Spent a lovely day on Dartmoor a few weeks ago, shot a roll of fp4+ in a 6x6 Zeiss ikon folder and half a roll of hp5+ 35mm in my Pentax spotmatic. I visited some places I've never been before, got some fresh air and excercise and the dog had a great day too. Total cost around £150, including buying the cameras, diesel in the truck, developing chemicals and the film. Take the cameras away and I spent thirty quid tops. That's not the cheapest hobby, but it's a lot better value than pretty much any other hobby you can think of. Film, it's just a load more fun.
Solid points in this video, but what always gets lost in the discussion about film is not even about the final image, it's the process itself. You can never replicate the feeling of shooting a film camera; loading the film, manually setting exposure, manually focusing, etc. Then there's developing and printing in the darkroom. The art of photography and the art of "making a photo" is tied within the legacy of the technology of film. No matter how good digital software gets at emulating the "film look," it can never recreate the manual process. And I'm sorry, there is nothing sexy or fun about loading a battery or sd card into a digital camera, or staring at a monitor for hours editing photos. As useful as digital cameras can be sometimes, (and they do have their place), the joy of photography is in the analog process imo.
Yes, Cinestill is rebranded Vision3 packaged for cross-processing and priced high. But it's generating interest in film photography. Would you really rather it wasn't around? I'm more worried about the day there isn't any hype around film or cameras.
There's still plenty of regular film still in production without the massive mark-ups, cinestill isn't this mythical crutch that is proping up the film photography scene.
Are those seriously the only two options? Also, it's movie film, still used in mass quantities to make, ya know, movies. Seems pretty short sighted to think CineStill is single handedly keeping vision 3 in production.
Kodak Vision 3 does have the Remjet Layer (not removed like into CineStill 800T, so you cant process via C-41 ordinary development) since it's a movie Film, not stills photography 35mm film, ordinary.
I have to disagree on this one! I trust my eyes better than autofocus on a film camera. I’ve had too many out of focus photos,film is too expensive to have mistakes.
I have used film cameras since 1958. Yes, I’m an old geyser. You hit the target. I had a Leica M3 for decades but when I purchased my first autofocus and auto exposure camera my old Nikon f and that manual focus/exposure M3 went in a drawer somewhere. I later bought a Contex G1. It’s now my go to film camera. I bought it in 2006 and I’m still waiting for it to die. I don’t make prints in a darkroom any more because getting really fine prints can take years to master. I do process my film myself and then make contacts sheets in the darkroom but then scan the negative I want to print. I use only Tri-X film. I have used Tri-X for decades and I can determine exposure manually if necessary. Film photography is my way of relaxing. Digital is for work. Digital from camera to print is so much faster and more efficient. Plus the prints are so much better.
Everything you said in this video is so accurate!! I'm tired of seeing film photographers mediocre work and being told it's amazing, that they are so talented etc etc simply because it's shot on film. The format does not make one a good photographer, yet I see certain people gaining recognition for boring images? It blows my mind. There are so many underrated artists out there.. I used to work in a film lab and would encounter the same cliche images of hot skinny girls in bikini's everyday. Those photographs were apparently 'art' and the so called photographers were 'well known' and 'respected'. I'm sorry, but shooting an already beautiful subject looking vacant does not qualify as talent/skill - instead the photographer is relying on the appeal of sex and the style/look of film to get them by.
My local camera store has cinestill 50D and 800T for $13 for a 135 36exp roll which I think is not horrendous since removing the remjet allows you to send it to a C41 lab without ruining their equipment. Once I get ahold of some C41 chems and a bulk roller I’ll buy a 100ft roll of Vision3 500T but until then I don’t mind paying a 3-4$ premium to shoot the same stock from cinestill
If you plan to buy and load bulk Vision 3 film for home processing, do yourself a favor and buy ECN-2 process kits instead of C-41. If you go to the trouble to buy the right form of film, you might as well process it in the right chemistry. No matter how you BS it, C-41 is cross processing, and the results show, Cinestill hype and marketing aside. I think it was a YT guy named "ribsey" who did a side by side video with C-41 v. ECN-2. The results were "instructive".
Even at the inflated prices of today there are still bargains - last summer I picked up an EOS 500 for 200 SEK (about 20 USD) including shipping, a Canonet and Konica C35 for about the same each. There are still good deals out there, just don’t fall for the instagram gear posing.
I got into film photography in the early 2000’s, and am just getting back into it. What draws me to photography, both analog and digital, is the process of making good photos. The photo itself is raw data, and takes an investment of time and money to make it a photograph.
RE: Sharpness, or Resolution Film can have amazing resolving power, given the right set of conditions - low ISO, perfect light, stabilized equipment (tripods etc), and most of all - High quality lenses. Add to that things like professional processing, drum scanning and post-processing - and you'll quickly see the 'price per megapixel' for film is out of control. Similar, if not better results can be had from even APS-C sensors if the same technique and thought is applied as a film exposure. But, because as you said - you can hold down the shutter on a digital all day and not spend a penny - people do not pay attention to the basics and just 'pray and spray' - giving Digital photography it's undeserved reputation.
Finally someone is saying it. Too many people think loving film means you can't acknowledge its short comings. Also typing this out while you're trashing r/analog - just reminded me about a photo I saw on tumblr: a piece of bread on a set of stairs, which people were applauding because of how the light was hitting it...
Total agreement. I personally, get so tired of the 'Tesla Car Effect' of some film brands, as it appears that being part of the clique is more important than the end result. I have passed off photos as being shot with Tri X when actually Fomapan 200 was used just to see how the opinion of the viewer is effected by perception. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a fig what was used to make that image, but what that image IS.
I wish I could post some of my old Tri-X 320 or Pan-X stuff! Wonder what kind of reactions they would get. Even though I was bulk loading, rushing stuff through the darkroom to make deadline (like cutting fixer time in half or skipping it altogether), etc.
I’ll go ahead and admit to laughing out loud when I heard your fire hydrant analogy. The RZ67? I would have said Mamiya 7. Honestly, I thought the RB and RZ were so heavy and clunky that they would never become hip, trendy, or cool. The fact is the optics rock, the shutter timing is spot on perfect, and the view through the finder is like the worlds best LCD screen they never made because they can’t. Add my favorite feature because I do like to play around with different film stocks: interchangeable backs. That puts it over the top for me. It helps that I’m 6 foot five and 200 pounds so hand holding the camera is not a big deal, but I never thought it would become trendy just because it’s the exact opposite of sexy. Looking back I was damned lucky, I got mine in 2013 when an entire kit could be had for well under $700. There are a couple of things that will keep me shooting film until the bitter end: number one as you alluded I enjoy the process. If I didn’t enjoy the process everything else would be irrelevant. Number two is that I like the how color negative film gracefully handles mid day desert sunlight. It takes a condition most people run away from and makes it beautiful..Cinestill? Everyone wants to be the gatekeeper. Stop adding people to this great trendy neighborhood just as soon as I get my place. Life doesn’t work that way. What they are doing is getting a bunch of people to shoot film. And if a bunch of people did not start shooting film I wonder if there would be any surviving companies making film for any of us? We have seen what happens to expensive cameras when companies quit making film. That beautiful Polaroid 180 that was worth $1000 five years ago? It’s a historical footnote and a doorstop now and that makes me really sad. The same thing would happen with every other film camera if the companies making film did not find it economically rewarding to make film. Still, an entertaining and thought-provoking video, if I agreed with every single point you made it would not be a thought-provoking video, so thumbs up and thank you.
As a car guy I've seen mediocre drivers tell people that they weren't true enthusiasts if they didn't drive a manual. As a guitarist I've seen guys (it's almost always guys) who've never played outside their bedroom declare a guitar "not fit for professionals" in the face of gigging musician. As a photographer I've seen someone younger than my first DSLR declare that they "outgrew 35mm in six months." I think the problem is, enthusiast communities are all full of toxic gatekeepers who's only actual purpose is to kill those communities by keeping everyone with good taste better sense away from them.
Yes. I was about to make the comparison to music circles but you beat me to it. So many bedroom guitarists with thousands of dollars worth of equipment who can just barely play Paranoid or Smoke on the water telling everyone what they should buy to be "serious musicians" and claiming they can hear what year the amp tubes were made in or what kind of wood was used for the guitar or which guitar cable was used just from a recording made on a smart phone. As soon as the fad followers decide something is "cool" and "hip" this starts. You must have "The Right Equipment" to be "in the scene", you are judged by your equipment, not by what you do with it.
Got to agree across the board. Now, stand back a bit as the YT photo channel loyalists descend in a frenzy of denial. Let's hear rebuttal from the 20-25 years old guys who lug an RZ/RB67 without a tripod, set exposure with a Sekonic incident meter they do not know how to use, shoot only Porta 400, and photograph only old houses and old car fenders.
To be honest, while I agree with many of your comments, but, I wouldn't paint all Leica shooters with such a broad brush and "wanna be's". There are reasons I've used Leica cameras since well before they became an Instagram "statement and click bait". In fact, I've used them before the internet was born? Of course, I've also been shooting film since 1970, actually before that, if you include my 6x6 brownie? I still shoot film each and every day - and don't look back nor regret it for a moment. Anyway, carry on.
I really enjoyed hearing your opinions in this video, Azriel. Insightful, and I agree with the points you made. For me, of course it’s the entire process from start to finish in shooting with my 35mm film SLRs. Also the nostalgia, the design, engineering and classic beauty that goes into the craftsmanship of these cameras. The oohs and ahs and people coming up to me and admiring my Nikon F and my Canon FTb hung around my neck and asking questions about my cameras, even posing for me! And the final result, seeing the prints I get back from my lab and scanning the negatives into my computer with my Epson V600 film scanner. I’m 65 and have been shooting digital for about 20 years but have recently discovered my passion for film photography about a year and a half ago. I now shoot mostly with my 35mm film SLRs, my favorite hobby! I want my photography to get better and better with each roll of film I shoot, and I enjoy studying the greats who came way before me.
I do agree on some, and in some ways, but also not in many others. As for the expense, I think if we are talking about starting from scratch, it's much different than someone who has been around for a while realizes. But that said, camera scanning to me is fairly cheap because when I started because I already had a DSLR laying around, and really only needed to invest in a little macro adapter for another lens. The light table and riser I used were cheap finds and brand new. Moving up in the Epson world was a cool $1,000 for results that compared poorly. And while it's possible to shoot the same digital camera for a decade, the average tends to be replacing the thing every few years, especially if you depend on it for a paycheck. Film is not nearly as cheap as it used to be, but I think it still at least compares favorably to digital in a surprising number of ways. But yes, again, it's not good enough to be a driving reason to shoot film. The end product -- the image -- does matter more than anything. I don't agree with your example, but people definitely do overly value the role of gear in the making of an image. I have many issues with the Reddit community, too. I think that's somewhat more about keyboard warriors than the film community at wide, but this comment is getting long enough. ha ha. But lastly, about Cinestill: Yes, it is definitely just Vision3 500T. Aside from the increased halation, there's only a modest amount of change one would see between the non-remjet and remjet versions of the film accounting for chemistry variables. But the fact that a lot of people still use labs means that Cinestill's removal of the remjet layer adds certain value and some uniqueness to the product. Also, their production of 120 film without sprocket holes, much like their production of XX in 120 at all, is unique in the industry. 500T is a brilliant and useful filmstock that is used in multimillion dollar Hollywood productions, and it is offers variables not available in photographic films unless someone wants to process their own cine film or find the very rare labs that will run it in any process. Photography as a whole is cursed with "look at this mediocre shot that's an example of a technique!" and film photographers need to get over their own version of it. But yeah ... interesting video! A lot of topics film photographers should be considering, for sure.
Thanks for the feedback Jamie. While I agree Cinestill is probably doing some good with, as you said, the medium formats. The majority of the films and their 2 step C41 kits are just bad for the community.
To me I shoot film because I like the texture it gives, especially in out of focus areas. I also enjoy the process (most of the time), but the look is what I like most. I almost exclusively shoot black and white tho, as it suits my type of photography and the feeling I want to deliver most. It is to me more of an interpretation of reality than modern digital, where I find too much clarity and resolution to get my desired result (which usually is making nature seem more magical and mystical).
I've thoroughly enjoyed every video I've watched since I discovered your channel 36 hours ago. I've laughed a little and learned a lot. I've liked what I've seen all along but this video made me a fan. I'm no pro but the quote at 9:10 will be repeated. Well said!
'Creatively Bankrupt' Right on!. I shoot film because of the low resolution - just B+W HP5+ I can't compete with a 3 year course in Lightroom and don't want to. How many rainbow bright sunsets are too many? Cheers
Everything you said is true, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much. I'm happy people are enjoying themselves. Yes there's much influencer posturing with these things, but us old farts waffling about it won't change anything. I still don't nearly enjoy digital as much as film, even just the images (and I'm definitely not spending the time lightrooming the heck out of every image to make it that way - film just has a great baseline). Maybe I need to get one of those Fujis! One thing about the cost point - I don't agree we all need to factor in a dark room. Enjoying film and never touching a developing tank is perfectly fine in my eyes. I did it a few times, but most of the time I just drop them off at a lab. Added cost of course, but I don't feel my photos are any less for it. And while I agree about purely repackaged film, I do like that we are able to use motion picture film without having to do ECN processing thanks to Cinestill. Anyway, always love your videos! keep em coming!
I was born in '85 and had plenty of "experience" shooting point and shoots as a kid. Fast forward to today at 36 and yes I am part of this new trend of recent film shooters. Own a Leica, adore it. Enjoy cinestill. Camera scan everything un-ironically. I am exactly who you are describing as the base. Now here's where I am different and or disagree. While I am a professional portrait and street photographer, I take many many meaningful photos. I also take plenty of meaningless photos too though. And while the smartphone would suffice it's the quality of the film that gives meaningless photos more artistic merit. So I know exactly what you mean by people wasting film on tropes and such but sometimes that gas station really looks dumb on a smartphone and amazing on film. Sue me 😂 But common you know it does too. Don't fight it! haha.. but really you kinda already admitted this so I know. I just wanted to give my similar 2 cents. Ok one more point.. (don't want to be that guy who nit picks sorry) But judging a camera based on the lack of autofocus? Hmm I think you need to consider so many factors before autofocus or manual focus is in question. Me I could never rely on autofocus with the work I do. I need manual focus. It's all relative isn't it? I think you know this but were just making a slight joke. I really liked a lot of your points though. Keep it coming!
I also think the main base of people you're talking about really do exist. Buy a Leica, let it sit there like a trophy. Shoot it once a month at best. I don't like that either per se. While others are using it as a workhorse weekly and making amazing work. I know you have to know this. Especially for the fact it's a rangefinder and it's functionality is the actual key to owning it. I also have a Bessa R2A, own it simply for the functionality. Zone focusing ease etc. So it's obviously a much more long winded talking point. I know you only have so much time for one video. 👍
1. The Silver-based film process has always been expensive, even in the 1960's. (Actually a tad more expensive, corrected for inflation.) 2. Resolution back in the day was described as 5MP for a Kodachrome slide. 3. Each available film or film camera is just a tool, like a set of brushes or drawing pencils. 6:41 If you adapted an otherwise filmless Polaroid 110-series camera to take Fuji Instax film, you could name your price and folks would pay it.;) "Azriel Instax 500"? Hmm.
@Celluloid Alchemist I recall reading about the "5MP Kodachrome slide" in one of the photography magazines in the 1990's. It was an offhand remark about Film vs. Digital, just before Eastman Kodak became The Ghost of Rochester. A new job took me away from film photography until the turn of the century, and by then Digital was the top dog. (And Film was the hot dog, roasting on the spit of obsolescence.)
I agree with everything you said, but I do love cinestill. Yes it’s crazy expensive and it’s just rebranded vision film which usually costs half as much. I still like the trippy look and at least it’s available in 120 format.
Hey 👋🏻 great video and some really interesting points here. I think you’ve hit on lots of truths here. Especially in regards to gear. As a female photographer I get so sick of the constant fuss over lenses and cameras and feeling as if I have to know all those things to be involved in the conversation. I think film photography is broken up into many different sub groups and cinestill kind of appeals to people who maybe don’t have the knowledge someone like yourself does and they just want a film they can shoot and take to a lab. Film photography can get really overwhelming and complicated in my opinion and just focusing on having fun, actually shooting and creating better images each time and exploring your creativity is the core of it, at least for me. It’s refreshing to hear someone say the Mamiya and Leica aren’t going to make better photos, I wish more on RUclips would show what great results you can get from really affordable cameras! Thank you for your video.
I agree because I use Canon EOS Rebel X for cheap the body only costs ~US$19-US$35 and it uses same thing as Leica and Mamiya (well Mamiya uses medium format but the slight difference because 120 film is a little larger than 35mm and deliver more detailing on medium format). Anyways, I use it for EF lenses and learn to try to properly meter the photos with my phone as a light meter.
@@RealSergiob466 yes I’ve recently decided that I’m going to use my cheap but more advanced slrs more, because I value nice clean looking photos that are in focus and have the best colours because they had better exposure metering. Older manual cameras are fun to use, but I dislike photos that are over or under exposed and have that faded film look. I also understand development and scanning play a role in how photos turn out.
I'm the first to admit I'm a gearhead, I love all those old engineering wonders (particularly the ones pre-60s!) but to be perfectly honest, if you showed me one of my pics chances are I won't be able to tell you which camera I've taken it with. It's more about the joy of using them. I'm probably never getting a "proper" Leica, especially when I can use the same glass on a much cheaper camera :)
@@RealSergiob466 The meter in the EOS is probably better than your phone's light meter, but comparing the two will give you a good idea what to expect if you use a full manual camera.
You definitely made some great points. I owned some of those cameras but then sold them later because I had too much gear, and really no one cares if the end photo is the sidewalk and grass from the street you live on. “But it was shot on film!” 🙄
Agreed wholeheartedly. Yes, if you shoot with some Ektar 100 or pretty much any slow speed B&W you can exceed the resolution of digital FF. Bumping up to 120 or large format even more so.... but you have to combine it with expensive and technically challenging scanning and a presentation format that demands that resolution. I've always loved Clyde Butcher's work and the amazing 5 foot plus prints that he was able to make in his darkroom. He needs every tiny bit of resolution he can get. Thinking that you need that same resolution for Instagram is just silly. For me at least shooting film is about the process. It's a fun challenge to wrestle with the film and cameras from our parents and grandparents to make an image. For anything though where the results matter, I'm going to go with digital hands down. Digital is much more reliable to deliver a final product that is saleable. TL/DR: My own shooting for fun on the street? Film all the way. Headshots for a client or pro event coverage? Digital 100%.
I disagree. Neither 135 nor 120 film can compete with 40+ Mpix fullframe cameras. Partly this is also due to much better modern lenses in terms of resolution and contrast. With 4x5 I am still testing …
@@RickJohnson Kodak datasheet gives 100 lines/mm (50 cycles/mm) for a MTF of 30%. That is equivalent of 100*36*100*24 = 8.3 megapixels. 80 cycles (160 line pairs) gives MTF < 10% already, and this is equivalent to 22MP. So, up to 8.3MP you get almost all the resolution, from 8.3 - 22MP we can get only marginal improvements, equivalent to a MTF < 30%. Definitively it has not the resolution of a 33MP digital camera. I mean, i really love film. Some films give CRAZY resolution, such as HR-50 (this wins a lot of digital FF cameras, even on 35mm). But im just trying to analyze in a more systematic way, using the data that manufactures give to us in their datasheets.
@@yhangr Appreciate the depth of analysis. It's quite possible that the lens I'm using for my DSLR can't resolve a full 24.3MP my camera sensor supports (DXOMark rates the Tokina 100mm f/2.8D at 19MPix perceived), so my perceived results at critical focus are simply "better" with the scanner because it can optically outresolve the grain rather than the film having remaining perceived detail at the limits of cheaper scanners (i.e. my V600 which optically peaks at 1500dpi). The end result is muddy grain when pixel peeping and slightly less natural sharpness. For initial scans, I'm totally okay with having more than one pixel per "grain" since that exposes the irregularity of the grain shapes on any film/process. That's something that becomes quite apparent w/ B&W t-grain films and a dissolving developer like DD-X when compared to conventional grain FP4, P30, or Tri-X and a classic non-dissolving high-accutance developer like Rodinal. Does that change image quality on Instagram? Not really, but it's a fun exercise when trying to understand how certain combinations "work". So to your point, scanning at 5000DPI creates a gigantic ~33MP file, but since the grain is visible at 100% zoom, the film itself resolves less detail but we leave little on the table as far as resolution and sharpness when scaling down the image. Despite that, comparing lab Noritsu scans to my V600, the D750 macro setup, and the PrimeFilm XAs output, only the PrimeFilm's output allows me to "make out" text shot on Ektar at Epcot on a distant menu sign where the output from other scans simply doesn't resolve beyond "lines on a sign". That also completely ignores the resolving limits of a 1970s vintage Minolta/Rokkor PG 58mm f/1.2 at f/8-f/11, which I imagine when paired with most films, is still going to be the weakest link - combined w/ my ability to accurately focus infinity.
This is 100% right. A highly resolving film like TMX or Acros is practically 20 noisy MP in 135 at best. I’ve shot, developed and scanned in the high thousands of frames, and digitized the same on Nikon CS9000 and a few on Imacons. We shoot film because of the process, and not merits of the recording media.
I love the comment on "Would you take that picture with your smartphone?" Comment. Its an eye opener. Of course, I hate my phone camera for lack of aperture, too wide, etcetera. But i have zoomed in to 50-ish and taken don't shots on even it sometimes. But I carry my 5D like it's a smartphone these days so I'm never without a camera with a 50.
What a delightful reality check into how the world has morphed into what people look like rather than the medium itself. Awesome video chap and yes please do one on the reason why you love it ;)
2:55 I agree. There will likely come a time when I can't get more chemicals, can't get more film (I scan the negs with a DSLR and macro lens), and all my film camera bodies fail with nobody left who knows how to repair them. But cost notwithstanding, film photography with home development is something I never properly got to do as a kid and I'm very pleased to have been able to give it a shot as an adult. 3:20 Medium format digital keeps digital in the game here to a certain extent. I'm not sure there are any large format digital cameras outside of specialist industrial and surveillance-satellite applications. I was told quite a while ago that the threshold for full-frame digital to outperform 35mm film at any reasonable reproduction size was 12MP, but if you want 6x4 glossies for a photo album, 6MP APS-C will do it for you easily and those cameras can be had for stupid cheap. 4:01 - point taken, but what I'm really getting is the ability to develop my own film and translate it into an image I can share with others on demand. I have the DSLR with the macro lens for unconnected reasons, so that cost doesn't form part of my film "processing" setup costs. 4:45 - Agree completely. Before automation started to creep in in the early to mid 70s, most 35mm cameras were essentially identical - they provided shutter speeds between bulb and 1/1000 sec and apertures depending on the lens you fitted, between f/1.4 and f/16 or f/22 (with occasional stand-outs). The only real difference was in the interface - where the knobs were, how the camera felt in the hands size and weight-wise, and the extent to which it displayed to you the exact aperture and shutter speed you had set (if you needed to have these in the viewfinder at all). At that point it becomes a matter of individual taste. The real difference was in the emulsion you put in it and what you did to that emulsion in the darkroom - sort of like being able to swap the sensor in your camera at will.
As someone who got into film as a teenager around 2011, and then picked it up last year, the pricing is absolutely the biggest shock. My B&H catalog from then shows 5 packs of 120 TMAX for $19. Almost makes me want to cry
After seeing some vids on Cine 800T is was interested in getting a roll to try out as I've never shot tungstan balance film before. When I saw the price per roll.. Yeah, nah. I'm not that interested. :)
great video... BUT, I must disagree on one point. You said the purpose of photography is to make great photographs, but I thought the purpose of photography was to take pictures. You see, I'm not a great photographer, but I love it anyway. If I may make a poor analogy: I love music, and I love to sing. The problem is I can't carry a tune, but if the whole purpose of singing was to be a great vocalist... well, hopefully you get what I'm trying to convey. My photography is for my satisfaction and if someone (anyone!) else likes a picture I've taken, then I'm even happier. So I'll just keep on being a happy idiot taking my pictures, some good, some bad (well, mostly bad), but all worthwhile. Other than that small point, you were spot on. Thanks!
I passed up the opportunity to pick up a Nikon F3 for $75 US years ago and I just got one for around $300 US so I definitely know what you mean by the price shooting up!
To be fair, I really do think the F3 is perhaps the most complete film SLR out there, and it strikes a good balance between having nice electronic features, while maintaining a great mechanical feel.
@@pantherclaws123 it's probably the most bullet-proof option out there. Speaking to an old-school pro friend of mine, he said for an SLR the Nikon was the most robust. He loved the Olympus because it was the same size as his Leica, but they weren't as robust. He said you could use the F3 as a hammer and it would still take pictures. My comment is more about the hype of the F3's now...for awhile it was coolest to run a Canon, then a Minolta, and now finally kids are thinking the F3 is just the best thing ever. I still love my Olympus OM-4's, quirks and all, but that's because I've shot with them since highschool, have a great lens selection and am just used to them that I don't have to think. I'm on my 2nd or 3rd one tho. ;)
@@patrickjclarke I sometimes think about stockpiling a bunch of bulletproof cameras, so I can still continue shooting film 30 years on when I'm 50... Wonder if film would still exist then, whether there'll still be interest in it, and what cameras are the remaining survivors
Yep, expense these days is a growing factor in the back of my mind these days. It just means I don't shoot as often as I'd like to, and it is generally black and white instead of colour. Ektachrome in 2018 here was AU$24 per 35mm roll. Now it is $42 at best. often $50+. I love film and I love the process of shooting and being creative with all the mediums available to us. My next endeavour is trying some ilford SFX and making some false colour IR shots
The third point that focuses on one of my major pet peeves about Cinestill photography. While I love/like Cinestill (Kodak Vision 3) 50D/800T, It's a modern cinematic film stock. It is designed to capture a relatively flat image, digitized, then color graded. The number of times I see people posting flat, uncorrected, and ungraded photos is nuts. Particularly a problem with the tungsten-balanced stocks.
It's particularly funny to me how much folks will obsess over film camera *bodies*. The film and the lens used are the equivalent of the sensor. The body is there to provide good ergonomics and additional features, but they don't affect any visual aspects of a photograph. For any pro or even semi-pro work that I do, I shoot digital. I shoot film for the exact reason you described - the experience and feeling of doing something more challenging to immerse myself. It's the same reason I shave with a safety razor and brush rather than a cartridge razor and a can of chemicals, or the reason I might cook a lasagna from scratch even though Stouffer's is pretty damn good. I find it fun. As soon as it's no longer fun for me, I'll stop doing it.
I don’t see much point in the obsession about a camera body, but i do see where it comes from. Many of the film cameras out there either can’t shoot fully manual, are too bulky and heavy, hard to repair, small viewfinders etc. and most of them comes with compromises. The more boxes a camera checks and the less compromises it makes, the more sought after it is.
It sucks to see film equipment fall victim to collectible culture and used more as tokens than art supplies. It seems as though more than ever, film cameras are bought and sold like jewelry, stocks, and financial tokens to be treated as investments while the race to buy out the finite resources drives up the price. With Fuji killing stock after stock and Kodak hiking prices without putting out anything new, it sometimes feels like we're really on our own here. Repair experts are slowly retiring, affordable equipment is getting mythologized, and no one is really making a proper film camera anymore. Despite the growing popularity and reinvigorated market interest from younger generations, sometimes this hobby feels like it's coasting on borrowed time
Finally someone who says it out loud. I am sick to death of the dross that people post because of the equipment/film used. Not only that, but it gets lots of likes for the same reason. This has pushed me over the edge to donate $10 to you. After 50 years in photography, including 20 years as a working pro, my heart sinks to see what people rate as a great image, and the drivel they spout.
I just realised that even though i shoot film for over a year,the only serious films that i shoot is ilford delta 3200 and some kentmere,everything else I shoot is just to see what it will look like. With that been said though at the case of Delta i shoot things that shooting them on iPhone wouldn't make sense.I love gritty pictures and how they look,I have tried a lot of emulators but none looks like Delta or Tri-X if I am honest.
Interesting take Azriel. Like many on this forum, each photographer decides which emulsion suits them, the equipment they use and application. We do not follow ANY influencers who grace the halls of social media outlets.
I know this is a bit old, but here’s how I keep film affordable: I have a Nikon F. The body is a bit pricey, but built like a tank. And thankfully I inherited it. Lenses are stupid cheap, and work on some modern DSLRs. I buy short ends of Vision3. FPP has an ECN-2 developing kit, 1L/16 rolls for $20. That’s my ultra cheap color 35mm setup. For MF I have an RB67 and roll my own 120/220 film from Aviphot 200. In fact, I actually make money doing that, selling hand rolled film. My film photography pays for my film photography. That’s not something you hear too often
1. 12 MP is just fine for 20 x 30 2. Cost is broadly in line with inflation. We live in an inflationary environment, and it is what it is. The issue isn't so much that film is expensive, rather, that everything is expensive, and food comes before film. 3. Film does not come close in terms of resolution (I've tested Rollei with Velvia 50 against a D300, and the Rollei got spanked). 4. I've not shot Cinestill, but those 400D tones are sweet. In any case, the price of Cinestill is not out of line with other emulsions. 5. Ultimately film is a different medium to digital, with its own aesthetic. Much like oils are different to watercolours. A different medium, for a different purpose. Peace.
From the tests I've seen on cinestill 50/250D, the C41 process actually produces more accurate colors then what the ecn2 did. The colors did not seem weird either, just more contrasty. I think it's more of a thing that people use the tungsten balanced films in all kinds of situations you normally wouldn't.
Months later we find that a roll of Gold 200 costs as much, if not more than Cinestill 800t. Granted these are extreme times but especially when it comes to color 35mm the price argument is almost moot since everything is either out of stock or price gouged (saw someone trying to sell Ektar 100 for an eye watering $30 a roll just today)
Cool points, I agree with most of them, but I think the one on CineStill is a bit misguided. Kodak doesn't sell cinema film on single rolls, and even if they did, they might damage film cameras in the long run due to the thick remjet layer adding extra force to the winding mechanism. I once shot some Vision2 and it was quite heavy to wind tbh, I feared my camera would break at any moment. It's still a bit of an overpriced film tbh.
If Kodak thought there were enough potential sales of Vision 3 films in 35mm cartridge, 120 or short bulk rolls (the most likely), they'd do it. My guess is that they do not at this time because of lack of processing. C-41 is at best a so-so cross process for color and contrast. Striping the remject is the Cinestill trick, and Kodak isn't going to step into that situation for such low volume sales. Kodak has nearly abandoned the photo-chemical industry it built, so its not in a position to launch DIY ECN-2 kits (although it does sell ECN-2 chemistry in industrial volumes), other sources are presently meager and the commercial labs are not going to set up for small volume ECN-2. Also, I think that ECN-2 films are sold though a division independent of the Aleris film distribution, so that puts such sales on two independent tracks. Technically, the added thickness of the remjet layer to overall film thickness is trivial, and the remjet is actually a dry lubricant, so usage wouldn't hurt any 35mm camera. As for cost, if you can plunge for a Kodak-packed 400' bulk roll (their smallest), it works out to about $4.50 a 36 exp roll for 35mm stock. Of course, Cinestill and other repackagers mark that up about 250% for their "added value". I'd consider doing this, if I could work out a practical way to respool the 400' roll down to 4 - 100' rolls my bulk loader could handle.
One of ur best. Azriel This answerred so many questions. I miss the days of popping film n the mail and waiting for prints. Guess I'm sold more on digital. Never thought I'd hear myself say that.
I am a old guy who shot film long before digital so I disagree with you in some areas but agree with you in others. I see so many videos of youngsters shooting film cameras and showing uninteresting photos. I still use film and enjoy it over digital. I shoot mostly medium and large format.
Yeah you're right. They think they're being "unique" and trying to use the film medium to augment their internet "influence" which I think this video is targeting? They're totally missing the point that shooting on film is to enhance your artistic abilities not your influence.
Oh my gosh this is such a good video, your point on people shooting “boring photos” and taking pictures because “what it’d look like on film” LMAO THIS IS RELATABLE. Well done hahaha
This is such a great video. You hit the nail on the head, Azriel. We get hung up about equipment and features especially with the age of the internet with all the online experts but fail to see the most important aspect of photography, the image. What feelings, emotions, or memories does it invoke. If film sets the mood of the image then be it. Does digital with its insane high iso is what will capture the moment then digital it is. The equipment we have today could only be dreamt of a few years ago. The only limitation is our imagination. Thanks again for a very insightful video. Maybe you can make a series about composition, tonality, shadows or why a particular image spoke to you (of course along with all the darkroom and technical stuff),
OMG. You are so right. I trained and work with film back in the late 80s as a commercial photographer and even then film and processing couldn't be seen as cheap, particularly if you were wanting professional results. The price difference between your local chemist developing your holiday snaps and a pro lab was considerable. Even though I had my own darkroom and did most of the processing and printing myself, chemicals, paper, film and equipment were not cheap. Im really glad to see people still enjoying film, particularly younger folk but It's not a cheap option. I still shoot film for some projects and even though I still process and scan everything myself I know how much it costs every time I press the shutter, particularly with my 4X5 plate camera. However I'm fed up with the marketing hype of companies like Cinestill basically rebranding Kodak putting it in a "cool" box and charging people double of what it would cost if you brought it direct from Kodak. I recently dare criticise the Cinestill marketing hype with their new film REDRUM which is actually a manufacturing error and subsequently burnt at the stake. Keep speak up you have a new subscriber
There are always people who need to claim "technical superiority" to justify something that's actually just done for the "feel" of it or nostalgia. Like HiFi-people claiming a vinyl record or a tube amp is "more accurate" than CD or transistor when they really are not because they just like to play with that old technology and maybe prefer the kind of character (technically distortion) this technology gives. Same thing with film, technically, when meaning the ability to reproduce as accurate a representation of the reality as possible, digital is superior in every aspect. But at least I like the "imperfections" of film and the whole process of doing it the old way. I also love the old, preferably fully mechanical, cameras for what they are, magnificent pieces of engineering from the days when things were made as well as possible to last for decades, not as cheap as possible to break or become "obsolete" in a few years so new ones can be sold. I really like the feel of the heavy, mostly metal, cameras with solid buttons and levers for everything, no screens and menus and no unnecessary functions implemented as a sales gimmick you try once and then never use again. Also, as a middle-aged guy, I have no trouble admitting I partly shoot film and process my own negatives and prints because that's what I dreamed of as a kid in the 70:s and 80:s. Back then I couldn't afford a system camera or darkroom equipment, I shot with a cheap 110 pocket camera (sometimes I might have borrowed my grandfathers Rollei compact rangefinder in 35mm) and a Super 8 film camera and had the films processed in a lab which was common and inexpensive at the time. I also attended a youth club where there was some dark room work I watched but never did myself. A little later, in my mid-20:s, I bought my second hand Pentax ME Super which I still have and use. Then, in the late 90:s I got an APS pocket camera which I also still have but don't use (and don't have much desire to as it's a fully automatic point-and-shoot with very mediocre image quality because of the small frame) because apparently the format died quite quickly. Then at the beginning of 2000:s I went completely digital for almost two decades to start with film again a couple of years ago, this time black and white and processing my own. Now I can afford the equipment I dreamed of as a teenager, even professional stuff is not too expensive yet though the prices have come up. Only after I had started with film again and did some online research I found out it's making a comeback. I had no idea it's so popular again. Especially the prices of some of the 90:s fully automatic, plastic point-and-shoot cameras are completely ridiculous, I myself wouldn't want one as to me they are "too modern", not different enough an experience from a digital or a smart phone to justify the cost and trouble. Most of my cameras are either Soviet/east European or Japanese and quite inexpensive, though now I bought a Mamiya RB67. I specifically wanted the older, fully mechanical and made mostly of metal one as I believe they are not as much affected by age as electronics and plastic. Also much less expensive than RZ67 of course. I have decided medium format is "my thing", a good compromise between the ease and portability of 35mm and the image quality of large format. I do have a few thousand euros in my equipment but that's mostly because I have many inexpensive cameras, not because I have any really pricey ones. Film and processing are not that expensive as I don't use any "high end" films (mostly Ilford HP5 or FP4 or Fomapan) and only shoot B&W. My scanner is an inexpensive Epson V600 which gives passable results for previewing the frames to see which ones I'll print and to post my images online. The biggest problem is I have to scan the 4x5 negatives in two parts as the scanner will only do 60mm wide film scans.
Digital is technically superior......For digital work. However digital is flawed when it comes to preservation and archiving that same image outside of cyberspace and onto a tangible material. Film still is the superior format for archiving which is why movies shot digitally get 35mm or 70mm prints made. Also why libraries still use microfilm.
I got into photography in the mid 90s and came up with film. There was a time in the early 00's where many people including myself stuck with film for the resolution because 3.1mp cameras weren't cutting it. I eventually moved over to DSLRs and my D7200 and D850 have not made me miss much about film. However, I still shoot my F2, F3, FG and Nikkormat cameras because I love the size, controls and feel of them and enjoy processing my own B&W negatives at home. Of the 3k images i shoot each year only about 150ish are on film. I watch the youtube vids and these young kids photograph GARBAGE and call it art. They don't bother telling a story with their photos. Instead they use street lamps and gas stations as subjects of the photos when they should be trying to use those as elements to make a more interesting photo. Documenting areas is great fun but those photos aren't great unless the area has changed and you're nostalgic for what the area used to be. Showing me photos of a gas station at night that I can go visit myself doesn't get me interested. Photography is no doubt subjective but merely capturing beautiful light isn't enough to make a great photo. Find other interesting elements to add to the scene or wait for something interesting to happen within a gas station before clicking the shot. If you're crunched for time and need to put out more 'content' then you'll be left thinking that sunset or the blue hour light is all you need to make the mundane interesting. Also, not every shot needs to be overexposed just because portra can handle it. "let's photograph in the woods and see the beautiful fall colors"...but then wash them out by overexposing?? ALL techniques should be appropriate for the scene including high-key and should be used sparingly. Love your vids and keep up the great work Azriel. If you want to check out an awesome young kid who uses film and large format to tell stories then check out Bryan Birk's channel.
Thanks Scott, you make some really great points here. I've been guilty of this for a long time. Testing a cameras and I need to just go blow a roll of film and get the video out. I've been making a conscious effort to move away from that. Create ongoing projects and not feel pressured to finish a roll all in one go.
Agree with you. Good points. When you're passionate about what to believe, and you tell it straightforwardly, people call it a rant. I know. I rant regularly. I like the way you call things.
Can't agree any more with particular cameras being overvalued. I do all of my own work, and rebuild cameras on a frequent basis. The idea of spending upwards of $300+ camera that hasn't been serviced in decades and is running on dried out lubricant is insane to me. Pentax 67, Yashicamat 124, RZ67, and Rolleiflex are the usual suspects in the medium format category. Even those being offered for parts/repair are often more expensive than a fully functional model of a less popular camera, even some by the same manufacturer. Portra 400 is so ubiquitous with film photography on social media that I stayed away from it for quite a while since I didn't want to just copy what everyone else was doing without experimenting other film stocks. It's now my go to whenever I do color, but I'm glad I first tried it after I had a bit of fun goofing around and learning on cheaper stocks.
There is another alternative, though. Shoot positive film. Kodak E100 and Fujichrome 50 or 100 can give excellent results, without any post processing. But yes, it's expensive.
As someone who has never done digital photography, I would just say "get out there, shoot the photos THAT PLEASE YOU whether digital or film". I want and need film photography to be viable in the future, but this will only be possible if enough people buy the materials. Film is not superior to digital and vice versa, the differences are less significant than the common ground. Great photography is not about media - it's about content.
You're a 100 percent right. I still love shooting film mainly because I'm lazy with Lightroom and shooting film is a great possibility to achieve a consistent look. But since I bought a used 5d mark III I barely touch my film cameras..
The best scans I've ever gotten were from a drum scanner and that is really expensive as well. I recently paid $40 per image to have some 6x7 negatives scanned. Definitely makes you take a hard look at your photos and think "are these really that good?"
The price. Dedicated film scanners are quiet expensive. You should think about it, if you want to spend over 1,000 $ for film scanners. Technical is possible to extract over 4,000 DPI out of a 35mm negative. In practice the resolution depends on the film and used lenses. The usable resolution should be less. Film scanning is a expensive fun.
I don't think Cinestill sucks because people use it to photograph cliches like gas stations and pretty girls with neon lights in the background, or because it's rebranded Vision 3 at a higher price. It's different, people like it, it's not a bad thing. I like it in certain situations, sometimes I want that glow and no, I don't photograph neon lights with it. I buy a roll once a year maybe and I don't think it sucks, it's people's problem if they want to take pictures of neons all night with it.
There’s definitely too much focus on the gear and not the work itself. I obviously talk about gear on my channel because like you said, everyone wants to know about it. But I want the focus in my videos to be much more about the photos themselves.
There is a misunderstanding with Kodak Vision3: this film is not meant to be seen "as is", Kodak refined its contrast and colors so that it can be heavily graded in post. It kind of an analog s-log type of result. People tend to like it just as it is, it's fine, but it's also not meant to be used this way. C41 and ECN2 give different results but both processes have their pros ans cons. See Ribsy's channel experiments on that matter.
To be honest after 10 years of shooting film with probably hundreds of cameras I can say I don’t care about the final photography, I care about the precious machines that allow us to make such photographies. As an industrial designer I love mechanical/complex things which are well made and last forever, and cameras are the perfect intersection of industrial design, engineering, optics, passion and care for meeting the needs of a user. Machines made with pride, using the best methods and materials for its cost, wanting them to be as durable as possible. (That’s why I don’t care about cameras and gear made after the 80’s, so much corner cutting and penny pinching produces lesser quality in the end and it’s just awful). Years ago I used to shoot a lot and I loved it, but now days I only shoot instant film and buy/sell cameras and gear, as well I service and repair a lot of photo equipment (and I design and manufacture a lot of it too). So yeah I guess I have an strange relationship with photography because I couldn’t care less about the art and the result, only about the gear, but not in a stupid “get the hype” way, nor I think that an expensive camera will make me a good photographer. I just love the cameras and lenses.
I have an acquaintance who doesn't take photos, even though he has about 200 analog cameras at home. He says he enjoys hearing the sound when he push shutter button. He enjoys technique. He also says that he has no idea what to photograph. He's not talented. Fair enough. I enjoy the process of making a photo in the darkroom. More than in photography. When I have a crisis of ideas, I don't take pictures and wait for inspiration. in the meantime, I prefer to process old negatives in the darkroom. But I'm not a person who would take analog photos and process film digitally. I don't see the point. For the web, any dslr camera is good, or any camera on a mobile phone. The idea and composition are important. But I'm absolutely delighted to get my hands on my RB, which makes me feel like photography is more important than it might actually be. And that counts too.
Never shot any cinistill or do I ever intend to. They aren’t just rebranding though. They’re making a film stock more accessible to people that only have the option of c41 processing or don’t want the hassle of removing the remjet. It’s still daylight robbery at their prices though
Is 13 bucks for 36 exposures really daylight robbery? I mean it can cost you more to get some portra 800, especially now with the price hikes! Sure they probably aren't paying much for the stock but the production costs plus the general costs of running a business can explain why it is so much too.
@@jamesknill617 I shoot Ilford black and white films so all colour film seems extortionate to me. Even Kodak black and white films are over double the cost of Ilford’s offerings. I didn’t realise that you could get it for 13 dollars either. Azriel said it was 20 a roll so I was going off of that price. I think it’s more expensive here in the uk as everything usually is.
@@mattdavis9986 The price of colour is definitely why I'm switching to B&W plus my university darkroom can only do B&W processing. I feel you on the UK markup on film, some places really take the mick with prices
Great points! I started with film went to digital in 2009 and back to film in 2017. I have seen the costs of film rise over the last few years. I am looking to shoot all of my 35mm equivalent color as digital. The only color I will shoot will be medium format and large format. I also remember in 2009 a camera store nearby was offering me a full darkroom set up for 200.00 and he begged me to buy it, I declined. Today, that would be at least 500.00. Your point on the “film camera” hype is so true. I think that the hype has drove some film cameras through the roof. It’s sad that a RZ67 is 4 times what it used to be a few years ago. I remember a GW690III was 500.00 a few years ago and is over 1,000 now. A big concern is one pays these high prices and the mechanics or electronics fail and it may be unrepairable or cost hundreds to repair. Basically, think long term. I could rant on but share your views.
I got into film photography - because it was the cheap option and the equipment was amusing and most of the equipment was 'old' but in good order. It's now painful and equipment is starting to break. Burning 10 rolls of film on Holiday was fine in 2019. It's not now. It was even better for travel in 2016. And I still have all those negatives and memories floating around. None of my pictures are good. My favourite photo was something only possible on a T90 - it couldn't have been done in a digital camera as it relied on the double-exposure feature and nobody could figure out how it wasn't photoshopped because it looks physically impossible. If I've another big holiday planned, mayve I'll save up a thousand quid and get an Eos-R series - which'll be compatible with the equipment I already have.
Thanks for the comment. I think what a lot of people lose sight of is that film and digital are not mutually exclusive. I catch flack from people every time I say that digital does colour better, and I don't fly much but next time I do, I'm much more likely to bring digital with me. I'm not going to drop a few grand on a vacation, only to have a bad roll/camera/lens/airport xray ruin my holiday photos. Film is a luxury, especially now with prices up.
You're so right with the prices. One thing that I hate is that people believe that any camera or photography equipment is expensive just because it's "vintage" or old. They are usually overpriced for what they are, point and shoot cameras or low end slrs (I'm not saying they're bad but some of them are not even valuable as collectibles!). It is sad to see that high costs of gear and film prevents more people getting into it. I hope things get better because I've seen stores in my country selling portra 400 for 20 bucks each roll!! Good video as always!
The only thing I'll push back on is that I don't think, for me, film is "because of the process", it's the medium itself. I'm more about the right tool and the least amount of steps to get the resulting image I want. Notice I didn't say film has less steps, but it does have the least amount of steps to get what I want as a final image. Film as a medium does things that aesthetically please me and has elements that digital has a harder time replicating. If film's end result just looked like a digital image, there would be no reason for me to shoot film, process be damned. But that's why I love the extremely unpopular Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2 with a Minolta Maxxum7 or Lomo Purple with the Bronny ETRSi...they give me a certain look that just speaks to my vision, much to the dissatisfaction of my Instagram hits. ;)
Interesting video and questions... I am asking myself, I have a Leica M6 beside several Canon F1,Nikon F3 and Contax Kameras.... but the most pleasure and fun I have is with the Leica. Is it because it was expensive, do I need to justify the purchase ? I don't know .... But regarding film, I totally agree.
That's the problem - there is no "community" anymore. Can't wait for those people shooting film just because it's cool, to give up and move on. Had a similar conversation with someone this weekend and they actually argued with me when I said Leicas are overpriced (in that, given the price, the photos being taken aren't that much better than ones taken on my Pentax, for example, though this then just points back to users who buy a name brand and don't spend time improving their skills...vicious cycle I think).
Hey Rachel! I totally agree with you and azriel in regards to Leica. I think people are so hung up on getting a camera like a contax T2 or a Leica or a Mamiya because that’s what’s going to make them take great photos and that’s just not how it works! It’s about the photographer and I really wish more people in the spotlight would highlight cameras that are cheap/affordable to make the whole thing more inclusive and accessible.
Spent a lovely day on Dartmoor a few weeks ago, shot a roll of fp4+ in a 6x6 Zeiss ikon folder and half a roll of hp5+ 35mm in my Pentax spotmatic. I visited some places I've never been before, got some fresh air and excercise and the dog had a great day too. Total cost around £150, including buying the cameras, diesel in the truck, developing chemicals and the film. Take the cameras away and I spent thirty quid tops. That's not the cheapest hobby, but it's a lot better value than pretty much any other hobby you can think of. Film, it's just a load more fun.
Solid points in this video, but what always gets lost in the discussion about film is not even about the final image, it's the process itself. You can never replicate the feeling of shooting a film camera; loading the film, manually setting exposure, manually focusing, etc. Then there's developing and printing in the darkroom. The art of photography and the art of "making a photo" is tied within the legacy of the technology of film. No matter how good digital software gets at emulating the "film look," it can never recreate the manual process. And I'm sorry, there is nothing sexy or fun about loading a battery or sd card into a digital camera, or staring at a monitor for hours editing photos. As useful as digital cameras can be sometimes, (and they do have their place), the joy of photography is in the analog process imo.
Yes, Cinestill is rebranded Vision3 packaged for cross-processing and priced high. But it's generating interest in film photography. Would you really rather it wasn't around? I'm more worried about the day there isn't any hype around film or cameras.
There's still plenty of regular film still in production without the massive mark-ups, cinestill isn't this mythical crutch that is proping up the film photography scene.
Are those seriously the only two options? Also, it's movie film, still used in mass quantities to make, ya know, movies. Seems pretty short sighted to think CineStill is single handedly keeping vision 3 in production.
Kodak Vision 3 does have the Remjet Layer (not removed like into CineStill 800T, so you cant process via C-41 ordinary development) since it's a movie Film, not stills photography 35mm film, ordinary.
I'm seeing 2 replies that have nothing to do with the original comment...
@@marcp.1752 And it gives you a different look.
"3 grand for a camera that doesn't have autofocus? are you nuts?" love your honesty sir
lol thanks :)
For the love of photography... that's why ;-)
I have to disagree on this one! I trust my eyes better than autofocus on a film camera. I’ve had too many out of focus photos,film is too expensive to have mistakes.
I have used film cameras since 1958. Yes, I’m an old geyser. You hit the target. I had a Leica M3 for decades but when I purchased my first autofocus and auto exposure camera my old Nikon f and that manual focus/exposure M3 went in a drawer somewhere. I later bought a Contex G1. It’s now my go to film camera. I bought it in 2006 and I’m still waiting for it to die.
I don’t make prints in a darkroom any more because getting really fine prints can take years to master. I do process my film myself and then make contacts sheets in the darkroom but then scan the negative I want to print.
I use only Tri-X film. I have used Tri-X for decades and I can determine exposure manually if necessary.
Film photography is my way of relaxing. Digital is for work. Digital from camera to print is so much faster and more efficient. Plus the prints are so much better.
Everything you said in this video is so accurate!! I'm tired of seeing film photographers mediocre work and being told it's amazing, that they are so talented etc etc simply because it's shot on film. The format does not make one a good photographer, yet I see certain people gaining recognition for boring images? It blows my mind. There are so many underrated artists out there..
I used to work in a film lab and would encounter the same cliche images of hot skinny girls in bikini's everyday. Those photographs were apparently 'art' and the so called photographers were 'well known' and 'respected'. I'm sorry, but shooting an already beautiful subject looking vacant does not qualify as talent/skill - instead the photographer is relying on the appeal of sex and the style/look of film to get them by.
My local camera store has cinestill 50D and 800T for $13 for a 135 36exp roll which I think is not horrendous since removing the remjet allows you to send it to a C41 lab without ruining their equipment. Once I get ahold of some C41 chems and a bulk roller I’ll buy a 100ft roll of Vision3 500T but until then I don’t mind paying a 3-4$ premium to shoot the same stock from cinestill
If you plan to buy and load bulk Vision 3 film for home processing, do yourself a favor and buy ECN-2 process kits instead of C-41. If you go to the trouble to buy the right form of film, you might as well process it in the right chemistry. No matter how you BS it, C-41 is cross processing, and the results show, Cinestill hype and marketing aside. I think it was a YT guy named "ribsey" who did a side by side video with C-41 v. ECN-2. The results were "instructive".
Even at the inflated prices of today there are still bargains - last summer I picked up an EOS 500 for 200 SEK (about 20 USD) including shipping, a Canonet and Konica C35 for about the same each. There are still good deals out there, just don’t fall for the instagram gear posing.
I got into film photography in the early 2000’s, and am just getting back into it. What draws me to photography, both analog and digital, is the process of making good photos. The photo itself is raw data, and takes an investment of time and money to make it a photograph.
Agreed!
RE: Sharpness, or Resolution
Film can have amazing resolving power, given the right set of conditions - low ISO, perfect light, stabilized equipment (tripods etc), and most of all - High quality lenses. Add to that things like professional processing, drum scanning and post-processing - and you'll quickly see the 'price per megapixel' for film is out of control.
Similar, if not better results can be had from even APS-C sensors if the same technique and thought is applied as a film exposure. But, because as you said - you can hold down the shutter on a digital all day and not spend a penny - people do not pay attention to the basics and just 'pray and spray' - giving Digital photography it's undeserved reputation.
Good points, and I would say, most of all: high quality scanner.
Thanks for the comment!
Finally someone is saying it. Too many people think loving film means you can't acknowledge its short comings. Also typing this out while you're trashing r/analog - just reminded me about a photo I saw on tumblr: a piece of bread on a set of stairs, which people were applauding because of how the light was hitting it...
Total agreement. I personally, get so tired of the 'Tesla Car Effect' of some film brands, as it appears that being part of the clique is more important than the end result. I have passed off photos as being shot with Tri X when actually Fomapan 200 was used just to see how the opinion of the viewer is effected by perception. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a fig what was used to make that image, but what that image IS.
lol, I love that you did that. I've often thought about putting up digital photos and labelling them Leica. Then of course, dropping the ball after.
@@AzrielKnight Indeed, you do have to come clean after but just seeing the expressions makes it all worth it. :)
I wish I could post some of my old Tri-X 320 or Pan-X stuff! Wonder what kind of reactions they would get. Even though I was bulk loading, rushing stuff through the darkroom to make deadline (like cutting fixer time in half or skipping it altogether), etc.
This should be a TED talk, nothing but the truth 🙌🏽
I’ll go ahead and admit to laughing out loud when I heard your fire hydrant analogy. The RZ67? I would have said Mamiya 7. Honestly, I thought the RB and RZ were so heavy and clunky that they would never become hip, trendy, or cool. The fact is the optics rock, the shutter timing is spot on perfect, and the view through the finder is like the worlds best LCD screen they never made because they can’t. Add my favorite feature because I do like to play around with different film stocks: interchangeable backs. That puts it over the top for me. It helps that I’m 6 foot five and 200 pounds so hand holding the camera is not a big deal, but I never thought it would become trendy just because it’s the exact opposite of sexy. Looking back I was damned lucky, I got mine in 2013 when an entire kit could be had for well under $700. There are a couple of things that will keep me shooting film until the bitter end: number one as you alluded I enjoy the process. If I didn’t enjoy the process everything else would be irrelevant. Number two is that I like the how color negative film gracefully handles mid day desert sunlight. It takes a condition most people run away from and makes it beautiful..Cinestill? Everyone wants to be the gatekeeper. Stop adding people to this great trendy neighborhood just as soon as I get my place. Life doesn’t work that way. What they are doing is getting a bunch of people to shoot film. And if a bunch of people did not start shooting film I wonder if there would be any surviving companies making film for any of us? We have seen what happens to expensive cameras when companies quit making film. That beautiful Polaroid 180 that was worth $1000 five years ago? It’s a historical footnote and a doorstop now and that makes me really sad. The same thing would happen with every other film camera if the companies making film did not find it economically rewarding to make film. Still, an entertaining and thought-provoking video, if I agreed with every single point you made it would not be a thought-provoking video, so thumbs up and thank you.
7:15 😂😂 OMG man you nailed it.
As a car guy I've seen mediocre drivers tell people that they weren't true enthusiasts if they didn't drive a manual. As a guitarist I've seen guys (it's almost always guys) who've never played outside their bedroom declare a guitar "not fit for professionals" in the face of gigging musician. As a photographer I've seen someone younger than my first DSLR declare that they "outgrew 35mm in six months." I think the problem is, enthusiast communities are all full of toxic gatekeepers who's only actual purpose is to kill those communities by keeping everyone with good taste better sense away from them.
Yes. I was about to make the comparison to music circles but you beat me to it. So many bedroom guitarists with thousands of dollars worth of equipment who can just barely play Paranoid or Smoke on the water telling everyone what they should buy to be "serious musicians" and claiming they can hear what year the amp tubes were made in or what kind of wood was used for the guitar or which guitar cable was used just from a recording made on a smart phone.
As soon as the fad followers decide something is "cool" and "hip" this starts. You must have "The Right Equipment" to be "in the scene", you are judged by your equipment, not by what you do with it.
Got to agree across the board. Now, stand back a bit as the YT photo channel loyalists descend in a frenzy of denial. Let's hear rebuttal from the 20-25 years old guys who lug an RZ/RB67 without a tripod, set exposure with a Sekonic incident meter they do not know how to use, shoot only Porta 400, and photograph only old houses and old car fenders.
Haha you hit the nail on the head, especially the part about old car fenders
To be honest, while I agree with many of your comments, but, I wouldn't paint all Leica shooters with such a broad brush and "wanna be's". There are reasons I've used Leica cameras since well before they became an Instagram "statement and click bait". In fact, I've used them before the internet was born? Of course, I've also been shooting film since 1970, actually before that, if you include my 6x6 brownie? I still shoot film each and every day - and don't look back nor regret it for a moment. Anyway, carry on.
I really enjoyed hearing your opinions in this video, Azriel. Insightful, and I agree with the points you made. For me, of course it’s the entire process from start to finish in shooting with my 35mm film SLRs. Also the nostalgia, the design, engineering and classic beauty that goes into the craftsmanship of these cameras. The oohs and ahs and people coming up to me and admiring my Nikon F and my Canon FTb hung around my neck and asking questions about my cameras, even posing for me! And the final result, seeing the prints I get back from my lab and scanning the negatives into my computer with my Epson V600 film scanner. I’m 65 and have been shooting digital for about 20 years but have recently discovered my passion for film photography about a year and a half ago. I now shoot mostly with my 35mm film SLRs, my favorite hobby! I want my photography to get better and better with each roll of film I shoot, and I enjoy studying the greats who came way before me.
I do agree on some, and in some ways, but also not in many others. As for the expense, I think if we are talking about starting from scratch, it's much different than someone who has been around for a while realizes. But that said, camera scanning to me is fairly cheap because when I started because I already had a DSLR laying around, and really only needed to invest in a little macro adapter for another lens. The light table and riser I used were cheap finds and brand new. Moving up in the Epson world was a cool $1,000 for results that compared poorly. And while it's possible to shoot the same digital camera for a decade, the average tends to be replacing the thing every few years, especially if you depend on it for a paycheck. Film is not nearly as cheap as it used to be, but I think it still at least compares favorably to digital in a surprising number of ways. But yes, again, it's not good enough to be a driving reason to shoot film. The end product -- the image -- does matter more than anything. I don't agree with your example, but people definitely do overly value the role of gear in the making of an image. I have many issues with the Reddit community, too. I think that's somewhat more about keyboard warriors than the film community at wide, but this comment is getting long enough. ha ha. But lastly, about Cinestill: Yes, it is definitely just Vision3 500T. Aside from the increased halation, there's only a modest amount of change one would see between the non-remjet and remjet versions of the film accounting for chemistry variables. But the fact that a lot of people still use labs means that Cinestill's removal of the remjet layer adds certain value and some uniqueness to the product. Also, their production of 120 film without sprocket holes, much like their production of XX in 120 at all, is unique in the industry. 500T is a brilliant and useful filmstock that is used in multimillion dollar Hollywood productions, and it is offers variables not available in photographic films unless someone wants to process their own cine film or find the very rare labs that will run it in any process. Photography as a whole is cursed with "look at this mediocre shot that's an example of a technique!" and film photographers need to get over their own version of it. But yeah ... interesting video! A lot of topics film photographers should be considering, for sure.
Thanks for the feedback Jamie. While I agree Cinestill is probably doing some good with, as you said, the medium formats. The majority of the films and their 2 step C41 kits are just bad for the community.
$20 a roll, yea, I'll pass. I can get Vision3 down at the store rerolled for $8 a roll.
A much better deal
To me I shoot film because I like the texture it gives, especially in out of focus areas. I also enjoy the process (most of the time), but the look is what I like most. I almost exclusively shoot black and white tho, as it suits my type of photography and the feeling I want to deliver most.
It is to me more of an interpretation of reality than modern digital, where I find too much clarity and resolution to get my desired result (which usually is making nature seem more magical and mystical).
I've thoroughly enjoyed every video I've watched since I discovered your channel 36 hours ago. I've laughed a little and learned a lot. I've liked what I've seen all along but this video made me a fan. I'm no pro but the quote at 9:10 will be repeated. Well said!
Hey, thanks so much :) Glad you're enjoying them :)
'Creatively Bankrupt' Right on!. I shoot film because of the low resolution - just B+W HP5+ I can't compete with a 3 year course in Lightroom and don't want to. How many rainbow bright sunsets are too many? Cheers
Every point is en fuego and 💯 dead on 🙌🏼. And like you I say that as a deep lover and long time lover of film.
I’m so glad I bought and kept my Nikon CS5000 and CS9000 scanners all those years ago.
6x7 TMY2 in Xtol 1:1 is delicious.
Everything you said is true, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much. I'm happy people are enjoying themselves. Yes there's much influencer posturing with these things, but us old farts waffling about it won't change anything.
I still don't nearly enjoy digital as much as film, even just the images (and I'm definitely not spending the time lightrooming the heck out of every image to make it that way - film just has a great baseline). Maybe I need to get one of those Fujis!
One thing about the cost point - I don't agree we all need to factor in a dark room. Enjoying film and never touching a developing tank is perfectly fine in my eyes. I did it a few times, but most of the time I just drop them off at a lab. Added cost of course, but I don't feel my photos are any less for it. And while I agree about purely repackaged film, I do like that we are able to use motion picture film without having to do ECN processing thanks to Cinestill.
Anyway, always love your videos! keep em coming!
I was born in '85 and had plenty of "experience" shooting point and shoots as a kid. Fast forward to today at 36 and yes I am part of this new trend of recent film shooters. Own a Leica, adore it. Enjoy cinestill. Camera scan everything un-ironically. I am exactly who you are describing as the base.
Now here's where I am different and or disagree. While I am a professional portrait and street photographer, I take many many meaningful photos. I also take plenty of meaningless photos too though. And while the smartphone would suffice it's the quality of the film that gives meaningless photos more artistic merit. So I know exactly what you mean by people wasting film on tropes and such but sometimes that gas station really looks dumb on a smartphone and amazing on film. Sue me 😂 But common you know it does too. Don't fight it! haha.. but really you kinda already admitted this so I know. I just wanted to give my similar 2 cents.
Ok one more point.. (don't want to be that guy who nit picks sorry) But judging a camera based on the lack of autofocus? Hmm I think you need to consider so many factors before autofocus or manual focus is in question. Me I could never rely on autofocus with the work I do. I need manual focus. It's all relative isn't it? I think you know this but were just making a slight joke. I really liked a lot of your points though. Keep it coming!
I also think the main base of people you're talking about really do exist. Buy a Leica, let it sit there like a trophy. Shoot it once a month at best. I don't like that either per se. While others are using it as a workhorse weekly and making amazing work. I know you have to know this. Especially for the fact it's a rangefinder and it's functionality is the actual key to owning it. I also have a Bessa R2A, own it simply for the functionality. Zone focusing ease etc. So it's obviously a much more long winded talking point. I know you only have so much time for one video. 👍
This is the kind of honest discussion about photography that I seek out on RUclips. Great vid- keep it up, subscribed.
Thank you :) Be sure and pop in to my invite only discord discord.gg/ha8JGs5n
1. The Silver-based film process has always been expensive, even in the 1960's. (Actually a tad more expensive, corrected for inflation.)
2. Resolution back in the day was described as 5MP for a Kodachrome slide.
3. Each available film or film camera is just a tool, like a set of brushes or drawing pencils.
6:41 If you adapted an otherwise filmless Polaroid 110-series camera to take Fuji Instax film, you could name your price and folks would pay it.;) "Azriel Instax 500"? Hmm.
lol, no rebrandiong for me :)
@@AzrielKnight "Azriel" rolls off the Leica tongue like the soft caress of Microdol-X on Tri-X Pan.;)
@Celluloid Alchemist I recall reading about the "5MP Kodachrome slide" in one of the photography magazines in the 1990's. It was an offhand remark about Film vs. Digital, just before Eastman Kodak became The Ghost of Rochester. A new job took me away from film photography until the turn of the century, and by then Digital was the top dog. (And Film was the hot dog, roasting on the spit of obsolescence.)
Refreshingly insightful, articulate, and honest. Thank you.
Thanks Ron!
I agree with everything you said, but I do love cinestill. Yes it’s crazy expensive and it’s just rebranded vision film which usually costs half as much. I still like the trippy look and at least it’s available in 120 format.
Hey 👋🏻 great video and some really interesting points here. I think you’ve hit on lots of truths here. Especially in regards to gear. As a female photographer I get so sick of the constant fuss over lenses and cameras and feeling as if I have to know all those things to be involved in the conversation. I think film photography is broken up into many different sub groups and cinestill kind of appeals to people who maybe don’t have the knowledge someone like yourself does and they just want a film they can shoot and take to a lab. Film photography can get really overwhelming and complicated in my opinion and just focusing on having fun, actually shooting and creating better images each time and exploring your creativity is the core of it, at least for me. It’s refreshing to hear someone say the Mamiya and Leica aren’t going to make better photos, I wish more on RUclips would show what great results you can get from really affordable cameras! Thank you for your video.
I agree because I use Canon EOS Rebel X for cheap the body only costs ~US$19-US$35 and it uses same thing as Leica and Mamiya (well Mamiya uses medium format but the slight difference because 120 film is a little larger than 35mm and deliver more detailing on medium format). Anyways, I use it for EF lenses and learn to try to properly meter the photos with my phone as a light meter.
@@RealSergiob466 yes I’ve recently decided that I’m going to use my cheap but more advanced slrs more, because I value nice clean looking photos that are in focus and have the best colours because they had better exposure metering. Older manual cameras are fun to use, but I dislike photos that are over or under exposed and have that faded film look. I also understand development and scanning play a role in how photos turn out.
@@segzeeman7356 Yes like somewhat modern SLR
I'm the first to admit I'm a gearhead, I love all those old engineering wonders (particularly the ones pre-60s!) but to be perfectly honest, if you showed me one of my pics chances are I won't be able to tell you which camera I've taken it with. It's more about the joy of using them. I'm probably never getting a "proper" Leica, especially when I can use the same glass on a much cheaper camera :)
@@RealSergiob466
The meter in the EOS is probably better than your phone's light meter, but comparing the two will give you a good idea what to expect if you use a full manual camera.
You definitely made some great points. I owned some of those cameras but then sold them later because I had too much gear, and really no one cares if the end photo is the sidewalk and grass from the street you live on. “But it was shot on film!” 🙄
Agreed wholeheartedly. Yes, if you shoot with some Ektar 100 or pretty much any slow speed B&W you can exceed the resolution of digital FF. Bumping up to 120 or large format even more so.... but you have to combine it with expensive and technically challenging scanning and a presentation format that demands that resolution. I've always loved Clyde Butcher's work and the amazing 5 foot plus prints that he was able to make in his darkroom. He needs every tiny bit of resolution he can get. Thinking that you need that same resolution for Instagram is just silly.
For me at least shooting film is about the process. It's a fun challenge to wrestle with the film and cameras from our parents and grandparents to make an image. For anything though where the results matter, I'm going to go with digital hands down. Digital is much more reliable to deliver a final product that is saleable.
TL/DR: My own shooting for fun on the street? Film all the way. Headshots for a client or pro event coverage? Digital 100%.
Scanning at true 5000 DPI, I finally found the grain limits of Ektar. That's about 33MP. My 24.3MP D750 was still outmatched by it.
I disagree. Neither 135 nor 120 film can compete with 40+ Mpix fullframe cameras. Partly this is also due to much better modern lenses in terms of resolution and contrast. With 4x5 I am still testing …
@@RickJohnson Kodak datasheet gives 100 lines/mm (50 cycles/mm) for a MTF of 30%.
That is equivalent of 100*36*100*24 = 8.3 megapixels.
80 cycles (160 line pairs) gives MTF < 10% already, and this is equivalent to 22MP.
So, up to 8.3MP you get almost all the resolution, from 8.3 - 22MP we can get only marginal improvements, equivalent to a MTF < 30%.
Definitively it has not the resolution of a 33MP digital camera.
I mean, i really love film.
Some films give CRAZY resolution, such as HR-50 (this wins a lot of digital FF cameras, even on 35mm).
But im just trying to analyze in a more systematic way, using the data that manufactures give to us in their datasheets.
@@yhangr Appreciate the depth of analysis. It's quite possible that the lens I'm using for my DSLR can't resolve a full 24.3MP my camera sensor supports (DXOMark rates the Tokina 100mm f/2.8D at 19MPix perceived), so my perceived results at critical focus are simply "better" with the scanner because it can optically outresolve the grain rather than the film having remaining perceived detail at the limits of cheaper scanners (i.e. my V600 which optically peaks at 1500dpi). The end result is muddy grain when pixel peeping and slightly less natural sharpness.
For initial scans, I'm totally okay with having more than one pixel per "grain" since that exposes the irregularity of the grain shapes on any film/process. That's something that becomes quite apparent w/ B&W t-grain films and a dissolving developer like DD-X when compared to conventional grain FP4, P30, or Tri-X and a classic non-dissolving high-accutance developer like Rodinal. Does that change image quality on Instagram? Not really, but it's a fun exercise when trying to understand how certain combinations "work".
So to your point, scanning at 5000DPI creates a gigantic ~33MP file, but since the grain is visible at 100% zoom, the film itself resolves less detail but we leave little on the table as far as resolution and sharpness when scaling down the image. Despite that, comparing lab Noritsu scans to my V600, the D750 macro setup, and the PrimeFilm XAs output, only the PrimeFilm's output allows me to "make out" text shot on Ektar at Epcot on a distant menu sign where the output from other scans simply doesn't resolve beyond "lines on a sign". That also completely ignores the resolving limits of a 1970s vintage Minolta/Rokkor PG 58mm f/1.2 at f/8-f/11, which I imagine when paired with most films, is still going to be the weakest link - combined w/ my ability to accurately focus infinity.
This is 100% right.
A highly resolving film like TMX or Acros is practically 20 noisy MP in 135 at best. I’ve shot, developed and scanned in the high thousands of frames, and digitized the same on Nikon CS9000 and a few on Imacons.
We shoot film because of the process, and not merits of the recording media.
Love the closing message 🙏
I love the comment on "Would you take that picture with your smartphone?" Comment. Its an eye opener. Of course, I hate my phone camera for lack of aperture, too wide, etcetera. But i have zoomed in to 50-ish and taken don't shots on even it sometimes. But I carry my 5D like it's a smartphone these days so I'm never without a camera with a 50.
What a delightful reality check into how the world has morphed into what people look like rather than the medium itself. Awesome video chap and yes please do one on the reason why you love it ;)
That fishing analogy was brilliant 👌 very cool thoughts!
Thanks Grady :)
I have a Lubitel, wanted to experience the use. Same with my 35mm Zeiss. Bought that for the " glass".Two Kodak Tourist 6x9 620 film.
Nail hit firmly on the head in this video-Bravo!
2:55 I agree. There will likely come a time when I can't get more chemicals, can't get more film (I scan the negs with a DSLR and macro lens), and all my film camera bodies fail with nobody left who knows how to repair them. But cost notwithstanding, film photography with home development is something I never properly got to do as a kid and I'm very pleased to have been able to give it a shot as an adult.
3:20 Medium format digital keeps digital in the game here to a certain extent. I'm not sure there are any large format digital cameras outside of specialist industrial and surveillance-satellite applications. I was told quite a while ago that the threshold for full-frame digital to outperform 35mm film at any reasonable reproduction size was 12MP, but if you want 6x4 glossies for a photo album, 6MP APS-C will do it for you easily and those cameras can be had for stupid cheap.
4:01 - point taken, but what I'm really getting is the ability to develop my own film and translate it into an image I can share with others on demand. I have the DSLR with the macro lens for unconnected reasons, so that cost doesn't form part of my film "processing" setup costs.
4:45 - Agree completely. Before automation started to creep in in the early to mid 70s, most 35mm cameras were essentially identical - they provided shutter speeds between bulb and 1/1000 sec and apertures depending on the lens you fitted, between f/1.4 and f/16 or f/22 (with occasional stand-outs). The only real difference was in the interface - where the knobs were, how the camera felt in the hands size and weight-wise, and the extent to which it displayed to you the exact aperture and shutter speed you had set (if you needed to have these in the viewfinder at all). At that point it becomes a matter of individual taste. The real difference was in the emulsion you put in it and what you did to that emulsion in the darkroom - sort of like being able to swap the sensor in your camera at will.
As someone who got into film as a teenager around 2011, and then picked it up last year, the pricing is absolutely the biggest shock. My B&H catalog from then shows 5 packs of 120 TMAX for $19. Almost makes me want to cry
Man, that is brutal.
After seeing some vids on Cine 800T is was interested in getting a roll to try out as I've never shot tungstan balance film before. When I saw the price per roll.. Yeah, nah. I'm not that interested. :)
Also when you consider the actual stock cost Cinestill company less than $2 a roll
I love the fishing analogy
Thank you :)
great video... BUT, I must disagree on one point. You said the purpose of photography is to make great photographs, but I thought the purpose of photography was to take pictures. You see, I'm not a great photographer, but I love it anyway. If I may make a poor analogy: I love music, and I love to sing. The problem is I can't carry a tune, but if the whole purpose of singing was to be a great vocalist... well, hopefully you get what I'm trying to convey. My photography is for my satisfaction and if someone (anyone!) else likes a picture I've taken, then I'm even happier. So I'll just keep on being a happy idiot taking my pictures, some good, some bad (well, mostly bad), but all worthwhile. Other than that small point, you were spot on. Thanks!
I passed up the opportunity to pick up a Nikon F3 for $75 US years ago and I just got one for around $300 US so I definitely know what you mean by the price shooting up!
The F3 seems to be the new M6. Funny to see the trends in what film cameras are the new hype over the last 15 years or so.
To be fair, I really do think the F3 is perhaps the most complete film SLR out there, and it strikes a good balance between having nice electronic features, while maintaining a great mechanical feel.
@@pantherclaws123 it's probably the most bullet-proof option out there. Speaking to an old-school pro friend of mine, he said for an SLR the Nikon was the most robust. He loved the Olympus because it was the same size as his Leica, but they weren't as robust. He said you could use the F3 as a hammer and it would still take pictures.
My comment is more about the hype of the F3's now...for awhile it was coolest to run a Canon, then a Minolta, and now finally kids are thinking the F3 is just the best thing ever.
I still love my Olympus OM-4's, quirks and all, but that's because I've shot with them since highschool, have a great lens selection and am just used to them that I don't have to think. I'm on my 2nd or 3rd one tho. ;)
@@patrickjclarke I sometimes think about stockpiling a bunch of bulletproof cameras, so I can still continue shooting film 30 years on when I'm 50... Wonder if film would still exist then, whether there'll still be interest in it, and what cameras are the remaining survivors
@@pantherclaws123 yeah, it's one of the reasons I still have my Rolleiflex. it will work forever so long as there is film :)
Yep, expense these days is a growing factor in the back of my mind these days. It just means I don't shoot as often as I'd like to, and it is generally black and white instead of colour. Ektachrome in 2018 here was AU$24 per 35mm roll. Now it is $42 at best. often $50+. I love film and I love the process of shooting and being creative with all the mediums available to us.
My next endeavour is trying some ilford SFX and making some false colour IR shots
The third point that focuses on one of my major pet peeves about Cinestill photography.
While I love/like Cinestill (Kodak Vision 3) 50D/800T, It's a modern cinematic film stock. It is designed to capture a relatively flat image, digitized, then color graded.
The number of times I see people posting flat, uncorrected, and ungraded photos is nuts. Particularly a problem with the tungsten-balanced stocks.
Good point! Thanks for the comment :)
Same thing happens with people who shoot super 8. They can’t even be bothered to add basic colour or level correction.
It's particularly funny to me how much folks will obsess over film camera *bodies*. The film and the lens used are the equivalent of the sensor. The body is there to provide good ergonomics and additional features, but they don't affect any visual aspects of a photograph. For any pro or even semi-pro work that I do, I shoot digital. I shoot film for the exact reason you described - the experience and feeling of doing something more challenging to immerse myself. It's the same reason I shave with a safety razor and brush rather than a cartridge razor and a can of chemicals, or the reason I might cook a lasagna from scratch even though Stouffer's is pretty damn good. I find it fun. As soon as it's no longer fun for me, I'll stop doing it.
I don’t see much point in the obsession about a camera body, but i do see where it comes from. Many of the film cameras out there either can’t shoot fully manual, are too bulky and heavy, hard to repair, small viewfinders etc. and most of them comes with compromises. The more boxes a camera checks and the less compromises it makes, the more sought after it is.
Your little rant had a bigger message than the title portrays. Well done.
Thank you Rodan!
It sucks to see film equipment fall victim to collectible culture and used more as tokens than art supplies. It seems as though more than ever, film cameras are bought and sold like jewelry, stocks, and financial tokens to be treated as investments while the race to buy out the finite resources drives up the price.
With Fuji killing stock after stock and Kodak hiking prices without putting out anything new, it sometimes feels like we're really on our own here. Repair experts are slowly retiring, affordable equipment is getting mythologized, and no one is really making a proper film camera anymore. Despite the growing popularity and reinvigorated market interest from younger generations, sometimes this hobby feels like it's coasting on borrowed time
Finally someone who says it out loud. I am sick to death of the dross that people post because of the equipment/film used. Not only that, but it gets lots of likes for the same reason. This has pushed me over the edge to donate $10 to you. After 50 years in photography, including 20 years as a working pro, my heart sinks to see what people rate as a great image, and the drivel they spout.
PREACH!
I just realised that even though i shoot film for over a year,the only serious films that i shoot is ilford delta 3200 and some kentmere,everything else I shoot is just to see what it will look like.
With that been said though at the case of Delta i shoot things that shooting them on iPhone wouldn't make sense.I love gritty pictures and how they look,I have tried a lot of emulators but none looks like Delta or Tri-X if I am honest.
Truthhhhh! I live in California & to buy, shoot, develop, scan the film is just about $30 a roll
A solid list. I am currently shooting the Fujixweekly Cinestill 400D recipe on my X100V and just bought a Cinebloom 10%. A nice combo IMO
Interesting take Azriel. Like many on this forum, each photographer decides which emulsion suits them, the equipment they use and application. We do not follow ANY influencers who grace the halls of social media outlets.
Good call!
Yes, the azriel camera!! For the perfect pictures! 😁👍
You might say, it's azriel as it gets! ;)
I know this is a bit old, but here’s how I keep film affordable:
I have a Nikon F. The body is a bit pricey, but built like a tank. And thankfully I inherited it. Lenses are stupid cheap, and work on some modern DSLRs. I buy short ends of Vision3. FPP has an ECN-2 developing kit, 1L/16 rolls for $20. That’s my ultra cheap color 35mm setup.
For MF I have an RB67 and roll my own 120/220 film from Aviphot 200. In fact, I actually make money doing that, selling hand rolled film. My film photography pays for my film photography. That’s not something you hear too often
1. 12 MP is just fine for 20 x 30
2. Cost is broadly in line with inflation. We live in an inflationary environment, and it is what it is. The issue isn't so much that film is expensive, rather, that everything is expensive, and food comes before film.
3. Film does not come close in terms of resolution (I've tested Rollei with Velvia 50 against a D300, and the Rollei got spanked).
4. I've not shot Cinestill, but those 400D tones are sweet. In any case, the price of Cinestill is not out of line with other emulsions.
5. Ultimately film is a different medium to digital, with its own aesthetic. Much like oils are different to watercolours. A different medium, for a different purpose.
Peace.
From the tests I've seen on cinestill 50/250D, the C41 process actually produces more accurate colors then what the ecn2 did. The colors did not seem weird either, just more contrasty. I think it's more of a thing that people use the tungsten balanced films in all kinds of situations you normally wouldn't.
Months later we find that a roll of Gold 200 costs as much, if not more than Cinestill 800t. Granted these are extreme times but especially when it comes to color 35mm the price argument is almost moot since everything is either out of stock or price gouged (saw someone trying to sell Ektar 100 for an eye watering $30 a roll just today)
Cool points, I agree with most of them, but I think the one on CineStill is a bit misguided. Kodak doesn't sell cinema film on single rolls, and even if they did, they might damage film cameras in the long run due to the thick remjet layer adding extra force to the winding mechanism. I once shot some Vision2 and it was quite heavy to wind tbh, I feared my camera would break at any moment. It's still a bit of an overpriced film tbh.
If Kodak thought there were enough potential sales of Vision 3 films in 35mm cartridge, 120 or short bulk rolls (the most likely), they'd do it. My guess is that they do not at this time because of lack of processing. C-41 is at best a so-so cross process for color and contrast. Striping the remject is the Cinestill trick, and Kodak isn't going to step into that situation for such low volume sales. Kodak has nearly abandoned the photo-chemical industry it built, so its not in a position to launch DIY ECN-2 kits (although it does sell ECN-2 chemistry in industrial volumes), other sources are presently meager and the commercial labs are not going to set up for small volume ECN-2. Also, I think that ECN-2 films are sold though a division independent of the Aleris film distribution, so that puts such sales on two independent tracks. Technically, the added thickness of the remjet layer to overall film thickness is trivial, and the remjet is actually a dry lubricant, so usage wouldn't hurt any 35mm camera. As for cost, if you can plunge for a Kodak-packed 400' bulk roll (their smallest), it works out to about $4.50 a 36 exp roll for 35mm stock. Of course, Cinestill and other repackagers mark that up about 250% for their "added value". I'd consider doing this, if I could work out a practical way to respool the 400' roll down to 4 - 100' rolls my bulk loader could handle.
One of ur best. Azriel This answerred so many questions. I miss the days of popping film n the mail and waiting for prints. Guess I'm sold more on digital. Never thought I'd hear myself say that.
Absolutely…. Respect…. Thank you.
Thanks Alex
I am a old guy who shot film long before digital so I disagree with you in some areas but agree with you in others. I see so many videos of youngsters shooting film cameras and showing uninteresting photos. I still use film and enjoy it over digital. I shoot mostly medium and large format.
Yeah you're right. They think they're being "unique" and trying to use the film medium to augment their internet "influence" which I think this video is targeting? They're totally missing the point that shooting on film is to enhance your artistic abilities not your influence.
Oh my gosh this is such a good video, your point on people shooting “boring photos” and taking pictures because “what it’d look like on film” LMAO THIS IS RELATABLE. Well done hahaha
Thanks :)
This is such a great video. You hit the nail on the head, Azriel. We get hung up about equipment and features especially with the age of the internet with all the online experts but fail to see the most important aspect of photography, the image. What feelings, emotions, or memories does it invoke. If film sets the mood of the image then be it. Does digital with its insane high iso is what will capture the moment then digital it is. The equipment we have today could only be dreamt of a few years ago. The only limitation is our imagination. Thanks again for a very insightful video. Maybe you can make a series about composition, tonality, shadows or why a particular image spoke to you (of course along with all the darkroom and technical stuff),
OMG. You are so right. I trained and work with film back in the late 80s as a commercial photographer and even then film and processing couldn't be seen as cheap, particularly if you were wanting professional results. The price difference between your local chemist developing your holiday snaps and a pro lab was considerable. Even though I had my own darkroom and did most of the processing and printing myself, chemicals, paper, film and equipment were not cheap.
Im really glad to see people still enjoying film, particularly younger folk but It's not a cheap option. I still shoot film for some projects and even though I still process and scan everything myself I know how much it costs every time I press the shutter, particularly with my 4X5 plate camera.
However I'm fed up with the marketing hype of companies like Cinestill basically rebranding Kodak putting it in a "cool" box and charging people double of what it would cost if you brought it direct from Kodak.
I recently dare criticise the Cinestill marketing hype with their new film REDRUM which is actually a manufacturing error and subsequently burnt at the stake. Keep speak up you have a new subscriber
There are always people who need to claim "technical superiority" to justify something that's actually just done for the "feel" of it or nostalgia. Like HiFi-people claiming a vinyl record or a tube amp is "more accurate" than CD or transistor when they really are not because they just like to play with that old technology and maybe prefer the kind of character (technically distortion) this technology gives.
Same thing with film, technically, when meaning the ability to reproduce as accurate a representation of the reality as possible, digital is superior in every aspect. But at least I like the "imperfections" of film and the whole process of doing it the old way. I also love the old, preferably fully mechanical, cameras for what they are, magnificent pieces of engineering from the days when things were made as well as possible to last for decades, not as cheap as possible to break or become "obsolete" in a few years so new ones can be sold. I really like the feel of the heavy, mostly metal, cameras with solid buttons and levers for everything, no screens and menus and no unnecessary functions implemented as a sales gimmick you try once and then never use again.
Also, as a middle-aged guy, I have no trouble admitting I partly shoot film and process my own negatives and prints because that's what I dreamed of as a kid in the 70:s and 80:s. Back then I couldn't afford a system camera or darkroom equipment, I shot with a cheap 110 pocket camera (sometimes I might have borrowed my grandfathers Rollei compact rangefinder in 35mm) and a Super 8 film camera and had the films processed in a lab which was common and inexpensive at the time. I also attended a youth club where there was some dark room work I watched but never did myself. A little later, in my mid-20:s, I bought my second hand Pentax ME Super which I still have and use. Then, in the late 90:s I got an APS pocket camera which I also still have but don't use (and don't have much desire to as it's a fully automatic point-and-shoot with very mediocre image quality because of the small frame) because apparently the format died quite quickly. Then at the beginning of 2000:s I went completely digital for almost two decades to start with film again a couple of years ago, this time black and white and processing my own. Now I can afford the equipment I dreamed of as a teenager, even professional stuff is not too expensive yet though the prices have come up. Only after I had started with film again and did some online research I found out it's making a comeback. I had no idea it's so popular again. Especially the prices of some of the 90:s fully automatic, plastic point-and-shoot cameras are completely ridiculous, I myself wouldn't want one as to me they are "too modern", not different enough an experience from a digital or a smart phone to justify the cost and trouble.
Most of my cameras are either Soviet/east European or Japanese and quite inexpensive, though now I bought a Mamiya RB67. I specifically wanted the older, fully mechanical and made mostly of metal one as I believe they are not as much affected by age as electronics and plastic. Also much less expensive than RZ67 of course. I have decided medium format is "my thing", a good compromise between the ease and portability of 35mm and the image quality of large format. I do have a few thousand euros in my equipment but that's mostly because I have many inexpensive cameras, not because I have any really pricey ones. Film and processing are not that expensive as I don't use any "high end" films (mostly Ilford HP5 or FP4 or Fomapan) and only shoot B&W. My scanner is an inexpensive Epson V600 which gives passable results for previewing the frames to see which ones I'll print and to post my images online. The biggest problem is I have to scan the 4x5 negatives in two parts as the scanner will only do 60mm wide film scans.
Digital is technically superior......For digital work. However digital is flawed when it comes to preservation and archiving that same image outside of cyberspace and onto a tangible material. Film still is the superior format for archiving which is why movies shot digitally get 35mm or 70mm prints made. Also why libraries still use microfilm.
I got into photography in the mid 90s and came up with film. There was a time in the early 00's where many people including myself stuck with film for the resolution because 3.1mp cameras weren't cutting it. I eventually moved over to DSLRs and my D7200 and D850 have not made me miss much about film. However, I still shoot my F2, F3, FG and Nikkormat cameras because I love the size, controls and feel of them and enjoy processing my own B&W negatives at home. Of the 3k images i shoot each year only about 150ish are on film. I watch the youtube vids and these young kids photograph GARBAGE and call it art. They don't bother telling a story with their photos. Instead they use street lamps and gas stations as subjects of the photos when they should be trying to use those as elements to make a more interesting photo. Documenting areas is great fun but those photos aren't great unless the area has changed and you're nostalgic for what the area used to be. Showing me photos of a gas station at night that I can go visit myself doesn't get me interested. Photography is no doubt subjective but merely capturing beautiful light isn't enough to make a great photo. Find other interesting elements to add to the scene or wait for something interesting to happen within a gas station before clicking the shot. If you're crunched for time and need to put out more 'content' then you'll be left thinking that sunset or the blue hour light is all you need to make the mundane interesting. Also, not every shot needs to be overexposed just because portra can handle it. "let's photograph in the woods and see the beautiful fall colors"...but then wash them out by overexposing?? ALL techniques should be appropriate for the scene including high-key and should be used sparingly. Love your vids and keep up the great work Azriel. If you want to check out an awesome young kid who uses film and large format to tell stories then check out Bryan Birk's channel.
Thanks Scott, you make some really great points here. I've been guilty of this for a long time. Testing a cameras and I need to just go blow a roll of film and get the video out. I've been making a conscious effort to move away from that. Create ongoing projects and not feel pressured to finish a roll all in one go.
I am in for a video about the aspects which you love most about film photography!
Thanks Edgar :)
Agree with you. Good points. When you're passionate about what to believe, and you tell it straightforwardly, people call it a rant. I know. I rant regularly. I like the way you call things.
I was an all slide shooter. Started out in. Print, color etc. Turned to slide because when shown on a screen it is like looking out of a window.
Thanks for sharing Robert
Can't agree any more with particular cameras being overvalued. I do all of my own work, and rebuild cameras on a frequent basis. The idea of spending upwards of $300+ camera that hasn't been serviced in decades and is running on dried out lubricant is insane to me. Pentax 67, Yashicamat 124, RZ67, and Rolleiflex are the usual suspects in the medium format category. Even those being offered for parts/repair are often more expensive than a fully functional model of a less popular camera, even some by the same manufacturer. Portra 400 is so ubiquitous with film photography on social media that I stayed away from it for quite a while since I didn't want to just copy what everyone else was doing without experimenting other film stocks. It's now my go to whenever I do color, but I'm glad I first tried it after I had a bit of fun goofing around and learning on cheaper stocks.
There is another alternative, though. Shoot positive film. Kodak E100 and Fujichrome 50 or 100 can give excellent results, without any post processing. But yes, it's expensive.
Great video. Thanks!
As someone who has never done digital photography, I would just say "get out there, shoot the photos THAT PLEASE YOU whether digital or film". I want and need film photography to be viable in the future, but this will only be possible if enough people buy the materials. Film is not superior to digital and vice versa, the differences are less significant than the common ground. Great photography is not about media - it's about content.
You're a 100 percent right. I still love shooting film mainly because I'm lazy with Lightroom and shooting film is a great possibility to achieve a consistent look. But since I bought a used 5d mark III I barely touch my film cameras..
5d2 is a solid camera. Hope you won't abandon film completely though :)
@@AzrielKnight Never - it comes and goes in circles :D
The best scans I've ever gotten were from a drum scanner and that is really expensive as well. I recently paid $40 per image to have some 6x7 negatives scanned. Definitely makes you take a hard look at your photos and think "are these really that good?"
The price. Dedicated film scanners are quiet expensive. You should think about it, if you want to spend over 1,000 $ for film scanners. Technical is possible to extract over 4,000 DPI out of a 35mm negative. In practice the resolution depends on the film and used lenses. The usable resolution should be less. Film scanning is a expensive fun.
Yes! You perfectly articulated how I feel about this as well. Right on!
You’re on absolutely on point with this. You should do one on shallow dof and “3d pop” :))
anyone got some popcorn?
I don't think Cinestill sucks because people use it to photograph cliches like gas stations and pretty girls with neon lights in the background, or because it's rebranded Vision 3 at a higher price. It's different, people like it, it's not a bad thing. I like it in certain situations, sometimes I want that glow and no, I don't photograph neon lights with it. I buy a roll once a year maybe and I don't think it sucks, it's people's problem if they want to take pictures of neons all night with it.
There’s definitely too much focus on the gear and not the work itself. I obviously talk about gear on my channel because like you said, everyone wants to know about it. But I want the focus in my videos to be much more about the photos themselves.
It's a tough balance for sure, because videos are easier to keyword by camera model.
There is a misunderstanding with Kodak Vision3: this film is not meant to be seen "as is", Kodak refined its contrast and colors so that it can be heavily graded in post. It kind of an analog s-log type of result. People tend to like it just as it is, it's fine, but it's also not meant to be used this way. C41 and ECN2 give different results but both processes have their pros ans cons. See Ribsy's channel experiments on that matter.
Thanks for the feedback Doc!
@@AzrielKnight you're welcome. Love your channel so far!
To be honest after 10 years of shooting film with probably hundreds of cameras I can say I don’t care about the final photography, I care about the precious machines that allow us to make such photographies. As an industrial designer I love mechanical/complex things which are well made and last forever, and cameras are the perfect intersection of industrial design, engineering, optics, passion and care for meeting the needs of a user.
Machines made with pride, using the best methods and materials for its cost, wanting them to be as durable as possible. (That’s why I don’t care about cameras and gear made after the 80’s, so much corner cutting and penny pinching produces lesser quality in the end and it’s just awful).
Years ago I used to shoot a lot and I loved it, but now days I only shoot instant film and buy/sell cameras and gear, as well I service and repair a lot of photo equipment (and I design and manufacture a lot of it too).
So yeah I guess I have an strange relationship with photography because I couldn’t care less about the art and the result, only about the gear, but not in a stupid “get the hype” way, nor I think that an expensive camera will make me a good photographer. I just love the cameras and lenses.
Great vid! You laid it out perfectly- film today is a very expensive proposition and people need to know what they are getting into.
Thanks Hayward :)
I have an acquaintance who doesn't take photos, even though he has about 200 analog cameras at home. He says he enjoys hearing the sound when he push shutter button. He enjoys technique. He also says that he has no idea what to photograph. He's not talented. Fair enough. I enjoy the process of making a photo in the darkroom. More than in photography. When I have a crisis of ideas, I don't take pictures and wait for inspiration. in the meantime, I prefer to process old negatives in the darkroom. But I'm not a person who would take analog photos and process film digitally. I don't see the point. For the web, any dslr camera is good, or any camera on a mobile phone. The idea and composition are important. But I'm absolutely delighted to get my hands on my RB, which makes me feel like photography is more important than it might actually be. And that counts too.
Thanks for the comment :)
My Kodachrome 64 and 25 slides from the 80s and 90s still beats any "digital manipulation " today.
Never shot any cinistill or do I ever intend to. They aren’t just rebranding though. They’re making a film stock more accessible to people that only have the option of c41 processing or don’t want the hassle of removing the remjet. It’s still daylight robbery at their prices though
Is 13 bucks for 36 exposures really daylight robbery? I mean it can cost you more to get some portra 800, especially now with the price hikes!
Sure they probably aren't paying much for the stock but the production costs plus the general costs of running a business can explain why it is so much too.
@@jamesknill617 I shoot Ilford black and white films so all colour film seems extortionate to me. Even Kodak black and white films are over double the cost of Ilford’s offerings. I didn’t realise that you could get it for 13 dollars either. Azriel said it was 20 a roll so I was going off of that price. I think it’s more expensive here in the uk as everything usually is.
@@mattdavis9986 The price of colour is definitely why I'm switching to B&W plus my university darkroom can only do B&W processing.
I feel you on the UK markup on film, some places really take the mick with prices
First video watching on your channel. I 100% Agree with you! Keep it up!
Thanks and welcome :)
Great points! I started with film went to digital in 2009 and back to film in 2017. I have seen the costs of film rise over the last few years. I am looking to shoot all of my 35mm equivalent color as digital. The only color I will shoot will be medium format and large format.
I also remember in 2009 a camera store nearby was offering me a full darkroom set up for 200.00 and he begged me to buy it, I declined. Today, that would be at least 500.00.
Your point on the “film camera” hype is so true. I think that the hype has drove some film cameras through the roof. It’s sad that a RZ67 is 4 times what it used to be a few years ago. I remember a GW690III was 500.00 a few years ago and is over 1,000 now.
A big concern is one pays these high prices and the mechanics or electronics fail and it may be unrepairable or cost hundreds to repair. Basically, think long term.
I could rant on but share your views.
I got into film photography - because it was the cheap option and the equipment was amusing and most of the equipment was 'old' but in good order. It's now painful and equipment is starting to break. Burning 10 rolls of film on Holiday was fine in 2019. It's not now. It was even better for travel in 2016. And I still have all those negatives and memories floating around.
None of my pictures are good. My favourite photo was something only possible on a T90 - it couldn't have been done in a digital camera as it relied on the double-exposure feature and nobody could figure out how it wasn't photoshopped because it looks physically impossible.
If I've another big holiday planned, mayve I'll save up a thousand quid and get an Eos-R series - which'll be compatible with the equipment I already have.
Thanks for the comment.
I think what a lot of people lose sight of is that film and digital are not mutually exclusive. I catch flack from people every time I say that digital does colour better, and I don't fly much but next time I do, I'm much more likely to bring digital with me. I'm not going to drop a few grand on a vacation, only to have a bad roll/camera/lens/airport xray ruin my holiday photos.
Film is a luxury, especially now with prices up.
Great video, great concept and cleatly explained!
Thanks Jacopo
You're so right with the prices. One thing that I hate is that people believe that any camera or photography equipment is expensive just because it's "vintage" or old. They are usually overpriced for what they are, point and shoot cameras or low end slrs (I'm not saying they're bad but some of them are not even valuable as collectibles!). It is sad to see that high costs of gear and film prevents more people getting into it. I hope things get better because I've seen stores in my country selling portra 400 for 20 bucks each roll!!
Good video as always!
The only thing I'll push back on is that I don't think, for me, film is "because of the process", it's the medium itself. I'm more about the right tool and the least amount of steps to get the resulting image I want. Notice I didn't say film has less steps, but it does have the least amount of steps to get what I want as a final image.
Film as a medium does things that aesthetically please me and has elements that digital has a harder time replicating. If film's end result just looked like a digital image, there would be no reason for me to shoot film, process be damned. But that's why I love the extremely unpopular Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2 with a Minolta Maxxum7 or Lomo Purple with the Bronny ETRSi...they give me a certain look that just speaks to my vision, much to the dissatisfaction of my Instagram hits. ;)
Interesting video and questions... I am asking myself, I have a Leica M6 beside several Canon F1,Nikon F3 and Contax Kameras.... but the most pleasure and fun I have is with the Leica. Is it because it was expensive, do I need to justify the purchase ? I don't know ....
But regarding film, I totally agree.
I think the Leica is a great camera, just not worth the cost.
That's the problem - there is no "community" anymore. Can't wait for those people shooting film just because it's cool, to give up and move on. Had a similar conversation with someone this weekend and they actually argued with me when I said Leicas are overpriced (in that, given the price, the photos being taken aren't that much better than ones taken on my Pentax, for example, though this then just points back to users who buy a name brand and don't spend time improving their skills...vicious cycle I think).
Hey Rachel! I totally agree with you and azriel in regards to Leica. I think people are so hung up on getting a camera like a contax T2 or a Leica or a Mamiya because that’s what’s going to make them take great photos and that’s just not how it works! It’s about the photographer and I really wish more people in the spotlight would highlight cameras that are cheap/affordable to make the whole thing more inclusive and accessible.
So so on the nail with this one! Thank you for sharing!
Thank you Gerome