I remember my father's Decca recordings of classical music from the 60's, they were beautiful. I also learned photography from my father who worked in a studio and knew how to get the best from film, I have his camera too. Your video os very interesting, I have watched in three sections to listen with enough attention. I knew many of the tings you covered yet had not put them together as a whole which you have done. My passion is still with film, I currently have 10 film cameras loaded and in use. I use films which suit the lenses and how the cameras feel in use. WHen photographing on digital I watch histograms and use exposure compensation to keep the highlight detail, it is rather like phographing on Kodachrome. I got to know Kodachrome well I could visually assess the tonal range of a scene or subject and instinctively dial in compensation to suit. I also like the old school Pentax cameras which have meters set up for the minimum necessary exposure for slide film and compensating for print film is easy, as long as a light metere is consistent I can learn it and expose accordingly.
I continue to read on social media people talking about how easy are the mirrorless 'cause they do all by themselves... the opposite of my view. I really love the simplicity of film and the analog life in general. But probably is because I like to have control and I hate to let the tools controlling me.
Thanks for this excellent presentation. My earliest exposure to digital photography was the NewTek DigiView for the Amiga 1000. The files have all gone missing, unlike my 35mm negatives that have survived the test of time. There's a documentary called "Warhol and the Amiga" that covers how a data extraction team came 30 years later to get images off of Andy Warhol's computer. They faced many hurdles and finally managed to get at least several pics including a digital painting of Marylyn Monroe. I use both digital and film. Since digital has changed so rapidly over the years, it's a bit of a bummer because my body of work is a conglomeration of all kinds of images from various sensor sizes, color palettes and whatnot. If I had shot it on film and stuck to one emulsion for the whole shebang such as Kodak Tri-X, I'd have a more cohesive body of work. It's like I've been experimenting around with crayons and colored pencils and pens and it's all a crying shame with 30 years down the drain. :)
The great Amiga 1000! I had one in my attic and was going to trash it... then I took a look at ebay and ended up selling it with the monitor for 1200 euros... not bad for a 40 years old computer! :) I think digital is good ;cause it has a lot of advantages in terms of portability etc. But the real quality for me is still on film, sometime just a mental quality 'cause it forces us to think more.
As someone who shoots in film on my 35mm Mamiya SLRs and digital on sigma fp I can say that nothing will ever beat film. No matter how much I try to mimic film look on my digital photos, it’s just not the same and never will be.
@@LuigiBarbano I for one appreciated the lengthy technical discussion. I've never owned a digital camera beyond a Canon EOS point and shoot from 2006. The information about how film's more analog bandwidth handles bright light more effectively was very valuable to me (being a digital neophyte).
In reality, film is ultimately digital in the sense that there are a finite number of molecules on the celluloid strip to react when exposed to light. It's just that they are many more molecules on film than pixels that can be packed onto a digital sensor that we are able to design and manufacture.
I think digital for movies is "better" for producers. I mean really, think about cost of digital and film. No film, no development, no tons of people cutting and putting celuloid together. Just digital file, software license and few guys who can do everything with some click of mouse, applying LUTs and so on. Same with photography. I shot on color film, with print, development and scan is... 4$ (more or less)? Digital is free. No money involved at all unless you print, but even then it is fraction of analog. That said, I love film, have favorite stock, favorite cameras, use them, have darkroom etc. Still, after one try no one will convince me to shot airshow at film again. I am not rich enough :D
Digital is very convenient. I use it. But talking of quality film for me is still the way to go. Airshow and film... sound very expensive :) When I did the Sun' n Fun for the Thunderbirds I arrived home after a week with my right hand so tired that was basically blocked until I got a good chiropractor :)
@@LuigiBarbano One of the most interesting photography exhibits I've seen was a set of B&W "albumin" prints hosted by our local / regional university about 20 years ago. One wonders when humans first noticed that phenomena.
@@markteague8889 and usually very impressive what they had achieved with simple technologies. I'm always impressed by the quality when I see images made with antique technics.
I remember my father's Decca recordings of classical music from the 60's, they were beautiful. I also learned photography from my father who worked in a studio and knew how to get the best from film, I have his camera too. Your video os very interesting, I have watched in three sections to listen with enough attention. I knew many of the tings you covered yet had not put them together as a whole which you have done. My passion is still with film, I currently have 10 film cameras loaded and in use. I use films which suit the lenses and how the cameras feel in use. WHen photographing on digital I watch histograms and use exposure compensation to keep the highlight detail, it is rather like phographing on Kodachrome. I got to know Kodachrome well I could visually assess the tonal range of a scene or subject and instinctively dial in compensation to suit. I also like the old school Pentax cameras which have meters set up for the minimum necessary exposure for slide film and compensating for print film is easy, as long as a light metere is consistent I can learn it and expose accordingly.
I continue to read on social media people talking about how easy are the mirrorless 'cause they do all by themselves... the opposite of my view. I really love the simplicity of film and the analog life in general. But probably is because I like to have control and I hate to let the tools controlling me.
Thanks for this excellent presentation. My earliest exposure to digital photography was the NewTek DigiView for the Amiga 1000. The files have all gone missing, unlike my 35mm negatives that have survived the test of time. There's a documentary called "Warhol and the Amiga" that covers how a data extraction team came 30 years later to get images off of Andy Warhol's computer. They faced many hurdles and finally managed to get at least several pics including a digital painting of Marylyn Monroe.
I use both digital and film. Since digital has changed so rapidly over the years, it's a bit of a bummer because my body of work is a conglomeration of all kinds of images from various sensor sizes, color palettes and whatnot. If I had shot it on film and stuck to one emulsion for the whole shebang such as Kodak Tri-X, I'd have a more cohesive body of work. It's like I've been experimenting around with crayons and colored pencils and pens and it's all a crying shame with 30 years down the drain. :)
The great Amiga 1000! I had one in my attic and was going to trash it... then I took a look at ebay and ended up selling it with the monitor for 1200 euros... not bad for a 40 years old computer! :)
I think digital is good ;cause it has a lot of advantages in terms of portability etc. But the real quality for me is still on film, sometime just a mental quality 'cause it forces us to think more.
As someone who shoots in film on my 35mm Mamiya SLRs and digital on sigma fp I can say that nothing will ever beat film. No matter how much I try to mimic film look on my digital photos, it’s just not the same and never will be.
Amen to that!
Dead simple short answer? YES.
That was the idea... but I don't know how many views I can get with a simple YES :D
@@LuigiBarbano I for one appreciated the lengthy technical discussion. I've never owned a digital camera beyond a Canon EOS point and shoot from 2006. The information about how film's more analog bandwidth handles bright light more effectively was very valuable to me (being a digital neophyte).
@@markteague8889 Thanks!
In reality, film is ultimately digital in the sense that there are a finite number of molecules on the celluloid strip to react when exposed to light. It's just that they are many more molecules on film than pixels that can be packed onto a digital sensor that we are able to design and manufacture.
and they have a fluid agglomeration...
I think digital for movies is "better" for producers. I mean really, think about cost of digital and film. No film, no development, no tons of people cutting and putting celuloid together. Just digital file, software license and few guys who can do everything with some click of mouse, applying LUTs and so on. Same with photography. I shot on color film, with print, development and scan is... 4$ (more or less)? Digital is free. No money involved at all unless you print, but even then it is fraction of analog.
That said, I love film, have favorite stock, favorite cameras, use them, have darkroom etc. Still, after one try no one will convince me to shot airshow at film again. I am not rich enough :D
Digital is very convenient. I use it. But talking of quality film for me is still the way to go.
Airshow and film... sound very expensive :) When I did the Sun' n Fun for the Thunderbirds I arrived home after a week with my right hand so tired that was basically blocked until I got a good chiropractor :)
No. It's DIFFRENT than digital. Better or worse depends on your aesthetic. Shoot both, it's fun.
technically I agree is just different, mentally I think is superior 'cause forces to think more... but I'm an old dinosaur :)
@@LuigiBarbano One of the most interesting photography exhibits I've seen was a set of B&W "albumin" prints hosted by our local / regional university about 20 years ago. One wonders when humans first noticed that phenomena.
@@markteague8889 and usually very impressive what they had achieved with simple technologies. I'm always impressed by the quality when I see images made with antique technics.