You make some outstanding points! To me, the most important one was ""Use a good lab"! Back in the 1960s when I started shooting film, all printing was done via an enlarger. I just assumed that the prints I got back were as good as they could be. When I went back and digitized some of those old negatives, I realized what a shoddy job the lab did at that time. You give good advice!!!
Try developing your own film. Labs have their processes and flaws. But if you develop your own film, it is YOUR process and YOUR flaws. And that could create something really awesome.
Being 52 I do have some substantial experience with film photography. As much as I'd like to give it a try again for the amazing organic feel the various film stocks provide and for the detailed results of medium format, I have so many memories of disappointing results, likely related to my lack of knowledge at the time and subpar lab prints, but still... Having to add that extra layer of developping/scanning techniques, that are not so simple to master/control, is what puts me off currently... I also think that digital cameras are an incredible convenience for beginners as they allow to improve way faster regarding the basics of this expressive art form.
Film is way more difficult to master than digital. It's one of the reasons digital was introduced in the first place. If you can't hack film it's best to stick with digital as it's far easier.
and yet both as a viewer and creator, I find it so much harder to enjoy digital photos. Something about emulsion just really adds a feeling to the image that cannot be reproduced digitally (even with the best LUTs) and has kept me coming back and back, even after spending an ungodly amount on newer digital cameras.
You don't need portra to take good pics. Good lab scans will do much more of a difference. Invest in a dedicated 35mm scanner and negative lab pro if you shoot a lot! Don't just overexpose, expose correctly and if you're unsure then you can overexpose. This only works for negative film and not slide tho
Really appreciate you sharing some of your early photos. I've got my first roll back from the lab recently after more than a decade away from a camera. Quite predictably, most of the shorts ended up being underexposed, leaving a disappointing overall result.
Good summary but I’d add one more point to the light seal issue - shutter speed. Many older cameras have shutters that are a bit slower than the indicated speed so you need to adjust for that. Try taking a couple of identical shots with one a full stop higher to see if it’s a problem. Finally, film photos often look bad because film is a bit shit. People brought up on digital want to experience something different, and that’s fine, but digital transformed photography for the better.
great video man, you inspire me so much to just shoot, i live in jamaica and wish i had someone like you to hang with since i am pretty much one of the only persons still shooting film on a daily basis
on one hand, it sucks/can be lonely not to have many people to shoot with. On the other hand, you are capturing a unique perspective of your country that very few others are doing, and you should be super proud of that! That is awesome. Do you have an instagram or a place you post your photos?
I've been annoyed with so many of my lab scans because they look so flat and I end up having to adjust them like crazy to get something vibrant. I never even considered that that is a good thing.
I know some folks hate boring technical details and just want to shoot.... but really, read a bit about metering, at least the one provided by your camera. Once you get it, it can help you making your creative decision, say you are taking a portrait and want to underxepose 1 stop. A handheld meter is even better, though. Very handy for shooting slide, because there's less room for error.
I recently replaced my light seals in my Pentax Spotamatic SP11 i bought the camera mainly for the Takumar lenses that came with the camera . A picture is never done until it is edited i learned this with my old CCD sensor cameras who liked under espourser that i recovered in the editing process
All films have insane dynamic range, I think you mean film stocks that can handle underexposure better? Because if films can handle overexposure, it's because of their great dynamic range. If you scan your own film, you would know that a correctly exposed photo's histogram has a lot of details on the shadow/dark side rather than the whole range like digital pictures.
The real problem is they are not printing light through negative onto paper. We're shooting film but it is turned into a digital "file"... so film is just an expensive way to shoot digital. I want to do photography... not fight with a d@#@#%&*^ n computer. There. I said it. I just do not like computers.... even though I'm on one now. 🤨
it doesn't make much sense to shoot with film and then leave the scan to the laboratory. It only makes sense to print the film directly. The biggest problem in choosing the laboratory is how they develop the film..
I guess when you talk on the underexposing film - you need to mention that your discussion is targeting negative film shooting. As this is not true for slide film. Also - all negative films have large dynamic range - the only question is to get all details with a good scanner...
What do you mean? Stocks like Portra, Ektar, Provia, Velvia, FP4+, HP5+, Delta, Tri-X, TMAX and so on have already been around then analog photography was in its prime. So I suppose you don't count them as consumer films. Film has certainly become a lot more expensive. There's no real cheap film available, anymore. Stuff like Kodak Gold would now be consumer film, wouldn't it? And Kodak Gold certainly isn't worse than the inexpensive film stocks in the 80s and 90s. So in what way is consumer film of today a pale shadow of what it was 30 years ago? Other than availaility, I can't think of a reason.
@@OriginalTLab3000 Consumer Grade was Kodacolor, Gold and Royal Gold. In the primes of film photography through the mid-90's. You had speeds up to 1600 available, many choices of stocks, and and great quality control. All of that has since been cost cut out. The coating equipment is decades older, the emulsions are not as thick, and a lot of silver has been taken out of B/W stocks. You do have some decent choices today, but all are slower speed. Even the cheap film back then was pretty good.
unfortunately it's true. The vigor of the development and printing process has been lost. Today it is an exercise in style with more difficulties than those that existed at the time of the film. It's a game for "real" artists and I see very few of them...
@@hattree That took quite some research and I'm still not the wiser. When it comes to availability, I completely agree. Of course we had more choice back then. Comparing quality is much more difficult. Many of the consumer film stocks from back then don't exist anymore. However, those that do still exist, do not seem to have changed. What's still available today, is the Kodak Films you've mentioned and sometimes Fuji C200. (I'm in Germany.) When you compare the specs of these film stocks from about 20 years ago and today, there's (almost) no difference. Unfortunately, neither Kodak nor Fuji tell you exactly how much silver there is in one film, but you can draw conclusions from the rest of the available data. But I can definitely tell you that most consumer film back then was not better than the film available today. We have tested every single film stock from the mid-nineties to the early noughties. We found out that one film stock (from dm?) was actually Fuji C film, but cheaper than the original. Most of the other cheap film was just not as good. And it certainly wasn't as good as today's Kodak consumer films. There were no really bad films either. Ferrania never really was an option. Of course, we still had AGFA, but... AGFA has either never been that good or I just didn't like it ;) Man, I miss Superia! But that was half a level above consumer grade. No need to talk about B/W consumer film stocks - there weren't any until about 50 years ago. I didn't find much information about silver content in B/W films today compared to back then. Do you have any sources for that? I'd like to learn more. I found out that at least Tri-X and Acros still have the same amount of silver. Two film stocks - that's not much data. *So I called the guy running the lab I used to work at long ago and asked him whether her extracts less silver from the B/W fixer than back then. And to my surprise, it was just the opposite! He extracts about **_20% more_** silver than 20 years ago!* However, that can also be explained by people using higher ASA films. Back then, 100 ASA film was standard, but today, more people use 400 ASA film. But still, 20% is quite a lot! Quality control - never had any problems with that with new film. But I do have a reel of APX 100 from 1995 where 1/3 of the perforation ist missing :( Not everything was fine, back then. Thinner emulsions and less silver doesn't automatically mean a film less good! Just look at the Portra 400! It is so much better than the old Portra 400 NC or VC - despite apparently having less silver. Acros II (haven't tried yet) is supposed to be slighty better than the original Acros, despite the emulsion definitely being thinner! I want to mention some brands. Back then, we also had new stuff like Efke and Maco. Those usually were good films. (I still have a 10 120 rolls of Efke IR 820 - those should be worth a fortune!) Maybe we should compare the cheaper ones of those with today's Fomapan, Rollei and Kentmere, but I have no experiance with the latter stocks. And maybe we should compare the old Superia to the new CineStill films. But I can't imagine the CineStill coming out on top, although people seem t love it. I have some rolls, but haven't shot any, yet.
@@lvca.avellino This thread makes me feel stupid ;) "The vigor of the development and printing process" - I don't even know what that means. In what way are there more difficulties? Developing and printing is easier than ever before, apart from some chemicals being banned and finding true to colour C41 film with ASA 400 or higher. There are quite many darkroom wizards, nowadays, that are as good or better than lab techs back then. Of course, there are fewer people in total, now, but the knowledge has never been lost. So, the quality is still there, just the quantity isn't 🤷♂ What does that have to do with consumer film?
Reason number 6: because ur friend opened the back of the camera and dragged the film out at a wedding
This woman is libelling me
„Just let me have a quick look at the photos“ 😂
A non existing photo cant be a bad photo
You make some outstanding points! To me, the most important one was ""Use a good lab"! Back in the 1960s when I started shooting film, all printing was done via an enlarger. I just assumed that the prints I got back were as good as they could be. When I went back and digitized some of those old negatives, I realized what a shoddy job the lab did at that time. You give good advice!!!
Try developing your own film. Labs have their processes and flaws. But if you develop your own film, it is YOUR process and YOUR flaws. And that could create something really awesome.
10000% agree. Also, it saves A CRAP TON OF MONEY. People also think its MUCH HARDER to do than it really is.
Being 52 I do have some substantial experience with film photography.
As much as I'd like to give it a try again for the amazing organic feel the various film stocks provide and for the detailed results of medium format, I have so many memories of disappointing results, likely related to my lack of knowledge at the time and subpar lab prints, but still...
Having to add that extra layer of developping/scanning techniques, that are not so simple to master/control, is what puts me off currently...
I also think that digital cameras are an incredible convenience for beginners as they allow to improve way faster regarding the basics of this expressive art form.
Film is way more difficult to master than digital. It's one of the reasons digital was introduced in the first place. If you can't hack film it's best to stick with digital as it's far easier.
and yet both as a viewer and creator, I find it so much harder to enjoy digital photos. Something about emulsion just really adds a feeling to the image that cannot be reproduced digitally (even with the best LUTs) and has kept me coming back and back, even after spending an ungodly amount on newer digital cameras.
@@PropertyEdits I find it hard to value a digital image, They are easy to make and therefore ubiquitous.
You don't need portra to take good pics. Good lab scans will do much more of a difference. Invest in a dedicated 35mm scanner and negative lab pro if you shoot a lot! Don't just overexpose, expose correctly and if you're unsure then you can overexpose. This only works for negative film and not slide tho
Really appreciate you sharing some of your early photos. I've got my first roll back from the lab recently after more than a decade away from a camera. Quite predictably, most of the shorts ended up being underexposed, leaving a disappointing overall result.
I like your photographer suggestions at the end
Cheers Chris! Christian does some really great stuff!
Good summary but I’d add one more point to the light seal issue - shutter speed. Many older cameras have shutters that are a bit slower than the indicated speed so you need to adjust for that. Try taking a couple of identical shots with one a full stop higher to see if it’s a problem. Finally, film photos often look bad because film is a bit shit. People brought up on digital want to experience something different, and that’s fine, but digital transformed photography for the better.
great video man, you inspire me so much to just shoot, i live in jamaica and wish i had someone like you to hang with since i am pretty much one of the only persons still shooting film on a daily basis
on one hand, it sucks/can be lonely not to have many people to shoot with. On the other hand, you are capturing a unique perspective of your country that very few others are doing, and you should be super proud of that! That is awesome.
Do you have an instagram or a place you post your photos?
I've been annoyed with so many of my lab scans because they look so flat and I end up having to adjust them like crazy to get something vibrant. I never even considered that that is a good thing.
I know some folks hate boring technical details and just want to shoot.... but really, read a bit about metering, at least the one provided by your camera. Once you get it, it can help you making your creative decision, say you are taking a portrait and want to underxepose 1 stop.
A handheld meter is even better, though. Very handy for shooting slide, because there's less room for error.
I recently replaced my light seals in my Pentax Spotamatic SP11 i bought the camera mainly for the Takumar lenses that came with the camera . A picture is never done until it is edited i learned this with my old CCD sensor cameras who liked under espourser that i recovered in the editing process
All films have insane dynamic range, I think you mean film stocks that can handle underexposure better?
Because if films can handle overexposure, it's because of their great dynamic range.
If you scan your own film, you would know that a correctly exposed photo's histogram has a lot of details on the shadow/dark side rather than the whole range like digital pictures.
You mentioned you use film deck for film processing but I can't find any info online. Can you post a link please.
Sorry! filmdev.co.uk
The real problem is they are not printing light through negative onto paper. We're shooting film but it is turned into a digital "file"... so film is just an expensive way to shoot digital. I want to do photography... not fight with a d@#@#%&*^ n computer. There. I said it. I just do not like computers.... even though I'm on one now. 🤨
Exactly
Learn to edit. Whether film or digital you have to know how to edit it.
Good advice....cheers
And the last, do not use cheap disposable cameras. Get yourself SLR and a good sharp lens, and a good automatic flashlight for dark places.
it doesn't make much sense to shoot with film and then leave the scan to the laboratory. It only makes sense to print the film directly. The biggest problem in choosing the laboratory is how they develop the film..
Is it even worth editing scans I get back from a lab that are usually in JPEG?
Yeah! Mostly they usually are unless you ask for TIFFs or something 👍
@@maxkent yes, but with all the limitations due to scanning and not to jpg
I guess when you talk on the underexposing film - you need to mention that your discussion is targeting negative film shooting. As this is not true for slide film. Also - all negative films have large dynamic range - the only question is to get all details with a good scanner...
The consumer film of today is a pale shadow of what it was in it's prime.
What do you mean? Stocks like Portra, Ektar, Provia, Velvia, FP4+, HP5+, Delta, Tri-X, TMAX and so on have already been around then analog photography was in its prime. So I suppose you don't count them as consumer films.
Film has certainly become a lot more expensive. There's no real cheap film available, anymore. Stuff like Kodak Gold would now be consumer film, wouldn't it? And Kodak Gold certainly isn't worse than the inexpensive film stocks in the 80s and 90s.
So in what way is consumer film of today a pale shadow of what it was 30 years ago? Other than availaility, I can't think of a reason.
@@OriginalTLab3000 Consumer Grade was Kodacolor, Gold and Royal Gold. In the primes of film photography through the mid-90's. You had speeds up to 1600 available, many choices of stocks, and and great quality control. All of that has since been cost cut out. The coating equipment is decades older, the emulsions are not as thick, and a lot of silver has been taken out of B/W stocks. You do have some decent choices today, but all are slower speed. Even the cheap film back then was pretty good.
unfortunately it's true. The vigor of the development and printing process has been lost. Today it is an exercise in style with more difficulties than those that existed at the time of the film. It's a game for "real" artists and I see very few of them...
@@hattree That took quite some research and I'm still not the wiser.
When it comes to availability, I completely agree. Of course we had more choice back then.
Comparing quality is much more difficult. Many of the consumer film stocks from back then don't exist anymore. However, those that do still exist, do not seem to have changed. What's still available today, is the Kodak Films you've mentioned and sometimes Fuji C200. (I'm in Germany.) When you compare the specs of these film stocks from about 20 years ago and today, there's (almost) no difference. Unfortunately, neither Kodak nor Fuji tell you exactly how much silver there is in one film, but you can draw conclusions from the rest of the available data.
But I can definitely tell you that most consumer film back then was not better than the film available today. We have tested every single film stock from the mid-nineties to the early noughties. We found out that one film stock (from dm?) was actually Fuji C film, but cheaper than the original. Most of the other cheap film was just not as good. And it certainly wasn't as good as today's Kodak consumer films. There were no really bad films either.
Ferrania never really was an option. Of course, we still had AGFA, but... AGFA has either never been that good or I just didn't like it ;)
Man, I miss Superia! But that was half a level above consumer grade.
No need to talk about B/W consumer film stocks - there weren't any until about 50 years ago.
I didn't find much information about silver content in B/W films today compared to back then. Do you have any sources for that? I'd like to learn more.
I found out that at least Tri-X and Acros still have the same amount of silver. Two film stocks - that's not much data.
*So I called the guy running the lab I used to work at long ago and asked him whether her extracts less silver from the B/W fixer than back then. And to my surprise, it was just the opposite! He extracts about **_20% more_** silver than 20 years ago!*
However, that can also be explained by people using higher ASA films. Back then, 100 ASA film was standard, but today, more people use 400 ASA film. But still, 20% is quite a lot!
Quality control - never had any problems with that with new film. But I do have a reel of APX 100 from 1995 where 1/3 of the perforation ist missing :( Not everything was fine, back then.
Thinner emulsions and less silver doesn't automatically mean a film less good! Just look at the Portra 400! It is so much better than the old Portra 400 NC or VC - despite apparently having less silver.
Acros II (haven't tried yet) is supposed to be slighty better than the original Acros, despite the emulsion definitely being thinner!
I want to mention some brands. Back then, we also had new stuff like Efke and Maco. Those usually were good films. (I still have a 10 120 rolls of Efke IR 820 - those should be worth a fortune!) Maybe we should compare the cheaper ones of those with today's Fomapan, Rollei and Kentmere, but I have no experiance with the latter stocks.
And maybe we should compare the old Superia to the new CineStill films. But I can't imagine the CineStill coming out on top, although people seem t love it. I have some rolls, but haven't shot any, yet.
@@lvca.avellino This thread makes me feel stupid ;) "The vigor of the development and printing process" - I don't even know what that means.
In what way are there more difficulties? Developing and printing is easier than ever before, apart from some chemicals being banned and finding true to colour C41 film with ASA 400 or higher.
There are quite many darkroom wizards, nowadays, that are as good or better than lab techs back then. Of course, there are fewer people in total, now, but the knowledge has never been lost.
So, the quality is still there, just the quantity isn't 🤷♂
What does that have to do with consumer film?
The role of exposure in film is.
Negativ film expose after the shadows.
Positiv film, expose after the highligths.
I think you only use negative film.
This video looks underexposed.