guy" out there but photography has always appealing to the geek in all of us.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 That would be pretty good - and I'm not the guy to do it. Maybe even a Ken Burns, er, film.
Tri-x is your roommate in college. Tri-x is Brad Pitt in True Romance.
Best description of my favourite film ever.
Funky talk. Keep' em coming!
I thought someone might like that.
They should have not brought back E100. I always questioned that myself. They should have brought back Kodachrome 200. People have to send their film off to labs nowadays anyway (unless you're processing at home), so they could have brought back Kodachrome and opened a couple of labs for processing it. People would have been all over it. I know I would have been. As always, thanks Dan!
The chemistry involved in the processing of Kodachrome was made illegal. They, Kodak would need to re -formulate the whole development process.
I would have loved to see a few others films but as Andrew mentions below many of the projects, films, papers, chemicals, were ushered out by environmental updates.
I never shot it. Really regretting it. 64 was challenging enough for my work.
Great video Daniel. I use Black and white film because I love the look of a true non- digital photograph. Keep up the good work - you are the ress as l deal. 🇦🇺
Nothing better than black and white film.
Loved hearing all of the stuff about box speed. I'm an old guy who grew up using point-and-shoot cameras, especially the kind that used DX codes. For me, that meant that if all that the Murphymart on US 6 had was 400 ISO film, what I got back were horribly grainy 400 ISO pictures. Most of the time, they looked as if they'd been smeared with baby poop too, though some of that might have been my fault. Anyway. A few years ago, I returned to film, determined to learn to use manual cameras that didn't limit me with the DX coding. I came into possession of a quirky, cheap Russian camera for student photographers, a Smena 8M, that really could not care less what the box speed was. It was aperture priority, and it slowed the film down as much as it needed to in order to get something decent. That was a revelation. So yes, no surprise, I guess, that box speed is a suggestion more than anything else.
Trial and error. Worked for me in math class. And there is some alchemy in this stuff.
This one was great - perfect combo of positivity and saltiness.
I was body surfing earlier in the day.
Honest and necessary content. Thank you, Dan.
Fun video. The best part of film (and yes, I’m not earning a living shooting, I just love it)? It’s using the CAMERAS that shoot it. No digital feels the same. Not even the M10 I can’t afford and will sadly never own.
Leica is so expensive now. It's too bad as they are great cameras.
This was entertaining. Thanks for taking the time!
Welcome, glad you enjoyed.
Sooooo I just learned a ton thank you very much ✌️✌️😎😎😎
All kinds of odd remotely useful things.
Sorry for yet another idiotic question, but when pushing/pulling film at a "true" box speed, I basically set the ISO at what I think is "true" speed, push/pull accordingly, meter how I prefer, and then mark the roll as "push/pull" however many stops I adjusted so that the lab can develop accordingly. Or, rather, shoot at the speed without adjusting ss/aperature for push/pull but mark the roll as I did to get the desired look? And, do I then add the correct push/pull stops in accordance to what I view as true box speed or in accordance with what is labeled by Kodak/Fuji/Ilford on the roll? I am just making sure I do this correctly before I send off a bunch of rolls to the lab haha.
Again, sorry to bombard you yet again with this idiotic question. The internet has very little on these logistical questions.
Let's keep it simple AND help you avoid push/pull charges at the lab. And let's use TRIX as the sample. The real film speed of TRIX isn't 400 it's actually a bit slower. So, use the film speed setting dial on your camera and set it at either 250 or 320. Then, just shoot normal and tell the lab to process normal. All you are doing is giving the film a bit more light. With negative film you want to expose for the shadow and process for the highlight, so overexposing the film is helping you make sure your shadows get enough light. Now, let's say you are out at night doing horrible things in dark alleyways. You realize that you need more speed. So the next roll you rate at 640 instead of 320. NOW you must tell the lab to push process that roll one stop. Pushing films, in my experience, is far more common than pulling. And when pushing I rarely went more than one stop if possible. Otherwise films can get a bit contrasty for my liking. Let me know if this helps.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 this makes perfect sense. I appreciate your time and effort in helping my thick skull understand what is probably a fairly easy concept to grasp. Also, doing devious, horrid things in alleyways is a great past time
Thanks you. That was very interesting.
Can you upload your notes on film stocks, processing etc?
We would be infinitely grateful.
Hmmm, never thought about it. I probably could. Time, just need time.
I was v interested in your comments about box speed in previous vid. ( Even tho i have not been film since 98) Thank you
They lie. Can you still use the film at those speeds but most likely will get thin negs.
Very interesting talks bro, love from Haiphong, Vietnam
I've been to Cambodia but never to Vietnam. Hope to see your country someday and...thank you.
Back in the catalog days, we shot EPN like crazy. Like you, I hated it. But the clients (clothing and electronics) loved it for the color perfection.
I was not a fan of Kodachrome 200, but then I shot a far different type of image.
EPP... ah, the patina... the damn patina of that film. Headshots under tungsten. Gelled. In 120. On a bigass Mamiya. Handheld...)
I shot so much Kodachrome 25 when I was doing fashion and people... then one day, for seemingly no particular reason, I moved to E6 and never went back. K14 was one of the weirdest tech ever, but it did indeed make great images.
The last 5 years of my photo business (while creating the agency) saw a lot of Portra being shot. I Never pulled it but pushed it a quarter stop (shooting at 100) for a touch of contrast.
Never shot the E100 line. Too many issues with skin tones. Not enough difference to make the change.
Favorite films: Kodak 100 Pro, TMax 3200, Panatomic (sigh), TMax 100, Polapan 35mm BW slide film (Positive), Polaroid Type 55PN.
Truly a good video, Dan
EPN looked like death. PKL was awesome but I was a doc shooter so it was one of the only and best options. Processing sucked but oh well. EPP is still be skin I've seen on a transparency film. T55 was incredible and just fun to use. And subjects loved it. I shot entire jobs with T55 and crowds would build as I dunked it in the bath.
Loved this! Thank you.
Milnor the Oracle. Answering questions I never knew that I needed answered.
You're not the one Neo.
Entertaining for sure! I got a couple of your questions right, but I’m older than you😂. Long live film!
I love old people!
😂
The thing that I don't understand about the whole box speed "debate" if you want to call it that is that if none of these films were meant to be shot at box speed, what did film companies stand to benefit from having their films work better at the non-advertised speeds? Like if Portra 400 only gives you those creamy skin tones when overexposed a stop then why did they not just call it Portra 200? Curious on your thoughts!
Well, I think it's a combination of things. Routine, history, simplicity. It's not like you CAN'T use the films at box speed. Most photographers are amateurs and are probably totally happy. But those who go beyond or are looking for nuance begin to realize the box speed is only a suggestion. Like a traffic light in Italy.
Film speed is determined by scientifically standard methods as defined by ASA, DIN, ISO etc. But there were many practical reasons why individual photographers chose a different working film speed, which were derived empirically.
Different publishers would prefer working from slightly darker or lighter transparencies. With black and white films, different developers, subject contrast, development time and personal preferences for contrastier or softer results could all affect your chosen working film speed.
Over time, most films gained a working film speed reputation that most people would start their personal testing from. e.g. Velvia 50 had a working film speed of 40 and FP4 (labelled as 125) was 80. The final working film speed for individual photographers varied depending on their personal working practices and the type of photographs they produced.
There were always some who ended up using the speed on the box, but most of us usually ended up close to what was considered the "real" or "working" film speed.
@@grahamsmith7938 Thank you!
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Thanks Dan!
This may be a dumb question, but can you explain the in-camera process of pushing and pulling? My film camera’s light meter doesn’t work. Most of the info in the web is “just set your iso dial to the speed you want, and presto.” I assume if I were to push Tri-X 400 to 800, for example, in my case, I would just under expose my roll by 1 stop either by shutter speed or aperture? I wouldn’t even need to bother with the iso dial since my internal meter doesn’t work.
Am I correct?
Yep, you are underexposing in-camera than compensating by "pushing" or extending the process time. You can also shoot at your standard rating and still push. The Portra films are the best example of this.
I spent the first half of this episode curious about “speed” and I assume it’s the same reason we say “fast lenses” the higher the speed the higher you can run your shutter for any given exposure.
I did shoot film in high school but I barely remember a thing.
For a while I’ve been thinking what the hell is the point of the ISO selector on the camera when it’s fixed in the film.
Then it dawned on me… it’s to adjust the meter for the desired over or under exposure. If I’m wrong let me know please.
Sure. That's what I used it for. Rating the film at whatever speed you want, then using internal meter then processing to match what push/pull or normal rating you had.
Always cool to hear the “behind the scenes” / lesser known facts of films! Is there any sort of rule of thumb when rating film if they shouldn’t be shot at box speed for best results?
It's almost always giving a little more light to the film, or rating it UNDER the box speed. There are a few rare exceptions but most of those films are gone.
You bet it was interesting, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with so many things about photography in one hit, EVER !
So interesting to revisit these issues after so long. For goodness sake keep it up, it’s a pros Holliday?
Cool. I did this on a whim in a hotel room in Maine. Glad people are digging it.
I like when you share your knowledge on Kodak. Couldo you, please, consider talking about true film speeds someday. I believe many would like to know more on this too. Thanks!
sure, happy to share what I know.
Love the channel as always and am simply genuinely curious, for a film like E100 where it's finnicky to expose correctly and doesn't hold up to pushing or pulling all the much, how is the box speed not the "true" speed of the film? Thanks for sharing!
It just means if you shoot it at 100 you slides might be slightly underexposed. Rate it at 80 and see how it looks. Now, the wrinkle here is processing. Labs vary. Some are purposely slow while others run hot or even a specific tone of warm or cold so it takes testing to nail it.
I have 200 sheets of frozen E64T, same emulsion lot... Interesting hearing about it on this video not being box speed. I'll have to do some experimenting.
Yes, test it because it will also depend on the line.
Have several stories about film but most embarrassing is that I didn’t know about the box speed. I could have used that on several occasions.
With some films it was key. Others, not so much.
Shot some Fuji Astia 100 last weekend. I treat it as ISO 50 until I accidentally moved the iso dial to 1600. One shot was usable. Fxxxing film. ha
film was built for happy accidents......
i love this video
Two rolls of Tri-x shot at varying speeds of 200 and 400 depending on conditions, semi stand developed and both rolls came out fine. Box speed? Didn’t care. Next time maybe I’ll vary from 100 to 800. ;-)
Yes, push the boundaries. I was never a huge fan of TRIX beyond about 800. Got too contrasty but also wasn't using stand developer and was most often on deadline so I needed a more standard processing time.
"some of you are kinda sensitive to this film thing" haha good one!
Yes, I'm sure there are people out there who will not be happy.
That’s why I like fomapan aka artists edu - they are straight in their Dokumentation, that you will not achieve iso 400 with foma action 😂
You can achieve 400 with any brand but if you rate at 400 and process "normal" you won't get there. Very, very rarely is a film the actual box speed. But once you know that it comes down to testing to determine your look. Change any point of the process and you need to test once again. time, temp, agitation, rating, developer, etc. But that's one of the fun things about using film.
Just left Kalispell MT … and they politely allowed a hand inspection… true story
Mountain folk!
Box speed for black and white really is missing the point entirely. Different developers give different tonal scales, depending on what's in them (and how long they're run). So what speed to shoot TMX souped in Rodinal would be different from using D76, which would then be different than TMAX. Getting the tonality you wanted was a matter of testing a bunch of combinations. I always pushed my TMX a little bit; 5 min @ 75ºF in D76, rated 400 (sometimes 320 for a touch more shadow density). And then I figured out how to push it to 3200, which was a whole different thing.
I also shot a whole project on E100; night cityscapes lost to time, but the weirdness of the film worked with the weirdness of the lights.
That's the key. TESTING. Throw in paper and paper chemistry and you have ANOTHER layer of complexity and beauty. But all this takes time and a lot of folks want following NOW.
Quick question, do you have any information on Ilford safety film?
Not much. Sorry. The Delta 3200 has less grain than the Kodak but is also slower. Their film is fantastic. HP5 is legendary.
I heard, I can't recall where, that the Vision3 stocks, or at least 500T, are slightly underrated. So technically if you shoot 5219 at box speed, you're slightly overexposing it.
BTW this video is very quotable. 👍
It will depend on the line and the look. Certain directors are adamant about certain stocks but will then torture those same stocks to get a specific look.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 I heard from a DP just recently that Kodak already has a replacement for 5219, and its native rating is 1000. They even used it on a shot in Dunkirk. The problem is that nobody knows why it hasn't been released yet. I don't suppose you heard anything?
thx, i loved the throw up comment. heartfelt unbelievably often.
A good puke story, well, nothing better.
I just bought ten rolls of frozen epp100, if not box speed to shoot it at then what? And yes, I have a very specific, mildly insane reason for shooting a load of transparency film right now.
I like insane reasons. 80 speed my friend. Now, the fact it's old could change that but that was the rule of thumb back in the day.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 worth a shot. If the first two rolls are terrible then I’ll chalk it up to age.
The CTX machines basically gives your luggage an MRI scan.....
Yep, like your luggage getting a physical.
That was good.
I don't know what you're talking about, but it's delivered very poetically :)
If Box B was that bad, why didn't everyone just use Box A?
Did you come across Big Head Taco at Kodak conferences? He mentioned he worked there - presumably in Canada.
I did not meet him. Actually don't know what that is but quite a name. To my credit, we had 90,000 employees at the time.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Yeah, I thought it was a longshot :) He is Japanese Canadian, so his name is "Take" hence Taco. He has a youtube channel, and writes for Fuji Love. If you make it to Vancouver you should look him up. I'd love to see you as a guest on his livestream or an expert interview subject on projects or printing. Anyway, just a random thing. Ciao!
You da man!!!!!
I dont shoot film, WHY arent they true to box speed. It seems ridiculous that they arent. I assume Kodak knew/knows what theyre doing. It seems very bizzare.
Well, you CAN shoot a box speed and most photogs are consumer level and are happy as can be. But other folks start looking for nuance, or start printing their negs and then things begin to change. Pros just assumed it wasn't true to speed.
I was taught that box speed was a suggestion based on the interpretation of the manufacturers. Is that very far off?
Kinda doesn’t matter
That's about it. Yes. A basic guide.
Film looks better than digital, Blasphemy!
As he bursts into flames.
Every film has a look until it's expired then boy oh boy does it have a look!
Anyways, just putting 10 rolls of outdated E6, stored in my humid basement, for sale on Facebook, very rare, $35 a roll.
Crazy. And yes, older films would begin to degrade much quicker than the new films.
This information = gold
You beat me to this comment
Kodak ProImage 100. A grainy(!), actual 50-speed, and super-cheap film. But: vivid colours with decent skin tones. And: according to Kodak it isn’t too picky about temperature. What’s not to love….?
Never heard of it but I love what is happening with all the repackaging. I say go for it.
Hi Daniel, I'm just curious...how much post processing do you do today, on images you take in the field on film? You strike me as the type of professional who tries to do "all that" in camera, as opposed to doing a lot of tweaking afterwards in post. With that said, I know you also shoot digital - so, what is your overall post processing position when taking digital shots? - Do you do as much as you can in camera, or get close to what you want...then, tweak as necessary in post?
You are correct. In camera was how I was taught. But I did print in the darkroom where manipulation is real. I will do a film on my post processing and you will laugh. It takes less than one minute. The editing takes a bit longer.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Thanks, that's what I thought. I think a lot of the newer photographers have grown up with post production apps, and in part have relied on them to get the best result...vs just shooting better. I myself, am guilty of being corrupted by them. Although I do it (heavy post editing) to obtain more of a artistic result. Sometimes the photos don't always come out well, but I do try to make them as best as I can. Years ago, photographers could just focus on photography, but in todays world they also have to learn post editing. What advice would you give someone on how to go back to traditional 'in camera' shooting from a position of relying heavily on post production software? Is there even a way back? Ha
17:17 Floyd ;)
As I mentioned the other day, my dad traded his Ricoh XR-P for my Canon AE1 Program back in the 80s. Like many when life happens, I put the camera away for years, shooting vacation snapshots on an Olympus XA2. Then digital happened.
I got back into film in 2018. After a rocky start, I’m slowly getting an idea of what I like. I am an admitted hobbyist, and only talk about the gear when asked.
In the meantime, I’ve been gifted a bunch of old 35mm cameras, including a Nikon FM that came with a roll of EPY 64T with maybe 1-2 frames shot. It currently sits in my fridge.
I’ve taken a liking to Kodak 5222 (Double X), and have shot it up to 1600, though I like it pushed to 400 a lot. Allegedly an ASA 250 film (200 under tungsten), I’m going to guess that its true rating isn’t 250. :)
Finally, to your point about good composition…I see this in the digital infrared community…poorly composed, uninteresting snapshots aren’t made better just because they’re in infrared. Same goes with film. I try never to be That Guy.
Really happy that I discovered this TH-cam channel. It’s been very interesting, in a good way.
Hey Tim, I agree. I see film images being promoted for no other reason than they were made on film. It's just noise to me. I understand why people do that but when you do this for a living, for so long, there is no time for nonsense. I just keep looking, looking for something good, and good work it out there, for sure.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Good work is good work, irrespective of the method of capturing it or whether it was an old Canon Powershot G6 (which I used in the mid-2000s), my Nikon D610, my Sony a6000 IR conversion, or an old Nikon FM.
And none of those will save a bad shot from being a bad shot. It took me a couple years to really get that.
Still 🤔. fuck knows I was never a photojournalist
You are entering History.
Why folks would be reluctant to not listen to someone like you with decades of experience as pro shooting film when so many you tubers start out their video saying it''s the first time they've shot this film/camera. I just click out of those videos. You have sent me off experimenting with the next rolls of portra 400, starting with a baseline roll shot at 400 and developed at 400, shooting at 100 and dev at 400 or shooting at 200 and pulling in dev to 800 to see my favorite result.
How would you meter Portra 400 when pull/pulling? Dome of meter under chin towards camera, metering dome towards shadows, averaging shadow/highlight metering which is usually about under chin?
Why would they be reluctant? Hmm, I'm not cool. I don't shoot slow motion pans of my camera gear. I don''t focus on the camera and the film. I want to see images and publications. That eliminates about 85% of all YT photography traffic. Plus, I don't want to only talk photography, which means YT will never present my channel to the masses. As for metering, it depends on the meter. With a handheld I would just meter off the light falling on the subject. If you have a great in camera meter like the Nikon Matrix then you can just shoot.
@@DANIELMILNOR505 Thanks Dan, incorporating that in some film/iso/dev tests. One YT guy keeps talking about his "snaps" and "pics" "coming out." That bozo holds himself out as a "professional!" You are concerned about the image and not the gear because you ARE a photographer. after all, the image is the goal. I am on a number of sites aimed at particular cameras. More photos of the camera, like everyone doesn't know what they look like, than anything else. If it is people, it is inevitably a girl who is apparently poor so wears few clothes and is skinny because she can't afford food. She is cranky because she hasn't eaten so has a blank cranky expression. The hunger gives her a headache so she is touching her head in what I call my ex wife pose, not tonight, I have a headache. I am always chasing my vision and look to film to take it to the highest level I can. it's the look I am seeking to match everything else in the image, composition, lighting/ratio, posing, background, expression. I love the skin tones from portra 400 and wish the hipsters would find another hobby, they have been driving the cost off the chart and often it is unavailable. I started shooting on a Kodak brownie hawkeye in 1960, a boxy camera that my Mamiya 645 pro tl looks like with some improvements added like great lenses. manual or power winder, waist level or eye level finder. Funny you liked Kodak 3200, I love Ilford 3200 that is made in 120 for the grain in 645, not 35, not 67. It is how that film renders my portraits. You are a diamond in the YT rough, someone who actually knows photography and has walked the walk. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I DON'T CARE 😂😂😂😂 great answer D.
This guy was a real peach. He was an in person troll, before we had other trolls.
Film hipsters 🤣. Nailed it.
Awesome! Do you only shoot film?
14.50 because there is no chemistry between you and math?
none of it makes sense.
Anti film hipster manifest :-) People worship film in a way that they believe it capable of unworldly things.
And internet people love to rage about stuff. To them I say, go create something instead of raging at someone you don't agree with. Spend the energy on that.
Keep going at this we love these insights, it's very different from 99% youtubers that say the same stuff (about gear generaly) and all seem to be shooting abandoned gas stations.
In the words of Bruce Lee, and I"m going to use this in an upcoming film. "Boards don't hit back." Gas stations, old houses, all fine and dandy but humans are where my heart lives, at least with a camera in hand. Exponentially more difficult. But a much higher reward.
Abandoned gas stations-nail on the head!
Best film colour match. Probably a generic off the shelf that was overlooked. “Shrugs shoulders”. Do go on.
Dam it ectachrome went through my mind.
I go by a philosophy of: don’t believe what anyone says... take it for checking. When you first pointed out about box speeds, I checked it out. That was golden advice, and my negatives love you for that.
Ha, happy I could assist.
Largely irrelevant - most of these films have gone for ever - but thanks for the history lesson
Good to hear someone else say that just because it’s shot on film doesn’t make it a good photo. And what’s with the latest craze of shooting heavily expired film?
Those are just hooks for following. Like digital guys trashing a new camera. Click bait. Many of the folks hyping film images just don't know what good is, or their history, context, etc. But it works.
Consider writing a book about this.
I'm trying to write a screenplay now and it ain't going well.
First
Remember folks , make art and worry less about materials .
If you don’t understand your materials it’s hard to make art that expresses the vision in your head.
@@joeltunnah I’m talking about people worrying about gear all day and night. There’s a difference between learning your materials and obsessing over “new gear” or the grass is greener on the other side of gear. I guess I should be clear.
@@nickfanzo it’s actually possible to enjoy “obsessing” over gear, and obsess over making great photographs at the same time. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. For most of us it’s a hobby, and all aspects of it are fun.
@@joeltunnah have fun
What a larf! Daniel 1 film nerds 0.