As a note on editing, I come from a background in b&w photography and spent many hours in a darkroom and now that I've had to shift to a more digital workflow I think that time in the darkroom was really helpful. The understanding in what to do before you take a photo is important, but composing your final image, working on contrast, etc. Is all an important part of the process, and digital editing my film photos has been really successful for me so far. But despite learning digital editing etc, I really think my success in that aspect comes from having to do it the old fashioned way. TLDR: I cosign the tips in this vid for the most part. Especially the last one.
Medium format film is not better than 35mm. It will give you more resolution and the camera can achieve more shallow depth of field, but there is no extra exposure latitude and no extra colours!
That shot of Quasar flung me back to my childhood, spent my early summer holidays running around festival park till I moved away at 16 years old, so thanks for that flashback. Fully intend to go back one day to document the area having not lived there now for 25 years.
Not editing a film image is like walking into a darkroom, throwing the neg into the enlarger and just banging out a print without any thought, effort or tests . Film is supposed to be edited and has always been edited. The idea that film shouldn't be edited is hipster bunkum. I've been shooting and processing my own film non stop since 1971.
Think about your shots, use a better camera and lens, edit your shots. I'm sorry but this is way too generic to be useful. What about the interesting subject , the atmosphere, the evoked emotion, the message of images? Without this you still end up with a technically perfect boring image. And if you're going to make an argument for film and even more so for medium format, you need to put forward some convincing evidence that they offer something that digital just cannot achieve. If your starting point for editing pictures is a digital scan anyway then what is there that a raw file from a digital camera cannot offer?
Re your first point: Max covers the additional points you make again and again and yet again in videos you obviously haven't watched, always in the context of avoiding 'boring' shots ... Re your second point: yes, I agree - I've started watching these videos chronologically from the start and don't feel Max has really justified the use of (expensive) film vs (cheap) digital images ...
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
As a note on editing, I come from a background in b&w photography and spent many hours in a darkroom and now that I've had to shift to a more digital workflow I think that time in the darkroom was really helpful. The understanding in what to do before you take a photo is important, but composing your final image, working on contrast, etc. Is all an important part of the process, and digital editing my film photos has been really successful for me so far. But despite learning digital editing etc, I really think my success in that aspect comes from having to do it the old fashioned way.
TLDR: I cosign the tips in this vid for the most part. Especially the last one.
Great thumbnail, that mango Saxo is an absolute solider. I saw it almost every day on holiday on the high street
Medium format film is not better than 35mm. It will give you more resolution and the camera can achieve more shallow depth of field, but there is no extra exposure latitude and no extra colours!
Hey dude! My bad, sometimes I get it wrong off the top of my head and this is one of those occasions! 🙏
That shot of Quasar flung me back to my childhood, spent my early summer holidays running around festival park till I moved away at 16 years old, so thanks for that flashback.
Fully intend to go back one day to document the area having not lived there now for 25 years.
1:44 was the photo that made me subscribe :) looking forward to more of this channel!
Hey Max, really enjoying the content - What camera/lens/film were you using at 9:10? Looks great!
Hey! Contax g1 with the 45mm lens on portra 400 👍
Awesome video. Really given me something to think about.
That’s awesome man
What's your editing process on a scan? Do you can scans back in raw or jpg and what's your process?
TL;DR: get leica, get mamiya, get kid's size beanie.
Not editing a film image is like walking into a darkroom, throwing the neg into the enlarger and just banging out a print without any thought, effort or tests .
Film is supposed to be edited and has always been edited.
The idea that film shouldn't be edited is hipster bunkum.
I've been shooting and processing my own film non stop since 1971.
Great video 🤝
Thanks Javier
Think about your shots, use a better camera and lens, edit your shots. I'm sorry but this is way too generic to be useful. What about the interesting subject , the atmosphere, the evoked emotion, the message of images? Without this you still end up with a technically perfect boring image.
And if you're going to make an argument for film and even more so for medium format, you need to put forward some convincing evidence that they offer something that digital just cannot achieve. If your starting point for editing pictures is a digital scan anyway then what is there that a raw file from a digital camera cannot offer?
Re your first point: Max covers the additional points you make again and again and yet again in videos you obviously haven't watched, always in the context of avoiding 'boring' shots ...
Re your second point: yes, I agree - I've started watching these videos chronologically from the start and don't feel Max has really justified the use of (expensive) film vs (cheap) digital images ...