Having a treat, and creating a small collection of images from a restricted 36 shots. It's curating the world around you, accepting the challenge and restrictions that film photography affords. It's great!
I shoot film, mostly black and white. I develop my own negative. I scan my negative only to see which ones I want to make prints. Once I find one I want to print, I use my enlarger to make my prints. I really enjoyed the process and having something tangible to look at instead of staring at the image on my monitor.
That sounds like a great workflow. If I had an enlarger and somewhere to use it then I'd like to do the same...though I'd need to (re)learn how to make a good print. It has been many years since I actually made an enlargement in a college lab. Thanks for sharing 🙂
That's what I do, with a cheap jumble sale chinese scanner for 35mm b&w and a compact digital camera for 6x9. It's quicker than doing contact sheets and I can crop on thé screen if I want to try out ideas before enlarging. But then it's darkroom, miles more fun than paying for PS and all thé intelligence in it is mine, not some robot. Colour is digital for me, no point in doing colour film just to have developing and scans done by a lab (but I don't rework colour much and it gets printed in thé supermarket). You don't need a lot for a makeshift darkroom, a couple of certains for thé black-out, a desk for thé enlarger and space for 3 dishes. Mine has 3 doorways and is shared by 3 cats, washing machine and tumble drier and a microwave - but it does have a sink. It is only opérationnel after midnight! (I have a changing bag for loading films.) A real dedicated darkroom would bé nice though!
After buying many many many film cameras and bouncing about with every available film, I have now settled on what works for me. Black and White 6x6 medium format. I have only two film cameras, both the same one of which is a backup. My film stocks are FP4+ for good light and studio and 400 iso for everything else. I have just developed two rolls of Delta 400 and three of Kentmere 400, I had them in the fridge and went on a trip so I used them to test developing them specifically for darkroom printing. I no longer scan negatives and now print them, hence the 400 iso test, then scan the print if I want to upload somewhere. Why? I enjoy it and have never been very happy with the scanning of negatives, top gear, and yes doing it properly, but scanning the print for me seems real & less digital. I know that sounds bonkers but not sure how better to express the natural look of a scanned darkroom print over the negative and digital processing. Thankfully we are all different and at different paths on our journey so what I am doing might not be right for others. It's my current workflow which will probably change. I wish you well.
Choosing the right b&w filmstock, loading the Nikon F2, using the hand held Gossen lightmeter, waiting for the decicive moment (not shooting away 10 shots/s), loading the film onto the Paterson wheel/tank patiently in the dark, developing it and fixing it precisely right, camera scanning, converting and enhancing it in lightroom carefully. Then watching the image with awe, its like seeing your children grow up. Wonderful!
@thevoiceman6192 all individual film has it’s own look, there is no such thing as a film look, it’s just film. It’s not about making digital look like this supposedly film look, it is giving digital a unique look of your own.
@@Whiteart10 Yes there is such a thing as a film look. You may have heard of Film Simulations? So why make it look like anything ? if digital is supposedly superior it should stand on it's own without any editing.
There’s a place for film and digital cameras. Just like there is a place for vinyl records and streaming. You have the choice. Choice is good. Film cameras are inexpensive now, especially used film cameras. You just have to process the film and scan it if you want to put it online. The advantage to digital is that you can take unlimited photos on memory cards and you can see the result immediately. You can manipulate digital photos to look anyway you want. Or you can post them SOOC.
@@JerryMungo Yes but if there was no film there would be no digital. Every photo teacher says Schoot digital like it only had 36 exposures and minimal photoshopp. Less is more. So yes digital has those advantage so in a way it is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes choice is good. So if the podcaster is going to lead with a title like he did then someone is going to counter that.
@@thevoiceman6192 I never agreed with the idea that we should pretend to shoot digital like it was film. There is a huge advantage to be able to take as many shots as you want and not be constrained to 36 shots. Then to be able to see them immediately is a huge advantage. We can see if we got the shot or not in the moment. Sure if you love then film by all means shoot film. But digital creates unlimited possibilities . I would never go back to film.
I shoot film for the enjoyment of it. Wildlife photography has sure come a long way with the advent of mirrorless cameras, but it’s a real experience trying to manually focus a 500mm f/4.5, definitely doesn’t lend itself to run and gun photography.
I shoot both analog and digital, majority of my shots are B&W. I've shot my first coloured 35mm harman pheonix. I develop my B&W film. I also scan my film. I enjoy the processes of shooting, developing and scanning film. I would say shooting analog gives me more satisfaction. Because I have more control over the analog shot from start to finish
Thanks Steve. Yes, it is satisfying to see the whole process through from start to finish. One day I must learn to develop C-41 myself so I can do the same with colour and b&w. Have a good week 🙂
@@studioswinden I know some B&W film can be processed by c-41 method, my easy option is to take my colour film to my nearest shop in Cheltenham. I don't plan on shooting much coloured film. Thanks for a great vlog
Good vibes. You have a very pleasant down to earth presentation style, perhaps a bit like film in this world of clickbait, shocked-face-thumbnails and 'here's a word from our sponsor!' professional RUclips. I've seen this argument before, that digital cameras somehow 'are' expensive, because new pro digital cameras are expensive, but you can get a perfectly serviceable small, used digital camera with great picture quality for £150-250. (Just looked at a pansonic gf3 (mft) with a 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens at a total price of £150, though that model doesnt have a viewfinder.) I don't shoot on film myself at the moment, but I do very much appreciate the philosophy, and that people like you keep it alive. I'm sure ill join in soon enough :D
Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated. And you are quite right about there being inexpensive digital cameras out there that can do the job as well (in most situations) as the expensive state-of-the-art ones. Some of the best pictures I probably ever took were on a Panasonic GF1 which is still going today, and still taking good pictures, though not in my hands. That lack of viewfinder was a pain, though, especially on sunny days. I have the G100 now, and the EVF is a real bonus...it is my everyday walkaround camera with a 20mm pancake on it, as it's so pocketable. Happy shooting. Cheers 🙂
When I got back into film, I was surprised how hard it was to get it developed. When I did find a place to develop my rolls, they told me they would scan the negatives for printing? I knew it was time to also get back to developing myself and doing my own darkroom prints.
I think I'm lucky that there are labs nearby, and that I can develop my own b&w. I don't know a great deal about how labs work these days, but I'm guessing most prints are made from scans...often with the same or similar printing methods as with an enlarger (ie not inkjet/giclee)...but not direct prints from a negative. If anyone on here knows more about this I'd be interested to find out for myself! Regarding the availability of developing per se the thought of an exposed film getting lost in the post would always worry me if I couldn't take it into a shop and hand it over to a person. Though I guess I was happy to mail off my Kodachrome from halfway around the world back in the day, so maybe I'm just getting overanxious as I get older! Thanks for watching 🙂
Thank you for sharing this video. I want to emphasize that we don't practice analog photography just to end up scanning the photos with a digital camera or another method. It's about the whole process in general: from choosing the type of film we're going to use, like Kodak Proimage 100 for color, or Ilford HP5 for black and white, where the ISO determines the grain and contrast. There's also the experience of rescuing a mechanical camera from the 70s and having to manually decide shutter speeds and aperture, and seeing how these decisions affect the final result. Additionally, the process of developing the film at home, mixing chemicals, is a unique experience that challenges us at each step. Although scanning can be one of the most tedious steps-whether it's with a digital camera, a drum scanner, or the Fuji Frontier of a professional lab-it's the least relevant compared to the entire creative and artisanal process of analog photography.
Film camera’s were all I knew growing up. Our family always had 110 cameras until I got myself a 35mm. Eventually I bought my first SLR, a Practica BMS. Once digital cameras arrived I never looked back. Digital is so convenient but I love the nostalgia of film. I occasionally shoot 120 in my Rolleicord but it’s so expensive. I never bother with 35mm. Each to their own 👍🏼
One thing that I really miss from film photography was the smell of film, especially the smell when loading a new roll film into the film back of my Bronica 645 !!
That is true, and I forgot to mention it. I spoke about the feeling of handling film, but you're right there's all the other senses. Including the faint smell of the film chemicals once it has been developed. Thanks for sharing 🙂
I scan using an Epsom V800 on the Less Auto Sharpness(-) setting. This is the softest setting. The software I use is Silverfast which allows for some contrast balance. I don't own (or want) a digital camera. I agree with the critics that question digital camera scanning. I store my photos on iPhotos on my mac but never make any adjustments using the Apple software. It seems to have an AI element which automatically sharpens which I don't want. I shoot with HP5 and any 'digital' sharpening turns soft grain into looking like sand which is not what I want. I don't use Lightroom and only use Photoshop Elements to get rid of dust and blemishes. That's it. I like my photos to look like they could have been taken 50 years ago - perfectly imperfect! The modern obsession with sharpness as you say is like Autotune. Bland. 'Perfect' exposure is another digital issue. All those perfect sunsets with the Lightroom slider full Right ( or Left- I don't know) just leave me cold. Keep shooting film. Cheers!
Thanks for sharing. It's really interesting to hear how others get results that work for them. I think I may have used Silverfast (all the names sound so similar!) back when I scanned medium format negatives on a loaned scanner for one of my projects years ago. I got great results, but it was an incredibly slow process. I find working with a digital camera to capture the film image much faster, and I think by shooting raw I avoid most of the artifacts of digital processing! Thanks again 🙂
In the days before digital, all photos printed were first scanned before the RA4 printer connected prints. So long as you scan your negatives with these vintage mini lab scanners you are ok. To really enjoy the film's colour palette enjoy it the way it's designed, ie in print form and print on CMYK printer. The blue light in screens do change your scanned colour palette. You can get bad feedback on your photos because that person is viewing them on a different type of smartphone screen.
I noticed that shutter lag on most point and shoot film cameras, and similarly in early digital point and shoots. Must have something to do with the contacts that replaced the simple mechanical actuation in the earlier models, because those ones were instant.
Thanks for commenting. Yes, I don't know the technical reason, but there definitely does seem to be a delay. My Olympus XA2 is the opposite...so sensitive that it goes off before I think I've even pressed the shutter button sometimes! 🙂
With better scanners now , the film Negative can be archived away, for future generations, those negatives can be stored well, Slide Film is also good,I have shot some more slides recently
I think where I’ve struggled is “it does survive the scan…” and “…from the lab…” I have found the look I get from a film print can vary significantly from that of the same image the “professional lab” scanned (high resolution, etc.) and my own scanning. There’s an idea out there that certain films have a “look”, but then I find digital scans are not so perfectly interpreting the transition from analog to digital. I agree there are valid reasons for shooting film. I’m just not fully convinced the digital journey from film negatives is that seamless. Moreover, once digitized it appears one must still work the colors sliders etc. to match the fidelity of the professionally printed film shot.
Thanks Jared, and thanks for watching. I agree with you. I've scanned he same film on separate occasions and got different results in terms of colour, grain and so forth...it's certainly not a seamless transition and I don't think I've found the perfect solution yet...I'd love to make optical enlargements of some of my negatives, and make large prints, but I haven't the space or money for a proper darkroom at this stage, so digital scans and prints from those is how I go. I could send negs to be printed by an expert, and I have a friend who does just that...but it's a question of cost to some extent, and keeping full control (and a bit of laziness 😉). But I keep my negs, and one day I may print them. Happy shooting! 🙂
@@studioswinden quite true! I have a number of photographer friends experimenting with negative scanning. Honestly, sometimes using a flatbed scanner on a print works fine. Some prints I have from the 1980s scan reasonably well that way. Side note: our local camera store that send my film to a lab told me (to my surprise) that film prints have been digital since the 1990s! And here I thought film was entirely analogue. So I’ve accepted the fact that film or digital are just coexisting platforms that fill different needs and use cases. Recently, I started shooting on a Nikon F5 that matches the autofocus performance of my Nikon digital cameras. I get the “look” I want and can integrate them within my overall workflow. It’s all a journey anyway. Cheers!
Because I love using the beautiful cameras from the 1950s! So I can make silver gel prints in a wet lab darkroom. Scanning film digital is a different animal to discuss
Interesting perspective, albeit not one I share. I have a bunch of film in the fridge which is about a decade (or two) past its use by date exactly because I find it a faff to use. It’s mostly 120 but when I last used 35mm I shot on my first ever camera, a Ricoh 500G. If you haven’t already tried one, I recommend you do. It may feel like a clockwork camera but it has a great lens.
Thanks Ian. I just did a quick web search for the Ricoh you mentioned and it does sound like my kind of thing...40mm and a fast-ish lens. If I spot a cheap one at a camera fair then I may invest! And I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video...nice that someone can enjoy seeing someone's perspective without necessarily sharing it. I like where you're coming from! Enjoy the photography...whatever kind it may be 🙂
to me its all about the negative for archival purposes it will out last any hard drive. Last time I looked humans are analog therefor providing a natural experience.
I have had the same "why shoot film and 'scan' on a digital camera" question for a while. I always assume it is cost saving effort by people who are not thinking too far ahead.
great video, for me film has a look I love, maybe it's nostalgic and takes me back to the 80's, but I love imperfections too. digital is just not the same experience
Analog is freedom from battery chargers and electrical cords. These are part of the digital kit, as are the digital display device and software. Analog is most portable and permanent.
Why? Because process matters. And, because that process matters - the end result (for me and the people I share my prints with) is far more satisfying. Casual sex with a stranger or making love with my significant other? Perhaps - for some - the end result is the same. My personal story spans decades. I started shooting film in the early '60's when dad handed me the Argus he brought back from his time in the Army Air Corps. I graduated to Canon and eventually Nikon. Fast forward into the early '00's and someone bought me a lovely Nikon Digital. I made the leap into the exploding realm of digital. Fast forward again a few years and I stopped shooting altogether. I thought I had outgrown the craft. Fast forward again and my father-in-law passed away a few years ago and following his memorial we gathered at our home. At some point someone ran inside and grabbed a shoe box and several albums of my old prints. We sat around for hours passing those prints around the table and drinking a little too much wine. And in that moment it struck me that A.) no one grabbed their tablet or phone to share and B.) those prints were good - - - - some were REALLY good. And in that moment, i struck me that process mattered and that the process influenced the end result. I sold the digital junk (WHICH by the way only commanded pennies on the dollar) AND dusted off my analog gear. I even doubled down on a medium format camera and have been loving every minute once again!!!! My grand children will sometimes exclaim "WHAT'S THAT?" and ask "Why do you carry that big thing around?" - - I tell them to go get the shoe box. Your actual mileage may vary.
Same arguments as why drive manual when you have full automatic and electric cars as well. Why buy a £1000 phone when £50 dumb phone will do. Why buy a £1500 computer when a tablet will do. It is an individual thing. It is about what you as a person gets out of it.
@@michaelbell75 not at all. It seems you lost your head. I just said what I also think like the rest of the comments, and I was not attacking him. Calm down, buy yourself an espresso.
for me, the main advantage is the huge variety of different cameras available. in addition to all the traditional 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras there are also the super quirky cameras like the nishika n8000 or the horizon 202 swing lens camera. there's simply no digital equivalent to those. with film cameras, i have many options and enjoy the entirety of the process. and as a bonus, negatives i scan today with one digital camera can be scanned years from now with a much improved digital camera whereas pictures i take today with a digital are limited to what they are today.
the colours captured by film are not the colours captured by digital sensor and postprocessing software. when you scan, you get the colours of film, though in the same container (jpg?). it is almost impossible to get the same result as you get with film even with sofisticated software, because film is another process.
That's simply being selective, I think. Not all negatives will be printed, only the ones we really like. Of course, scanning film is an interesing topic on itself: various techniques like wet mount scanning, drum scanning, some color correction process, etc etc. As usual, there are affordable films labs, and of course the are the more expensive ones.
I'm wondering why people would use a cheap point-and-shoot camera when they could just as easily use a cheap digital camera. They both have similarly poor lenses, and with a digital image, you can always achieve a film-like look. I’ve proven this many times with the cheapest digital cameras and phones. If I personally were shooting on film, I’d definitely want the best camera available, with the best possible lenses. And in the end, you realize that even if the gear is 30 years old, it’s still costly because everyone today wants the best. It’s true that you can make good photos with subpar equipment, but as a perfectionist, I’d want the best and would also want the best scanning, which is an issue nowadays, and that's why I’ve abandoned film. I still have about 20 rolls of film in the fridge and a decent SLR camera with top-notch lenses from that time. But I now use them with a digital camera because, ultimately, it’s the same thing. I’ve realized that it’s more important to change location rather than equipment-just the location. When I look at your wonderful city, I feel a bit envious that I’m not there, walking around and seeing it with my own eyes. My city, which is equally picturesque, already knows me too well, and it doesn’t excite me anymore. I don’t see anything new, and I need at least six months to a year to walk through it again and feel like there’s something worth photographing. There have been times when I’ve walked around the city and didn’t take a single shot, even though I always have a camera in hand. But when you go to another city, especially in a large foreign country with a different culture, everything becomes interesting-every little mound, every unexplored plant, every graffiti, every small detail, every pole, every unusual part of the city becomes a reason to take a photo. We should switch places-you come here, and I go there. Instead of swapping cameras, it would be better to change location, to switch cities. In the end, equipment doesn’t really matter; it’s just an extension of our hands to convey our vision, our thoughts onto an image. I truly want authentic analog photography, where the photos are developed, enlarged, and printed analogously, but that’s nearly impossible today. I wish for it because when I look at color photos developed in the old days, there’s simply no comparison. In short: the only aspect it really became better in photography is "contrast". We have now contrast from 0 to 100%, not only from 20% to 80% as it used to be.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I hear what you say about how your home city starts to get boring and hard to make pictures in...for me it's particularly because the light is so flat most of the time. When the sun shines I find everything looks different from day-to-day and hour to hour and I feel a lot more inspired. When there's no sun I really struggle, even though there are opportunities to be found with low contrast and "dramatic" skies. And I think you may well be right about the importance of analogue developing...I wish I had the skills (and money) to produce some "proper" colour prints. Have a great week, and thanks again 🙂
It's possible, but the negatives didn't look particularly thin to my eye. I deliberately didn't add a lot of contrast when I scanned/digitally photographed them for RUclips, so I think that's why they might seem washed out. The details are still there in the shadows. Thanks for watching 🙂
@@studioswinden Both - in regard to development mistakes, scratches, colour blobs and overlapping sections of film from 8mm to 5x4. The error and imperfection is hard replicate digitally.
Not convinced by any of these so-called “reasons” for shooting film over digital. Seems like more of an unnecessary hassle, aside from the obvious added co$t$.
Thanks for watching. It is a quite individual choice and certainly won't suit everyone, but - though I can't deny the cost of film is a limiting factor - I actually enjoy the "hassle" and having a physical product at the end. 🙂
I do all of my black and white with film then scan and print digitally. All of my color work is digital. my only goal is to get the highest quality image that will eventually be printed and hung on the wall, not because I love the smell of the chemicals or I love loading a film camera with film. Anything other than the goal of the highest quality possible in my opinion is complete stupidity and a waste of time.
I can see your point, and to try and achieve the best results you can is of course a really important thing to do. I still believe life is about living, though, and if you don't enjoy the journey then even the best results will feel unfulfilling...in my experience, anyway. Thanks for watching 🙂
I like the process of shooting with film camera , i think walking around with a digital camera makes no sense as you might as well just use your phone camera . Holaaaaaa !!
Lovely to watch
Thank you 🙂
I've tried to go back to digital on several occasions, but it's boring compared to using film. The whole process of using film is magical.
It is indeed! 🙂
Having a treat, and creating a small collection of images from a restricted 36 shots. It's curating the world around you, accepting the challenge and restrictions that film photography affords. It's great!
Well said!
I shoot film, mostly black and white. I develop my own negative. I scan my negative only to see which ones I want to make prints. Once I find one I want to print, I use my enlarger to make my prints. I really enjoyed the process and having something tangible to look at instead of staring at the image on my monitor.
That sounds like a great workflow. If I had an enlarger and somewhere to use it then I'd like to do the same...though I'd need to (re)learn how to make a good print. It has been many years since I actually made an enlargement in a college lab. Thanks for sharing 🙂
That's what I do, with a cheap jumble sale chinese scanner for 35mm b&w and a compact digital camera for 6x9. It's quicker than doing contact sheets and I can crop on thé screen if I want to try out ideas before enlarging. But then it's darkroom, miles more fun than paying for PS and all thé intelligence in it is mine, not some robot. Colour is digital for me, no point in doing colour film just to have developing and scans done by a lab (but I don't rework colour much and it gets printed in thé supermarket).
You don't need a lot for a makeshift darkroom, a couple of certains for thé black-out, a desk for thé enlarger and space for 3 dishes. Mine has 3 doorways and is shared by 3 cats, washing machine and tumble drier and a microwave - but it does have a sink. It is only opérationnel after midnight! (I have a changing bag for loading films.) A real dedicated darkroom would bé nice though!
After buying many many many film cameras and bouncing about with every available film, I have now settled on what works for me.
Black and White 6x6 medium format.
I have only two film cameras, both the same one of which is a backup.
My film stocks are FP4+ for good light and studio and 400 iso for everything else.
I have just developed two rolls of Delta 400 and three of Kentmere 400, I had them in the fridge and went on a trip so I used them to test developing them specifically for darkroom printing.
I no longer scan negatives and now print them, hence the 400 iso test, then scan the print if I want to upload somewhere.
Why?
I enjoy it and have never been very happy with the scanning of negatives, top gear, and yes doing it properly, but scanning the print for me seems real & less digital. I know that sounds bonkers but not sure how better to express the natural look of a scanned darkroom print over the negative and digital processing.
Thankfully we are all different and at different paths on our journey so what I am doing might not be right for others.
It's my current workflow which will probably change.
I wish you well.
Thank-you. And thanks for sharing your process. Definitely doesn't sound bonkers...I can see exactly where you're coming from. Enjoy your prints 🙂
Choosing the right b&w filmstock, loading the Nikon F2, using the hand held Gossen lightmeter, waiting for the decicive moment (not shooting away 10 shots/s), loading the film onto the Paterson wheel/tank patiently in the dark, developing it and fixing it precisely right, camera scanning, converting and enhancing it in lightroom carefully. Then watching the image with awe, its like seeing your children grow up. Wonderful!
Well said 🙂
Why schoot digital just to photoshopt it to look like film?
@thevoiceman6192 all individual film has it’s own look, there is no such thing as a film look, it’s just film. It’s not about making digital look like this supposedly film look, it is giving digital a unique look of your own.
@@Whiteart10 Yes there is such a thing as a film look. You may have heard of Film Simulations? So why make it look like anything ? if digital is supposedly superior it should stand on it's own without any editing.
There’s a place for film and digital cameras. Just like there is a place for vinyl records and streaming. You have the choice. Choice is good. Film cameras are inexpensive now, especially used film cameras. You just have to process the film and scan it if you want to put it online. The advantage to digital is that you can take unlimited photos on memory cards and you can see the result immediately. You can manipulate digital photos to look anyway you want. Or you can post them SOOC.
@@JerryMungo Yes but if there was no film there would be no digital. Every photo teacher says Schoot digital like it only had 36 exposures and minimal photoshopp. Less is more. So yes digital has those advantage so in a way it is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes choice is good. So if the podcaster is going to lead with a title like he did then someone is going to counter that.
@@thevoiceman6192 I never agreed with the idea that we should pretend to shoot digital like it was film. There is a huge advantage to be able to take as many shots as you want and not be constrained to 36 shots. Then to be able to see them immediately is a huge advantage. We can see if we got the shot or not in the moment. Sure if you love then film by all means shoot film. But digital creates unlimited possibilities . I would never go back to film.
I shoot film for the enjoyment of it. Wildlife photography has sure come a long way with the advent of mirrorless cameras, but it’s a real experience trying to manually focus a 500mm f/4.5, definitely doesn’t lend itself to run and gun photography.
I shoot both analog and digital, majority of my shots are B&W. I've shot my first coloured 35mm harman pheonix. I develop my B&W film. I also scan my film. I enjoy the processes of shooting, developing and scanning film. I would say shooting analog gives me more satisfaction. Because I have more control over the analog shot from start to finish
Thanks Steve. Yes, it is satisfying to see the whole process through from start to finish. One day I must learn to develop C-41 myself so I can do the same with colour and b&w. Have a good week 🙂
@@studioswinden I know some B&W film can be processed by c-41 method, my easy option is to take my colour film to my nearest shop in Cheltenham. I don't plan on shooting much coloured film. Thanks for a great vlog
Good vibes. You have a very pleasant down to earth presentation style, perhaps a bit like film in this world of clickbait, shocked-face-thumbnails and 'here's a word from our sponsor!' professional RUclips. I've seen this argument before, that digital cameras somehow 'are' expensive, because new pro digital cameras are expensive, but you can get a perfectly serviceable small, used digital camera with great picture quality for £150-250. (Just looked at a pansonic gf3 (mft) with a 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens at a total price of £150, though that model doesnt have a viewfinder.) I don't shoot on film myself at the moment, but I do very much appreciate the philosophy, and that people like you keep it alive. I'm sure ill join in soon enough :D
Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated. And you are quite right about there being inexpensive digital cameras out there that can do the job as well (in most situations) as the expensive state-of-the-art ones. Some of the best pictures I probably ever took were on a Panasonic GF1 which is still going today, and still taking good pictures, though not in my hands. That lack of viewfinder was a pain, though, especially on sunny days. I have the G100 now, and the EVF is a real bonus...it is my everyday walkaround camera with a 20mm pancake on it, as it's so pocketable. Happy shooting. Cheers 🙂
@@studioswinden That Lumix 20mm is brilliant (my most used lens on my e-m10 mkII) Happy shooting to you to, cheers!
When I got back into film, I was surprised how hard it was to get it developed.
When I did find a place to develop my rolls, they told me they would scan the negatives for printing? I knew it was time to also get back to developing myself and doing my own darkroom prints.
I think I'm lucky that there are labs nearby, and that I can develop my own b&w. I don't know a great deal about how labs work these days, but I'm guessing most prints are made from scans...often with the same or similar printing methods as with an enlarger (ie not inkjet/giclee)...but not direct prints from a negative. If anyone on here knows more about this I'd be interested to find out for myself! Regarding the availability of developing per se the thought of an exposed film getting lost in the post would always worry me if I couldn't take it into a shop and hand it over to a person. Though I guess I was happy to mail off my Kodachrome from halfway around the world back in the day, so maybe I'm just getting overanxious as I get older! Thanks for watching 🙂
Thank you for sharing this video. I want to emphasize that we don't practice analog photography just to end up scanning the photos with a digital camera or another method. It's about the whole process in general: from choosing the type of film we're going to use, like Kodak Proimage 100 for color, or Ilford HP5 for black and white, where the ISO determines the grain and contrast. There's also the experience of rescuing a mechanical camera from the 70s and having to manually decide shutter speeds and aperture, and seeing how these decisions affect the final result. Additionally, the process of developing the film at home, mixing chemicals, is a unique experience that challenges us at each step. Although scanning can be one of the most tedious steps-whether it's with a digital camera, a drum scanner, or the Fuji Frontier of a professional lab-it's the least relevant compared to the entire creative and artisanal process of analog photography.
Very well put. Thanks for sharing 🙂
Film camera’s were all I knew growing up. Our family always had 110 cameras until I got myself a 35mm. Eventually I bought my first SLR, a Practica BMS. Once digital cameras arrived I never looked back. Digital is so convenient but I love the nostalgia of film. I occasionally shoot 120 in my Rolleicord but it’s so expensive. I never bother with 35mm. Each to their own 👍🏼
One thing that I really miss from film photography was the smell of film, especially the smell when loading a new roll film into the film back of my Bronica 645 !!
That is true, and I forgot to mention it. I spoke about the feeling of handling film, but you're right there's all the other senses. Including the faint smell of the film chemicals once it has been developed. Thanks for sharing 🙂
I scan using an Epsom V800 on the Less Auto Sharpness(-) setting. This is the softest setting. The software I use is Silverfast which allows for some contrast balance. I don't own (or want) a digital camera. I agree with the critics that question digital camera scanning. I store my photos on iPhotos on my mac but never make any adjustments using the Apple software. It seems to have an AI element which automatically sharpens which I don't want. I shoot with HP5 and any 'digital' sharpening turns soft grain into looking like sand which is not what I want. I don't use Lightroom and only use Photoshop Elements to get rid of dust and blemishes. That's it. I like my photos to look like they could have been taken 50 years ago - perfectly imperfect! The modern obsession with sharpness as you say is like Autotune. Bland. 'Perfect' exposure is another digital issue. All those perfect sunsets with the Lightroom slider full Right ( or Left- I don't know) just leave me cold. Keep shooting film. Cheers!
Thanks for sharing. It's really interesting to hear how others get results that work for them. I think I may have used Silverfast (all the names sound so similar!) back when I scanned medium format negatives on a loaned scanner for one of my projects years ago. I got great results, but it was an incredibly slow process. I find working with a digital camera to capture the film image much faster, and I think by shooting raw I avoid most of the artifacts of digital processing! Thanks again 🙂
In the days before digital, all photos printed were first scanned before the RA4 printer connected prints.
So long as you scan your negatives with these vintage mini lab scanners you are ok.
To really enjoy the film's colour palette enjoy it the way it's designed, ie in print form and print on CMYK printer. The blue light in screens do change your scanned colour palette. You can get bad feedback on your photos because that person is viewing them on a different type of smartphone screen.
That's really interesting information. Thanks for sharing 🙂
I noticed that shutter lag on most point and shoot film cameras, and similarly in early digital point and shoots. Must have something to do with the contacts that replaced the simple mechanical actuation in the earlier models, because those ones were instant.
Thanks for commenting. Yes, I don't know the technical reason, but there definitely does seem to be a delay. My Olympus XA2 is the opposite...so sensitive that it goes off before I think I've even pressed the shutter button sometimes! 🙂
So true the world is not perfect.
With better scanners now , the film Negative can be archived away, for future generations, those negatives can be stored well, Slide Film is also good,I have shot some more slides recently
I think where I’ve struggled is “it does survive the scan…” and “…from the lab…” I have found the look I get from a film print can vary significantly from that of the same image the “professional lab” scanned (high resolution, etc.) and my own scanning. There’s an idea out there that certain films have a “look”, but then I find digital scans are not so perfectly interpreting the transition from analog to digital. I agree there are valid reasons for shooting film. I’m just not fully convinced the digital journey from film negatives is that seamless. Moreover, once digitized it appears one must still work the colors sliders etc. to match the fidelity of the professionally printed film shot.
Thanks Jared, and thanks for watching. I agree with you. I've scanned he same film on separate occasions and got different results in terms of colour, grain and so forth...it's certainly not a seamless transition and I don't think I've found the perfect solution yet...I'd love to make optical enlargements of some of my negatives, and make large prints, but I haven't the space or money for a proper darkroom at this stage, so digital scans and prints from those is how I go. I could send negs to be printed by an expert, and I have a friend who does just that...but it's a question of cost to some extent, and keeping full control (and a bit of laziness 😉). But I keep my negs, and one day I may print them. Happy shooting! 🙂
@@studioswinden quite true! I have a number of photographer friends experimenting with negative scanning. Honestly, sometimes using a flatbed scanner on a print works fine. Some prints I have from the 1980s scan reasonably well that way. Side note: our local camera store that send my film to a lab told me (to my surprise) that film prints have been digital since the 1990s! And here I thought film was entirely analogue. So I’ve accepted the fact that film or digital are just coexisting platforms that fill different needs and use cases. Recently, I started shooting on a Nikon F5 that matches the autofocus performance of my Nikon digital cameras. I get the “look” I want and can integrate them within my overall workflow. It’s all a journey anyway. Cheers!
I would say, it’s your hobby, do whatever you want.😊
Because I love using the beautiful cameras from the 1950s!
So I can make silver gel prints in a wet lab darkroom.
Scanning film digital is a different animal to discuss
Interesting perspective, albeit not one I share. I have a bunch of film in the fridge which is about a decade (or two) past its use by date exactly because I find it a faff to use. It’s mostly 120 but when I last used 35mm I shot on my first ever camera, a Ricoh 500G. If you haven’t already tried one, I recommend you do. It may feel like a clockwork camera but it has a great lens.
Thanks Ian. I just did a quick web search for the Ricoh you mentioned and it does sound like my kind of thing...40mm and a fast-ish lens. If I spot a cheap one at a camera fair then I may invest! And I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video...nice that someone can enjoy seeing someone's perspective without necessarily sharing it. I like where you're coming from! Enjoy the photography...whatever kind it may be 🙂
to me its all about the negative for archival purposes it will out last any hard drive. Last time I looked humans are analog therefor providing a natural experience.
I have had the same "why shoot film and 'scan' on a digital camera" question for a while. I always assume it is cost saving effort by people who are not thinking too far ahead.
Did the video change your view at all...or reinforce it? 😂 Thanks for watching 🙂
Get yourself a darkroom and wet process the film for the full film experience. At least for black and white.
It's fun meditative.
I'd love to do that! Thanks for watching 🙂
Digital is for fun.
Film is forever.
Indeed, I hope so 🙂
great video, for me film has a look I love, maybe it's nostalgic and takes me back to the 80's, but I love imperfections too. digital is just not the same experience
Totally agree!
Re-using old Cameras before they go in the skip
I shoot film because I love to print in the darkroom. If not for that, it would be digital all the way for the convenience.
Good points. Thanks
Thanks for watching!
Analog is freedom from battery chargers and electrical cords. These are part of the digital kit, as are the digital display device and software. Analog is most portable and permanent.
💕💕😍😍❤❤
Why? Because process matters. And, because that process matters - the end result (for me and the people I share my prints with) is far more satisfying. Casual sex with a stranger or making love with my significant other? Perhaps - for some - the end result is the same.
My personal story spans decades. I started shooting film in the early '60's when dad handed me the Argus he brought back from his time in the Army Air Corps. I graduated to Canon and eventually Nikon. Fast forward into the early '00's and someone bought me a lovely Nikon Digital. I made the leap into the exploding realm of digital. Fast forward again a few years and I stopped shooting altogether. I thought I had outgrown the craft. Fast forward again and my father-in-law passed away a few years ago and following his memorial we gathered at our home. At some point someone ran inside and grabbed a shoe box and several albums of my old prints. We sat around for hours passing those prints around the table and drinking a little too much wine. And in that moment it struck me that A.) no one grabbed their tablet or phone to share and B.) those prints were good - - - - some were REALLY good. And in that moment, i struck me that process mattered and that the process influenced the end result. I sold the digital junk (WHICH by the way only commanded pennies on the dollar) AND dusted off my analog gear. I even doubled down on a medium format camera and have been loving every minute once again!!!! My grand children will sometimes exclaim "WHAT'S THAT?" and ask "Why do you carry that big thing around?" - - I tell them to go get the shoe box.
Your actual mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your story. I enjoyed reading 🙂
Same arguments as why drive manual when you have full automatic and electric cars as well. Why buy a £1000 phone when £50 dumb phone will do. Why buy a £1500 computer when a tablet will do. It is an individual thing. It is about what you as a person gets out of it.
Went completely over your head I see because your examples are nothing close to what hes talking about
@@michaelbell75 not at all. It seems you lost your head. I just said what I also think like the rest of the comments, and I was not attacking him. Calm down, buy yourself an espresso.
for me, the main advantage is the huge variety of different cameras available. in addition to all the traditional 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras there are also the super quirky cameras like the nishika n8000 or the horizon 202 swing lens camera. there's simply no digital equivalent to those. with film cameras, i have many options and enjoy the entirety of the process. and as a bonus, negatives i scan today with one digital camera can be scanned years from now with a much improved digital camera whereas pictures i take today with a digital are limited to what they are today.
All good points. Thanks for commenting 🙂
the colours captured by film are not the colours captured by digital sensor and postprocessing software. when you scan, you get the colours of film, though in the same container (jpg?). it is almost impossible to get the same result as you get with film even with sofisticated software, because film is another process.
20:00 that's just science *shrug*
I shoot digital as I don't have the patience of waiting to view my photos.
Everyone needs to get cash out and send a message to the banks that we still want cash. Also paying cash at a small business really helps them out.
That's simply being selective, I think. Not all negatives will be printed, only the ones we really like.
Of course, scanning film is an interesing topic on itself: various techniques like wet mount scanning, drum scanning, some color correction process, etc etc. As usual, there are affordable films labs, and of course the are the more expensive ones.
I'm wondering why people would use a cheap point-and-shoot camera when they could just as easily use a cheap digital camera. They both have similarly poor lenses, and with a digital image, you can always achieve a film-like look. I’ve proven this many times with the cheapest digital cameras and phones. If I personally were shooting on film, I’d definitely want the best camera available, with the best possible lenses. And in the end, you realize that even if the gear is 30 years old, it’s still costly because everyone today wants the best. It’s true that you can make good photos with subpar equipment, but as a perfectionist, I’d want the best and would also want the best scanning, which is an issue nowadays, and that's why I’ve abandoned film.
I still have about 20 rolls of film in the fridge and a decent SLR camera with top-notch lenses from that time. But I now use them with a digital camera because, ultimately, it’s the same thing. I’ve realized that it’s more important to change location rather than equipment-just the location. When I look at your wonderful city, I feel a bit envious that I’m not there, walking around and seeing it with my own eyes. My city, which is equally picturesque, already knows me too well, and it doesn’t excite me anymore. I don’t see anything new, and I need at least six months to a year to walk through it again and feel like there’s something worth photographing.
There have been times when I’ve walked around the city and didn’t take a single shot, even though I always have a camera in hand. But when you go to another city, especially in a large foreign country with a different culture, everything becomes interesting-every little mound, every unexplored plant, every graffiti, every small detail, every pole, every unusual part of the city becomes a reason to take a photo. We should switch places-you come here, and I go there. Instead of swapping cameras, it would be better to change location, to switch cities. In the end, equipment doesn’t really matter; it’s just an extension of our hands to convey our vision, our thoughts onto an image.
I truly want authentic analog photography, where the photos are developed, enlarged, and printed analogously, but that’s nearly impossible today. I wish for it because when I look at color photos developed in the old days, there’s simply no comparison. In short: the only aspect it really became better in photography is "contrast". We have now contrast from 0 to 100%, not only from 20% to 80% as it used to be.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I hear what you say about how your home city starts to get boring and hard to make pictures in...for me it's particularly because the light is so flat most of the time. When the sun shines I find everything looks different from day-to-day and hour to hour and I feel a lot more inspired. When there's no sun I really struggle, even though there are opportunities to be found with low contrast and "dramatic" skies. And I think you may well be right about the importance of analogue developing...I wish I had the skills (and money) to produce some "proper" colour prints. Have a great week, and thanks again 🙂
@@studioswindenyes light makes or breaks the image. Grey walls can look particularly flat and boring without shadows. Keep your great work.
Is it me, or do your photos look underexposed and washed out? I'm guessing that camera is underexposing by a stop.
It's possible, but the negatives didn't look particularly thin to my eye. I deliberately didn't add a lot of contrast when I scanned/digitally photographed them for RUclips, so I think that's why they might seem washed out. The details are still there in the shadows. Thanks for watching 🙂
I don’t scan no point. I use film because I like film . Scanning would give me a crap image.
The world looks better filmed with an old 8mm Bolex and film chucked in a bucket.
I can't tell if you're joking or serious, but you made me chuckle either way 🙂 Thanks for watching, and enjoy looking at the world your way 🙂👍
@@studioswinden Both - in regard to development mistakes, scratches, colour blobs and overlapping sections of film from 8mm to 5x4. The error and imperfection is hard replicate digitally.
Not convinced by any of these so-called “reasons” for shooting film over digital. Seems like more of an unnecessary hassle, aside from the obvious added co$t$.
Thanks for watching. It is a quite individual choice and certainly won't suit everyone, but - though I can't deny the cost of film is a limiting factor - I actually enjoy the "hassle" and having a physical product at the end. 🙂
I do all of my black and white with film then scan and print digitally. All of my color work is digital. my only goal is to get the highest quality image that will eventually be printed and hung on the wall, not because I love the smell of the chemicals or I love loading a film camera with film. Anything other than the goal of the highest quality possible in my opinion is complete stupidity and a waste of time.
I can see your point, and to try and achieve the best results you can is of course a really important thing to do. I still believe life is about living, though, and if you don't enjoy the journey then even the best results will feel unfulfilling...in my experience, anyway. Thanks for watching 🙂
I like the process of shooting with film camera , i think walking around with a digital camera makes no sense as you might as well just use your phone camera .
Holaaaaaa !!