Or it could be the placebo effect. Would be hilarious if the maker of the video did a follow up that said "all those who preferred film, I am sorry but we had the labels wrong; you preferred digital"
@@matthewphillips5483 Looking at these right next to each other, I started to get the hang of what to look for and could guess right a few times and then get the next one wrong... Some interesting points about the greens and magentas, but even those would change with a different film or a different camera setting. But the main thing is if they weren't right there next to each other, I would not care that the other one existed. Neither one has nearly enough difference to make me say "I should try that!" And that's with a medium format film. Regular 35mm stuff, forgettaboutit.
Well, I believe it has become a truly ideological debate... The thing really is that if you dont tell people it's film they don't see it - and even better- don't CARE. For a good reason, 'cause it does not f matter. Of course a handprint from the darkroom on proper expensive paper blows your mind, but you can also expose digitals on proper photopaper... A truly good photo just works despite ANY quality issues whatsoever... Look at them old masters. Blur all over the place, yet marvelous. But I can recreate any of that in PS. I can slow down with digital as well and just observe so slow I forget to have come to take a picture. Its not the medium, its my brain. This hunt for whatever precision is pathetic anyway. No one ever asked me, when looking at my best work, how I achieved it technically. Its irrelevant. Yet when i tell them its film, they go, ohh... yeah... really muuuch better, bla bla. I don't tell anything anymore. Why? As if a magician is giving away the cheap tricks. I have shots I really nailed 100%, yet taken with a Nikon D40, in 2006, that I probabley would've never shot on film. In fact I became a much better photographer since 2006 than in the 20 years before. People don't care to know because, again, it does not matter! Id rather shoot Penelope Cruz with the flattest RAW available and turn it into blizz, than my mother with the Hasselblad. Seriously, lets just have fun and enjoy shooting more meaningful photos, instead of over intellectualising meaningless photos...
That second trial: it just confirms what they say "for film expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" while "for digital expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows".
not exactly though. if you expose for the highlights, you can lose a lot of detail in the shadows due to digitals limited dynamic range. While you can recover detail from shadows better in digital, you don't particularly want to, because it will be noisy. It can be ok to blow out the highlights if they aren't a particularly important part of the image. For a wedding dress, sure you want to expose for it. But for a sky in the background, you don't need to expose for it unless that's the mood you're going for.
Really great report. Love to see the old larger format cameras vs. digital. No need to crown a winner - digital won't be in retreat from film anytime soon. But there's nothing like the scent of a newly opened film roll, feeding it into the camera and operating incredible little machines that represented the highest tech in their days. Just one more reason to love photography. Thanks for putting this together... and saving me the $200 of reliving it on my own!
"The charm of the film is that it's not so perfect". Well that doesn't make a lot of sense, in fact it sounds like a downright disadvantage. The only advantages I can think of for film is maybe somebody wants you to take shoot film at the wedding for the novelty of it, or maybe if you want to develop the film yourself to learn the art of it, and to get hands on. It's like people who prefer real books to ereaders because they "like the feel of a real book".
Interesting experiment. I like the exposure test. But overall not a fair comparison. You are taking analogue and making it digital, which handicaps the film right out of the gate. Best comparison would be to print digital with digital printer. And print film negative with a true glass printer. (No scanning of negative. Just real chemical negative to real chemical photo paper). And then compare the two enlargements. Negs were designed for real printing not scanning.
Ha Ha Ha! I thought all youtube creators we're uber-rich superstars! And in all fairness, I'm not even sure there are any labs left that do "true glass" printing to chem paper, without scanning first. Ran a photo for 11 years and I can tell you from experience that film grain was a zillion times more subtle when printed chemically direct from negative to paper. "Zillion" is a highly technical term.
My wife did a lot of darkroom work in school, and so I have seen first hand how amazing optical prints are. I was talking to a camera shop owner a few weeks ago, and he said there are a couple labs that do darkroom prints around here, but they charge something like $6 for a 4x6! I get the supply/demand thing, but that just puts it out of reach for most people... Even us uber-rich RUclips superstars ;)
I think either film or digital, if you know how to work with the photography trinity, you can create amazing photos. Also it depends on what you really looking for in the image. Digital might get close to mimic the grain look of film, but it is not the same. Film is very limited to compensating under-exposed shots. All in all, it was a very interesting video. Thanks Jay!
I switched from film to digital around the year 2000 and still today, 18 years after, that greyish filtery stuff that seems to cover all digital photos, still bothers the hell out of me. I miss the punch in colours and contrast you get from film. I also miss that grain feeling. Luckily today you can edit it to your liking, but but for me it's still not the same. In the end digital serves a purpose and I'm glad that millennials seems to see that film serves a purpose aswell.
A big factor in whether to use medium format film is how you are going to use it. Film is definitely something to look into if it will be used for a very large framed photo for the wall but if you are photographing senior pictures primarily for the internet digital is the way to go.
For 200 you can nearly get all the (used) things you need to develop and make your own prints in bw. If you enjoy it, of course its time consuming. Plus unlike a digital camera, the Hasselblad probably makes it into your will
cheap to develop b&w film negatives. Printing a little more investment and practice. Color both negative develpment and printing goes up. Enlarger, dryer, etc.
I started out in high school using film then like everyone else went digital. Now I am back to film including a darkroom and here is why. Film uses all my senses, I can touch, smell, see, Hear the timers go off etc... It is a real world experience like the rest of my life. I live in a physical world and the digital photography experience seemed to take some of that away. Same reason I am getting back to playing vinyl records. Now it is a small event to put on a record and hear it play. Its physical. The imperfections of both formats are real like all the imperfections in the rest of the world. Hearing someone sing after there voice has been sanitized and made perfect through electronic means it too sterile and is missing out on what makes music seem more personal and I can't relate to it on the same level. So to me all these things bring me back into the real word a bit.
A man after my own heart. There's a bit where I talk about the metaphysical reasons I like to shoot on film: the light that burns the film leaves a physical impression on the emulsion. It's like physical memories impressed on reality. You don't get that with 1's and 0's.
Shooting film has made me a better photographer. Mainly because the limited number of exposures means you have to get the shots pretty much right on the first time. I take those same skills over when I shoot digital. More time shooting and the experiences and getting the right exposure right the first time means less time in post production. As far as music, I like vinyl records due to the physical fact of the format and they do a proper job of mastering the material. SACDs or Blu-Ray audio sound excellent also.
If you prefer the ritual of darkroom printing good for you. I listen to vinyl too for the artwork, the sight of the needle hitting the glossy platter and the sense of occasion. But I don't pretend there's anything else to it, like a presence in the room or something. For example, those vinyl discs are usually digitally remastered anyway and sound better for it, with greater separation and less floor noise. All the talk about 'magic' is really just the glow of nostalgia.
@Bobby Brady Good point. If analogue has a magical 'feel' for the user, that's reason enough to go on with it. Enjoyment stimulates creativity. Where I start doubting is when others believe that they can communicate that magic through the image itself, to an audience that grew up in the digital age. Between the dynamic range of current DSLRs, ever more versatile Photoshop tweaks and the transition to a printed image, you can create a completely convincing simulation of analogue. People talk about the charm of film, which is really a reflection of its limitations. Then they complain that digital has limitations. Maybe one day photographers will deliberately narrow the dynamic range to capture that gorgeous 'early 2000s' look :-)
There is no feel. There is information. The resolution won’t go beyond the diffraction limit anyway. A similar physical limit applies to audio as well. Needless to say that the human ear cannot percept the frequency higher than (let’s be generous) 25000 Hz. As we know, digital sensors keep evolving while the film stays the same. So... it’s only a matter of time until analogue devices will look like a torch near an LED lamp (or rather its future counterpart).
Would you use Fuji Film and process it to look like a Kodak? (or vice versa?) Well, I don't understand why you take a photograph with film and scan it (with less resolution) while in parallel take a "digital" photo and post-process it to look like a film. I think It would be more interesting to print from the "film", with the process that you like to follow, and print from the digital, maybe post-processing with Nikon Capture NX-D as starting point (then LR, or PS if you want). Then, 2 most likely different images and make comments on them. What would the feeling be? But, in this case, the goal looks that was to get similar look, and I think it was achieved.
Arguello Flores Collection Exactly! Film has so many variables the people making this video are not giving the whole story. Different films produce different results and the scanner they used is professional junk. Its the most common professional film scanner yet far from the best. Film is a better choice all around. For both look and longevity. Anyway your totally right!
Resolution is irrelevant here. You are looking at youtube clip, my friend. Both pictures could be then artificially reduced to let's say 1600 pixels. Colors and dynamic range is probably much more valuable parameters here.
I shoot both film and digital and have printed both. Ordinary people cannot tell the difference nor do they care enough to look for it like we do. Here is how I look at it, film and digital are just tools to meet your photographic goals. You use the best tools for you. Great artist do not obsess over their tools (like many gear centric photographers on both film and digital) they use those tools to create great art.
well spoken. i agree that the artist is still the visionary, not the camera. it's a matter of how well we wield the tools we have. tag us @theslantedlens so we can check out your great art!
They said Vinyl would die but it didn't, its going to be the same with film, it will continue to have its place, in the photographic world. A better test would have been to make prints, from the D850, and compare them to prints from the film cameras, because at the end of he day, you only ended up with digital photographs.
Well, VHS and compact cassettes have died for example for very obvious reasons - poor quality and lack of convenience. A CD or a lossless digital formats can do ANYTHING an old and hissing vinyl can, but not vice versa.
One thing: over 90% of moden music are recorded using DIGITAL hardware, so there's almost no point do DDA. BUT, vinyl is total vinner when we're talking about AAA, true.
the problem is that you can buy your vinyl cutter and cut your own vinyls at home, but once kodak or ilford decide to stop making film, film will be gone.
@@inevitablecraftslab there are more brands than those two.... There are some local brands as Fomapan from Czech Republic for example. I dont think film will completely die, some art photographers and few enthusiasts will keep on shooting film. What I see as a big disadvantage of digital is archiving issue. If I put well developed and stored negatives into my drawer they can stay there for 60 years and my grand grand children will be able to make photos out of them. How are you gonna store your digital photos for 60 years ? How many of your 3,5 inch floppy discs are still usable today ? How many of your 20 yr old CDs are still usable (especially cheaper CD-Rs) - do you even have CD ROM on your new laptop ? If you somehow manage to restore your historic data in 60 years, are you sure some software will still be able to open JPEG ?
What's the point of a comparison when you take a negative and scan it...Now everything is digital! If your going to use film...Get a darkroom and make a print. Comparing prints is the only way to get an accurate/fair comparison.
With enough resolution in the scanner, you can pull all the information out of film. Making a darkroom print actually loses some information because of the process and the papers.
"With enough resolution in the scanner, you can pull all the information out of film." But why shoot film in the first place, just shoot digital. I shot film and developed my own prints for over 30 years...NEVER again! If a photographer came to my event using a 35mm SLR or any film camera, I would fire them on the spot. Shooting film doesn't make you a better photographer, it just dumbs you down!
When it comes to which is better, ask yourself this are people searching how to get film to look like a digital print or how to get digital to look like film, that should really answer the question.
I would totally disagree with the comment made in the video that digital skin tones look better than film. There is a naturalness to the skin tones on film that look beautiful - if the shot is exposed correctly - digital shots tend to have less tonal value capability and skin tones can look flatter with less dimension to them on digital. Some digital shots do look fine, but I would never say they look better than a properly exposed film shot.
I think if you are willing to scan the film, rather than keeping it 100% analog, then you should do some digital post to the film too. When you comment of the skin or the eyes of the film, It doesn't seem to me like something you cannot correct in post.
Love a mechanical camera, love to think about the picture before I take it, love to put time developing the film, love to scan the images, love to make a choice, love to perfect that image, love the images that result from this process.
The preset he used on the digital made it look "digitized". The preset was removing the detail in the skin. My Dad has been a professional commercial and portrait photographer since the 60s, he's won several awards through Professional Photographer's of America, Masters through PPOA, his work made the Loan collection etc. His large color transparencies during film days were spot on. He absolutely loves digital photography, he went digital before most professionals in our city went digital and he had been working in film longer than they had. He absolutely loves digital.
2 things that I can think of from the top of my head that turn digital image ugly are 1) Sharpen and Clarity filters(in-camera picture profiles). 2) blocky image compressors. Turn off the no. 1 you'll get the look near film, digital grain doesn't look that bad when without Sharpen effect. I have Nikon entry DSLR, after playing and learning photography for some time, later I found out that Sharpen effect in Picture Control cause the the halos on contrast area, made the pictures look artificial, so then I set the Sharpen and Clarity to zero (Clarity is a subset of sharpen). No. 2 compressor is not a problem if you set less compress. But for me personally, film is still superior to digital.
Grainy? This? Try Tri-X in 135 format.... developed in rodinal. If grain is your kink, try it out. Overexpose one stop, Rodinal increases sharpness but decreases sensitivity.
For me, i think its more about how the process of shooting changes how you approach what you want. In this case, it doesn't really seem to be about the process, just about look for look.
I have both 35mm and 120 film cameras as well as 2 digital cameras. Both have their pros and cons but at the end of the day its wonderful to still be able to shoot great film stocks alongside my digital work.
Film has better color rendition when exposed, developed and digitized properly. Also, film has higher resolution at a lower price point (but with more degrees of separation)
I've shoot and printed analogue and digital and what I miss from analogue is the long and meticulous process and the fact that you are gonna get different results pretty much every time. What I hated from analogue was the same thing. When I feel nostalgic I get out my old prints and compare to what I can achieve with my canon pro-10 at home in couple of minutes with an amazing repeatability. I don't find digital a lesser process comparing prints. When you put nostalgia and the process itself you can get amazing results with a good basic digital camera and a printer at home. The cost of printing is very reasonable too. If I had the place I would get back to black and white film printing but mostly for the fun of slowing the process. In my digital workflow when in doubt I underexpose and my camera will recover even better than the d850 so it gives you lots of flexibility. It's quite the opposite than what we did on film and we can see this in your test.
Film is just warmer. I have worked both and I love my old 6x6 Hasselblad images. This is also present in the difference between digital sound vs analog sound. Analog is warmer and more vibrant over the cold cleanliness of digital. I appreciate the convenience of digital photography but I do miss the subtle beauty of film.
I think a comparison of prints would've meant more. Going from film to a digital scanner puts too many new variables into the mix, plus the scanner becomes the determiner of pixel density. Fun to see those old, former pinnacles of photography you bought at deep discounts on eBay. I was tempted to pick up a film Bronica SET for about $200 "buy it now." I loved using the Bronica, but don't need another display camera from the past. I had my own darkroom, but these days, I wouldn't want to put in the all-nighters. Not with photography, anyway. ;)
surprised they didn't point out that the haircolor is completely different. I think that the color accuracy on the hair was probably compromised to match the look of film which they should have pointed out.
Actually you may want to overexpose a bit with digital. 1/4000 of a second at ISO 1600, may look to have a similar exposure to something shot at 1/125 with an ISO of 100, but the latter will have far less noise.
Whatever advantages film might have over digital, the deciding factor in my conversion to digital is the difficulting of processing and printing color photos. The other issue I have with film is having to wait to see how the photos came out. While it hasn't happened often, With digital, I can view the results instantly, and with a good inkjet printer, I can obtain wonderful results.
You make a great point. When I used to shoot with film, I had to put more thought into each shot. The thing is, I was never a great photographer when it came to composition. I tended to rush my shots. I'd point and shoot. I was good from a technical standpoint, but my photos were boring as heck. And, I never had the chance to perfect my darkroom skills as I had limited access to my school's darkroom. Once I bought a decent digital camera, I could shoot hundreds of photos in quick succession, and if I was lucky, some of them were pretty interesting. Moreover, with the use of photo editing software, I could occasionally obtain some really nice results. I would agree that for a truly serious student of photography, a film camera can help to instill compositional discipline, and well as helping to teach exposure and shutter settings, film ISO, etc. But, for me, the biggest disadvantage of film for non-pros is the costs associated with processing and printing.
Your video was really well done and I especially liked where you showed the experiment with under and over exposure. This goes a long way to explain why film in most cases is easier to use in full mid day sun and digital easier to use indoors. However, your choice of gear was very! high end. The D850 is likely the best full frame digital being sold right now. I would love to have one but have not yet sold myself on putting aside 5 grand or so to get one with some good glass. And Hasselblad plus the latest Pentax medium format. (Actually I did not know Pentax made this model so thanks). So you have a bundle of money in the gear your use. My budget at this time only allows for a DX Nikon and a few 35mm film cameras. But I am having fun with my current gear and getting results I like. We travel quite a bit and it seems like we are always seeing stuff like Bryce Canyon, St Mark's Square, and so on at mid day in bright sun. Even though I have worked pretty hard trying to get my digital camera results up to photos I prefer over 35mm film (Ektar or Velvia) I still end up with more keepers from the film shots. On the other hand when looking inside museums or shooting my family indoors at Christmas digital seems to be much easier to use. I also love the look of good black and white film. Tmax and TriX are my current favorites. I will have to get a medium format film camera. About a decade ago I tossed my Yashica 124 in the trash when the shutter spring broke and that was my last go around with MF. Thanks for the video.
Seems like old analog technology just do not want to die out. Film looks more natural, old fashioned incandescent light bulbs look better than LEDs, vacuum tube and 70s analog amplifiers are wayyy better than modern digital ones, seriously digital amps sound like pure garbage, analog radio is also much better than DAB. Digital CDs are actually as good as records though, the only analog technology that is garbage is CTR TVs and computers, they were total crap.
We are finally at that point where digital has caught up, nice video, very fun to watch. I started on film and moved to digital, and for years missed film, but now I think it is to the point where it is a novelty.
Great video, but as someone who started learning on film, I disagree that shooting film is the best way to learn. My understanding (self taught) jumped leaps and bounds when I discovered EXIF meta data shortly after getting my first digital camera. I no longer had to carry around a little notebook and write down all my exposure settings to figure out what went right (or wrong) after a shoot. Having lots of fun getting back into film now though!
I think it’s similar to vinyl, it’s the imperfections which make film different: it’s ‘analogue warmth’. I remember back in the 70’s and 80’s it was all about sharpness. Reviews in magazines were full of small details from the corners of negatives blown up to insane amounts to see how sharp they were. Now with digital even beginner cameras have resolutions we could only dream of then...and somehow they can almost feel too crisp. I’m not saying one or other is better, just different. 😺
Today it's about resolution also. Just look at the modern emulsions: Portra, Ektar, Acros, T-Max, etc. They were made for small grain, great sharpness, exposure latitude, and easy scanning. On the other hand you have lomography which will sell you 10 year old expired film with offensive grain, all in new shiny box, looking at you Rollei Vario Chrome!
As a portrait photographer, I see sharpness as a double edged blade. Sure, more detail, but do I really want to bring out all the imperfections from my model's skin? Sometimes a softer image is more flattering.
As much as I like digital because infinite pictures and easy to pick up but film still has that hard to point chareteristic that gives "soul" to the picture. Some say it's the imperfection of colors then some say it's the random generated grain etc. Digital picture in raw without edits looks TOO REALISTIC, it's "soul-less" you could say so no wonder many photographers these days try to emulate these things with presets and editing. To be honest the only way I could tell the difference which is what is by the bokeh feel and skin color, skin coloring is the devil in digital cameras but then when B&W came it was actually a lot harder to determine what is what. Nice test guys! :)
I shoot 35mm Film (Canon Rebel G) mid 90's model, Full Frame Digital (5D mark III), and Cropped frame Digital (Canon 80D) I feel it gives me a well rounded group of cameras to use.
For me the most important difference betwen film and digital is that digital still have kind of syntetic feeling because of the unified shape of pixels. On the other side film looks more organic. The problem with comparsions like they do in this video is that with scanning negatives u literaly make it digital. In the scan u still preserve some attributes of film, but not all of them.
nice post. I learned photography on an old canon F1 35mm. I learned to love Tri-X. did my own developing. it was great. it took a long time for me to shift to digital and only did in the last 10 years.
I am wondering about processing the digital to make it look like film. I haven't read all the previous comments but I know I am not the first person to say it. Doesn't messing with the digital in this way take away some of the advantages of that medium? It is true these guys gave a qualifier about how objective this comparison isn't so why change the digital to try to make it match film? Years ago I shot film and I no longer see any advantage of it unless I was into nostalgia. The "film just looks right" comment is just resistance to change, I think. Oh. I forgot about charging so much more for shooting film at weddings. That is the only advantage I can see.
I still don't understand why one would try to emulate film with digital. Just use film if you want film look. I love film, but I'm not against digital. Both have their place and are just tools of the trade. The film images digitized are not really comparable to the native digital images. A far better comparison imho would be print the film traditionally and print the digital. But ultimately, I think you shouldn't compare the 2. Just enjoy the 2 different media and use the positives of each to their full advantage. Just my thoughts. Great video's though and good experiment...
Film photos have character, and lots of different lenses with different output result, unlike medically clean digital. So I prefer to use lenses from film cameras on DSLRs, underexpose every shot, enough to save highlights details, and then compensate exposition to pull out the details in shadows(RPP does great job). Then just use LUTs.
I appreciate many aspects of this video. I shoot both digital and film myself. When I am looking at the Instagram profiles of "hybrid" wedding photographers, I can't always distinguish Kodak Portra and Fuji 400H from their VSCO counterparts, especially at such low resolution. Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story. I have done shoots where I take several hundred digital shots, and only one or two rolls of film. The film shots often end up being my favourites. I have two points to make about the video, though. Firstly, the idea of film being best for outdoor rather than indoor shots might make sense if one is an event photographer, but pushed black and white film can be excellent in dimly lit interiors. Furthermore, indoor photography with studio lighting is obviously a situation where a slow film works well (as does digital photography, of course). The second point is that the term "full-frame film" sounds very odd in this context. It is 35mm film, or 135 film, or even small format film. I understand that you were making a comparison to the full-frame digital size, but that is derived from 35mm film, not the other way around. Those two points aside, thank you for the effort you have put into creating these side-by-side comparisons! I thought the exposure latitude tests were especially illustrative.
Film's advantage is that it preceded digital and was what photography "looked-like." Film was better for a long time while both mediums were in wide use, too. Test after test for me, that is no longer the case. The tonality, sharpness, DR, processing options, and workflow put digital way ahead for nearly all photographic applications. In almost every single image (if I could stop the reveal fast enough, sheesh), I found the digital image more pleasing in both color and B&W in terms of saturation, tonality, clarity, DR and sharpness. This video makes me that much more excited about receiving my d850 on forever back order. The opportunity to bring in a business angle as a hybrid shooter will probably make me keep my Hasselblad and Nikon film systems a little longer.
Excellent stuff. I will disagree on one point. I think you should learn on a digital camera, get good, then go film. It’s easier to become discouraged when you’re paying for film mistakes, but while learning digitally, you can just erase the same mistakes. I shoot both, and as my photo teacher said, different tools for different jobs. And yes, people LOVE when you pull out a cool old film camera like the Rolleiflex. Great hook for clients!
The film images became scanner images and then were treated as digital files. The film would do more if it was optically printed, it was taken prisoner by being digitised. Mastering film metering creates the ability to produce magical aesthetic effects. Digital is good in post and for speed. Film prints would be incredible but time and material costs can be high. Film done well is labour intensive and beautiful. Digital is more repeatable and algorithms do most of the work. In general, image capture has different considerations in each medium. Film is a more holistic series of activities. You start working before you take the picture; you make decisions. You work during the image making, more decisions around mediating the capture and how to get the result you have visualised in you mind’s eye. Then afterwards, how to develop the film to prepare a negative that transfers qualities that come from the chemical processing. Then evaluating the image as a negative and making decisions about what to print and how to print it. Then test printing, then evaluating the tests, and then multiple stages of print exposure and exposure manipulation. Then, sitting with a few iterations of the print choosing the image that you saw in your mind’s eye before you chose the film stock and loaded it into the camera. There are hundreds of decisions to get the result. With film both of you would have spent more time improving those shots before presenting them. The colours and the detail in the dress and the skin tones needed far more work to make great shots. You needed ND filters and graduated filters to manage the dynamic range. The medium format needed longer lenses. Could you get a film shooter and a digital shooter to show what is possible in both of each shooter used their ideal workflow for each medium rather than digitised film vs digital. High end results from each would be good to see. Digital gives fantastic possibilities in post and they are quick to achieve if you are expert. Both have more potential than was reached in your video. This should be revisited it seems unresolved in many ways.
Nice comparison and discussion. I can tell by the far lower stress levels when shooting digits knowing images are in the bag rather than worrying if the lab is going to screw up my film. Ever have to trust your work to Kodalux?
When I saw Karsh prints in person, or Irving Penn, or the life size prints of Larry Sultan's work, I got a serious itch to shoot MF film. You can walk up to those prints as close as you want and there is detail and subtlety in every tonal range. I know they were masters of their prints but I'm hard pressed to believe that could be reproduced with a full frame digital camera, regardless of resolution or dynamic range. But it obviously makes a huge difference what you do with your camera, in most real world scenarios today digital is a no-brainer. But for those special prints, and those prints you want to make large, it sure would be nice to have a 120 and some Portra around :). Thanks for yet another great video! You guys are consistently intelligent and insightful, I always learn a little something new.
I shoot both a d850 and 67,6x6, 645 and 35mm film. I just watched Once upon a time in Hollywood and Tarantino only shoots on film. One scene, Sharon Tate's shin close up had me stop it and get closer. Incredible skin tones, but not digital sharp/clinical/sterile. Last time this happened was with Girl with a pearl earring. What do they have in common? Kodak Vision 3 movie film. All through both movies, I marveled at the skin tones. I have film plugins, close but no cigar. And with Portra, you just get those skin tones again expose for shadows and you are golden. For street, HP5 looks great FIVE STOPS over exposed so metering for shadows then zone focusing my nikon is a point and shoot with amazing glass for quick response in street.
I agree with the previous comments. You need to compare prints to prints. Scanning the negative totally changing the negative. You need to print it on actually color paper and compare that to digital prints. I assume you are selling an album and not a CD. Print to print. The films color balance is totally distorted by scanning it.
This is not a good comparison between film and digital. I don't know if it is intentional, but this is performed under the only condition in which digital comes very close to film: good daylight and no strong vivid colors. I have been doing photoshootings for years, carrying both film and digital cameras, sharing the same lenses, and I can tell you that film gives you consistently much better colors and textures under all different light conditions. And I am talking about scanned film. When I look at the pictures on my NEC Spectraview screen (Nvidia Quadro card), It always renders strong vivid colors much better, and skin tones are always natural in any condition, when digital turns to an awful yellow or greenish tone. Maybe the difference is not that evident on a regular laptop screen, that can not reproduce good colors anyway, because this also counts, as well as your video card settings. Not only they are better, wth film I receive the scans already perfect, and I save a lot of time processing digital on my computer (which also means money). This is the reason I am abandoning digital and going for film only.
I have yet to be tricked by a digital photo manipulated to look like film. Even if I can't point to any reason specifically how I could tell, I know. Film always looks more real to me, I feel like I'm there. The strange thing is it's probably the reverse, digital actually produces a more realistic image than film, but that's not how I perceive it.
When I play with the histogram curves, I can access and change a very large dynamic range of hues on the photo. I don't think you can do that so easily with film. Some of the digital photos you show here could have been adjusted comparably to film. I'd say this video is interesting but not very conclusive.
Honestly I think that is the conclusion. Film has some interesting tricks, but modern digital cameras do the job and have been for some time now. If film was objectively better, all the pros would be using it instead of just a few hipster ones.
Cool video....actually, I think I recognized all the film images except 1. The film/ digital caption came up almost immediately on a few that made it hard to discern if I simply got it right or I thought I did... delay the answers longer.... or just post the pics and have the answers in the description. This was a lot of fun. I'm glad to see you used Kodak portra! That and Ektar are still my favorite film stock.
Thanks for this video. I actually have a couple of old film cameras from the period of the 50ies to the 70ies and a dozen of expired black and white film as well as some rolls of expired color film. I think I'll take one of them out of the drawers and actually go out and shoot some film.
I don't know about that "self" scanning scanner,Fuji Frontier! Did you use that scanner? If you are serious about film photography,you don't use nothing like that. I would use Hasselblad Flextight or Nikon coolscan or custom drum scanner,or do the scanning with that Nikon D 850 and good quality macro lens (With 1:1 magnification)!
Nice comparison. Though as some probably already said, this isn't a fair comparison. The film comes pre-adjusted from the scanning process, and in some instances the whites in the sky seem blown or the blacks slightly crushed. The Digital files could be adjusted from RAW files (I'm assuming), so they have way more freedom with those. This is a comparison of digital RAW files against the particular scanner/scanner operator that handled the film. If you got the RAW files from the film scan, that would be an interesting comparison. D800 raw files vs. 12/16 bit film scans, and comparing tones that way.
I am just starting out with a Canon 300v film slr. Me and my partner discovered a good place that still develops 35mm film for a reasonable price. Sure, my partners Huawei P30pro takes amazing digital snaps, but in our reality digital snaps almost always remain on a screen, a phone, an sd card, or hard drive. With 35mm we WILL actually have a real tangible product printed off because we are obliged to.
I know it may sound crazy, but I think that early digital cameras such as the Canon 5D and 30D produce digital images which are very similar to film. It may be because their dynamic range is more limited, pixels are larger, and lower resolution. Today's cameras are advanced computers, too much perfection, sharpness and color rendition that images look artificially clean. That's why I only use cameras from the dawn of the digital era, before they became hybrids (video and stills).
If you compare still film photography to motion pictures shot on film there were never any post corrections possible. Most cinematographers had many restless nights never knowing what they shot looked like. A great example is the late John Alonzo who was the cinematographer on Scarface. He described how he was shitting filming Frank Lopez wearing a white suit up against a black wall in color. He had to live with the outcome. All this post really makes the magic of film photography to safe.
something that is important to consider is that when he is modifying the digital images he already has the film scans to copy. Working blind and not having a guide to copy from the same shoot would make it a lot harder to create a film look.
The print process is where the money is made, drum scanned film has 1.7 Gigs of details. Film development can also turn to platinotype, expensive, but photos will last for hundreds of years. There's the big "d" word, depends on the work, art, sport, landscape, architecture, or instant film.
There is a saying in quality control and it goes like this: "Inspect quality into the product." What this means is to find reasons to certify that a product passes QA inspection. This is what I see in this analysis. The discourse is good but not really practical. How do you distribute 20 copies of film wedding pictures? Hard copies? Scanned images? You get the idea. Wedding photography is rite of passage. Everyone does it and it does a good job of capturing the event. But how many people go back to the pictures years later? Not too many. More photos should be taken when the babies come. Memories of children are worth much more as the years go on. But parents are too tired and consumed by the work needed to care of children. Of course film is out of the question; most photos are taken with a smartphone.
I am reading a lot of comments here and can say that Film have advatages which few people talk about. 1. Warm up / response time. - You just cant beat that with digital camera. On fully mechanical camera you just aim and pull the trigger. Where on digital you should unlock your smartphone,load the app and then shoot. Point and shoot digital cameras have to open up the lenses, to display the logo, to load the firmware. That could easily be 2-3 seconds. 2. Reliabilty / durability. You can use the fully mechanical film camera outside of human civilization and dont worry about batteries. Dont have to worry about batteries. Also mechanical film cameras are way more toughter than digital. Digital camera can have firmware failure, display and or EVF brake, sensor damaged. 3. Price of the camera. 10-20$ old film camera definetely can compete against Canon 5D Mark IV. Think about how much film you can buy for the difference. 4. You have physical product when print the images. You can print also digital pics so this point is draw. But stil film has lil bit of an edge. Basicly digital cameras beat the film in terms of mass production. You cant beat mass production. You can shoot almost unlimited on digital. But saving digital files requires memory. Memory cost money. If have many RAW files then you have to pay for storage. Also if your computer broke then all information is dead. In the digital world you only have digital file which can disapear.
@@TheSlantedLens Darkroom film videos i like to see most. How to process film into darkroom and turn it to large picture. I still remember what is the color quality of the film camera was. I have some printed photos via darkroom studio and definetely my digital printer will have very hard time to match same performance. Cost of printing images. Digital printer VS Darkroom printing. Images may look pretty on my monitor but when i print them is whole another story. Also redeye effect from flash simply doesnt exist in film cameras. Especialy on black n white mode. For me best digital camera for the money is Canon M3 because you have external mic input and nice video mode. Video is something which film cameras are behind. Somehow canon cameras seems to pick little bit more natural colors. Still are not good enough to be absolutely natural. Bright orange car which i took pictures of it camera sees anything from red to yellow but not exactly that type of orange.
@@TheSlantedLens No. I am not. I am amateur. If i make something will be for my needs. I am not pro. Looking for cheaper solutions because color printing is pricey. Still i make few good pictures with my amateur film camera back then for the wedding of my relatives. But of course film studios developed the film and make the pictures.
Film is usually superior in some aspects, but good digital, and *WELL USED* (can't stress this enough...), is equally good at first sight, if not better for all of its advantages. Now *THAT* is the real problem with digital, it *NEEDS* good color correction to look good, while film looks more finished (after the lab/development room, of course!), which usually digital unfortunately just doesn't get, or gets mediocre processing...
I can spot a black and white print made in the darkroom a mile off. I do use the hybrid mode sometimes Film plus Scan. But a real darkroom print shines through. I still use 2 Pentax 67s and develop tri x in Rodinal. I use a Zorki 4k with color negative film and have it developed and printed in the local Boots drug store. For portraits I use bounced flash with a Nikon D300s with a 50mm 1.4 lens. Very flattering. For black and white portraits outdoors I use a Rolleicord VA with Tri.x and Rodinal. The thing I wish Kodak would bring back is Bromesko White Velvet Lustre Chlorobromide paper. I would print like I used too and then die a happy man.
neil piper :::: Kodak shot itself in the foot and missed the Digital band wagon. They could still be producing epic film and paper today on top of digital cameras. I used Technical Pan film with MF and 35mm, PITA to process with Technidol but what stunning negatives it produced. I had two cans of 100ft left years ago and sold it like gold.. They don't make varieties of B&W film like the old days.
Thank you! Very informative. As someone who uses both film (medium format) and digital my own experience has been that a big factor is how the process of making the image changes the photographer and thus the results. With film I know I have 12 exposures and then I'll have to reload. And each exposure costs money. As a result I tend to compose very carefully and really think about what I'm doing. With digital I can work more quickly and if I waste some exposures there's nothing much lost so I experiment more. Both are valid processes but they produce different results. In a situation where I don't have time to think and carefully compose each image digital really makes more sense. But in other situations, where I can take my time, I feel like the additional pressure film imposes on me to take my time produces different and often better results. Also, the visual sense I get for the image by composing on a ground glass on my medium format camera is different from what I get looking through a viewfinder on my digital camera. Granted, both options are available in both film and digital but with my cameras that's how it works out. I feel like looking at a ground glass gives me more of a feeling of looking at a photograph. Looking through a viewfinder is more like looking out a window. To me the former is better for creating good photographs.
This is the first on-line comparison where I picked the digital (except for the B&W) over film. From my TV these pics looked to be a stop over exposed which was driving me crazy.
It's like one of those comparisons between one martial art against another by matching two experts against each other. Always depends on how expert one is in one's own art. Depends on the circumstances.
That was a great test and I love the results. I was always a DSLR guy until my girlfriend got me hooked on Film... Like you guys said, it just has that feel.
OK this has convinced me that I am missing very little if anything 'really' from not using film. Is there a hybrid camera that shoots both film and digital, that would be cool?
Sure. Look for a digital back, e.g. Leaf for medium format bodies. Pentax 645, Mamiya RZ and RB, Hassleblad 500 all will do just fine. And I’ve used film in small and medium format for 30 years. Modern digital cameras are vastly superior on every single measure. Shoot film if you like, but it really just comes down to ‘cause I want to.’
Very nice video. Add that "negative" film has advantage in the highlights, but its densitometric properties are not linear in the extreme highlights. Slide film would have been washed out. Does the D850 have a metering mode where it exposes for the brightest pixel? That would take your fears away :)
It seems to me that you were comparing "latitude" in the test that you referred to as "Dynamic Range". Dynamic range is the ability to capture a range of highlights and shadows at the same time in one image. Latitude is the ability to render an acceptable image with a wide range of EV's. For example... Slide film has very low latitude. You cannot under or overexpose and get an acceptable image. Negative film has a wide latitude and will render acceptable images -1 Stop or +4.
he said FILM can give you piece of mind? Have a roll of film developed where none of the shots came out. You'll know how much of a piece of mind film gives.
I really enjoyed the presentation but I couldn't understand why you wanted to adjust the digital to look like film. I thought a comparison of film to digital would be just that. Run all the digital tests as out of the camera, with over and under and spot on exposures.
hi michael, sorry we did this test because a lot of digital shooters now want their images to emulate the film look. so the test was more - can you tell the difference between film and digital as in is it still worth it to shoot on film.
How can you validly compare the two when you are applying a certain brand of "film preset" to our digital image? For all we know, those presets can be making the digital images look worse. The finer details in the skin can be easily brought out in digital by increasing micro-contrast and/or structure. Honestly, the differences that you cite between film and digital come down to post processing. I don't think you adequately controlled for the variables in your comparisons, including lens quality.
"Probably. If you pay us next time, I promise we'll do a more thorough job! ;)" Why anyone one would pay you if that's your response to a valid criticism is beyond me....
First to unswer the question if i can tell the different . Well it depends on the situation you shoot , if you go for a scena with strong high lights or harsh light then film is better then digital and ill see the different , if you talking about mdium format , like 6 by 7 film , this is blowing any medium format digital camera, colors , ditails , light transitions , every thing is better on the medium format film , and if you want to print it , big print, then again , medium format film is so much better then full frame or medium format digital , and its easy to notice it when you print it
For me, I cannot tell the difference between medium format and digital. They both could be digital. The only way I can tell is by comparing digital with 35mm film. There's an unmistakeable film look to 35mm that pops out at you. It is not perfect or high res by any means, but I love the look and continue to shoot film for that reason.
I've always felt that film gives a 'fuller' picture, dpth and texture wise
Or it could be the placebo effect. Would be hilarious if the maker of the video did a follow up that said "all those who preferred film, I am sorry but we had the labels wrong; you preferred digital"
@@matthewphillips5483 Looking at these right next to each other, I started to get the hang of what to look for and could guess right a few times and then get the next one wrong... Some interesting points about the greens and magentas, but even those would change with a different film or a different camera setting. But the main thing is if they weren't right there next to each other, I would not care that the other one existed. Neither one has nearly enough difference to make me say "I should try that!" And that's with a medium format film. Regular 35mm stuff, forgettaboutit.
Well, I believe it has become a truly ideological debate... The thing really is that if you dont tell people it's film they don't see it - and even better- don't CARE. For a good reason, 'cause it does not f matter. Of course a handprint from the darkroom on proper expensive paper blows your mind, but you can also expose digitals on proper photopaper... A truly good photo just works despite ANY quality issues whatsoever... Look at them old masters. Blur all over the place, yet marvelous. But I can recreate any of that in PS. I can slow down with digital as well and just observe so slow I forget to have come to take a picture.
Its not the medium, its my brain. This hunt for whatever precision is pathetic anyway.
No one ever asked me, when looking at my best work, how I achieved it technically. Its irrelevant. Yet when i tell them its film, they go, ohh... yeah... really muuuch better, bla bla.
I don't tell anything anymore. Why? As if a magician is giving away the cheap tricks.
I have shots I really nailed 100%, yet taken with a Nikon D40, in 2006, that I probabley would've never shot on film. In fact I became a much better photographer since 2006 than in the 20 years before. People don't care to know because, again, it does not matter!
Id rather shoot Penelope Cruz with the flattest RAW available and turn it into blizz, than my mother with the Hasselblad. Seriously, lets just have fun and enjoy shooting more meaningful photos, instead of over intellectualising meaningless photos...
That second trial: it just confirms what they say "for film expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" while "for digital expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows".
Giuseppe Pipia yes exactly that should be written in every photographers mind
for negative film ;)
not exactly though. if you expose for the highlights, you can lose a lot of detail in the shadows due to digitals limited dynamic range. While you can recover detail from shadows better in digital, you don't particularly want to, because it will be noisy. It can be ok to blow out the highlights if they aren't a particularly important part of the image. For a wedding dress, sure you want to expose for it. But for a sky in the background, you don't need to expose for it unless that's the mood you're going for.
Really great report. Love to see the old larger format cameras vs. digital. No need to crown a winner - digital won't be in retreat
from film anytime soon. But there's nothing like the scent of a newly opened film roll, feeding it into the camera and operating incredible little machines that represented the highest tech in their days. Just one more reason to love photography. Thanks for putting this together... and saving me the $200 of reliving it on my own!
"The charm of the film is that it's not so perfect". Well that doesn't make a lot of sense, in fact it sounds like a downright disadvantage.
The only advantages I can think of for film is maybe somebody wants you to take shoot film at the wedding for the novelty of it, or maybe if you want to develop the film yourself to learn the art of it, and to get hands on.
It's like people who prefer real books to ereaders because they "like the feel of a real book".
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us! We definitely realize it's each person to their own personal tastes.
I think you cant be sure unless you take the same pose .Becasue the light is in a different place and this makes a huge difference
one of the best comparison on the internet , thanks a lot for pulliing out those efforts. I love film and love digital
thanks FTH PROD! Glad you were able to get some good information on that!
Interesting experiment. I like the exposure test. But overall not a fair comparison. You are taking analogue and making it digital, which handicaps the film right out of the gate. Best comparison would be to print digital with digital printer. And print film negative with a true glass printer. (No scanning of negative. Just real chemical negative to real chemical photo paper). And then compare the two enlargements. Negs were designed for real printing not scanning.
That's a great idea! Too bad we have no money :(
Ha Ha Ha! I thought all youtube creators we're uber-rich superstars! And in all fairness, I'm not even sure there are any labs left that do "true glass" printing to chem paper, without scanning first. Ran a photo for 11 years and I can tell you from experience that film grain was a zillion times more subtle when printed chemically direct from negative to paper. "Zillion" is a highly technical term.
My wife did a lot of darkroom work in school, and so I have seen first hand how amazing optical prints are. I was talking to a camera shop owner a few weeks ago, and he said there are a couple labs that do darkroom prints around here, but they charge something like $6 for a 4x6! I get the supply/demand thing, but that just puts it out of reach for most people... Even us uber-rich RUclips superstars ;)
Winterspring Studios LLC thats what i was thinking to say
Winterspring Studios LLC, I was wondering if you could do the comparison video you're talking about.
I think either film or digital, if you know how to work with the photography trinity, you can create amazing photos. Also it depends on what you really looking for in the image. Digital might get close to mimic the grain look of film, but it is not the same. Film is very limited to compensating under-exposed shots. All in all, it was a very interesting video. Thanks Jay!
This video is awesome at showing the difference between over and under exposing film vs digital. AMAZING!
I switched from film to digital around the year 2000 and still today, 18 years after, that greyish filtery stuff that seems to cover all digital photos, still bothers the hell out of me. I miss the punch in colours and contrast you get from film. I also miss that grain feeling. Luckily today you can edit it to your liking, but but for me it's still not the same. In the end digital serves a purpose and I'm glad that millennials seems to see that film serves a purpose aswell.
A big factor in whether to use medium format film is how you are going to use it. Film is definitely something to look into if it will be used for a very large framed photo for the wall but if you are photographing senior pictures primarily for the internet digital is the way to go.
Also with film, you are outsourcing your post work, which will save time and keep the look consistent if you use a pro lab.
For 200 you can nearly get all the (used) things you need to develop and make your own prints in bw. If you enjoy it, of course its time consuming. Plus unlike a digital camera, the Hasselblad probably makes it into your will
moabitrockt the Will. So true!!!
cheap to develop b&w film negatives. Printing a little more investment and practice. Color both negative develpment and printing goes up. Enlarger, dryer, etc.
I started out in high school using film then like everyone else went digital. Now I am back to film including a darkroom and here is why. Film uses all my senses, I can touch, smell, see, Hear the timers go off etc... It is a real world experience like the rest of my life. I live in a physical world and the digital photography experience seemed to take some of that away. Same reason I am getting back to playing vinyl records. Now it is a small event to put on a record and hear it play. Its physical. The imperfections of both formats are real like all the imperfections in the rest of the world. Hearing someone sing after there voice has been sanitized and made perfect through electronic means it too sterile and is missing out on what makes music seem more personal and I can't relate to it on the same level. So to me all these things bring me back into the real word a bit.
A man after my own heart. There's a bit where I talk about the metaphysical reasons I like to shoot on film: the light that burns the film leaves a physical impression on the emulsion. It's like physical memories impressed on reality. You don't get that with 1's and 0's.
Shooting film has made me a better photographer. Mainly because the limited number of exposures means you have to get the shots pretty much right on the first time. I take those same skills over when I shoot digital. More time shooting and the experiences and getting the right exposure right the first time means less time in post production. As far as music, I like vinyl records due to the physical fact of the format and they do a proper job of mastering the material. SACDs or Blu-Ray audio sound excellent also.
If you prefer the ritual of darkroom printing good for you. I listen to vinyl too for the artwork, the sight of the needle hitting the glossy platter and the sense of occasion. But I don't pretend there's anything else to it, like a presence in the room or something. For example, those vinyl discs are usually digitally remastered anyway and sound better for it, with greater separation and less floor noise. All the talk about 'magic' is really just the glow of nostalgia.
@Bobby Brady Good point. If analogue has a magical 'feel' for the user, that's reason enough to go on with it. Enjoyment stimulates creativity. Where I start doubting is when others believe that they can communicate that magic through the image itself, to an audience that grew up in the digital age. Between the dynamic range of current DSLRs, ever more versatile Photoshop tweaks and the transition to a printed image, you can create a completely convincing simulation of analogue. People talk about the charm of film, which is really a reflection of its limitations. Then they complain that digital has limitations. Maybe one day photographers will deliberately narrow the dynamic range to capture that gorgeous 'early 2000s' look :-)
There is no feel. There is information. The resolution won’t go beyond the diffraction limit anyway. A similar physical limit applies to audio as well. Needless to say that the human ear cannot percept the frequency higher than (let’s be generous) 25000 Hz. As we know, digital sensors keep evolving while the film stays the same. So... it’s only a matter of time until analogue devices will look like a torch near an LED lamp (or rather its future counterpart).
Would you use Fuji Film and process it to look like a Kodak? (or vice versa?)
Well, I don't understand why you take a photograph with film and scan it (with less resolution)
while in parallel take a "digital" photo and post-process it to look like a film.
I think It would be more interesting to
print from the "film", with the process that you like to follow,
and
print from the digital, maybe post-processing with Nikon Capture NX-D as starting point (then LR, or PS if you want).
Then, 2 most likely different images and make comments on them. What would the feeling be?
But, in this case, the goal looks that was to get similar look, and I think it was achieved.
Arguello Flores Collection
Exactly! Film has so many variables the people making this video are not giving the whole story. Different films produce different results and the scanner they used is professional junk. Its the most common professional film scanner yet far from the best.
Film is a better choice all around. For both look and longevity. Anyway your totally right!
Resolution is irrelevant here. You are looking at youtube clip, my friend. Both pictures could be then artificially reduced to let's say 1600 pixels. Colors and dynamic range is probably much more valuable parameters here.
I shoot both film and digital and have printed both. Ordinary people cannot tell the difference nor do they care enough to look for it like we do. Here is how I look at it, film and digital are just tools to meet your photographic goals. You use the best tools for you. Great artist do not obsess over their tools (like many gear centric photographers on both film and digital) they use those tools to create great art.
well spoken. i agree that the artist is still the visionary, not the camera. it's a matter of how well we wield the tools we have. tag us @theslantedlens so we can check out your great art!
They said Vinyl would die but it didn't, its going to be the same with film, it will continue to have its place, in the photographic world. A better test would have been to make prints, from the D850, and compare them to prints from the film cameras, because at the end of he day, you only ended up with digital photographs.
Well, VHS and compact cassettes have died for example for very obvious reasons - poor quality and lack of convenience. A CD or a lossless digital formats can do ANYTHING an old and hissing vinyl can, but not vice versa.
One thing: over 90% of moden music are recorded using DIGITAL hardware, so there's almost no point do DDA. BUT, vinyl is total vinner when we're talking about AAA, true.
@@sainphony what is dda and aaa
the problem is that you can buy your vinyl cutter and cut your own vinyls at home, but once kodak or ilford decide to stop making film, film will be gone.
@@inevitablecraftslab there are more brands than those two.... There are some local brands as Fomapan from Czech Republic for example. I dont think film will completely die, some art photographers and few enthusiasts will keep on shooting film.
What I see as a big disadvantage of digital is archiving issue. If I put well developed and stored negatives into my drawer they can stay there for 60 years and my grand grand children will be able to make photos out of them. How are you gonna store your digital photos for 60 years ? How many of your 3,5 inch floppy discs are still usable today ? How many of your 20 yr old CDs are still usable (especially cheaper CD-Rs) - do you even have CD ROM on your new laptop ? If you somehow manage to restore your historic data in 60 years, are you sure some software will still be able to open JPEG ?
What's the point of a comparison when you take a negative and scan it...Now everything is digital! If your going to use film...Get a darkroom and make a print. Comparing prints is the only way to get an accurate/fair comparison.
/r/gatekeeping
The comparison was to show what Hybrid shootings are doing. Shooting film and having it scanned so they can show their Bride.
With enough resolution in the scanner, you can pull all the information out of film. Making a darkroom print actually loses some information because of the process and the papers.
Whoa, turning those tables. Love it.
"With enough resolution in the scanner, you can pull all the information out of film." But why shoot film in the first place, just shoot digital. I shot film and developed my own prints for over 30 years...NEVER again! If a photographer came to my event using a 35mm SLR or any film camera, I would fire them on the spot. Shooting film doesn't make you a better photographer, it just dumbs you down!
When it comes to which is better, ask yourself this are people searching how to get film to look like a digital print or how to get digital to look like film, that should really answer the question.
Very well said. Thanks for watching!
I would totally disagree with the comment made in the video that digital skin tones look better than film. There is a naturalness to the skin tones on film that look beautiful - if the shot is exposed correctly - digital shots tend to have less tonal value capability and skin tones can look flatter with less dimension to them on digital. Some digital shots do look fine, but I would never say they look better than a properly exposed film shot.
I think if you are willing to scan the film, rather than keeping it 100% analog, then you should do some digital post to the film too. When you comment of the skin or the eyes of the film, It doesn't seem to me like something you cannot correct in post.
Love a mechanical camera, love to think about the picture before I take it, love to put time developing the film, love to scan the images, love to make a choice, love to perfect that image, love the images that result from this process.
Great! I really enjoy shooting with film as well, thats why I continue to make these videos :)
The preset he used on the digital made it look "digitized". The preset was removing the detail in the skin. My Dad has been a professional commercial and portrait photographer since the 60s, he's won several awards through Professional Photographer's of America, Masters through PPOA, his work made the Loan collection etc. His large color transparencies during film days were spot on. He absolutely loves digital photography, he went digital before most professionals in our city went digital and he had been working in film longer than they had. He absolutely loves digital.
Great to hear. Sounds like you can learn a lot from your father!
2 things that I can think of from the top of my head that turn digital image ugly are 1) Sharpen and Clarity filters(in-camera picture profiles). 2) blocky image compressors. Turn off the no. 1 you'll get the look near film, digital grain doesn't look that bad when without Sharpen effect. I have Nikon entry DSLR, after playing and learning photography for some time, later I found out that Sharpen effect in Picture Control cause the the halos on contrast area, made the pictures look artificial, so then I set the Sharpen and Clarity to zero (Clarity is a subset of sharpen). No. 2 compressor is not a problem if you set less compress. But for me personally, film is still superior to digital.
What a PHENOMENAL and FANTASTIC side-by-side comparison! Thank you gents!
Grainy? This?
Try Tri-X in 135 format.... developed in rodinal. If grain is your kink, try it out. Overexpose one stop, Rodinal increases sharpness but decreases sensitivity.
thanks for your tips! shooting film is such a fun process.
For me, i think its more about how the process of shooting changes how you approach what you want. In this case, it doesn't really seem to be about the process, just about look for look.
I have both 35mm and 120 film cameras as well as 2 digital cameras. Both have their pros and cons but at the end of the day its wonderful to still be able to shoot great film stocks alongside my digital work.
Good to hear. Glad you enjoy it!
All can be fixed in an editor
Film has better color rendition when exposed, developed and digitized properly. Also, film has higher resolution at a lower price point (but with more degrees of separation)
Not saying you are completely wrong. But is there any solid proof for that? any scintific comparison? Internet is full of these claims....
Would be nice if you can cite your claims.
Why dress is more yellow on film?
The film looks natural, with more subtle tones. The digital looks heavily airbrushed and flat.
I think both is great when used correctly, some images are better captured digitally and some are just meant to be shot on film
Thanks for making a great video. I scan my own negatives, some well over 50mbs. Just another way to enjoy my hobby!
FF versus MF and different lenses... well I do not know what to think about that?! I enjoy both
I shoot both, i preffer film . the grain for me is amazing. I hate the "plastic" look that digital brings into the photo
I've shoot and printed analogue and digital and what I miss from analogue is the long and meticulous process and the fact that you are gonna get different results pretty much every time. What I hated from analogue was the same thing. When I feel nostalgic I get out my old prints and compare to what I can achieve with my canon pro-10 at home in couple of minutes with an amazing repeatability. I don't find digital a lesser process comparing prints. When you put nostalgia and the process itself you can get amazing results with a good basic digital camera and a printer at home. The cost of printing is very reasonable too.
If I had the place I would get back to black and white film printing but mostly for the fun of slowing the process.
In my digital workflow when in doubt I underexpose and my camera will recover even better than the d850 so it gives you lots of flexibility. It's quite the opposite than what we did on film and we can see this in your test.
hey sylvain, thanks for sharing. we might do a lesson on processing your own negatives here soon.
full frame digital camera vs medium format film camera, why not just use a 35mm film camera? make it a closer comparison
Film is just warmer. I have worked both and I love my old 6x6 Hasselblad images. This is also present in the difference between digital sound vs analog sound. Analog is warmer and more vibrant over the cold cleanliness of digital. I appreciate the convenience of digital photography but I do miss the subtle beauty of film.
I think a comparison of prints would've meant more.
Going from film to a digital scanner puts too many new variables into the mix, plus the scanner becomes the determiner of pixel density.
Fun to see those old, former pinnacles of photography you bought at deep discounts on eBay. I was tempted to pick up a film Bronica SET for about $200 "buy it now." I loved using the Bronica, but don't need another display camera from the past.
I had my own darkroom, but these days, I wouldn't want to put in the all-nighters. Not with photography, anyway. ;)
surprised they didn't point out that the haircolor is completely different. I think that the color accuracy on the hair was probably compromised to match the look of film which they should have pointed out.
Rule of thumb: If unsure, overexpose with film and underexpose with digital.
Only if you're shooting negative film. If you're shooting slides then shoot it like digital.
Actually you may want to overexpose a bit with digital. 1/4000 of a second at ISO 1600, may look to have a similar exposure to something shot at 1/125 with an ISO of 100, but the latter will have far less noise.
Whatever advantages film might have over digital, the deciding factor in my conversion to digital is the difficulting of processing and printing color photos. The other issue I have with film is having to wait to see how the photos came out. While it hasn't happened often, With digital, I can view the results instantly, and with a good inkjet printer, I can obtain wonderful results.
hi stephen, it's just a different workflow. some people grew up learning with film and had to really think about each shot.
You make a great point. When I used to shoot with film, I had to put more thought into each shot. The thing is, I was never a great photographer when it came to composition. I tended to rush my shots. I'd point and shoot. I was good from a technical standpoint, but my photos were boring as heck. And, I never had the chance to perfect my darkroom skills as I had limited access to my school's darkroom.
Once I bought a decent digital camera, I could shoot hundreds of photos in quick succession, and if I was lucky, some of them were pretty interesting. Moreover, with the use of photo editing software, I could occasionally obtain some really nice results.
I would agree that for a truly serious student of photography, a film camera can help to instill compositional discipline, and well as helping to teach exposure and shutter settings, film ISO, etc.
But, for me, the biggest disadvantage of film for non-pros is the costs associated with processing and printing.
Your video was really well done and I especially liked where you showed the experiment with under and over exposure. This goes a long way to explain why film in most cases is easier to use in full mid day sun and digital easier to use indoors. However, your choice of gear was very! high end. The D850 is likely the best full frame digital being sold right now. I would love to have one but have not yet sold myself on putting aside 5 grand or so to get one with some good glass. And Hasselblad plus the latest Pentax medium format. (Actually I did not know Pentax made this model so thanks). So you have a bundle of money in the gear your use.
My budget at this time only allows for a DX Nikon and a few 35mm film cameras. But I am having fun with my current gear and getting results I like. We travel quite a bit and it seems like we are always seeing stuff like Bryce Canyon, St Mark's Square, and so on at mid day in bright sun. Even though I have worked pretty hard trying to get my digital camera results up to photos I prefer over 35mm film (Ektar or Velvia) I still end up with more keepers from the film shots. On the other hand when looking inside museums or shooting my family indoors at Christmas digital seems to be much easier to use. I also love the look of good black and white film. Tmax and TriX are my current favorites.
I will have to get a medium format film camera. About a decade ago I tossed my Yashica 124 in the trash when the shutter spring broke and that was my last go around with MF. Thanks for the video.
Seems like old analog technology just do not want to die out. Film looks more natural, old fashioned incandescent light bulbs look better than LEDs, vacuum tube and 70s analog amplifiers are wayyy better than modern digital ones, seriously digital amps sound like pure garbage, analog radio is also much better than DAB. Digital CDs are actually as good as records though, the only analog technology that is garbage is CTR TVs and computers, they were total crap.
We are finally at that point where digital has caught up, nice video, very fun to watch. I started on film and moved to digital, and for years missed film, but now I think it is to the point where it is a novelty.
So after 20 years of development digital camera are as good as the old film cameras were.
Great video, but as someone who started learning on film, I disagree that shooting film is the best way to learn. My understanding (self taught) jumped leaps and bounds when I discovered EXIF meta data shortly after getting my first digital camera. I no longer had to carry around a little notebook and write down all my exposure settings to figure out what went right (or wrong) after a shoot.
Having lots of fun getting back into film now though!
Yeah, you definitely learn something from each.
I think it’s similar to vinyl, it’s the imperfections which make film different: it’s ‘analogue warmth’. I remember back in the 70’s and 80’s it was all about sharpness. Reviews in magazines were full of small details from the corners of negatives blown up to insane amounts to see how sharp they were. Now with digital even beginner cameras have resolutions we could only dream of then...and somehow they can almost feel too crisp. I’m not saying one or other is better, just different. 😺
WELL SAID
Today it's about resolution also. Just look at the modern emulsions: Portra, Ektar, Acros, T-Max, etc. They were made for small grain, great sharpness, exposure latitude, and easy scanning. On the other hand you have lomography which will sell you 10 year old expired film with offensive grain, all in new shiny box, looking at you Rollei Vario Chrome!
Yes indeed, you call it crispness I call it CGI-like, either way it is not natural or pleasing.
As a portrait photographer, I see sharpness as a double edged blade. Sure, more detail, but do I really want to bring out all the imperfections from my model's skin? Sometimes a softer image is more flattering.
Absolutely, I don't want to count the pores on the subject's face but for now it's a style that's in fashion.
As much as I like digital because infinite pictures and easy to pick up but film still has that hard to point chareteristic that gives "soul" to the picture. Some say it's the imperfection of colors then some say it's the random generated grain etc.
Digital picture in raw without edits looks TOO REALISTIC, it's "soul-less" you could say so no wonder many photographers these days try to emulate these things with presets and editing.
To be honest the only way I could tell the difference which is what is by the bokeh feel and skin color, skin coloring is the devil in digital cameras but then when B&W came it was actually a lot harder to determine what is what. Nice test guys! :)
interesting perspective. in a lot of different cultures, they don't want anyone to take their picture because they think it captures their soul.
I shoot 35mm Film (Canon Rebel G) mid 90's model, Full Frame Digital (5D mark III), and Cropped frame Digital (Canon 80D) I feel it gives me a well rounded group of cameras to use.
in this case it depends on the subject and the background and the correct light in the picture@ how it comes out!
For me the most important difference betwen film and digital is that digital still have kind of syntetic feeling because of the unified shape of pixels. On the other side film looks more organic. The problem with comparsions like they do in this video is that with scanning negatives u literaly make it digital. In the scan u still preserve some attributes of film, but not all of them.
nice post. I learned photography on an old canon F1 35mm. I learned to love Tri-X. did my own developing. it was great. it took a long time for me to shift to digital and only did in the last 10 years.
hey mathurm, thanks for sharing your story. we all started in different places, but it's the journey that counts.
I am wondering about processing the digital to make it look like film. I haven't read all the previous comments but I know I am not the first person to say it. Doesn't messing with the digital in this way take away some of the advantages of that medium? It is true these guys gave a qualifier about how objective this comparison isn't so why change the digital to try to make it match film? Years ago I shot film and I no longer see any advantage of it unless I was into nostalgia. The "film just looks right" comment is just resistance to change, I think. Oh. I forgot about charging so much more for shooting film at weddings. That is the only advantage I can see.
I still don't understand why one would try to emulate film with digital. Just use film if you want film look. I love film, but I'm not against digital. Both have their place and are just tools of the trade. The film images digitized are not really comparable to the native digital images. A far better comparison imho would be print the film traditionally and print the digital. But ultimately, I think you shouldn't compare the 2. Just enjoy the 2 different media and use the positives of each to their full advantage. Just my thoughts. Great video's though and good experiment...
Yeah I think digital and film can live comfortably together. They're both great at what they do!
That's because you are a baby who was never raised making analog photos.
Simply put, costs. Digital is cheaper to shoot.
Michiel Siegers Because film is expensive.
Film photos have character, and lots of different lenses with different output result, unlike medically clean digital.
So I prefer to use lenses from film cameras on DSLRs, underexpose every shot, enough to save highlights details, and then compensate exposition to pull out the details in shadows(RPP does great job). Then just use LUTs.
I appreciate many aspects of this video. I shoot both digital and film myself. When I am looking at the Instagram profiles of "hybrid" wedding photographers, I can't always distinguish Kodak Portra and Fuji 400H from their VSCO counterparts, especially at such low resolution. Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story. I have done shoots where I take several hundred digital shots, and only one or two rolls of film. The film shots often end up being my favourites.
I have two points to make about the video, though. Firstly, the idea of film being best for outdoor rather than indoor shots might make sense if one is an event photographer, but pushed black and white film can be excellent in dimly lit interiors. Furthermore, indoor photography with studio lighting is obviously a situation where a slow film works well (as does digital photography, of course). The second point is that the term "full-frame film" sounds very odd in this context. It is 35mm film, or 135 film, or even small format film. I understand that you were making a comparison to the full-frame digital size, but that is derived from 35mm film, not the other way around.
Those two points aside, thank you for the effort you have put into creating these side-by-side comparisons! I thought the exposure latitude tests were especially illustrative.
Film's advantage is that it preceded digital and was what photography "looked-like." Film was better for a long time while both mediums were in wide use, too. Test after test for me, that is no longer the case. The tonality, sharpness, DR, processing options, and workflow put digital way ahead for nearly all photographic applications. In almost every single image (if I could stop the reveal fast enough, sheesh), I found the digital image more pleasing in both color and B&W in terms of saturation, tonality, clarity, DR and sharpness. This video makes me that much more excited about receiving my d850 on forever back order. The opportunity to bring in a business angle as a hybrid shooter will probably make me keep my Hasselblad and Nikon film systems a little longer.
Excellent stuff. I will disagree on one point. I think you should learn on a digital camera, get good, then go film. It’s easier to become discouraged when you’re paying for film mistakes, but while learning digitally, you can just erase the same mistakes. I shoot both, and as my photo teacher said, different tools for different jobs. And yes, people LOVE when you pull out a cool old film camera like the Rolleiflex. Great hook for clients!
Excellent points Jonathan. Thanks for watching!
The film images became scanner images and then were treated as digital files. The film would do more if it was optically printed, it was taken prisoner by being digitised. Mastering film metering creates the ability to produce magical aesthetic effects. Digital is good in post and for speed. Film prints would be incredible but time and material costs can be high. Film done well is labour intensive and beautiful. Digital is more repeatable and algorithms do most of the work. In general, image capture has different considerations in each medium. Film is a more holistic series of activities. You start working before you take the picture; you make decisions. You work during the image making, more decisions around mediating the capture and how to get the result you have visualised in you mind’s eye. Then afterwards, how to develop the film to prepare a negative that transfers qualities that come from the chemical processing. Then evaluating the image as a negative and making decisions about what to print and how to print it. Then test printing, then evaluating the tests, and then multiple stages of print exposure and exposure manipulation. Then, sitting with a few iterations of the print choosing the image that you saw in your mind’s eye before you chose the film stock and loaded it into the camera. There are hundreds of decisions to get the result. With film both of you would have spent more time improving those shots before presenting them. The colours and the detail in the dress and the skin tones needed far more work to make great shots. You needed ND filters and graduated filters to manage the dynamic range. The medium format needed longer lenses. Could you get a film shooter and a digital shooter to show what is possible in both of each shooter used their ideal workflow for each medium rather than digitised film vs digital. High end results from each would be good to see. Digital gives fantastic possibilities in post and they are quick to achieve if you are expert. Both have more potential than was reached in your video. This should be revisited it seems unresolved in many ways.
hey chris, thanks for the post. great insight here.
Nice comparison and discussion. I can tell by the far lower stress levels when shooting digits knowing images are in the bag rather than worrying if the lab is going to screw up my film. Ever have to trust your work to Kodalux?
When I saw Karsh prints in person, or Irving Penn, or the life size prints of Larry Sultan's work, I got a serious itch to shoot MF film. You can walk up to those prints as close as you want and there is detail and subtlety in every tonal range. I know they were masters of their prints but I'm hard pressed to believe that could be reproduced with a full frame digital camera, regardless of resolution or dynamic range. But it obviously makes a huge difference what you do with your camera, in most real world scenarios today digital is a no-brainer. But for those special prints, and those prints you want to make large, it sure would be nice to have a 120 and some Portra around :).
Thanks for yet another great video! You guys are consistently intelligent and insightful, I always learn a little something new.
I shoot both a d850 and 67,6x6, 645 and 35mm film. I just watched Once upon a time in Hollywood and Tarantino only shoots on film. One scene, Sharon Tate's shin close up had me stop it and get closer. Incredible skin tones, but not digital sharp/clinical/sterile. Last time this happened was with Girl with a pearl earring. What do they have in common? Kodak Vision 3 movie film. All through both movies, I marveled at the skin tones. I have film plugins, close but no cigar. And with Portra, you just get those skin tones again expose for shadows and you are golden. For street, HP5 looks great FIVE STOPS over exposed so metering for shadows then zone focusing my nikon is a point and shoot with amazing glass for quick response in street.
Thanks for sharing your experience Bob!
I agree with the previous comments. You need to compare prints to prints. Scanning the negative totally changing the negative. You need to print it on actually color paper and compare that to digital prints. I assume you are selling an album and not a CD. Print to print. The films color balance is totally distorted by scanning it.
Thanks for sharing your suggestions.
really your putting film in to Digital and comparing why not Print them both using their proper formats then compair
This is not a good comparison between film and digital. I don't know if it is intentional, but this is performed under the only condition in which digital comes very close to film: good daylight and no strong vivid colors. I have been doing photoshootings for years, carrying both film and digital cameras, sharing the same lenses, and I can tell you that film gives you consistently much better colors and textures under all different light conditions. And I am talking about scanned film. When I look at the pictures on my NEC Spectraview screen (Nvidia Quadro card), It always renders strong vivid colors much better, and skin tones are always natural in any condition, when digital turns to an awful yellow or greenish tone. Maybe the difference is not that evident on a regular laptop screen, that can not reproduce good colors anyway, because this also counts, as well as your video card settings. Not only they are better, wth film I receive the scans already perfect, and I save a lot of time processing digital on my computer (which also means money). This is the reason I am abandoning digital and going for film only.
I have yet to be tricked by a digital photo manipulated to look like film. Even if I can't point to any reason specifically how I could tell, I know. Film always looks more real to me, I feel like I'm there. The strange thing is it's probably the reverse, digital actually produces a more realistic image than film, but that's not how I perceive it.
For these pictures film is way better. The colours and especially the plastic skin are really a turn-off for me in the Nikon images...
When I play with the histogram curves, I can access and change a very large dynamic range of hues on the photo. I don't think you can do that so easily with film. Some of the digital photos you show here could have been adjusted comparably to film. I'd say this video is interesting but not very conclusive.
Honestly I think that is the conclusion. Film has some interesting tricks, but modern digital cameras do the job and have been for some time now. If film was objectively better, all the pros would be using it instead of just a few hipster ones.
Cool video....actually, I think I recognized all the film images except 1. The film/ digital caption came up almost immediately on a few that made it hard to discern if I simply got it right or I thought I did... delay the answers longer.... or just post the pics and have the answers in the description. This was a lot of fun. I'm glad to see you used Kodak portra! That and Ektar are still my favorite film stock.
Great video! I shoot both film and digital and love them both. Really enjoyed the episode.
Thanks for this video. I actually have a couple of old film cameras from the period of the 50ies to the 70ies and a dozen of expired black and white film as well as some rolls of expired color film. I think I'll take one of them out of the drawers and actually go out and shoot some film.
Best digital to film comparison I’ve seen. Thanks for posting this!
Thanks, Douglas!!
You also have to take into account the type of sensor/method used. Film is not built like a Bayer sensor but a Foveon/Sigma sensor is!
I don't know about that "self" scanning scanner,Fuji Frontier! Did you use that scanner?
If you are serious about film photography,you don't use nothing like that.
I would use Hasselblad Flextight or Nikon coolscan or custom drum scanner,or do the scanning with that Nikon D 850 and good quality macro lens (With 1:1 magnification)!
Nice comparison. Though as some probably already said, this isn't a fair comparison. The film comes pre-adjusted from the scanning process, and in some instances the whites in the sky seem blown or the blacks slightly crushed. The Digital files could be adjusted from RAW files (I'm assuming), so they have way more freedom with those.
This is a comparison of digital RAW files against the particular scanner/scanner operator that handled the film. If you got the RAW files from the film scan, that would be an interesting comparison. D800 raw files vs. 12/16 bit film scans, and comparing tones that way.
I don’t miss shooting film. But I do agree having started with film forced me to set up the camera properly.
got to bring up those new photographers right! right?
I am just starting out with a Canon 300v film slr. Me and my partner discovered a good place that still develops 35mm film for a reasonable price. Sure, my partners Huawei P30pro takes amazing digital snaps, but in our reality digital snaps almost always remain on a screen, a phone, an sd card, or hard drive. With 35mm we WILL actually have a real tangible product printed off because we are obliged to.
I know it may sound crazy, but I think that early digital cameras such as the Canon 5D and 30D produce digital images which are very similar to film. It may be because their dynamic range is more limited, pixels are larger, and lower resolution. Today's cameras are advanced computers, too much perfection, sharpness and color rendition that images look artificially clean. That's why I only use cameras from the dawn of the digital era, before they became hybrids (video and stills).
Thanks for sharing!
If you compare still film photography to motion pictures shot on film there were never any post corrections possible. Most cinematographers had many restless nights never knowing what they shot looked like. A great example is the late John Alonzo who was the cinematographer on Scarface. He described how he was shitting filming Frank Lopez wearing a white suit up against a black wall in color. He had to live with the outcome. All this post really makes the magic of film photography to safe.
So true. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
something that is important to consider is that when he is modifying the digital images he already has the film scans to copy. Working blind and not having a guide to copy from the same shoot would make it a lot harder to create a film look.
The print process is where the money is made, drum scanned film has 1.7 Gigs of details.
Film development can also turn to platinotype, expensive, but photos will last for hundreds of years.
There's the big "d" word, depends on the work, art, sport, landscape, architecture, or instant film.
There is a saying in quality control and it goes like this: "Inspect quality into the product." What this means is to find reasons to certify that a product passes QA inspection. This is what I see in this analysis. The discourse is good but not really practical. How do you distribute 20 copies of film wedding pictures? Hard copies? Scanned images? You get the idea.
Wedding photography is rite of passage. Everyone does it and it does a good job of capturing the event. But how many people go back to the pictures years later? Not too many. More photos should be taken when the babies come. Memories of children are worth much more as the years go on. But parents are too tired and consumed by the work needed to care of children. Of course film is out of the question; most photos are taken with a smartphone.
I am reading a lot of comments here and can say that Film have advatages which few people talk about.
1. Warm up / response time. - You just cant beat that with digital camera. On fully mechanical camera you just aim and pull the trigger. Where on digital you should unlock your smartphone,load the app and then shoot. Point and shoot digital cameras have to open up the lenses, to display the logo, to load the firmware. That could easily be 2-3 seconds.
2. Reliabilty / durability. You can use the fully mechanical film camera outside of human civilization and dont worry about batteries. Dont have to worry about batteries. Also mechanical film cameras are way more toughter than digital. Digital camera can have firmware failure, display and or EVF brake, sensor damaged.
3. Price of the camera. 10-20$ old film camera definetely can compete against Canon 5D Mark IV. Think about how much film you can buy for the difference.
4. You have physical product when print the images. You can print also digital pics so this point is draw. But stil film has lil bit of an edge.
Basicly digital cameras beat the film in terms of mass production. You cant beat mass production. You can shoot almost unlimited on digital. But saving digital files requires memory. Memory cost money. If have many RAW files then you have to pay for storage. Also if your computer broke then all information is dead. In the digital world you only have digital file which can disapear.
Thanks for sharing with us! Let us know what kind of film videos you would like to see most.
@@TheSlantedLens
Darkroom film videos i like to see most. How to process film into darkroom and turn it to large picture. I still remember what is the color quality of the film camera was. I have some printed photos via darkroom studio and definetely my digital printer will have very hard time to match same performance. Cost of printing images. Digital printer VS Darkroom printing. Images may look pretty on my monitor but when i print them is whole another story. Also redeye effect from flash simply doesnt exist in film cameras. Especialy on black n white mode. For me best digital camera for the money is Canon M3 because you have external mic input and nice video mode. Video is something which film cameras are behind. Somehow canon cameras seems to pick little bit more natural colors. Still are not good enough to be absolutely natural. Bright orange car which i took pictures of it camera sees anything from red to yellow but not exactly that type of orange.
@@LORDVADER357 Great Dimitar! We will keep in mind digital printing vs. darkroom printing. Do you sell prints?
@@TheSlantedLens
No. I am not. I am amateur. If i make something will be for my needs. I am not pro. Looking for cheaper solutions because color printing is pricey. Still i make few good pictures with my amateur film camera back then for the wedding of my relatives. But of course film studios developed the film and make the pictures.
Film is usually superior in some aspects, but good digital, and *WELL USED* (can't stress this enough...), is equally good at first sight, if not better for all of its advantages. Now *THAT* is the real problem with digital, it *NEEDS* good color correction to look good, while film looks more finished (after the lab/development room, of course!), which usually digital unfortunately just doesn't get, or gets mediocre processing...
I was hoping to guess it myself but you guys immediatly reveal it taking all the quiz fun
I can spot a black and white print made in the darkroom a mile off.
I do use the hybrid mode sometimes Film plus Scan. But a real darkroom print shines through.
I still use 2 Pentax 67s and develop tri x in Rodinal.
I use a Zorki 4k with color negative film and have it developed and printed in the local Boots drug store.
For portraits I use bounced flash with a Nikon D300s with a 50mm 1.4 lens.
Very flattering.
For black and white portraits outdoors I use a Rolleicord VA with Tri.x and Rodinal.
The thing I wish Kodak would bring back is Bromesko White Velvet Lustre Chlorobromide paper. I would print like I used too and then die a happy man.
neil piper :::: Kodak shot itself in the foot and missed the Digital band wagon.
They could still be producing epic film and paper today on top of digital cameras.
I used Technical Pan film with MF and 35mm, PITA to process with Technidol but what stunning negatives it produced. I had two cans of 100ft left years ago and sold it like gold.. They don't make varieties of B&W film like the old days.
Thanks for video. I'd love to see a Pentax 645D, with its 40mp CCD sensor, up against film.
Thanks for the idea. I have added it to our list!
Thank you! Very informative. As someone who uses both film (medium format) and digital my own experience has been that a big factor is how the process of making the image changes the photographer and thus the results. With film I know I have 12 exposures and then I'll have to reload. And each exposure costs money. As a result I tend to compose very carefully and really think about what I'm doing. With digital I can work more quickly and if I waste some exposures there's nothing much lost so I experiment more. Both are valid processes but they produce different results. In a situation where I don't have time to think and carefully compose each image digital really makes more sense. But in other situations, where I can take my time, I feel like the additional pressure film imposes on me to take my time produces different and often better results. Also, the visual sense I get for the image by composing on a ground glass on my medium format camera is different from what I get looking through a viewfinder on my digital camera. Granted, both options are available in both film and digital but with my cameras that's how it works out. I feel like looking at a ground glass gives me more of a feeling of looking at a photograph. Looking through a viewfinder is more like looking out a window. To me the former is better for creating good photographs.
Good to hear about your thoughts and your shooting process. Thanks for sharing!
This is the first on-line comparison where I picked the digital (except for the B&W) over film. From my TV these pics looked to be a stop over exposed which was driving me crazy.
Maybe you're TV is too bright ;)
It's like one of those comparisons between one martial art against another by matching two experts against each other. Always depends on how expert one is in one's own art. Depends on the circumstances.
That was a great test and I love the results. I was always a DSLR guy until my girlfriend got me hooked on Film... Like you guys said, it just has that feel.
that analog feel
OK this has convinced me that I am missing very little if anything 'really' from not using film. Is there a hybrid camera that shoots both film and digital, that would be cool?
Sure. Look for a digital back, e.g. Leaf for medium format bodies. Pentax 645, Mamiya RZ and RB, Hassleblad 500 all will do just fine.
And I’ve used film in small and medium format for 30 years. Modern digital cameras are vastly superior on every single measure.
Shoot film if you like, but it really just comes down to ‘cause I want to.’
Very nice video. Add that "negative" film has advantage in the highlights, but its densitometric properties are not linear in the extreme highlights. Slide film would have been washed out. Does the D850 have a metering mode where it exposes for the brightest pixel? That would take your fears away :)
It seems to me that you were comparing "latitude" in the test that you referred to as "Dynamic Range". Dynamic range is the ability to capture a range of highlights and shadows at the same time in one image. Latitude is the ability to render an acceptable image with a wide range of EV's. For example... Slide film has very low latitude. You cannot under or overexpose and get an acceptable image. Negative film has a wide latitude and will render acceptable images -1 Stop or +4.
he said FILM can give you piece of mind?
Have a roll of film developed where none of the shots came out. You'll know how much of a piece of mind film gives.
I really enjoyed the presentation but I couldn't understand why you wanted to adjust the digital to look like film. I thought a comparison of film to digital would be just that. Run all the digital tests as out of the camera, with over and under and spot on exposures.
hi michael, sorry we did this test because a lot of digital shooters now want their images to emulate the film look. so the test was more - can you tell the difference between film and digital as in is it still worth it to shoot on film.
Oh. Understand now. Thanks.
How can you validly compare the two when you are applying a certain brand of "film preset" to our digital image? For all we know, those presets can be making the digital images look worse. The finer details in the skin can be easily brought out in digital by increasing micro-contrast and/or structure. Honestly, the differences that you cite between film and digital come down to post processing. I don't think you adequately controlled for the variables in your comparisons, including lens quality.
Probably. If you pay us next time, I promise we'll do a more thorough job! ;)
"Probably. If you pay us next time, I promise we'll do a more thorough job! ;)" Why anyone one would pay you if that's your response to a valid criticism is beyond me....
First to unswer the question if i can tell the different .
Well it depends on the situation you shoot , if you go for a scena with strong high lights or harsh light then film is better then digital and ill see the different , if you talking about mdium format , like 6 by 7 film , this is blowing any medium format digital camera, colors , ditails , light transitions , every thing is better on the medium format film , and if you want to print it , big print, then again , medium format film is so much better then full frame or medium format digital , and its easy to notice it when you print it
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
For me, I cannot tell the difference between medium format and digital. They both could be digital. The only way I can tell is by comparing digital with 35mm film. There's an unmistakeable film look to 35mm that pops out at you. It is not perfect or high res by any means, but I love the look and continue to shoot film for that reason.
Fill flash or a reflector on the back lit bride would improve it.
But I can see you are not used to doing wedding work.