And even then as a Canon guy I don't get it, Nikon digital cameras are also really good, especially during the DSLR era (they're still good on Mirrorless but the competition is way fiercer now).
I mean... apart from videography they have the most competitive full frame mirrorless cameras... including Sony, a better (professional) lens line up as well.
Nikon has been having problems financially and otherwise. I was told they were not big on putting video in their dslrs or that is was not great as canon video..
I think the Nikon hate is more focused on their digital lineup. I think it’s unjustified but I hear it a lot less when we’re talking about their film cameras
Hot take; Film is used as a crutch, if the most interesting thing about your work is the camera and film stock, then what are you doing? Maybe shoot digitally if you can't afford to burn through hundreds of rolls and shoot every day until you find a style and build confidence.
There's also another way to look at it. I learned composition from being forced to shoot black and white film, and having the restriction developed my creativity. Barrier of entry can be very low if you get a spotmatic and some Kentmere 100. No megapixels or SD card speeds to consider before giving photography a spin.
I disagree. Digital is a crutch. You can look at what you just photographed, you can take 100s of photos on one memory card. You have white balance and histograms and photoshop. To me when the camera does everything for you that's a crutch. In Film you have to work for the camera. In digital. It is a computer. The camera works for you.
People look at film as having some artistic merit and will engage with it based on the medium and not the work. If it were digital no one would look at it or care. For many, film is holding them back and stopping them from growing as they are not getting constructive criticism or a lack of engagement forcing them to self-evaluate. A camera is nothing but a tool, it is the work that matters. Very few people are born with an eye and skill to produce good work from the get-go, you need years to get good and even then if you shoot thousands of images a year, you may still dislike 95% of them and maybe in the remaining 5% you find a handful of portfolio-worthy work.
@@banana_necessary And people look at digital as some air of elitist professionalism. Because they can see what they just took automatically somehow makes them a professional photographer and they try and polish a turd because they have photoshop and think they have 1000s of great keepers because of it. And many have the spray and pray drive by mentality hoping they get something good. That is holding someone back over film as you say. And most digital photo students have told me their teachers have said. Treat it as if you have a roll of 36 exposure film and not spray and prey and less is more when it comes to photoshop.
While I have several cameras, and shoot both film and digital, I am just a hobby photography guy. I enjoy the film cameras but I know film is just an expensive way to shoot digital pictures. After all, scans turn it into digital...so.... Now, that being said, I like my manual film cameras. I like the look, the feel, the function, and the sound ( like that really matters). I will continue shooting film for as long as I have functional cameras. I hope you keep making videos for a while. You do good work.
On the rangefinder thing it really depends on what you're trying to do. On an autofocus camera I will probably take the SLR every time for the more accurate composition. But on a manual camera a range finder gives a very positive "yes you are in focus" feedback where with an SLR I'm constantly doubting myself, hunting back and forth wondering if it's really in focus or not. So if focusing fast and accurately with confidence is what matters, rangefinder is the tool for the job. If you have time to slow down and make a perfect composition and focus, then the SLR is superior. But also SLRs are huge and I ain't gonna carry one every day. The rangefinder has the "best camera is the one that you have on you" advantage.
Great opinions. I still prefer telephoto's or 50 mm lenses for landschapes. It makes the distances smaller, curves in roads sharper. But I live in a flat country, not in a mountainous country like you.
I don't think Portra is overpriced but i think it is *boring*, and overrated in a way, lemme explain: So few people currently alive (and I'm not even one of them) can fully appreciate what a mind-blowing interplay of chemistry and engineering this material is. It's the culmination of a century of investment and the effort of multiple generations of brilliant minds collaborating through space and time. Portra was made to be "boring" (as accurate as possible but still neutral and flexible for editing portraits) and is the most consistent color photographic film ever made. This level of technology is in every roll, and the number of different molecules (hundreds) required to get this result command a high price. It was designed to be what the "auto" switch on modern DSLRs tries to be; good balanced neutral high quality photos, but in the film era where you dont deal with easily manipulable matrices of RGB values but layers of multitudes of complex, dancing, almost living components. With all that said. I dont like it. Its too "transparent" (pun unintended), nearly vibeless (sometimes pastel of course), which was the best thing you could say about a film back then, but is not what I'm looking for. When I shoot film I want to "tint" reality one way or another, sometimes with a color palette, sometimes with halation, sometimes with grain. And in my case, most often by shooting black and white. Portra has subdued character. I tried some old portra Vivid Color (VC) and I liked its saturation, just how I like Reala 100, even though it was also made to be an "accurate" film. The way in which I think current Portra is overrated isn't with regards to its performance because it is exceptional. I think it's overrated in that some people project it as THE tool for every job, whether out of elitism or out of mimetism: "pro films make better photos". Not true. But it has its uses! And I'm 100% happy that it exists and that people shoot it. Unless in good hands, it can look as good or as bad as a smartphone photo with average impact. In good hands it will look consistently good. Take that how you want! My take is that unless you have a specific need for it, there are other neutral/natural looking options better suited for your wallet, like 120 Gold which I find performs super well, or 35mm Pro Image. As for me... I'll keep shooting aerocolor for it's brown look when i want color, and black and white for most photos.
With how my eyes work, I actually rather dislike focusing with prisms. Maybe a hyper specific pair of glasses could fix it, but it's much easier for me to align a green or yellow dot onto a subject. My K1000 was my first serious camera, but I still sometimes take a second to focus it.
I was a strictly a Canonian. AE1 programs and Eos are my favorite canon cameras. ( I am on my 4th Eosa2) But I got free Nikon cameras or paid $5 for the bodies and now I use them now as well. The only bad thing is that Nikon takes dedicated lenses where I can throw a vivitar lens on my Canon manual cameras. And you have to turn the fstop ring to oneside on your auto nikons or you get the Err message in the LCD screen . Actually you should have used the painting analogy of watercolors and a digital painting that would have been the correct analogy. And when it comes to editing. You failed to mention . If there was no film there would be no digital. If there were no dodging and burning there would be no photoshop. We learn from what comes before. And the best camera is the one you have in your hands.
This is brilliant, few points on your takes. 1) I dont think Portra is for everything, its a professional film stock so the candit snapshots do not nesesitate or exploit its abilities and i would go to a Gold or Ultramax in these scenarios. But no question Portra is better if you can afford to use it (hot take Portra 800 is better than 400). 2) I think editing has go a bad wrap due to what can be completed with AI funtions, I think the integrity of the image should be retained and the "organic nature" or the image. this doesn't mean dont edit it. If you want to go nuts with the AI work on an image, sweet as .. do it. but dont hide from it. 3) lastly wide angle lenses all the time is not cheating, but in my opion it lacks a bit of creativity of the craft, people will take a wide image then manipulate to achieve results of a longer lens, or get annoyed that they dont get the compression that the expect to see. I think if you like the images a focal length produces then sweet as .. go for it but it more gets back to a point of learn to use it. At the end of the day, its your art, people dont need to consume it if they dont want. if you happy and your not hurting anyone in the process then play on. good video.
I snagged a Mamiya c33 for pretty cheap. Lens is in good condish so I’m set for medium format. I love pixel peeping so that’s the only “reason” I need it. Otherwise the OM2 does the trick juuuust fine
I can understand the take on Leica if we talking bodies cause that isn't doing anything different than any other camera you could buy but the lenses (kinda like the engine of a nice car) is I think why they are sought after so much. I'd never buy one but I can understand the appeal. Also edit here... saying composing with a wide lens is easier is the wildest take of the video lol
But sometimes it's not even about image quality, I have a camera that I prefer to use sometimes simply because it feels more mechanically satisfying in a tactile way (I've never used a Leica but I feel like that might be a reason).
@@riosvasconcelos Yeah for sure the mechanisms are probably great, but I personally wouldn't pay the price for something I consider a small thing. Also I find it hard to believe its THAT much better yah know? The only real mechanism on the body is the winding lever and maybe the way you load the camera is nice, but any other 35mm camera I find pretty easy to load idk. Like sometimes the way people talk about the feel of a leica is as if its made out of pure diamond or something. But again I'm no Leica hater if I had the disposable income I'd probably buy one. Just don't think I'll ever have money like that haha
@@Mike_Wazowski_z Agreed with almost everything, but don't underestimate the power of a camera that feels so good to use that it gets you out to take pictures! Also there's a camera that I feel like taking out simply because the shutter button mechanism feels really nice and satisfying 😅
@@riosvasconcelos OH I totally agree but I have cameras that do that for me that cost me a few hundred bucks. To each their own I guess. I've never really had super luxurious things so I guess from my perspective I have what makes me happy thats all! :)
My "hot take" is that "hot takes" are stupid. Every time I open a social media app the top/trending post is some dildo saying something ignorant, stupid, or untrue in a desperate attempt to lure in some "engagement bait." People who criticize others based on stylistic choice - like film stock and/or processing, or bash someone for their chosen gear (brand or budget) aren't worth the 2 seconds it takes to read whatever drivel they have spewed. It also amazes me how many people will attempt to tear others down in a desperate attempt to self-justify their own decisions, budget, or hide their insecurity. I am in three different "lifestyles" and have been for a long time (Photography - mainly film for three decades, Automotive - worked in hot-rod/custom/race shops for two decades and been building/racing my own stuff for longer, and firearms - been shooting since I was six) and one of the things I have learned is that no matter what hobby/lifestyle you are passionate about - they all have a certain percentage of people who aren't worth paying attention to and they always kinda fall into the same categories : the know-it-all expert/critic who has never done anything, the trend-hopping fake-the-funk bandwagoner who will be on to the next thing in seven minutes, and the gatekeeper who thinks things like money, age, or education is a qualifier for entry. These people always are exponentially louder than people who are the "real deal." Ignore anyone who can't support what you are doing, or can't present valid criticism in a constructive manner. Society has been pushed into a cancerous ideology where they think "likes," "subs," and "upvotes" are important - and that is a very destructive mindset to exist in. I operate on the "don't like what I am doing? that sounds like a "you" problem" and my mental health improved vastly since I adopted that decades ago. Finding a handful of people that will be "in your corner" is forty seven million times more valuable than hundreds, thousands, or even millions of random people who click a "like" or can't constructively compose their opinion on something and devolves to being rude or hateful.
luxury and quality gear for sure, but functionally outclassed by Contax, Zeiss Ikon, Konica, and Minolta m-mount. Leica is very hindered by their own customer base
I recently bought a Leica M2. Not as a status symbol, but because I wanted a mechanical, compact rangefinder that will last forever. Non-Leica M mount bodies (e.g., Bessas, Zeiss Ikons) are getting so expensive, you might as well just shell out for the real thing. You can get an M2, an M3, or even an M4-2 for a pretty decent price if you're patient. But now that the curtain has been pulled back, there's definitely some super cringe behavior in the Leica community. The stuff the Leica IG account posts honestly reads like satire. The Leica of today seems to have different priorities compared to the Leica of old (like selling $23K platinum-plated MPs while QC issues abound with their normal ones). They've really leaned into the luxury item / status symbol marketing, unfortunately. But you can steer clear of all that, just hunt for a deal on a vintage M body, tons of affordable glass to pair with them nowadays. The old Ms are great cameras and have the reputation for a reason.
Hot take, none the current color negative films rendered images in similar look and quality as most color reversal films in history. The expensive negative film like Portra or Ektar lineup not even come close to slide film in term of color.
Regarding all the Leica comments, I have no issues with Leica cameras. I can't afford them, but I have no issue with them. What I do have issues with are photographers that think that they are automatically better than you because they use a Leica camera (or a Rollei camera or only shoot film or...). It is the quality of your work that makes you a good photographer, but the quality itself is open to interpretation. In the end, everybody just needs to go back to enjoying taking photos (& stop being such a dick about it). Do what you like, like what you do. ✌️
My hot takes: --"Purity tests" for a hobby are pointless gatekeeping. --A clearly focused photo is very likely to fail if the idea is fuzzy. But a clearly focused idea will likely still be good even if the photo is fuzzy. --Just because something has worked for me does not mean that is the only way to pursue this hobby/passion. And if I tell you that it is, ignore me.
I get the "editing is cheating" sentiment very well. I don't think that it's true for others and judging someone else's artistic process is gross but in my own process, I do see a certain amount of editing as cheating. For me, a picture will lose most artistic value if I have to open photoshop (or in my case GIMP) to actually alter the image. Color grading and contrast stuff is okay and so is dust/scratch removal but fixing development defects is already a grey area for me. Anything that actually alters the scene is off limits. That generally includes cropping unless I already envisioned the picture cropped a certain way when I took the picture. If I ever find a way to set up a darkroom, I'll probably be dodging and burning without a care in the world which certainly makes me seem like quite the hypocrite... Maybe someday I'll realize this is bullshit and I just need to get over myself but for now I like these restrictions (even if they're kind of arbitrary). They keep my focus on the photography and away from the computer.
slide film > color negative for 90% of use cases. careful film/process testing and general technical (sensitometrical) knowledge won't fix a bad photo but certainly help the serious photographer.
If it's a Film video the Lo Fi is necessary. i love my Nikon Film bodies, I also love my Leicas. Look ,if you spend 6K on a film camera the last thing you are going to do is bash it. Getting real tired of the leica hate i hear that more so than Nikon hate.
My hot take: Most of aerochrome’s appeal is in its rarity, if Kodak brought it back it would quickly become just another niche colour shifted film shot for novelty, rather than this holy grail people worship it as
Portra is not desaturated. When you don’t color correct the light entering the lens then you get off color desaturated images. It’s as simple as that. None of these new film enthusiasts use color meters and CC filters so they get crappy colors from their film. All films can look great when you test them and use them correctly. The industry thrived on getting it right on film.
I prefere AeroColor for portraits to portra, it has more pleasing skintones and super small grain, while for landscapes, especially mountains, portra is defenitely a super choice
@@FelixGA9finally ! We need more color enthusiasts and more knowledge on how to shoot color film correctly and what filter brings what effect on the darkroom table.
@ look at the data sheets that come with the film. The color temperature info is there for a reason. The light needs to be in the color band the film was designed for. Most Kodak films the range was usually 4800-5200 k. Depending on your personal test. Measure the color temp of the light in the scene with a color meter. You usually give the meter a target temp. It gives you some numbers . You match the numbers to a small chart printed on the back of the meter. You add the appropriate filters to your shade and voila. Nice saturated color. It’s pretty simple. Tools we typically used in the past were the Mamiya rz lens hood which accepted 3x3 Kodak wratten filters. A full set of wratten filters 80, 81,82,85 series. Magenta and green color correction series. And of course a color meter. Understanding filter exposure factors and compensating for exposure will become a habit. lol sounds like a lot of bother. But these are the burning hoops we used to jump through for good color. Nowadays people just scan their off color images and “correct” in post , but arguably the better your film looks the easier the post processing is.
(7:31) Leica is been created in the 80's ??? 😳 🤣🤣🤣 I know you didn't meant that way, but come on... Leica might produce really nice cameras... but it really is overpriced. The problem is, since Völgtlander stopped production of their Besa rangefinders, there's no competition. Editing of film photos is not a sin, but also it is NOT analog photography, period. And yes, Portra is overhyped, overpriced, and boring...
I shoot an M3 and IIIg, they do the same thing as all my other film cameras but operation is just on an other level. No other camera i have ever touched feels as well built as these two do. Is owning a Leica necessary for good images? Hell no. Is it awesome to own one? Absolutely
Hate Leicas all you want. If you can afford it, buy it. Nothing to do with prestige or snobbery. A camera is just a really expensive /inexpensive timing device. Think of it as an investment as well as your hobby. The value of your Leica M twenty years on will be far greater (if you don't bash the shit out of it) than if you were to buy a new car and sell it 5 years later.
![40 of the Wildest & Weirdest Cameras/Lenses! [Flint's Fine Photographica Auction Nov 21st 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XMyzrvn-byA/mqdefault.jpg)
![40 of the Wildest & Weirdest Cameras/Lenses! [Flint's Fine Photographica Auction Nov 21st 2024]](/img/tr.png)
1:03 isnt the "Nikon hate" something in the digital scene? Never heard anybody hating about Nikon film cameras, they are legendary
And even then as a Canon guy I don't get it, Nikon digital cameras are also really good, especially during the DSLR era (they're still good on Mirrorless but the competition is way fiercer now).
I mean... apart from videography they have the most competitive full frame mirrorless cameras... including Sony, a better (professional) lens line up as well.
Agreed. it's where a lot of us started.
Nikon has been having problems financially and otherwise. I was told they were not big on putting video in their dslrs or that is was not great as canon video..
I think the Nikon hate is more focused on their digital lineup. I think it’s unjustified but I hear it a lot less when we’re talking about their film cameras
portra is overrated. proimage and gold are nicer.
FP4 is underrated
FP4. My favourite film.
Hot take; Film is used as a crutch, if the most interesting thing about your work is the camera and film stock, then what are you doing? Maybe shoot digitally if you can't afford to burn through hundreds of rolls and shoot every day until you find a style and build confidence.
There's also another way to look at it. I learned composition from being forced to shoot black and white film, and having the restriction developed my creativity. Barrier of entry can be very low if you get a spotmatic and some Kentmere 100. No megapixels or SD card speeds to consider before giving photography a spin.
Yes, but sometimes that’s intentional. One of my reasons for shooting film is that it slows me down.
I disagree. Digital is a crutch. You can look at what you just photographed, you can take 100s of photos on one memory card. You have white balance and histograms and photoshop. To me when the camera does everything for you that's a crutch. In Film you have to work for the camera. In digital. It is a computer. The camera works for you.
People look at film as having some artistic merit and will engage with it based on the medium and not the work. If it were digital no one would look at it or care. For many, film is holding them back and stopping them from growing as they are not getting constructive criticism or a lack of engagement forcing them to self-evaluate. A camera is nothing but a tool, it is the work that matters. Very few people are born with an eye and skill to produce good work from the get-go, you need years to get good and even then if you shoot thousands of images a year, you may still dislike 95% of them and maybe in the remaining 5% you find a handful of portfolio-worthy work.
@@banana_necessary And people look at digital as some air of elitist professionalism. Because they can see what they just took automatically somehow makes them a professional photographer and they try and polish a turd because they have photoshop and think they have 1000s of great keepers because of it. And many have the spray and pray drive by mentality hoping they get something good. That is holding someone back over film as you say. And most digital photo students have told me their teachers have said. Treat it as if you have a roll of 36 exposure film and not spray and prey and less is more when it comes to photoshop.
While I have several cameras, and shoot both film and digital, I am just a hobby photography guy. I enjoy the film cameras but I know film is just an expensive way to shoot digital pictures. After all, scans turn it into digital...so.... Now, that being said, I like my manual film cameras. I like the look, the feel, the function, and the sound ( like that really matters). I will continue shooting film for as long as I have functional cameras. I hope you keep making videos for a while. You do good work.
Major respect to whoever that guy is, for watching THE James Hoffman at 4:36
Was about to say the same thing!
@@sirmeta8538 I feel the Venn diagram of coffee and film photography is close to a perfect circle
On the rangefinder thing it really depends on what you're trying to do. On an autofocus camera I will probably take the SLR every time for the more accurate composition. But on a manual camera a range finder gives a very positive "yes you are in focus" feedback where with an SLR I'm constantly doubting myself, hunting back and forth wondering if it's really in focus or not. So if focusing fast and accurately with confidence is what matters, rangefinder is the tool for the job. If you have time to slow down and make a perfect composition and focus, then the SLR is superior. But also SLRs are huge and I ain't gonna carry one every day. The rangefinder has the "best camera is the one that you have on you" advantage.
"you dont need to balance your audio to a film-tuber" - does that count as a hot take :P
Great opinions. I still prefer telephoto's or 50 mm lenses for landschapes. It makes the distances smaller, curves in roads sharper. But I live in a flat country, not in a mountainous country like you.
I agree with almost everything you said. Also, have some extra internet points for use of the word 'happenstance'
I Love my Holga 😂. Great video, really enjoyed it!
I don't think Portra is overpriced but i think it is *boring*, and overrated in a way, lemme explain:
So few people currently alive (and I'm not even one of them) can fully appreciate what a mind-blowing interplay of chemistry and engineering this material is. It's the culmination of a century of investment and the effort of multiple generations of brilliant minds collaborating through space and time. Portra was made to be "boring" (as accurate as possible but still neutral and flexible for editing portraits) and is the most consistent color photographic film ever made. This level of technology is in every roll, and the number of different molecules (hundreds) required to get this result command a high price. It was designed to be what the "auto" switch on modern DSLRs tries to be; good balanced neutral high quality photos, but in the film era where you dont deal with easily manipulable matrices of RGB values but layers of multitudes of complex, dancing, almost living components.
With all that said. I dont like it. Its too "transparent" (pun unintended), nearly vibeless (sometimes pastel of course), which was the best thing you could say about a film back then, but is not what I'm looking for. When I shoot film I want to "tint" reality one way or another, sometimes with a color palette, sometimes with halation, sometimes with grain. And in my case, most often by shooting black and white. Portra has subdued character. I tried some old portra Vivid Color (VC) and I liked its saturation, just how I like Reala 100, even though it was also made to be an "accurate" film.
The way in which I think current Portra is overrated isn't with regards to its performance because it is exceptional. I think it's overrated in that some people project it as THE tool for every job, whether out of elitism or out of mimetism: "pro films make better photos". Not true. But it has its uses! And I'm 100% happy that it exists and that people shoot it. Unless in good hands, it can look as good or as bad as a smartphone photo with average impact. In good hands it will look consistently good. Take that how you want! My take is that unless you have a specific need for it, there are other neutral/natural looking options better suited for your wallet, like 120 Gold which I find performs super well, or 35mm Pro Image. As for me... I'll keep shooting aerocolor for it's brown look when i want color, and black and white for most photos.
With how my eyes work, I actually rather dislike focusing with prisms. Maybe a hyper specific pair of glasses could fix it, but it's much easier for me to align a green or yellow dot onto a subject. My K1000 was my first serious camera, but I still sometimes take a second to focus it.
I was a strictly a Canonian. AE1 programs and Eos are my favorite canon cameras. ( I am on my 4th Eosa2) But I got free Nikon cameras or paid $5 for the bodies and now I use them now as well. The only bad thing is that Nikon takes dedicated lenses where I can throw a vivitar lens on my Canon manual cameras. And you have to turn the fstop ring to oneside on your auto nikons or you get the Err message in the LCD screen . Actually you should have used the painting analogy of watercolors and a digital painting that would have been the correct analogy. And when it comes to editing. You failed to mention . If there was no film there would be no digital. If there were no dodging and burning there would be no photoshop. We learn from what comes before. And the best camera is the one you have in your hands.
This is brilliant, few points on your takes.
1) I dont think Portra is for everything, its a professional film stock so the candit snapshots do not nesesitate or exploit its abilities and i would go to a Gold or Ultramax in these scenarios. But no question Portra is better if you can afford to use it (hot take Portra 800 is better than 400).
2) I think editing has go a bad wrap due to what can be completed with AI funtions, I think the integrity of the image should be retained and the "organic nature" or the image. this doesn't mean dont edit it. If you want to go nuts with the AI work on an image, sweet as .. do it. but dont hide from it.
3) lastly wide angle lenses all the time is not cheating, but in my opion it lacks a bit of creativity of the craft, people will take a wide image then manipulate to achieve results of a longer lens, or get annoyed that they dont get the compression that the expect to see. I think if you like the images a focal length produces then sweet as .. go for it but it more gets back to a point of learn to use it.
At the end of the day, its your art, people dont need to consume it if they dont want. if you happy and your not hurting anyone in the process then play on. good video.
I snagged a Mamiya c33 for pretty cheap. Lens is in good condish so I’m set for medium format. I love pixel peeping so that’s the only “reason” I need it. Otherwise the OM2 does the trick juuuust fine
buying new cameras won't make me a better photographer... but it is fun!
I can understand the take on Leica if we talking bodies cause that isn't doing anything different than any other camera you could buy but the lenses (kinda like the engine of a nice car) is I think why they are sought after so much. I'd never buy one but I can understand the appeal. Also edit here... saying composing with a wide lens is easier is the wildest take of the video lol
But sometimes it's not even about image quality, I have a camera that I prefer to use sometimes simply because it feels more mechanically satisfying in a tactile way (I've never used a Leica but I feel like that might be a reason).
@@riosvasconcelos Yeah for sure the mechanisms are probably great, but I personally wouldn't pay the price for something I consider a small thing. Also I find it hard to believe its THAT much better yah know? The only real mechanism on the body is the winding lever and maybe the way you load the camera is nice, but any other 35mm camera I find pretty easy to load idk. Like sometimes the way people talk about the feel of a leica is as if its made out of pure diamond or something. But again I'm no Leica hater if I had the disposable income I'd probably buy one. Just don't think I'll ever have money like that haha
@@Mike_Wazowski_z Agreed with almost everything, but don't underestimate the power of a camera that feels so good to use that it gets you out to take pictures! Also there's a camera that I feel like taking out simply because the shutter button mechanism feels really nice and satisfying 😅
@@riosvasconcelos OH I totally agree but I have cameras that do that for me that cost me a few hundred bucks. To each their own I guess. I've never really had super luxurious things so I guess from my perspective I have what makes me happy thats all! :)
left ear is loving this one
cool to hear your opinion about my Portra take hahaha!
My "hot take" is that "hot takes" are stupid. Every time I open a social media app the top/trending post is some dildo saying something ignorant, stupid, or untrue in a desperate attempt to lure in some "engagement bait." People who criticize others based on stylistic choice - like film stock and/or processing, or bash someone for their chosen gear (brand or budget) aren't worth the 2 seconds it takes to read whatever drivel they have spewed. It also amazes me how many people will attempt to tear others down in a desperate attempt to self-justify their own decisions, budget, or hide their insecurity. I am in three different "lifestyles" and have been for a long time (Photography - mainly film for three decades, Automotive - worked in hot-rod/custom/race shops for two decades and been building/racing my own stuff for longer, and firearms - been shooting since I was six) and one of the things I have learned is that no matter what hobby/lifestyle you are passionate about - they all have a certain percentage of people who aren't worth paying attention to and they always kinda fall into the same categories : the know-it-all expert/critic who has never done anything, the trend-hopping fake-the-funk bandwagoner who will be on to the next thing in seven minutes, and the gatekeeper who thinks things like money, age, or education is a qualifier for entry. These people always are exponentially louder than people who are the "real deal." Ignore anyone who can't support what you are doing, or can't present valid criticism in a constructive manner. Society has been pushed into a cancerous ideology where they think "likes," "subs," and "upvotes" are important - and that is a very destructive mindset to exist in. I operate on the "don't like what I am doing? that sounds like a "you" problem" and my mental health improved vastly since I adopted that decades ago. Finding a handful of people that will be "in your corner" is forty seven million times more valuable than hundreds, thousands, or even millions of random people who click a "like" or can't constructively compose their opinion on something and devolves to being rude or hateful.
2:56 I love this desert shot! do you have it posted anywhere in higher resolution?
leica is the rolex of photographic gear, iykyk
luxury and quality gear for sure, but functionally outclassed by Contax, Zeiss Ikon, Konica, and Minolta m-mount. Leica is very hindered by their own customer base
I recently bought a Leica M2. Not as a status symbol, but because I wanted a mechanical, compact rangefinder that will last forever. Non-Leica M mount bodies (e.g., Bessas, Zeiss Ikons) are getting so expensive, you might as well just shell out for the real thing. You can get an M2, an M3, or even an M4-2 for a pretty decent price if you're patient. But now that the curtain has been pulled back, there's definitely some super cringe behavior in the Leica community. The stuff the Leica IG account posts honestly reads like satire. The Leica of today seems to have different priorities compared to the Leica of old (like selling $23K platinum-plated MPs while QC issues abound with their normal ones). They've really leaned into the luxury item / status symbol marketing, unfortunately. But you can steer clear of all that, just hunt for a deal on a vintage M body, tons of affordable glass to pair with them nowadays. The old Ms are great cameras and have the reputation for a reason.
Hot take, none the current color negative films rendered images in similar look and quality as most color reversal films in history. The expensive negative film like Portra or Ektar lineup not even come close to slide film in term of color.
I made it into the video! Sick 🔥
Regarding all the Leica comments, I have no issues with Leica cameras. I can't afford them, but I have no issue with them. What I do have issues with are photographers that think that they are automatically better than you because they use a Leica camera (or a Rollei camera or only shoot film or...). It is the quality of your work that makes you a good photographer, but the quality itself is open to interpretation. In the end, everybody just needs to go back to enjoying taking photos (& stop being such a dick about it). Do what you like, like what you do. ✌️
My hot takes:
--"Purity tests" for a hobby are pointless gatekeeping.
--A clearly focused photo is very likely to fail if the idea is fuzzy. But a clearly focused idea will likely still be good even if the photo is fuzzy.
--Just because something has worked for me does not mean that is the only way to pursue this hobby/passion. And if I tell you that it is, ignore me.
I get the "editing is cheating" sentiment very well. I don't think that it's true for others and judging someone else's artistic process is gross but in my own process, I do see a certain amount of editing as cheating. For me, a picture will lose most artistic value if I have to open photoshop (or in my case GIMP) to actually alter the image. Color grading and contrast stuff is okay and so is dust/scratch removal but fixing development defects is already a grey area for me. Anything that actually alters the scene is off limits. That generally includes cropping unless I already envisioned the picture cropped a certain way when I took the picture. If I ever find a way to set up a darkroom, I'll probably be dodging and burning without a care in the world which certainly makes me seem like quite the hypocrite... Maybe someday I'll realize this is bullshit and I just need to get over myself but for now I like these restrictions (even if they're kind of arbitrary). They keep my focus on the photography and away from the computer.
Ayyyyy GIMP gang
@xwingfighter999 GIMP and Darktable babyyyy. Adobe is evil and open source is good.
Portra is definitely not over rated. Just the price is .
Leicas are expensive because of where they are made, not how they are made.
you don't get it son, when I load porntra 400 into my MP, I'm getting the sumilux tonez
The "medium format elitist" concept stems from film youtubers imo. References to "making the jump to medium format", etc.
#nikongang 👊🏼
slide film > color negative for 90% of use cases.
careful film/process testing and general technical (sensitometrical) knowledge won't fix a bad photo but certainly help the serious photographer.
If it's a Film video the Lo Fi is necessary.
i love my Nikon Film bodies, I also love my Leicas. Look ,if you spend 6K on a film camera the last thing you are going to do is bash it. Getting real tired of the leica hate i hear that more so than Nikon hate.
honestly alpa's old film slrs are so much better than Leicas
Bro.. my right ear wants to hear you too!
If you move your arms any more than you did in this video, I'd be worried they'd fall off
the sound is left biases
Leica wasn’t created in the 80s lol
It’s been around since the 1800s and they built their first cameras before WWI
My hot take: Most of aerochrome’s appeal is in its rarity, if Kodak brought it back it would quickly become just another niche colour shifted film shot for novelty, rather than this holy grail people worship it as
Who is this at 1:08?
Wow Bruh... so much Film hate in the world...
It is that way with any hobby basically.
@@theangrymarmot8336 yeah.. it is... i don't get it.
No Comment 😂😂
for anything other than portraits, Portra IS OVERRATED. Have Portra enthusiasts been outside? It isn't stupidly desaturated out there.
Up saturation in post?
Portra is not desaturated. When you don’t color correct the light entering the lens then you get off color desaturated images. It’s as simple as that. None of these new film enthusiasts use color meters and CC filters so they get crappy colors from their film. All films can look great when you test them and use them correctly. The industry thrived on getting it right on film.
I prefere AeroColor for portraits to portra, it has more pleasing skintones and super small grain, while for landscapes, especially mountains, portra is defenitely a super choice
@@FelixGA9finally !
We need more color enthusiasts and more knowledge on how to shoot color film correctly and what filter brings what effect on the darkroom table.
@ look at the data sheets that come with the film. The color temperature info is there for a reason. The light needs to be in the color band the film was designed for. Most Kodak films the range was usually 4800-5200 k. Depending on your personal test. Measure the color temp of the light in the scene with a color meter. You usually give the meter a target temp. It gives you some numbers . You match the numbers to a small chart printed on the back of the meter. You add the appropriate filters to your shade and voila. Nice saturated color. It’s pretty simple. Tools we typically used in the past were the Mamiya rz lens hood which accepted 3x3 Kodak wratten filters. A full set of wratten filters 80, 81,82,85 series. Magenta and green color correction series. And of course a color meter. Understanding filter exposure factors and compensating for exposure will become a habit. lol sounds like a lot of bother. But these are the burning hoops we used to jump through for good color. Nowadays people just scan their off color images and “correct” in post , but arguably the better your film looks the easier the post processing is.
(7:31) Leica is been created in the 80's ??? 😳 🤣🤣🤣 I know you didn't meant that way, but come on...
Leica might produce really nice cameras... but it really is overpriced.
The problem is, since Völgtlander stopped production of their Besa rangefinders, there's no competition.
Editing of film photos is not a sin, but also it is NOT analog photography, period.
And yes, Portra is overhyped, overpriced, and boring...
but leica is a gimmick...
I shoot an M3 and IIIg, they do the same thing as all my other film cameras but operation is just on an other level. No other camera i have ever touched feels as well built as these two do. Is owning a Leica necessary for good images? Hell no. Is it awesome to own one? Absolutely
Same people complaining about Leica prices and then paying how much per frame of volatile, low resolution storage media? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hate Leicas all you want. If you can afford it, buy it. Nothing to do with prestige or snobbery. A camera is just a really expensive /inexpensive timing device. Think of it as an investment as well as your hobby. The value of your Leica M twenty years on will be far greater (if you don't bash the shit out of it) than if you were to buy a new car and sell it 5 years later.
Give me some book recs @metalfingersfilm !