film vs digital
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 дек 2024
- Start your free trial at squarespace.com... and use code GRAINYDAYS to get 10% off your first purchase.
prints: graincheck.dar...
podcast: @mamiyamigos
instagram: @50_shades_of_jason
tunes: share.epidemics...
print requests: pigmodegraingang@gmail.com
business inquiries: pigmodegraingang@gmail.com
cameras: hasselblad 501c
Im considering going back to painting at this point tbh
cave painting for me
Petroglyphs are really the most authentic way of recording the world
😂
Lol
@@Flying_Skier exactly
I used to think this objective vs. subjective thing was true. But when I look back at my own old photos, it doesn't matter what medium I used. Time passes, and it makes every photo mysterious and subjective. I think film is just a way of creating that mystery a little bit sooner.
this is the most based take
Yeah I don't think it's as binary as subjective VS objective, but for the reasons stated I think film can be far more ambiguous. This might simply make it _more_ subjective.
Yeah, his subjective/objective take makes little sense in today's age. People used film to clinically document things before we had digital. It doesn't magically make every shot artsy. People documented sport with film cameras too. On the other spectrum, people now obviously manipulate and color grade digital photos creatively. Tadaa: an interpretation. Who uses or posts JPEG's straight of the camera (or smartphone)?). This subjective/objective statement is too simplistic and doesn't work half of the time. So it's obsolete.
Also, the "you create memories with film" part is a entirely a social construct: it's because people in around their thirties or older only have photos of themselves (and their parents) on film. Really young people probably like film because it looks like "a better version of the Instagram filter they used". They shoot film because they saw RUclipsr do it. Which is fine, but it shows your reference frame shifts, depending on what generation you are.
I don't have any problem with either medium. I enjoy both. Just one medium is used professionally by me - some part of me would love to capture a wedding or photo session only on film, but old camera reliability and the cost/work flow keep bringing me back to a "no". I own a bunch of film cameras in all formats, cheap and a lot less cheap. But I just like to use it because I like the colours and how it resembles a time that has passed. Sometimes i just like the design of camera. I don't deny the nostalgia factor, I don't add deeper meanings to it nor pretend my photo shot on film is better than the same thing shot digitally.
That said, I can however get slightly annoyed by people putting film on pedestal - especially if the photos they share to support that statement are mediocre (or the same old gas station), regardless what medium. In the end it's always the same: only the image counts. Not the tool, not the person.
it’s a good way to think about it but it’s not literally true
@@caleidoogood post. the other thing about film is a lot of people got into it after using smartphone cameras, and preferred the look. also the possibly dirty secret is the look isn’t entirely baked in, there are decisions made by the person doing the scanning (usually a lab) which are subjective and improve the look of the image. a lot of people prefer that unsurprisingly to unedited digital photos, perhaps because they don’t know how to edit
When I shoot digital, I feel the urge and the need to make the final image as perfect as possible. When I shoot film, I hope each of my images is imperfect in its own little way
Indeed. Digitally I'm always pushing myself beyond my limit while film is 'letting go' for me which is very therapeutic and refreshing.
Agree!
glad that ryan gosling can give me a breakdown about camera mediums
Film wins because you can eat it
Please do not the film.
Before or after developing?
That’s an expensive snack.
Swallowing an SD card hurts on both ends.
Bro what
Banger as always. I do all my “work” on digital, but I don’t ever feel inspired to shoot my non-work stuff on digital. There’s something to be said for the delayed gratification of seeing whether you got the shot you intended when shooting on film. That and just the vibes are 👨🏻🍳👌
Ayo wtf. Love your content.
SecondThought's here!
I wish bro 😢 film is like 20 bucks which is like a thousand pesos(some people don’t even make this in a week) where I’m at
nationalize Kodak!!
@@slo369I recommend to try to find sellers which are selling bulk loaded film. Some people just buy for example 30 meters roll of film, they making their own for example 36 frames rolls, packing these into old cassetes and selling. These costs like 1/2 or even 1/3 of new packed,single cassete price. You can try to do this on your own. Of course that's an investment but in the long run it's much cheaper. Cheers ❤
Dude, i was literally just thing about this today and it occurred to me that film is like thinking of the memory while digital is like looking out a window.
Thanks!
no, thank you
Anyone that’s upset at film making a comeback just hasn’t yet heard the sound of a Hassie shutter slap
Not everyone got Hassie money bud
@@thegraffboy123 Lol, that’s ok! There’s a lot of amazing cameras with great shutter sounds that cost a fraction
Pretty arrogant thing to say, almost disgusting.
I really do like the shutter sound of my minolta x-370. Sounds almost like a clap lol
My Canon A-1 shutter sound very melodic.
Shooting with intention an reveling in whatever comes out. Film is like a surprise when you see it.
"just don't hate on the other one" powerful quote right there
And immediately ignored 😂
@@williamlasl they both belong man just have fun with whatever medium you choose
@@pers4855I’m agreeing, but just saying the wisdom of the point seems lost on a lot people who proceed to argue over which is better in the comments.
True.
I use both mediums and they're both great. Typically if I want to shoot wildlife I use digital, if I want to be artistic or document things I shoot film. I think more people need to explore the art world more and find ways to express themselves without war or violence.
honestly I agree with every point here; I originally learned to shoot and develop film, but I shoot digital because I can't afford to shoot film. I love shooting digital like film - thinking and framing before I shoot - then recreating the film look in lightroom. some people will hate this, but it's a digital homage to film.
Same here!! I love using old DSLRs like film. The screens are so bad on them that you still get that anticipation of seeing the photos in their fully glory when you get home. With the added benefit of checking the exposure if you need or changing the ISO on the fly.
I agree with this. I first got into SLR photography in the 80's so of course used film. Stayed using film until I broke my camera back in 2012 so switched to digital. I carried on taking shots like I used to with film though. Thinking about every composition and not wanting to just waste shots (even though it was essentially free). If I had to alter in post via cropping or levelling it, I felt I had somehow failed lol. Now I have also bought an old SLR film body to use along side my DSLR.
I recently starred shooting film again after 20 years. And I have to say that I’ve never been more excited about my photos. The suspense of waiting for development and scans makes you think 10 times before firing the shutter.
Something that with digital doesn’t happen because we are more prone to be trigger happy.
Exploring the different film stock is really exciting. In the end I find that most of us try to emulate in digital what film photography provides right out of the box: grain, color grading, etc.
Jason, that is a fantastic explanation why I love film and why both film and digital have a reason to be around. Great video 👍🏻
Congrats on the cake, Jason! 🎂
I also like product photography on film; I use a half-frame PEN FV to do all that.
Oh man, you're going to crush the Internet with this spicy vid title.
Great video, Jason. And I think you're spot on. I'm old and shot film for a good 27 years before switching to digital around 2005. Most of that time I had a darkroom, too. When I got into digital, I still shot like I was using film, even though pixels are basically free. I never understood the idea of standing on the shutter release and taking 20 images of the exact same thing. The most ironic thing in my personal experience is that I spent the whole time shooting film trying to minimize the grain I was getting but when I started shooting digital, it was too sterile. So I spent time and money emulating grain and putting that back into my digital images. FFS.
I've taken photos of compelling subjects on digital, and those photos still get blown out of the water by a picture of my coffee table on film. Metering correctly, carefully choosing your composition, your film stock, and having a decent lab is equivalent to 10 hours editing a single digital shot (including adding imperfections to give it more life). Except with editing I have 50 million decisions to make. Even editing my own scans, there's very little I have to do to get "a look", and though I can edit it further and do the same I'd do to digital, there's zero need to.
Learning film photography has made me a significantly better digital photographer. Shooting film made me fall in love with the physical process of taking photos. The way it forces you to be intentional about your shot and visualize what you want out of a photo before you take it. This has helped me cut down on over shooting a scene, getting more variety in my shots, and how to shoot a better image so I don’t have to go ham on fixing it in post. I wish I could shoot more film but it’s just so expensive that i have to supplement with digital. Which makes me curious about videos like these. With the rising cost of film and development I wonder if film photographers will be able to use their subjective approach to photography and circumvent a lot of the “objective” nature of digital. Kind of like how each of your videos ties in the vibe of your photoshoot i.e changing the aspect ratio, sound design, and color grading. Anyway, slightly pretentious comment finished. I love your channel it is great source of inspiration and it is very well done. Thanks for all your hard work
I've tried explaining why I shoot digital for work but film for myself to my friends and family. Now I can just share this video and say ditto.
I really enjoyed this. Well put. You should do more "philosophical" videos like this one.
Frankly, I see philosophical components in just about all of Jason's posts. That is one of the charms of watching them.
Literally the best "Film vs Digital" video on RUclips! Outstanding take on this whole film vs digital war. Can't we all just get along. Thanks so much for this.
I do agree with a lot of things mentionned in the video but on the subject of wildlife photography I think you missed the point a bit.
I think a good wildlife photographer doesn’t just try to snap the rarest animal and keep the image true to life. There is a ton of story telling to be done with composition, light etc. The best wildlife pictures I’ve seen are not the sharpest, they are the ones where you can feel the photo and the emotion the animal give off.
@@phillipbanes5484bro what's your deal? Chill out under ever comment
Theory, people are saying film is trash to make film affordable again.
Shhhhhh. Don't expose us!
20 minutes ago I bought Revueflex SD1, 50mm lens and Kodak ProImage 100 roll, and i think it's cool, photography is cool
Good point about subjectivity. I do like using my one inch Panasonic's in low light or event or sport's, but I have a contax ii rangefinder and yashica TLRs which are much much enjoyable, keep me in the moment and would be prohibitively expensive in a digital version. I did give up film a while back but these days it's much easier to scan or get scanned and that makes it much easier
Loved this. Really appreciated this aspect ration in 4k btw.
I grew up in the film era and my first serious camera was the AE-1. I did convert to digital later in life and then a few years ago I opened a drawer and there it was my old AE-1. I purchased a roll of film and then it was on. I started watching RUclips videos like on your channel and got hooked again. I started going with my wife to garage sales and finding old film cameras for cheap. Now I have a room just dedicated to cameras and have started developing b&w film. Watching your and other people’s videos about large format sure have me wanting to invest in it. Keep up the amazing work that you do for the film community.
don't waste monies ane time on LF! done that!
I agree with you on all points. And i do think that being good at film photography will make you a better digital photographer due to the amount of forethought that goes into it. I started with black and white film in the early 90's and loved it. I have been shooting digital for about 10 years. I just dusted off my old Pentax k1000 and bought a few rolls of film. You have inspired me to get back into film photography again. I am new to your channel and love it.....
Thank you for the video. I'll turn around your first statement (0:45), about film being subjective and digital being objective.With film, you can be objectively sure that what apears in the photo was in front of the camera, thus sharing the same space and time with the negative. The latent image on the film is a lot like a fossile , as a surface that have been marked by the light projected on it. We can never know when a digital picture was "made", as the sensor sends information to the processor pixel by pixel, in cue, and the processor ends up "building" an image based both on that info and its settings - a subjective interpretation; and we can only see that image through a circuit with a display. But I am talking as someone older who have shot lots of film professionally, trying to achieve that technical excelence you append to digital photography. And I understand your point, about film beeing a medium used more often for personal and subjective projects nowadays.
The person who won a photography contest with an AI generated image was making a similar point about how we are entering an era where photojournalists may need to go back to shooting film just as a way to prove the image was real.
I just love how your eyes match your backdrop, true professionalism!
I like the example of the sailing across the sea or painting a painting.
Exactly, very well put - I use both, digital for photographing factual representation of the subject and film where I'm trying to convey a mood for travel, projects etc. Both are good for different reasons.
Both are amazing technologies. I shoot film for the process and organic texture renditions. I hope the analog process continues to resurge so we can continue having this choice.
They’re both pretty great. I love using them both
I like Your mature and suprisingly serious approach to the topic so much that I almost didnt skip the ad.
I've definitely done more weird complicated artsy stuff digitally (in preproduction) than with an analog camera. Gells, lensfilters, movement long exposure, overexposing, reflective spray, all combined etc. While with film I let the film itself do the heavy lifting. It doesn't matter what you use, your intent will change how you use it.
For me, it's purely the feel of a film camera (the winding of the film reel, the snap of the shutter, and the clicking of the aperture reel), and the feeling that I'm giving something older and disused a new life.
This is my favorite video you have ever made. hands down. A great look at and into this nonsensical debate. very well thought out and hilarious. Thank you!
Probably the best AvsD monologue ever. Bravo dude!
film vs digital: you are so right, I agree with a lot of what you said.
Thanks for your post, keep them coming!
I think the argument is dumb, but many of the intentional limitations with film can be had on digital if you need that. Intentionality can exist in a digital workflow, you just have a lot more safety nets for later IF you need it. The physical qualities of film are unique, but many of those aspects can be replicated. Ultimately I think there’s a lot of commodifying and romanticizing the film workflow as though it’s makes your images better as long as there’s a monologue to go with the image (for some not all). I think we should just take the same attention and feedback we give to film stocks, and demand better sensors and color profiles. No this isn’t a replacement for film, but it could be a more sustainable option for a person torn between the two or film photographers who can’t afford to do film full time
Also I appreciate both. I don’t have time to devote to film, but I intend to delve into it in the near future. Digital makes more sense for professionals and novices alike because the infrastructure is there for it. Film is being kept alive by avid fans that appreciate it like air cooled 911’s. I would like to see the two sides converge and see a demand for better photo focused digital AND film bodies being generated. Demand better craftsmanship, materials, and aesthetic.
Fujifilm is doing a lot to fill the demand you’re talking about. I don’t want to get too conspiracy-minded, but investing in film simulation features and analog-type controls in their digital cameras while discontinuing film stocks seem like an effort to usher film photographers into their digital ecosystem.
Not a film guy, but I like all the points made in this video: the slowing down, the fixing it in pre, the quest for a unique style.
Probably the best summary of the topic I've ever watched, thanks Justin!
I shoot film and relate to what you're saying but I also used to be a professional sports photographer, and you're off base about sports photography. The very best sports photography captures feeling. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, to borrow a phrase.
Great video. I loved the way you broke it down and how you ultimately leave it for everyone to decide what's best for them. That's the only healthy way to go about one's interest. Do whatever works for you and be happy, let others do the same.
I like developing film and making darkroom prints because i like having 0 free time
The IMDb flex tho
Totally agree, Jason. The reason I started shooting with film , again, (previously shooting film since the 70's), after shooting digital for the last 20 years. I do bring a digital camera, for situations, that I may not be able to return. KB
representing the half frame gang 😎
I've been putting off scanning my film for so long. I have a dozen or more rolls dating back to December 2018. I plan on scanning them in the coming weeks and I can't wait to relive some of those captured memories.
I like low effort grainydays videos. It perfectly suits my low effort youtube watching habits.
Great video, I also came down to this conclusion myself, I shoot both film and digital, my Sony is for fast portraits or general full frames and better light recreation, while my Fuji is for artistic photos along with street photography, but my film is for anything that catches my eye for more than 10-30 seconds or significant memories I wanna keep. Keep it up, Jason.
As a tintype artist I appreciate the shout out, yeah we love ether fumes. The images look better the more brain cells you kill.
I shoot both. I'm new to film. I like not being able to see the image. When you finally get them back, it's like opening a present. Nothing quite like that feeling.
Probably the best opinion/explanation I've heard on this tired subject. Jason, you got it right.
Somehow you hit on an angle of this conversation that I have never heard, before--and I have wasted SO much time discussing film v. digital. Nicely done, and agreed on all points!
I like film because i can take a bad photo believe it’s good then get my heart broken days after
The cake 😂😂
Also thank you for using this aspect ratio, literally the only videos that fill my ridiculous phone's screens
I use to be a hip hop producer which I think pointed me towards film. It was like sampling from vinyl vs sampling from a download.
Both results are up to the skills of the artist but vinyl samples had its own characteristics and the workflow was fun.
It's kind of like the debate with impressionist-style painters. Some people just prefer to capture the mood and essence of a scene rather than the literal interpretation.
I love it, I shoot both due to whatever image I want to make. No matter what you shoot just shoot
One more thing, Daido Moriyama and Robert Frank both eventually switched to digital...eventually. I'm just wondering if conscious intentionality matters in both mediums. I think both mediums are exactly the same way, they are tools, and it matters how you use them. My father was a photographer and has since gone blind...when I talk to him about digital photography he becomes more excited about it than he does when I tell him I bought an enlarger. I think at the end of the day it is about economy, artistic vision and purpose. There is no better feeling than watching your negative turn into a print with a little bit of magic, but it is how you use the tools that matters and what you are trying to say. I'm rambling, I'm not spelling correctly and my grammar is atrocious, but just get out there and shoot!!!
Many older pros switched to digital because....They're professionals. Before they took 10 good shots per roll, now they can take 30+.
The photographers who actually practiced the craft before digital usually don’t romanticize film in the way younger photographers do. Certainly, I’ve never heard of anyone over the age or 35 specifically identify themselves as a “FILM photographer” (as opposed to just photographer.)
@@williamlasl I'm under 35, shot on film for over a decade....So yeah...I would make fun of it though, using the little sparkles like this ✨film✨ photographer. Because it's ridiculous. It's just a camera.
I just love capturing those special moments on digital. like when i took 20 identical photos of my friends at a campfire, spend 10 hours in Lightroom. comparing, editing, only to scrap everything because it wasn't that good of a shot after all. this x500 for every trip. I'm so burned out on digital.
Honestly I love shooting film for the scan. Digital color correction helps me reach that subjective look. It's been a big topic in cinematography since the early aughts when digital intermediates were a new, popular process; now with Dune and others we're seeing film intermediates for media captured on digital cameras for digital presentation.
I shot 30 rolls of 120 film with a FujiGW690ii during a train trip through europe this summer, and I did it because I personally think 6x9 produces sharper images than what I achieve with digital (at least what I have). I made that choice to obtain nice quality photos with nice colors rather than getting "feelings" images like you described. Although, I get why you said that and I agree with you on that idea. I just feel that there is also the possible avenue to choose film to obtain superior quality of images (And here I think of 6x9, 4x5, 8x10). These formats, to me, will always be superior (in quality and soul) to any digital format.
Listen, if anyone tells me it doesn’t make sense to shoot film nowadays I will just drown them out typing louder on one of my typewriters 😂
Quit your job at disney and just start selling handmade film photography zines at coffee shops.
one of my photography teacher back in photography school in Tokyo successfully succeeded Daguerrotype re inventing/re mastering how to shoot it....and honesty i would probably will never achieve that level of dedication since you have to literally build a tent right beside where you shot that actual shot the moment its shot you have to process it on location and use toxic materials to post process it....its not the look thats important its that dedication and commitment that makes it worthwhile...thanks for a great videoo...polishing that silver to make it glow.
if you can get it done during the shoot *getting the right exposure digital/film if studio if you place the lighting correctly you wont have to tinker around in post and can save tons of time....thats what film taught me...and thats why alot of photography teachers in Tokyo say to students experience film....and if you master it understand it you will exceed in the digital world.
Dude! I'm watching your videos for years know and I can truely confirm: Your production value is on a different level by now 🎉🎉 absolute banger of a video!
One of the most well put together arguments for film. Film is fun, but makes photography feel like more of an art form that you actually have to work for. There’s a sense of accomplishment or defeat at the end of development that doesn’t come with digital.
This is a great summary. Beautifully considered. I shoot both and it’s the imperfections in film that I like. Subjective.
shooting with film is an entirely different philosophy of shooting, makes me appreciate more the spontaneity of the events and usually images taken with film cameras look better than digital
And that folks, in 10 concise minutes, sums it all up, couldn’t have put it better myself.
I use digital to fill in the gaps when I’m waiting for my scans to come in. But old ass digital. You know, from the early 2000s.
“Hurry babe grab the Dew! New Jason video just dropped!”
I started on 110 instamatic camera in the 70's, with a revolving flash cube. 50 something years later, and many many cameras later I clutch a gfx. I fucking love it. But i also loved every camera along the way... it's a journey that reflects life. Just discovered your channel. Looking forward to viewing more 👊🏽
Keep in mind, a lot of film shooters, either back in the day or currently, are "fixing it in post" when the get in the darkroom and dodge, burn and change their exposures onto paper. Preconception is awesome when either shooting film or digital, and the post production will always be there; either in front of a glowing screen or huffing development chemicals while dodging someones face onto paper.
And don't even get me started on spot toning. :)
You left out the cropping. Lots of adjusting with that enlarger to get just the right crop.
Even HC Bresson, the French dude who was famous for using leicas and printing the full frame, had a few cropped frames in his exhibitions.
It’s all about fun, if taking yourself seriously is fun, do it, I myself find the bs’ings and “film is best” while scanning spiel funny…
@@GS-vb3zn Heck yea! A photograph is a song for the eyes. Working on it to make it perfect is part of the alchemy of photography! :D
@@mjfan653 Photography is a language. And there are a bajillion ways to speak that language. Nothing is better. Nothing is worse. Whatever it is that helps YOU speak in your clearest visual voice are the tools you need. No matter what it is.
Viva la Photography!
@@phillipbanes5484 Photoshop offers endless possibilities, but there are a whole lot of methods that could be done in the darkroom too; from photograms to double or triple exposure prints and other trickery from people like Jerry Uelsmann; all kinds of awesome stuff. I'm sure it took longer in the darkroom to do, but that was the magic of it.
I agree that some people can go way over the top in post processing, but they're allowed to do that. Everyone has a unique voice.
I think lots of great stuff could be done in the darkroom, and it's just an evolution of what came before :)
A friend asked me the same kind of question, along the lines of "Why do you shoot film? What's the point?" and I put it to him like this:
"Shut up loser"
FR tho:
"Think of it like this: You're a car guy right? You can have the newest sports car, which has the most highly tuned engine, it has the most comfortable seats and it has the highest top speed. It has butt warmers and it looks like something from the future with all of its LED lights and displays. OR, you can have this old vintage muscle car, it breaks every 100kms, you have to slam the door twice for it to shut, there is a little rust on the rear panel and the steering wheel is uncomfortable to hold. But which one would you prefer to drive?"
There is no right or wrong answer. Some people want the old vintage car, some people want the most fuel efficient or high tech.
I like what you said about film photographers trying to capture a feeling. I wasn't seriously considering film until I randomly saw a photo of the beach joe Greer posted on Twitter. It wasn't that great of a photo but I immediately felt like I knew that place, and had been there, and it reminded me of something. And I wanted to explore film so I could recreate that.
I think this is probably one of the most objective video which points right besties about both media. And I really like mentioning “memory” quality of film photography. I am not sure how is it for the others by my memories the more distant they are the more filmic they are look for some reason :D
film photographers be like "i shoot film because of it defects" and then go shoot a photo with a 10 thousand dollar apo 50mm leica lens on the m6 with the expensivest film in the existence
Yo I don't got money for that. I shot with a f3 which costed 300 bucks and only 1-2 rolls of vision 3 which cost 7 dollars a roll.
I bought my first SLR a few days ago. A random Praktica MTL 5B I found at a market. Everything working so far but I have 5 rolls of film on the way, will test one roll first incase of light leaks etcetera. Wish me luck!!
Im just starting out so shooting on raw and then editing to look like film is my current setup and im very happy with it. In the future ill probably get a film camera but thatll take time
Limitation breeds creativity so intentionally slowing myself down and and taking the time to get it right with film tends to help me create better images
@@phillipbanes5484 Nothing strictly prevents you from slowing down with digital, but when there are so few consequences to just shooting away it's hard to justify not doing so in the moment. It's also far less satisfying to use a technologically advanced tool in a basic way than a more basic tool to its full ability. There's very little point in trying to emulate the feeling of shooting film on digital when I could just do it on film for real. Like Jason said, they're different tools for different purposes and that's very much how I figure out how to split my work between film and digital.
@@phillipbanes5484 Lol okay dude, no need to shit on people for wanting to use all the capability that their digital cameras have to offer. The point is that with film you're forced to slow down and with digital you can move faster because you have so much more flexibility in post. You can be a serious photographer and not feel like being slow and methodical all the time, a prime example of why you may shoot digital in a certain situation.
Film and digital absolutey have different resolutions based on grain size, film size and sensor size. Film grain is also much different than digital noise and you'd know that if you actually shot plenty of both.
And while digital and film cameras have the same fundamental purpose of creating an image, they are also different facets of a hobby and the way you interact with the two mediums is different, hence the different purposes. An econo-box and a sports car can both get your to work, but the process of driving them evoke very different responses. Neither can fulfill all the purposes of the other, which is why you can have and use both.
@@phillipbanes5484 I don't understand what you're trying to get at by nitpicking every sentence I write. You asked a question, I answered it, then you replied that most of my answer was wrong. Then you called anyone who "doesn’t have the discipline to shoot slowly and more deliberately with digital, not a serious photographer," which I take offense to. You CAN slowdown and be deliberate, but you don't strictly HAVE to because of the advantages that digital affords you. Weather or not you take the time to be slow and meticulous at all times on digital has no bearing on on weather someone is a "serious photographer," all that matters is the photographers intentions.
What I'm saying is that when I feel like slowing down, I'd much prefer to work with film than digital because the process is much more fun and I like the images that come out of it. I like the limitations of the cameras and the imperfect lenses. When I want the "look and feel" of film, I'll just use film instead of trying to emulate it on digital. If I want something cheap, easy, super sharp, high resolution, and with lots of flexibility after the fact that, then I'll reach for my digital camera. They're both creating images, but the purpose, intention, and process of getting the images are often different. Like I said in my original reply, "different tools for different purposes"
I love your videos , but this is one of my favorites , great explanation , and wonderfully executed and explained 👌🏽💯
it's all about the process, amazing video, hope you can come to Brazil someday.
Well put! Couldn’t agree more. I love the slowness of film it really makes you think about the shot before you take it. Digital is great when you want to just go out & just worry about the simple side of photography.
Good analysis… especially the part about spending all one’s money just to explore a hobby.
It’s all in your head. There are a lot of great shots with soul shot on Digital. Same there ara an entire era of sports photography that was shot on film. It’s absolutely depends on your inner artist.
such a fan of your channel! Thanks for always keeping it real. As a relatively new film shooter, I couldn't agree with your sentiments. EMOTION for sure
@@phillipbanes5484 none whatsoever ...
I spend a fair amount of time making perfect digital images look like film, or doing ICM, now that’s super hard with a film camera.
…in it’s most simplistic meaning….photography is capturing light onto a photographic substance…nothing more…nothing less….that “substance” is commonly silver halide crystals dispersed in gelatin… on the other hand, capturing light onto a Sandisk card, chip board, utilizing bits and bytes is digital imaging…nothing more…nothing less…
Very well stated. Each is better at some things. Folks can choose what suits them best and that is a good thing.
I like to think about engagement. You can fire away on digital and get a bunch of raw files that as you said can be significantly altered and distilled later, with no human engagement during the exposure. Film demands engagement. With limited images available on a roll, cropping at the risk of grain and mush, different response palettes, the cost as you pointed out, and so forth one MUST be engaged during setup, decision, and exposure. Indeed, I feel more alive and connected while I am looking through the viewfinder (with both mediums) precisely BECAUSE of the engagement with the process.
This is why I stick to cave paintings. It's the OG of capturing moments and the tall thin men that roam the forests
my brain melted when you showed those 4x5 Olympic images. wtf
I like that. Digital is capturing a great image. Film is capturing the feeling. And there is a lot of play with both sides.
I’ll play devils advocate because I can see where the old timers are coming come from with disliking film.
Lets be honest: we’re pretty much using film cameras as toys to some extent, whereas the old timers had to use these cameras as tools. And some of those salty old folks probably REALLY did not like missing those shots that, for the time, was trying to reach for objectivity that todays cameras can do now. Yes, those cameras were probably their tools for objectivity for their time, so you can imagine their pleasure in watching camera tech get better over time for the work they needed to do. We didnt experience that progression of innovation (as you mentioned).
Also, the greatest photogs of all time had darkroom techs, so the “fix it in post” thing was not a factor to the OG; they shot, someone else fixed it and knew how to make it either look the way the photog wanted, or how a major publication wanted the shot. This is probably the biggest lie of this whole film photography thing where people propagate the darkroom as the other half when in reality to the OGs it was “yes (that is a part of the photography process) and no (thats what darkroom techs are for)”
Loved Jason’s performance as the penguin in the Batman