Film vs. Digital: Comparing Medium Format, 35mm, and Mirrorless | Photography Tips
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- shutr.bz/2JRbiDn - For a more on comparing film versus digital and other photography tips, head on over to the blog!
Make money from your photos/videos - shutr.bz/ShutterstockContribu...
FOLLOW SHUTTERSTOCK:
Facebook - bit.ly/2ByYRXv
Twitter - bit.ly/2ByYRXv
Instagram - bit.ly/2AvBUoG
Shutterstock Blog - shutr.bz/2A3hMgL
TOOLS:
Shutterstock Image Resizer: shutr.bz/2EeauXg
Shutterstock File Converter: shutr.bz/2PIH20E
#film #digital #camera
Just to reiterate, I'm not saying one way of shooting is better than the other. I just took the cameras and scanner I had and compared the different outcomes. Please don't kill me. - Logan
Ok
I prefer the aesthetic of the film shots in these comparisons, even if the digital is technically superior in many ways.
Unless you use the same lens across the 3 cameras the comparison is as much about the lenses and the accuracy of your shutter speeds then the film itself.
I was going to say the same thing. I don’t think the Pentax pancake lens is anywhere near as nice as the sony lens. Also, the film stock will play a massive roll not only in color and contrast, but also in sharpness. Portra 400 is a good sharp film, but Ektar or portra 160 might have been a better choice for comparison.
That, and also the fact that the Portra film is made for portraits. If he used some film better suited for landscapes, it would have turned out a lot better. The lack of contrast in the film photos he pointed out was due to the Portra film. The film matters as much as the lens in my opinion.
If you get a better Scan than the EPSON V600 you would get a really different result. Because the resolution of the V600 is not 6400dpi as you might think, it is way less you get ~1560 dpi what is about 3.6 MP compared. And this is where the 35mm Film gets the unsharp look. If you had put the 35mm-Negative on something like a Heidelberg-Drumscanner or an Hasselblad-Scanner or a Fuji Frontier you would get other results. On Medium Format you have the same image but on a larger surface - so you get better results. Then you got the Problem, you just scanned a jpg, what you get here is just a tiny bit on Information.
If you want to compare Film and Digital - you need to compare the best you can get from a film with a modern DSLR/M Camera.
But what you have seen is the dynamic range of film and this is just a little thing, get an ADOX CMS 25 and a good develop and you have a film with an unbeliveable resolution while scanned or printed.
With a better scanner you can also get more detail out of the shadows.
Of course a medium format scan on something like a Flextight is uncomparibly good. But it's about everyday usability of film. That's where a V600 comes in. So it's only right that he compares it this way.
Tim Peukert, that's a good point. And given the cost of those high-end scans, to be fair you'd have to compare them to something similar in cost in the digital world--like a Phase One.
I used the Hasselblad Scanner with the Leica M7 35mm and Provia film. Made huge prints, sharpness, colour rendering, contrast were superb. However... it's all lots of work.
@@DavidMillsSeven Yes it is! And its about the camera, the Lense, the Film, the development, the scan, the print, the paper, the ink. All this is work. And need to be good at least. Bad Lense = Blurry Negative, bad times on the camera = dark/bright negative, old film = bad resulut, Films like Provia/Velvia/Ektar/Porta/CMS20/CMS100/Trix400/FP4+/etc. cost more but are really great - i mean there is no better Film in sharpness and detail like the CMS-BW-Films, then you need a good development the right developer, the right stop, the right fix..., than a good scanner (drumscan is the best solution for quality), a good printer for more precission, good ink, for long live and great colors or tones, good clean paper (Hahnemühlen / Ilford) for the best result . And you got an Image which can be great. (Same when do a real printing in the darkroom). Its a lot more work than digital.
Please do Pancakes vs Pizza next
Oh my God....
Wow 2 years
"Lets compare a $2500 camera to a $180 scanner"
bahahaha
Indeed! The scanner has a huuuuuuge impact on result. You could have the most capable film camera, but the scanner destroys all that quality. I will have to thumb this down this video for unknowingly misleading the mediums unfairly.
especially the Epson scanners are known to be only used as a cheap fast pre-scan. why not use a coolscan 9000 or a drum scanner?
@@inevitablecraftslab not to mention those pentax lenses arent that great, i have em and they ok, I wish he would have put the pentax lens on the sony to really see a closer comparison controlled for as many factors as possible
Scanner wins.
You should have used the same lens for the 35mm film and digital. Softness on 35mm could be down to the lens used. Also, I hope all digital shots were shot at 400iso!
The film long exposure is underexposed not because its shot on film but because you most likely didn´t put the reciprocity to account or you calculated it wrong. For Portra 400 its quite easy: Metered exposure to the power of 1,3
Ludwig Hagelstein literally the first thing I was wondering. 😊👍🏻
exactly !
lmao. the photo on your desk caught my eye right near the end and i couldn't stop laughing. lol. good work dude. keep em coming.
I am not a professional, so take my comments lightly. Many years ago, I was using the 35mm, 2-1/4 Mamiya for wedding and a 4x5 Horseman. I was blown away by the resolution from a 8X10 negative to print. No contest there. The camera belonged to the university, so naturally, I have chased that quality in digital cameras ever since. I believe the digital camera has to be about 50 MP to compare to 35 mm film. I think it'll be sometime before digital cameras are available to the average consumer to match a 8X10. Probably not in my life time.
The epson v600 is a good prosumer scanner hence the results you obtained...but...if you would have used a drum scanner, or a high megapixel camera on a copy stand with a proper macro, the results would have been EXTREMELY DIFFERENT. Medium format film, properly scanned to a higher standard, blows, I repeat, BLOWS AWAY the 35mm Sony digital camera.
Unlikely! How would a high megapixel camera on a copy stand blow away the same high megapixel camera shooting the scene itself.
Sure you could get a fine scan that resolves the grain more clearly but if you bumped up the Sony from the video s-series to the photographic r-series (12 vs 42 megapixels) the film wouldn't look any better.
@@rsmith02 I use a nikon d810, I scan sections of the negatives in 8 parts,sometimes 6, each section resolves nearly 36 megapixels except the intersections which are overlayed. Their is a TON of literature explaining the "WHY" if you care to learn about it. This isn't subjective, a 6x6, 6x8, 6x9 film scanned correctly IS superior to a single image taken by a full frame digital camera, be it 36mp 42mp 50 etc..color renditión, dimensionality on and on. Don't believe me? Your loss. Do your research properly first before assuming you know better.
@@rsmith02 Film has an infinite amount of information and digital has a finite amount. You will always reach a pixel on a digital photo where are as with film, the smallest unit of definition is defined by the size of its grain. However you can keep zooming in on that grain indefinitely, never reaching a resolution limit.
@Aaron NoneYa Not complaining, simply making objective observations, remember that? The video is comparing medium format film and 35mm film to 35mm digital. The scanner used is mediocre at best, hence the results are limited, nonetheles the overall 6x45 format prevails. 35mm digital is superior to 35mm film, at least from a "sharpness" perspective. From an esthetic perspective, it's completely a personal decision. Within the context of the video, again, medium format film is superior to 35mm digital, particularly when we start scanning with a drum scanner 6x6, 6x7 and so on. You are the one extrapolating, not me.
@@connerrouse3014 you will see the grain and when you blow out image it will be so shitty and grainy. Hence why modern scanners have technology of enhancing details so you are not scanning the grain too much
I have several rolls of Kodak Max 400 sitting around and my Canon AE-1... It's time to start snapping! You inspired me and that's why I appreciate this channel, I always get something new :-) Be well and stay encouraged!
35mm is going to look soft scanned on a flatbed and you could get a lot more from the medium format too. My personal preference is to use a macro lens with a digital camera and the negative on a lightbox. This has the added benefit of allowing you to stitch shots which lets you really get a ton of resolution from medium format. You can easily pull 60-70 megapixels of real detail from medium format slide film or a fine grained black and white.
I love these images, the Sony has incredible detail in the little features. I’m mostly a film shooter, so I might be biased towards it though. In the end, it’s all about what you like and how you want to shoot. Each format has its pros and cons, nothing is uniform for everyone. Loved the video!
I shoot with an a7rii and a mamiya rz67, and both of them are incredible tools. I prefer the process of working with film, but sometimes the Sony is the better choice for efficiency. It was cool to see the images side by side. I expected to like the film better, but honestly sometimes the Sony was better, sometimes the film was. Just goes to show there are lots of different and valid ways of doing the thing we do :)
Differences in color and highlight rendition on the Portra was related to the fact that you used different lenses---not the format itself. Different lenses render color and contrast differently. This is a good video, but useless in the end because it was a lens comparison, not a format comparison.
Maybe, though at least in the past manufacturers had different 35mm and medium format films with the same name. The pro-oriented larger formats were sometimes less saturated and contrasty.
There are also the variables of the lab used and scanning technique, any of which could cause differences in the final product.
I doubt the lens differences are more than a slight white balance change.
I shoot both. Digital is so much versatile than film. Digital let’s me be more creative with my shots and saves me a lot of time and frustration. Film is for those moments where I want to feel the anticipation of developing the film and don’t even remembering what was on the roll. If I had to choose one I’d pick digital.
finally someone who's speaking my language. I love both, and for me the big difference between the two is workflow, even more than the actual image differences.
also non-edited obviously the film images will come out better, but that's because you have to edit digital, it brings you files to work on.
I shoot both too and felt the same way as well. It really depends on the mood as to whether you want to spend more time developing the film / scanning the negatives etc.
It's the same reason I own records, but also have tons of CDs and stream music. The experience of analogue is special, and irreplaceable, but I sure am happy that digital is around.
The V600 is a reasonable scanner but I get much better results using a macro lens on my camera and using a bright white light (artist lamp) to illuminate the negatives.
that discussion that goes forever. there is the perfect tool out there for everybody!
thanks for sharing this great content with us!
loved watching this!
I like the fact that outdoor, there is always this kind of really fascinating blurred, soft-focus and faint blue light on films, and also I love the fact that the green is darker and not "electric" like digital cameras. But also the skin color is less vibrant and is not glowing because we don't have an "electric skin", so to speak.
Really appreciated this comparison my man. I'm shooting mamiya m645 also. Good taste you've got lol.
Nice comparison, but the colors were all different on the photos. You should have included a gray card to make sure they were more similar to some standard.
Nice, you compared lenses and "sensor" sizes. The dynamic range always better on a bigger sensor, that is why you get on the house with medium format. Compare sharpness and contrast when you scanned these pictures? Also, your lens does affect the colours a lot such as the sharpness. Obviously, you compared cheap lens with a better lens, expensive CCD sensor vs cheap scanner.
1. I think that ideally film should not be compared to digital but the other way around or not at all.
2. Further. How can you compare film to digital or viceversa? With what Portra? How about with Ectachrome, Kodachrome or Ilford? Is there even a corresponding thing for each one of those films that has been emulated into digital?
I like your first point. Compare digital to film. We're long past the days where anybody thinks about which is technically better, digital surpassed film in that respect years ago. The question is can you get the same from digital than you can from film. There's a reason for the resurgence of film.
I am a Certified One Hour Photo Lab Tech and still preferer 35mm. You have to have the correct cameras and film. Olympus is great and AGFA is great.
U have to use the same lens to be able to compare things like bokeh and focus
how should that be possible? a 45° lens on 645 is 80mm
They are not compatible
I've been a photographer for 4 years, I've been working with digital only from a T5i to my current 77D.
I think its time to venture deeper into photography by starting to shoot film.
Side note, I really like how this video was edited and shot.
I think this is a valuable comparison and one that can always add value, particularly to new generation of photographers who never used a film camera, as they can learn both its qualities and application to the current day. I also can agree with some elements of other comments about the scanning method. As an avid film user, I’ve learned film requires professional scanning to show it’s attributes properly and to look good in general. You’ll see this for sharpness especially, but also color and contrast. If you did another film vs digital video, which I’d love to see, I’d recommend having your film processed a professional lab with a Noritsu scanner, such as Indie Film Lab. Your film will be stunning, and hold their own. Thanks for posting!
Nice video. It sort of confirmed what I'd suspected for a long time. Being as I am an old guy, decades ago I shot a lot of film before any digital. At that time most of us shot with SLR's and 35mm film. The sharpness and over all quality of the image with this film really varied among different cameras (read: lens quality). But with 120mm and 620mm films I could play with the shutter speed and aperture of almost any camera, never mind its lens, and get good results. To this day I am bonkers for low speed, fine grain B&W films of medium format ... in my clunky old vintage Flexaret TLR. Thanks again for this informative video.
Without pixel peeping, a properly focused + scanned 35mm film photo can look at sharp and detailed as a digital photo. Especially when shooting up close, and if you use a macro lens like the Nikkor 60mm, it’s extremely sharp. Not to mention the better dynamic range of film...plus, at a certain point, sharpness doesn’t matter so much. People care more about composition + color + story
First, the good ... I appreciate that you did not present a judgment of which is better/best and, more, that you did the comparison in a very real-world sort of way. All the stuff is pretty commonplace and not terribly expensive. But, the comparison sort of muddies the waters a bit more, overall, rather than clearing them up. Not saying you should have gone all scientific and clean room environment and all that with it, but there are some simple things that can account for a lot of the differences you're seeing that have absolutely nothing to do with shooting the image on film or a digital sensor. Lenses, for one, can affect effective resolution, contrast, color saturation, color shifts, etc. The scanner setup can also affect that stuff, to a degree. Basically, you weren't just comparing film to digital, you were comparing your Sony digital to your Epson scanner and you were comparing your lenses, but you weren't doing it in such a way as to be effective or objective about it. Like, it would have made a difference if you'd picked up some mount adapters to use your Mamiya lens on your Sony and Pentax bodies and did comparison shots that way, while also accounting for the size difference in the mediums. It might also have been helpful to send the film to a pro lab to be scanned and all that to show alongside your Epson. I only use my Epson flatbed, which is a couple of generations older than yours, for scanning film if I have to. My results were too inconsistent and low quality for my needs. And, it takes way, way too long if I have, say, 20 rolls of 36 exp 35mm film to churn through, which does happen on occasion. I use my Nikon D810, 60mm micro lens, bellows, and film holder for digitizing my 35mm now. By using a consistent and balanced backlight, my results are extremely consistent and I'm outresolving my usual film of choice, Ilford HP5 ISO 400 black and white.
that was really cool, thank you!
I think it was a well applauded attempt, however the scanner has a huuuuuuge influence on the final photo which imo makes for a bad way to compare the mediums. Digital, imo, is made for photoshopping and gives a more plastic look. While film clones reality, meaning it looks more real.
I like taking low-light photos with a 35mm just because the medium format captures more light and the glare of the light reaches the film. The purpose is the image has the desired effects, not the surrender.
Is film worth it? In quality, it takes a debate if we're talking about converting Analog to Digital, but if printed in darkroom YES.
Anyway... things have changed and so did the prices too. While many speak about photography legacy, companies used this to sell their stock near expiring films and emptying their warehouses. Those who kept producing film made some math and saw an opportunity in it... the same math everyone should do before thinking of film photography. A negative is about 5$, it requires 3$ to be processed and more than 10$ to be printed, which means 18$ for 36 photos (in the best of cases) which is 3$ per single photo. Taking 100 photos with film means 300$, while for the same amount of money people can get a used digital camera and take at least 60K of photos without having to think how would they convert in digital format, or how would they print those.
Anyway, lets take for granted if both kind of photography have the same price for frame. Today no one prints a photo in paper... except for businesses or for a single photo someone likes to hang on the wall, but the rest of people keep those in digital formats, inside their social web spaces or etc.. What is the quality of converting film to digital? 160$ extra for a scanner or 300$ for a digital camera can do the trick, although it is hangs at the same bottleneck... now your photography inherits the same qualities and weaknesses of your scanner or your camera. So... why shoot at film?
In social aspects, film photography mobilizes a lot of people and industries, so it gives everyone the possibility to get a job, but in real... the only one who gain by this are the companies who don't care about social aspects, except for emptying their near end stock and once they do this, they will dump classic photography and stick with the new era or will fold up.
Note: the prices i mentioned about film and developing it are the lowest possible at my country. :(
Would have liked to see a little more scientific of a comparison
The lens flare in the digital and medium format shots of the light trails are there because the close streetlight is in frame for those and not in the 35mm one so maybe try to shoot exactly the same angle.
It doesn’t appear that you synced up all the shudders to fire simultaneously so presumably those light trails weren’t even from the same vehicle..?
Also daylight changes slightly from moment to moment so it would have been nice to sync up all the shutters to fire at the same time
Finally the cameras you chose are all very nice and good but alas very dissimilar.
If you ever re-do this It would be better to compare some kind of Canon EOS full frame Digital SLR to a Canon EOS film camera so you could use matching lenses and trust that all the camera settings are virtually identical.
While you’re at it, you could
show what happens to film vs digital when you underexpose and overexpose each side by side.
Reaction to Under and over exposure makes Most of the difference between these two mediums’ image characteristics.
Thanks, quick and to the point
!!.Im most curious about B+W film, is worth shooting without darkroom?scanning and sending to the lab where they use a color paper.
And...does any know of a good substitute for Kodachrome?
Great video man. Can you tell me more about the long exposure though. I can't help but imagine a digital sensor loses quality when exposed for so long, ie. noise. Though perhaps it's not even noticeable when compared. Long exposures on film are not any grainier than fast exposures. I shoot a lot of 1/2 to 2 second exposures, so I've always wondered if film would be a better choice for my work. Could you give me a little more information about that particular shot? Thanks for such an informative comparison!
Are you using an Adobe app to edit the photo or Capture 1? Reason I ask is, only capture 1 uses the vendor's APK to give you the colors and look the mfr intended. Adobe gives you their interpretation.
Thank you for the comparison. I don't see myself spending much in photographic equipment as it is a hobby... so your experiment resembles what a normal person would choose. Using the same exposure, the same lens, and a high end scanner simply would not represent the way those mediums are used.
Just gonna throw my 10p in and say i shoot 35mm over digital for the sheer fact that i cant afford digital, and for how little i do shoot (mainly in summer and autumn) i just buy a few rolls over time when i have 10 quid to spare here and there and thats enough to enjoy the hobby
I enjoyed your video. Just curious, what was the "Creative Style" setting on the Sony a7s.
hopefully raw ?!
What about say a shot from a Minolta x700 vs smart phone camera or would more info on particular phone be needed?
With digital you can create the look and feel of film in editing.
My Fuji gets me the film look I like and also has a 26mp raw image if needed.
Really helpfully bro😎👊🏾
It's like comparing Oranges to Apples to Peaches. The lenses are the big factor here. I thoroughly enjoyed your video. Cheers!
Makes me want to get into medium format for sure. 😊
Since you’re using the same film stock, why would 35mm have different color balance than the 645?
Very good, pretty much the same gear that I use, so I dont have to compare myself and waste film haha. Thanks man!
I have shot digital for the last 15 years and have moved over to film as the dynamic range is remarkable. No more blown out whites and oversaturated shaddows. Something digital could never give me.
Just a few months ago I got me a new film camera. It's not high-end hardware but I intentionally got the very Praktica MTL-5B. I did not give up on my Canon and I use them both. The fun I have when playing with the film camera is incomparable to the digital one. Although the quality of the pictures is way lower and you can never tell what a picture looks like until it is developed the anxiety is what I like the most about it. And when you realize that you managed to get that perfect exposure and focus it is soooo rewarding.
I am thinking of buying a more sophisticated film camera since they are now dirt cheap. We will see what the future brings.
As far as photography goes, I'd say there are few things more sophisticated than taking a completely manual Praktica, dependable as they are, and making beatiful pictures with it.
@@andreborges2881, surely there are more complex things to do. I am just speaking for myself as I am not a professional nor educated photographer. I am simply enjoying my time with a camera and judging from this perspective I am having a great time. 📸📷
Complexity is a foolish concept when it comes to art and photography. Enjoy your Praktica. One of the very few cameras I’ve ever used that did not come in my way.
Film captures feeling , digital captures moment.
BS
It's similar to a record vs. digital audio. Digital audio captures WAY more detail and dynamic range, by comparison. But a record is an experience -- you have to deliberately choose one. The artwork is large. It has a feeling, a texture, a smell. You have to put it on and pay attention to it, and it's only on for about 30min. A record has pops, and analogue sounds. There's something about this experience that's special.
The solution, I think anyway, for digital, is to invest the time into capturing good photos and light, and if you so desire, edit in such a way that brings "warmth" and/or film characteristics into the shot, and make prints. Too many people take 1000 photos and never go through them. If you really enjoy the process of using film, then by all means go for it because it's the experience that's special.
Great video!
I wonder it does any difference if you reveal the 35mm film in the old way whit chemicals and paper?
i think one thing to mention, is the purpose of the two techniques: film is built for printing,
and digital is (mainly) built for digital.
so you'll end up with different results depending on where your pictures end up.
for me: scanning film, is mainly to get a more convenient overview on my pictures.
(especially with color-negatives, this helps a lot in the darkroom.)
no, film is meant for developing ( enlarging )
rob b yeah. first you develope it, then you enlarge it. a process called „printing“ ;)
@@livelongandprosper70 thats what he said?!
Amazing Video... Thanks for the Insightful comparison.....
Can you do a Film vs Digital Video format Pls
Samuel Anthony that would be insanely expensive
Yeah and after that try Imax vs you name it. 😂
Could there be a light leak in the medium format camera?
The bokeh is different but to me it’s about equal. The film colors are subdued compared to the digital. Were they jpg or raw?
Enjoyable video and thanks. Can you do a comparison of films dynamic range compared to digital ( and substitute the k1000 for a Leica m6 if you can ) for another test? Cheers
You omitted to mention which ISO you shot at with the Sony S camera. Portra 400 is a relatively high ISO for film. This is visible in the higher contrast Portra was, next to the medium format film or its digital counterpart. Using an ISO 100 in 35mm would have led to a better comparison. I enjoyed the video though
One thing that could make this comparison more interesting would be to use the same lens on digital and 35mm film.
Just use an adapter :-)
A big part of the difference is due to lens.
I don't think u would be able to make the same comparison on the medium format, but I'm pretty sure you can also take a lot more out of medium too.
Another interesting thing that could be done would be to get the comparison frames drum scanned. That would generate the "best" digital image out of the film.
But thank you for going through it to make the video.
Thanks for that. Just consolidates my belief that the Sony A7 (in all it's versions) is by far and away the best affordable camera available today....and my preferred choice to shoot with...(Update: I'm now shooting with a Fuji X-T3 which is way better to use than the Sony !)
Great video.Nice !
how about using ektar 100 in film cameras?
thank you.
1:19 “If you’ve never shot with a film camera before, Portra 400 is a pretty good place to start.” Why did you make this claim?
Portra 400 is pretty much a standard for most photographers. Moderate contrast and grain with minimal color cast compared to other film stocks.
because its a cheap C-41 film you can buy anywhere.
what he didn't meantion was that portra is made to be overexposed.
Nice, but that Epson scanner is the weak link in the chain there. Try a Nikon 9000ED, or an Imacon Flextight and film will look a lot more detailed and crisp.
Brilliant comparison.
digital is more convenient and faster but I think film is better just because it makes u think and get more creative and at the end if u do it right u should be satisfied
Good vid thanks
Interesting, but not really a comparison.
1. Both film cameras are essentially a light tight box, whereas the digital camera is a computer which processes and enhances the information.
2. Because of this, the particular lens used is of critical importance with the film cameras.
3. The Sony software is designed to correct any defects in the Sony lens in camera.
4. The film scanner used has a huge impact on the film results.
At the end of the day these are all just tools used to record what the photographer is hoping to capture, and the quality of the image is really down to the creativity and skill of the photographer.
Film VS digital should be more about the process rather than sharpness and colour tests. Without using the same lens and even using different films will change how each photo looks. People shoot film for the process.
I would love to see a shoot-out of digital v film for b&w. Pit a MF Film camera with Neopan Acros100 against the Sony and see how they compare. To make it the results comparable, get an adapter for M645 to E-Mount and use the same lens on both cameras. 😃
Bonus: you do not need to factor in reciprocity for Acros unless you expose longer than 2 Minutes.
It would interesting to see a comparison, same film, same camera, same exposure, same focal length but different lens as in one from 70’s and something modern like the sigma art series.
The non pro scanner is the let down in this exercise, having said that the whole idea of comparing digital v film is like comparing apples and pears, both have their own unique qualities.
It's amusing that the video-specific 12 megapixel Sony clearly outclassed the medium format film. Sure you could get a better scan that would resolve the grain more finely but I doubt it would equal the A7SII let alone a high-resolution model like the A7R series. The film highlight performance was quite good, just as I remembered it. Film has a nice look to it and I still have my Coolscan LS-5000 so maybe I'll do a project on 35mm for old time's sake.
sorry but thats BS.
negative film has absolutely no highlight problem, quite the opposite.
Well done, tks
Cool video. Every comparison video on RUclips is full of criticism. I thought you were very clear that this was not a scientific experiment but just you showing the difference between your digital camera and your film cameras and scanning process. I found it interesting. Thanks.
scientific or not, a lot of claims where based on a lack of knowledge, thats different then to be just "non-scientific"
"film ... pastell colors" --> thats portra, of course it has pastell colors, this film is made to be scanned and processed on a computer
the indoor portraits of the film cameras where not in focus, because he probably cant focus with split prisms
the long exposure was underexposed because he has no idea of reciprocity failure calculation
why use a 400ISO portra instead of the 160 version?
why not overexpose the negative film?
if he would have ANY idea of film, why use portra at all and not ektar for example?
There is a big difference in beeing non scientific and that video.
And you can see with all the "thank you that helped" comments, that people believe what they saw in this video.
INFORMATIVE
I want to get into photography, and I want to do mostly buildings and atmospheric shots. Medium format looks like the way to go, but I heard it can be demanding for a beginner.
the problem is its heavy and you will need a tripod with everything except bright daylight.
I shoot roughly one '120 roll per month with my medium format and i dont use a tripod, but that means i really have to use it for special occasions.
Also developing a roll (15 frames) is around 5€ where i live, one roll of film is around 10€ so one photo is around 1€/$
That means one negative photo, if you want them scanned at a lab add another 12-15€ per film, which makes you pay 2€/$ per photo.
Its an expensive hobby compared to the price of digital photos, but if you love it, you will pay for it as i do :)
You make many choices when you scan film. It's hard to compare contrast, saturation, sharpness and resolution when these are chosen in the scanning software.
In short if u lookin for that vintage look film the way to go
Interesting comparison. But unfortunately, you do not seem to use the same lens on both the digital and analogue camera. Also, the A7S II is full frame, so it should only be compared to 35 mm film imho. In that case the comparison would be more accurate and more 'fair'
After spending a LOT of time trying to decide which is better film or digital I think the answer is neither. If you have both types of cameras just shoot the one you think best fits the subject and how you feel that day. I do like some of the new features you get with some digital, like eye auto focus. But then I like the simplicity of some film cameras. I do much prefer black and white film shooting to digital black and white.
What's the point of comparing digital scans? Darkroom silver gelatin print for the film vs inkjet print for the digital.
Try another one, k1000 vs a7 with "the same lens" on both camera bodies. Adapt the k1000 lens to the a7 and then compare it. I think it would be intresting.
by scanning the film photos aren't you losing detail?
For work I use digital, far cheapher and faster for the customer, for pleasure shoot film, far more rewarding and enjoyable and later this year when I give up my photography work, I will then only ever shoot film, film is far better to me, always will be.
when i think about it,
its all about filtration.
being the process of film is relatively expensive,
whatnyou get at the end, is more filtration
The a7sii is really clean and sharp but Overall the Medium format film looks better
If you could get your hands on a new 100MP digital camera, Id like to see how it stacks up to the medium formate.
I think a huge part of the difference is due to the optical designs and coatings of the lenses.
I'm not sure there's really a big debate between 35mm and full frame digital. The dynamic range, etc is considerably better on digital. Medium format is another story though, it holds up really well.
I've used the Epson V600 and it is not sharp at all. If you photographed your negatives with a macro lens, you would see a lot of detail that the scanner just isn't resolving.
I think the film speed for 35mm was a too high. also tungsten rated 3200k color is better suited for night time. I have about 15 years in post production motion picture experience. I prefer the 120 format in general. keep up the good work.
What shooting settings did you compare. a 400 film for 35mm is lesser detail focussed than a 120 roll film, a similar 400 roll would have done it. Did you fix the iso on the Sony as well? Comparing film and digital is a sensitive thing, at least as mus equality in the settings should be created. But furthermore, film on quality is inferior-not because film itself is, beating a medium format film needs more than a FF digital camera, but because of the whole process: shooting and then scanning. So turn from analog to digital means quality loss. No photo lab will develop old style.
5:28 you could've stood to mention the difference of color vibrancy of the sky
Those pictures of the house were not scanned right. There's an obvious blue cast
I have been shooting film photography for the last 26, going 27 years that we are getting into 2019. And if the general principle film how taught me; Like sniper training(Okay, terrible example 🙈) is that you have to pick your shoots and get a better understanding of what it is you are getting across with your vision. Digital on the other hand is like giving a loaded pistol to a child(more terrible examples. I apologize). Most take it for granted, knowing it is digital and you can keep on failing until you eventually get that 1 great photo out of 100+ shots 📸 that you probably took.
In the long run; Is film photography still worth it and a good medium to use? "OF COURSE!" Like the old saying goes, "Film never lies".
i would compare digital to a time-machine compared to analog.
you can instantly go back and re-do your photo until its perfect (excluding sports of course)
It is about the process. When you do film photo you look at each picture you take. When shooting with a digital camera, you shoot 1000 pictures per session and you hardly ever look at them. Idk, thats my take on the subject anyway.