There are few videos on YT that I watch beyond the first 30 seconds yet alone for 46 min. Really great job here everyone! I feel more passion about my work since getting back into film and becoming a hybrid photographer. Looking forward to part II and can't wait for my next scans to come back. Thank you for sharing!
Great documentary! Nobody hated on digital, but rather, expressed a common love for a medium and for a way of capturing the images they want. It wasn't a "better than" diatribe, but a repeated mantra of creation for a purpose and with a certain canvas. Highly recommended!
Analoge fotografie is het mooiste wat er is , het geeft zoveel ontspanning en rust en voldoening dat je zelf het beeld gemaakt hebt . Bij een digi camera zit een enorme afstand tussen jouw handelen en het beeld dat geen natuurlijk proces is maar iets wat de computer voor je gemaakt heeft . Het ambachtelijke aspect is totaal afwezig in zo'n computer printje .
The documentary did as it was intended w/ you, then. I don't mean that as an insult in any way. I just perceived the video as a Kodak ad. It was also very pretentious. I love Kodak, and I love shooting film. But, I also love shooting digital. Each format has its positives/negatives.
I'm not sure why they included it but Chad talks about using "older B&W film, c41 process, B&W film". I know Kodak have CN films, Ilford have XP2, but 'to me' they're not synonymous with 'old' B&W films, it just sounds odd.
I shoot film and digital, and I love them both for their own unique qualities. However, I was hoping to see a doc about film, not a doc bashing digital. Yes, we want to keep film a live, of course. But, shooting film is not inherently better than shooting digital. I'm 15 minutes into this, and I've found out that shooting digital makes you lazy. OK, I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm not being at all lazy while shooting my X-Pro. Hopefully this doc will move away from this course in its second half, because I like Indie Film Lab. I haven't used the lab yet, but I have several rolls I'm planning to send there soon.
TIL that film photography gets you high on emotional reminiscence. I watched the whole video and the same opinion is stated over and over like one long sales pitch or tv commercial. The thing that really got to me was there wasn't a single interview with anyone over 30. A life long photographer has more to say on the subject of film photography. What I got from this video was that there are many young, artsy, and narcissistic first world kids.
Daniel James I too noticed that everyone interviewed appeared to be roughly of the same age as the film makers. I think more interesting and varied responses would have been obtained through conversations with photographers younger and older than those interviewed in this documentary. I've been shooting film longer than most of those seen here have been alive. I shoot mainly 8x10, and I don't do it for the reason heard over and over again in this documentary.
toneslave For sure. This video could have been about 20 min long and I would have loved to hear more perspectives like yours. A few negatives from the 1900s came through my photo lab last week. The negatives were fixed to glass and they were about the size of a 5x7. I was very impressed with the quality as I scanned them.
While I feel that this film was done well, I can't help but feel that this is nothing more than propaganda, product placement for Kodak. While I enjoy shooting film, I have to say that it is expensive, especially if you don't have a dark room. Sometimes you are held back because you are about to run out of film. By having to reload a new roll you might end up missing a good shot. With digital, you don't have to worry about running out of film. As for the bad habits due to shooting digital, it's not always true. When I shoot digital, I only look through the view finder and I don't look to see what the shot looks like in the camera. I wait until I get home. Doing this makes me more selective when shooting and also makes it feel more like when I shoot with film. Don't get me wrong, I love my Tri-X film, but I also love the convenience of digital. One just has to be careful not to get into bad habits
Video summary: Late 20-something hipsters rave about Kodak film because it looks pretty and ONLY film limits one's creative photographic process. I would have been impressed if they had some older photojournalists and landscape photographers express their views. Oh well, if hipsters are the mass majority of film buyers, then more power to them. Keeps film cheap for the rest of us.
Nah, it's just the droning on about people who think that they're some sort of saviors who 'rescued' an 'abandoned' format for their bland work, most of whom are indeed pretentious hipsters who think shooting on 'dead' film makes their 'art' better. Sure, shooting film or digital is your own taste, and by all means support your medium. My point is how this well-constructed Kodak commercial clashes with its young users who think photography is all about the look, not the art. Again, if they got some older people in who's been around the stuff for decades that can say more than 'it looks pretty', I would have held this pseudo-documentary in higher respects. TL;DR version: I don't hate the group, only how the group abuses the art.
On computer screen I see no difference between digital and analog photography. Taking pictures by old school way is some kind of fashion popular among, as I see on this movie, youth especially.
You are missing the point. Of course the images look much the same on a computer monitor. (Arguably, digital images often look better because they can be transferred directly from the camera to the computer so that nothing is lost or modified through scanning which is necessary to convey analog work to the computer ... and something is ALWAYS lost when you go from analog to digital.) However, when you compare a digital print to a silver-gelatin print made by someone who knows how to print, you cannot help but notice a huge difference. The advantage is distinctly to the silver-gelatin image.
Actually you can see a massive difference on a computer screen and yes it might be fashionable but at least the "fashionable" "youth" are having to learn the basic photographic properties of exposure, which unfortunately is not often the case when one purchases a point and shoot that requires no more effort than a push of a button to produce an image. I don't think it matters what you shoot, but credit where credit is due and if you can shoot on 50 year old camera and produce a great image, you certainly have to know what you're doing.
That's only because people dress up their digital prints so heavily these days. It IS sort of hard to tell but it's the principle that you can skip all the time behind the computer and enjoy what's in front of you.
Loved this! I mean yes it's pretty much a commercial for Kodak BUT their film IS amazing so who cares? Also the general disdain for hipsters really is getting old, why label everyone who likes film or vintage stuff in general a "Hipster" and why is that bad in the first place?
Wrote the artists names down while watching Ryan Muirhead Provo Utah Stephen Devries Birmingham Alabama Pentax 67 Chad Keyes Salt Lake City Utah Luke Lindgren Millbrook Alabama Paul Bryant Birmingham Alabama Jarod Renaud Longmont Colorado Josh Moates Montgomery AL Tim Ryugo Newbury Park CA Wendy Laurel Lahaina Hawaii Kelbert McFarland Tulsa OK Brothers Wright Hollywood CA Michael Ash Smith Barto PA Ashley Kelemen Oceanside CA Heather Perera Seattle WA Ryan Johnson Salt Lake City UT Asheley Willet Prattville Alabama Nick Drollette Montgomery AL John Fong Vancouver BC Neal Carpenter Byron GA Allen Evans Prattville Alabama Jon Kohn Prattville Alabama
This is a painfully long advertisement. It is true that "digital" makes some bad habits possible. But it certainly does not make them necessary. LCDs can be switched off, and composition is a skill on any camera. As to the quality, I think the lenses on older film cameras make much more of difference than the sensors. Put some old lenses on a digital camera and you'll get the same look. It's disappointing how pretentious these photographers sound because most of them are probably aware of this.
I agree. The pretentiousness was through the roof in this ad for Kodak, I mean documentary. I love shooting film just as much as the next guy. I also love shooting digital. And I'm able to shoot both without being lazy or a film snob. Imagine that.
About sensors and lenses. Not exactly. yes, lenses have a "look" to them, but the physical medium of film has certain advantages. I shoot both film and digital, btw. Digital sensors can't handle highlights like the smooth and organic shoulder that film has..at 255 in digital, the whites will clip, no matter what. With film, it builds much more organically and smoother even past it's limits. The way a Bayer sensor re-images is just different than film. The closest thing digital has to film is the Foveon sensor and it shows in their files. And up until recently film has had more Dynamic Range than digital. A good black and white film can have up to 18+ stops of range. Combine that with a smooth highlight shoulder, even color film competes. And for most of us, Digital Medium Format isn't feasible, and the Medium Format Film Negative puts most 35mm (digital and film) shots to shame. Not to say some film shooters hate on digital, I just didn't get that from this documentary.
this is a very boring commercial about hipster wedding photographers shooting film! no streetphotographer, no photojournalist using film these days? By the way, I have a better name for your documentary: long live kodak ;)
could of been 7 minutes to hold my concentration- a lot of the same kodak commercials-disappointed on the "inside to box" creativity of images and photographers versus pushing the envelope artist like Todd Hido or Trent Parke as 2 of many potential examples...
Always good to see smart, talented, and artistic Southerners.
There are few videos on YT that I watch beyond the first 30 seconds yet alone for 46 min. Really great job here everyone! I feel more passion about my work since getting back into film and becoming a hybrid photographer. Looking forward to part II and can't wait for my next scans to come back. Thank you for sharing!
Great documentary!
Nobody hated on digital, but rather, expressed a common love for a medium and for a way of capturing the images they want. It wasn't a "better than" diatribe, but a repeated mantra of creation for a purpose and with a certain canvas.
Highly recommended!
yeah! ... you talk about the absolutly true inspiration ... keep on shooting film
Never take this down! I'm going to be quoting this in my senior thesis project/paper :D
Analoge fotografie is het mooiste wat er is , het geeft zoveel ontspanning en rust en voldoening dat je zelf het beeld gemaakt hebt . Bij een digi camera zit een enorme afstand tussen jouw handelen en het beeld dat geen natuurlijk proces is maar iets wat de computer voor je gemaakt heeft . Het ambachtelijke aspect is totaal afwezig in zo'n computer printje .
This is so brilliant, I am glad this was made. Makes me want to stock up on Kodak, such wonderful shots!!!
The documentary did as it was intended w/ you, then. I don't mean that as an insult in any way. I just perceived the video as a Kodak ad. It was also very pretentious. I love Kodak, and I love shooting film. But, I also love shooting digital. Each format has its positives/negatives.
Great work! Shared on my Tumblr :)
Should have come to Baltimore. There's an incredible film photography community here.
months waiting 4 this!!!!
I was waiting for this!
Absolutely great piece!!!
Estupendo movie. Bien inspirador!
Long Live Film!!
Excellent!
I'm not sure why they included it but Chad talks about using "older B&W film, c41 process, B&W film". I know Kodak have CN films, Ilford have XP2, but 'to me' they're not synonymous with 'old' B&W films, it just sounds odd.
I shoot film and digital, and I love them both for their own unique qualities. However, I was hoping to see a doc about film, not a doc bashing digital. Yes, we want to keep film a live, of course. But, shooting film is not inherently better than shooting digital. I'm 15 minutes into this, and I've found out that shooting digital makes you lazy. OK, I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm not being at all lazy while shooting my X-Pro. Hopefully this doc will move away from this course in its second half, because I like Indie Film Lab. I haven't used the lab yet, but I have several rolls I'm planning to send there soon.
TIL that film photography gets you high on emotional reminiscence. I watched the whole video and the same opinion is stated over and over like one long sales pitch or tv commercial. The thing that really got to me was there wasn't a single interview with anyone over 30. A life long photographer has more to say on the subject of film photography. What I got from this video was that there are many young, artsy, and narcissistic first world kids.
Daniel James I too noticed that everyone interviewed appeared to be roughly of the same age as the film makers. I think more interesting and varied responses would have been obtained through conversations with photographers younger and older than those interviewed in this documentary. I've been shooting film longer than most of those seen here have been alive. I shoot mainly 8x10, and I don't do it for the reason heard over and over again in this documentary.
toneslave
For sure. This video could have been about 20 min long and I would have loved to hear more perspectives like yours. A few negatives from the 1900s came through my photo lab last week. The negatives were fixed to glass and they were about the size of a 5x7. I was very impressed with the quality as I scanned them.
At the end!
Long Live Film
While I feel that this film was done well, I can't help but feel that this is nothing more than propaganda, product placement for Kodak. While I enjoy shooting film, I have to say that it is expensive, especially if you don't have a dark room. Sometimes you are held back because you are about to run out of film. By having to reload a new roll you might end up missing a good shot. With digital, you don't have to worry about running out of film. As for the bad habits due to shooting digital, it's not always true. When I shoot digital, I only look through the view finder and I don't look to see what the shot looks like in the camera. I wait until I get home. Doing this makes me more selective when shooting and also makes it feel more like when I shoot with film. Don't get me wrong, I love my Tri-X film, but I also love the convenience of digital. One just has to be careful not to get into bad habits
Video summary: Late 20-something hipsters rave about Kodak film because it looks pretty and ONLY film limits one's creative photographic process. I would have been impressed if they had some older photojournalists and landscape photographers express their views. Oh well, if hipsters are the mass majority of film buyers, then more power to them. Keeps film cheap for the rest of us.
lol who gives a flying fuck about hipsters, I don't get the hate people express for a certain group. Is it "Hip" to hate them?
Nah, it's just the droning on about people who think that they're some sort of saviors who 'rescued' an 'abandoned' format for their bland work, most of whom are indeed pretentious hipsters who think shooting on 'dead' film makes their 'art' better. Sure, shooting film or digital is your own taste, and by all means support your medium. My point is how this well-constructed Kodak commercial clashes with its young users who think photography is all about the look, not the art. Again, if they got some older people in who's been around the stuff for decades that can say more than 'it looks pretty', I would have held this pseudo-documentary in higher respects. TL;DR version: I don't hate the group, only how the group abuses the art.
and the doc was. . . . . shot on digital
hope the film will last forever…
On computer screen I see no difference between digital and analog photography. Taking pictures by old school way is some kind of fashion popular among, as I see on this movie, youth especially.
There are a lot of old-timers that never switched over to digital as well. 50+ just seems very common.
You are missing the point. Of course the images look much the same on a computer monitor. (Arguably, digital images often look better because they can be transferred directly from the camera to the computer so that nothing is lost or modified through scanning which is necessary to convey analog work to the computer ... and something is ALWAYS lost when you go from analog to digital.) However, when you compare a digital print to a silver-gelatin print made by someone who knows how to print, you cannot help but notice a huge difference. The advantage is distinctly to the silver-gelatin image.
Just because you don't see a difference, doesn't mean there isn't one...
Actually you can see a massive difference on a computer screen and yes it might be fashionable but at least the "fashionable" "youth" are having to learn the basic photographic properties of exposure, which unfortunately is not often the case when one purchases a point and shoot that requires no more effort than a push of a button to produce an image.
I don't think it matters what you shoot, but credit where credit is due and if you can shoot on 50 year old camera and produce a great image, you certainly have to know what you're doing.
That's only because people dress up their digital prints so heavily these days. It IS sort of hard to tell but it's the principle that you can skip all the time behind the computer and enjoy what's in front of you.
Loved this! I mean yes it's pretty much a commercial for Kodak BUT their film IS amazing so who cares? Also the general disdain for hipsters really is getting old, why label everyone who likes film or vintage stuff in general a "Hipster" and why is that bad in the first place?
Song at 30:09 please?
Wrote the artists names down while watching
Ryan Muirhead Provo Utah
Stephen Devries Birmingham Alabama Pentax 67
Chad Keyes Salt Lake City Utah
Luke Lindgren Millbrook Alabama
Paul Bryant Birmingham Alabama
Jarod Renaud Longmont Colorado
Josh Moates Montgomery AL
Tim Ryugo Newbury Park CA
Wendy Laurel Lahaina Hawaii
Kelbert McFarland Tulsa OK
Brothers Wright Hollywood CA
Michael Ash Smith Barto PA
Ashley Kelemen Oceanside CA
Heather Perera Seattle WA
Ryan Johnson Salt Lake City UT
Asheley Willet Prattville Alabama
Nick Drollette Montgomery AL
John Fong Vancouver BC
Neal Carpenter Byron GA
Allen Evans Prattville Alabama
Jon Kohn Prattville Alabama
Somebody please do something about the horrible subs!!!!
This is a painfully long advertisement. It is true that "digital" makes some bad habits possible. But it certainly does not make them necessary. LCDs can be switched off, and composition is a skill on any camera. As to the quality, I think the lenses on older film cameras make much more of difference than the sensors. Put some old lenses on a digital camera and you'll get the same look. It's disappointing how pretentious these photographers sound because most of them are probably aware of this.
I agree. The pretentiousness was through the roof in this ad for Kodak, I mean documentary. I love shooting film just as much as the next guy. I also love shooting digital. And I'm able to shoot both without being lazy or a film snob. Imagine that.
@Art Vandaley, so true!!!
About sensors and lenses. Not exactly. yes, lenses have a "look" to them, but the physical medium of film has certain advantages. I shoot both film and digital, btw.
Digital sensors can't handle highlights like the smooth and organic shoulder that film has..at 255 in digital, the whites will clip, no matter what. With film, it builds much more organically and smoother even past it's limits.
The way a Bayer sensor re-images is just different than film. The closest thing digital has to film is the Foveon sensor and it shows in their files.
And up until recently film has had more Dynamic Range than digital. A good black and white film can have up to 18+ stops of range. Combine that with a smooth highlight shoulder, even color film competes.
And for most of us, Digital Medium Format isn't feasible, and the Medium Format Film Negative puts most 35mm (digital and film) shots to shame.
Not to say some film shooters hate on digital, I just didn't get that from this documentary.
this is a very boring commercial about hipster wedding photographers shooting film! no streetphotographer, no photojournalist using film these days? By the way, I have a better name for your documentary: long live kodak ;)
magic!
wet my pants
1 person click in wrong button
could of been 7 minutes to hold my concentration- a lot of the same kodak commercials-disappointed on the "inside to box" creativity of images and photographers versus pushing the envelope artist like Todd Hido or Trent Parke as 2 of many potential examples...
What a terrible soundtrack :D