FILM VS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN 2020: Is analogue still relevant?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 дек 2019
- Following on from “Using old film cameras on Location”.
we develop and scan the films from the shoot, and I explain the 4 key differences between working on film and working on digital, I then do a side by side comparison of film and digital photography , and explain why I think every photographer should shoot and develop at least one roll of film.
before returning to the fort and hanging one of the images, in our own secret gallery.
This test is somewhat anecdotal, based on the films and cameras i had available in the past video and my experience over the past 20 years shooting professionally both film and digital. it is not scientific, film was scanned on a V800 using Vue scan at 4800 DPI. Sadly true tests would not be entertaining to look at.
I will always see both mediums as complimentary to each other, and you would have to watch the entire video to understand why, sorry if that triggers you, but by all means leave your opinions as fact in the comments.
Thank you to my friends for helping me make these videos
(instagram) @jamiesprov @stephaniezapolska @madcat.tv and @jmdemelkon
For more visit www.olitography.com
For Print sales check out olitography.darkroom.tech 
Хобби
For me film & digital is like water colors and oil colors. I doubt artists who paint have this argument/discussion about which medium is still relevant.
“Just a different brush”
Fanjan I have used this same comment for years saying that film and digital give different results and it is not film vs digital. Same with painting. It is never watercolor vs oil.
Watercolour and oil paintings are both physical mediums. A more suitable comparison would be watercolour vs. procreate.
@@michaelj.podlovics2246 a digital sensor is still physical
I started off my photography career with film. I was lucky enough to learn it all using 35mm, medium format and 5x4" large format. The tactile way of learning photography is a plus, but then again, using a digital camera you can experiment way more and seeing the result immediately. Like the channel, keep up the great videos!
"so what's stopping you?" love it! Film is very relevant and I completely agree every photographer should at least shoot one roll, excited to see the next one!
Thanks Jon, looking forward to creating great things with you in the new year.
I've always enjoyed shooting with film; it seems more artistic. Creating the same look with digital is difficult. Processed prints are also so much different.
35mm photos are never that grainy, expecially at 200 iso, something musht have gone wrong in the developement process, also the scans are of a very bad quality, try scanning with a good scanner at 4800 dpi and also expired film looses quality, this is not a fair comparison
I’m not much of an expert, but I was wondering the same thing. Ken Rockwell calculates 35mm film to have 175 MP equivalence
its the scan, i doubt we'll ever see a scanner that renders all types of grain accurately and give that film look. Imo it is quite simple. If your work is to be printed - film is still the way to go.
@@samroesch I don't know about 175 mp but film is very sharp
@Aaron NoneYa I learned much from his articles, but I agree with you that in that point he is wrong. Probably he is mislead by the fake resolution of scanners, which produce more "megapixels" but not additional data. And one simple way to corroborate Ken Rockwell doesn't really believe film has so much resolution is that he doesn't shot film anymore.
Also the content of the images didn't rock my boat
Interesting to see the differences side by side....... I started in film, and will only stick with film.....being an artist, I love the process.....except for iphone pics, I have no interest in digital..... not that you don't get great results...but to me it's not much fun! Thanks for your work!
35mm film cameras and lenses have a personality. Digital looks all the same.
Hey, what a magnificent video. Keep up the superb work! I look forward to your next video.
First: thanks for doing this. I shoot digital and film 35 & 120. The scanning is super-important when the negs are less than optimal, as my learning curve has shown me. The differences between a Pakon 135+, Nikon LS9000 and Noritsu HS-1800 are significant. I haven’t tried the SlideSnap Pro film scanner, so can’t speak to that.
Cracking video guys, love your work. I shoot digitally for work, newspapers, for my own stuff I'm crossing between the two, I'm loving trying various film cameras, like reliving my youth, Im finding more and more I'm enjoying film over digital although shooting digitally is far easier when putting a vlog together. Love the gallery you found would make a great permanent venue.
in digital you spray and pray but in film you take careful aim!
Very good explanation. One point omitted was that with digital there is a cut off point in recording detail ( a consequence of the size and location of the sensors photosites and the Bayer Matrix array ) subject to Nyquist limit, where film keeps on recording the detail up to the limit of the resolution of the lens and the films natural resolving power. Also digital, where it resolves, does it with very high contrast hence giving the impression that it is very sharp. Film records differently. In an experiment between a Phase One camera and MF and LF film cameras using colour slide film the differences were there but in case of the 4X5 it was in favour of the film camera. The digital Phase One in one scene failed to record some red Berries on distant plants due to the reasons mentioned above. The algorithms used to guess and stitch the missing detail between the ' photosites ' completely failed to reproduce the red berries because the very small apparent size of the berries were beyond the resolving power of the sensor. The berries were clearly recorded on the 4X5 film. I guess for commercial work digital is the way due to cost and convenience. I keep using film for personal projects and for my soul.
You are right - after years on digital I'm just going back to analog - the picture is firstly in your mind, then hidden an the film and after processing you will see your mistakes - so it makes you "think before you shoot"
I love film. I use film. I also have a digital camera, and what pushed me into digital is that even if you buy cheap ColorPlus, film is still expensive but I'll keep shooting it. Great video.
Seeing something shot on film is like looking at a painting. Seeing something shot digitally is like looking at a printout of a painting.
I'm not sure that's true, as so many other factors are at play, you could try making a digital negative and doing an alternative print from that to get a beautiful analogue hybrid
@@olitography I speak from personal experience. Yours may differ.
A film image somewhat feels 'real' it's tangible. Its about chemical changes rather than binary information.
Thank you for another excellent video. Really fascinating as are all your videos.
I started serious photography in the early 70s with a Zenith SLR (I had a Browny 127 then an Instamatic, in the 60s) and started a long journey which took me to being a micro and technical photographer through the 80s and 90s with the Open University and the Rolls Royce. I was very lucky. I started with digital early on but early digital was not good. I think one of the fundamental differences is that, with film, you have to learn to see in 2 dimensions and mentally frame your scene. With digital I lost my interest in photography and my ability to think 2D and frame so now do the same as most non professionals and just keep taking pictures and looking at the result to see if it has worked rather than seeing the scene as it will be on the film and being fairly sure it will work. I just use photography on my phone now just as a record not art and get little pleasure from the results that are just stored.
That brings me to my hobby horse I have been on since my early days of digital photography, storage and archivability. Film is analogue so requires no special technology to view it, will last 100s of years and takes little space. Digital needs storing on formats that will change over time requiring continuous transfer of the archive to the newer format. Loss of the technology renders an archive useless. Hard drives fail without regular spinning, cards fail and optical discs have a limited life.
I still have all my old cameras and keep promising myself I will start again. You are doing a great job of encouraging me. Thank you.
Enough rambling, keep the brilliant videos coming.
I cant really add to that, im more on the fence regards film and digital, I hate my early digital cameras but they allowed me to get experience i would not have had otherwise, now i have it, film doesn't seem so volatile
That's Grain Fort.
Walked out to it many times.
Did you know that Grain Country Park (which is where this is...) has loads of underground tunnels and other military/defensive works all over it?
It's a wonderful place.
I love it there.
I did there is also Shorenmead fort that has tunnels, but I never considered shooting in them
Very fascinating video with a very clear story, thanks! I really enjoyed watching it! So, would you incorporate medium format film as part of your workflow when pitching to clients nowadays?
I'm not sure.so few would want to pay for it, but id love to do it.
Sorry I'm so late in the commenting. But I only saw this video today. I think you have inspired me to dig out my old 35mm Fuji and take some photos around town for fun. I think I stopped using film around 2012 when I bought a Fuji X10 which I still use to this day (in spite of a broken viewfinder).
Great points. I’m from the eta of film. I introduced shooting a roll to each of my family members. They all found it so inconvenient. I think the experience garnered a better appreciation for for I’ve been through as a professional photographer over the years. I totally agree with you that the breakout for digital and film is medium format film. I think 35mm negative does not bring enough to the table for a decent comparison. In terms of file quality generated…which do you think is better. Shooting a medium format negative with a full frame camera or using scanners?
The craft of photography is in the effective manipulation of resources. But ultimately that's irrelevant: the art of photography is in the eye and the mind of the photographer. Recently I've taken a higher proportion of successful shots with my iPhone than with all my professional film equipment over many years.
This proves you, yourself weren't a very successful photographer.
I'm happy to see that the Iphone can take care of your short comings and
supply you with your desired picture.
@@crazytech5755 On the contrary. I was a very successful and highly paid photographer, now happily and comfortably retired on the proceeds. I still enjoy my Sanderson quarter Plate, Mamiya Sekor and Olympus film cameras, developing and printing occasionally; but manipulating iPhone photography apps to the full is also rewarding, and gives a far higher proportion of successful shots, and sooner. The medium is irrelevant. The art of photography is always in the eye and the mind of the photographer.
@@prodiver7 you were a shmuck, if you can't get the desired look on film, then it means you were incapable of doing so.
that's ok tho, digital is nice too.
Great videos. My general rule is B&W film, color digital. B&W film photography and traditional printing is to me a timeless art form. Digital photography is the camera and printer doing the real work. There is a different feeling when I see an image from the negative in my enlarger magically appear in the developer and know I not only took the picture but created the image. Every photographer should shoot & print B&W on film and print the traditional way. On the other I view color exactly the opposite way. Color is tedious and difficult to print and is done with no safelight, and you don't know the results until the print can be exposed to light. Then you may have to make many more prints to get the exposure and colors right. Today the results of color film photography are nowhere even close in resolution, color rendition, and detail to that of digital, even if the picture is taken with a high end cell phone. The one exception I is color slides. Every photographer should take at least 1 roll of color slide film and scan in the slides to print on a printer.
I want to do a video on darkroom printing, but I’m trying to enlist a really good printer. I had a similar experience in color printing to you, it took ages to balance the colors. When I started out we would shoot only Slide film because it was more immediate and contact prints are expensive. This video is more about a frame of mind, once you have you can get good results from anything.
I'm colourblind and most of the time simply avoid balancing colours, it literally looks the same to my eyes unless its a certain colour change on a channel that my eyes are registering better but then because I hardly consider colour in the everyday world I'm totally unsure is what I'm seeing on screen is representative of reality.
For example. In the 2009 star trek film one of the aliens was a green skinned woman. I had no idea her skin was green lol. Looked like a normal tan to me :D
So I usually leave everything default on my dslr regarding colour and love using colour film because I dont need to care about the colour and can just say its the films own look. In fact I tend to like Fuji Superia as my goto colour film as its strong saturated colours compensate my eyes enough to let me see what I thought I saw when shooting. I remember discovering that film as a kid on holiday in the 90's. I was using a Praktica LTL 3 slr with a selection of M42 lenses and tried all sorts of colour films. I remember trying Kodak (probably kodak gold) and as usual my holiday photos came out boring and muddy. It could have been bad processing but I blamed the film once I found that Fuji films solved the problem.
With B&W I was/am settled on Ilford films. Tend to go for HP5 and FP4. I prefer B&W as it avoids the colour issues but I've always shot photos to preserve what I saw and B&W does not always let me represent that. My photos are more like a photographic diary. Showing what I was seeing on that day in that location, usually landscapes but increasingly people in those landscapes, especially when they are doing something interesting.
@@dlarge6502 Thanks for sharing.
I've been shooting medium format film for about 20 years now. I started using 35mm film back in the 70's and kept using it (mostly slide film) until about 5 years ago when I finally switched to digital for the work I was making on 35mm film, which was mostly nature photographs. I don't regret making that switch. Digital really is so convenient and it's great seeing the results right away and also great not having to spend so much money on film and processing. But I also don't regret sticking with medium format film (mostly color negative film). I use that primarily for art photographs of myself. I like the look I get from film but I think what's at least as important is that the process of working with a medium format film camera changes how I work. It pushes me to go slow and really think about what I'm doing and to be exacting about framing the image and focusing and making the choices about depth of field and exposure. Plus, the level of detail I get from a great medium format camera is wonderful.
Back in the early Ninetees I was a pro and in them days it was all film. I have long left the photography business and now do it for fun. However in the last couple of years of have become really tired of the effortless and clinical world of digital photography. Recently I have returned to film using basic 35mm and medium format cameras and my passion for photography has been completely reignited.
a very enjoyable video & you raise some very good points . personally I'll be sticking with my mirrorless digital camera , I shot film back in the day & very much enjoyed the fun of waiting to see the images I took , but also remember all the moments lost when I had the settings wrong & ended up with nothing...
Thank you for a very well thought through comment, how are you getting on with the mirrorless, I was thinking of buying a7r?
@@olitography I shot a regular DSLR but when I switched to Sony mirrorless it was almost as different as the change from Film to digital.. I shoot on the Sony a7riii & find it an amazing tool to use.. I shoot portraits/model shoots , love the eye Auto focus feature & love the see what you get before taking the image, workflow shooting mirrorless especially run & gun shoots really works well, no chimping at the back of screen to see if you've got the exposure right , its right there in your Electronic view finder or back of screen.. I find all these features make me able to concentrate more on my composition than thumbling with my camera settings . The a7riii file sizes (42mp) are great too , being able to crop in is super too . so as someone who's used it for almost 2 years now ..highly recommend one .. don't get any model less than the a7riii though as the older Sony cameras are good but not in same league as the iii series & now the iv . some great deals on the a7riii right now I paid £3.2K for mine but you can get one for just over £2k now.. lots of glass , Sony ,Sigma ,Samyang , Tamron .. I use Samyang as the render a bit like vintage lenses & they are cheap in comparison to Sony glass.. I hope that helps .
My experience has been different. The film image felt more like the real world, while digital, with an inbuilt high contrast due to limitations in the 'dynamic range', always felt like glamour shots-even when I was photographing street dogs on the road!
I think it all has a lot to do with how your see the world, everybody’s different, I wish I saw that world in film tones more
Like both, film for the hands on experience and slowing the process down to create the image, digital for sports and Birding.
what a cool location
When using film in the time of Polaroid, we would get most of the problems solved with instant shots. Most people would use interchangeable backs, Hasselblad, FujiGX680… have one back for test, on, over, under for each scene version. Push or pull your main film. Mostly slide film and turn a round was 4-5 hours at a pro lab. Bricks or cases of film were purchased, tested for exposure and correction of color shift if present. Most of that can now be done in scanning, still best to have your color sorted when shooting for best results.
I remember that, I have 1 box of fp100c 4x5 left, there’s a lockdown video on the channel using it for transfers, nowadays the Polaroid/instant film. is more valuable than the film. So it no longer makes sense.
I want to transition more to analoge, I just shoot for fun mostly on vacation when visiting nature, because I take 1000+ images and never really fo back and sift through that. With analoge I’m forced to really look instead of shooting on auto pilot.
Depends on your work. If you are working on commercial projects whose clients want to see the result ASAP, or as a photojournalist who are required to send the images to HQ immediately, obviously film is obsolete. At least stick with digital as main gear, and film for backup. But for doing personal project, I don't see film to be irrelevant.
Hello. Just saw your video. I use to photograph a lot on analog camera, mostly 35mm but then I fell in love with 6x6rolleiflex and later on with Rollei35. Meanwhile I was also using a lot digital cameras for mostly practical reasons. Many times I had this thinkings of what do I prefer and why. I guess I found analog photography ( including entire proces) a way more beautiful. I experienced it definietly brings you to the present time, like u have to be focused only on whats happening really now and how and what are u capturing actually. With digital one person have much larger space to speculate about anything, and also there is great scale of postproduction possibilities, which I wouldnt say is baad (even though for me it was paradoxicly limiting in a way) but it is compeltely different aproach. By the time I didn´t like to spend much time with computer, and even though it seemed it is not necceserry to edit photos, person will always go for it, cuz we want the best possible result... But in analog ..it really feels, the photography is carrying that very much moment and flavour of that moment whe captured. It somehow seems more alive then digital and I even believe that it actually is, being aware of organicity of how analogic proccess the light and time...
thank you for your long and thought out comment, it is very hard to choose between the two but there is a time and a place for everything.
your model has a great attitude!!!
The music was great. I shot film for over 30 years before I bought my first digital camera. I'm not longing for film any more because I've to deliver my photos to newspapers asap. Shooting film makes you slow down and since I got my Leica M240 I'm almost back to my old film workflow. But I respect your POV.
Same here I still have my first SONY Mavica in which I also make them into a Water Color, and Oil Painting, as I use the most simple photo editing program that calls for the Mavica images as the latest Photoshop or PaintShop Pro 2020 cannot bring the image naturally it is more into over saturated image... As I still shoot both formats in film, and digital as I have my Vintage Zeiss Contax III with a Zeiss Jena lens as it does give me a 1950's look due to the lens in how it was constructed as it is Great in B/W film but as when shooting Color it gives me a color rendition like shooting in the 1950's as I am happy. Try shooting that with an updated Nikon/Canon lens which in Light Room has these fabricated presets in a vintage look but my Contax camera has it built in - I happy with it.... Thank You Zeiss for making this model.
It's all personal taste as is the content of the image, which is the first thing that captures the eye. Many of what are considered to be the greatest photos of all time were taken with vastly inferior kit than is available today but by great photographers. That's all you really need to know.
0's and 1's irretrievably fracture the moment between the photographer and their audience. When you're looking at a contact print from a negative, you're there with the artist just as the viewer of a painting is there with the artist.
That’s a poetic way of putting it. I’m glad someone took from this video what I was trying to say.
I use both, film and digital, but prefer film if possible. Digital is better in bad light and it also captures more details in nature photography, I think … but I shoot film, mainly for its unique color palettes. As for a simple example, nobody could achieve to emulate Kodachrome yet, so film colors are really unique. And … film also does always react to light differently, while digital photos always look the same. So, there is always a surprise effect to film. Shots, which you think, turned out great, are often crappy and others, which you never expected to be beautiful, turn out great. So, digital is for me to perfectly document reality, while film is to create art. Photography can serve both purposes.
You see the word here is scanned. Film to truly show its power is to print in a darkroom with an enlarger. When you scan your film your giving away a large part of its magic and analog printing is magical.
While what you say is true, prints don't work on the internet
I shoot both. Love both for different reasons. Digital is much easier to get right. But when you nail a film shot, it means so much more. I also print in a darkroom so no digital adjustments for my film shots. I do use LR and PS on my digital images.
I ran a one hr photo lab for over 5 years-never learned how to develop film old school darkroom style, as I call it-have been out of the business for a few years now, but would still love to learn.
(Coming late to these videos)
I’m old enough to have done most of my photography years with film, so me I suspect there is a nostalgia element involved in coming back to it, as I recently have. I don’t think I ‘prefer’ either any more than having a favourite style of painting; I love both Degas and Rothko, but they’re very different and which I want to see depends on my mood. With photography I love the immediacy of digital, I enjoy seeing how things are going and the essentially zero cost. If I go out to take photos of somebody I shoot digital because I can make sure things are okay and don’t find I’ve wasted their time in a shoot without good results. But on the other hand I enjoy the sheer physicality of film shooting, both in the satisfying mechanical noise of a film camera and in the knowledge that at each stage of the process, from shutter click to hanging up the film to dry actually, physical things have occurred all of which are one way and irrevocable.
I would very much agree with you.
I want to look of film but I just rather not wait 3-5 day for my film to processed and get it in a cd form. I have a Mac and it doesn’t have a cd port.
Develop it yourself, I’ll make a video on that soon b/w development is quite simple
Digital is just another form of creating images just like film photography. However and as you said in the video, you have to think and use photographic skill and knowledge to capture the image. In digital the micro processor takes this away so all you have to do is compose the shoot. I use them both but get more enjoyment from shooting film.
I always had a camera "documenting everything" as a kid. Today I do it after a reinessance I had some ten years ago with a camera my mother used when she was a kid, and there is this beautiful story about that camera when she stood waiting for the Queen of England to appear and she was there, waved and all, and the shutter was (Ikoflex TLR) not armed so there was no picture. I always thought that camera was hard to use (altho I today know it´s not) so I frankly asked my mother about grandfathers Rolleiflex. I asked -"Can I please use it. I don´t want to wait until you pass away."
She was happy I asked and after some initial struggles with the film loading I wrote a two pages guide as I learned it. After that it just became completely intuitive and I started to understand its aspects of the actual field reporter design of that terrific camera and it´s "Land Rover" sturdiness. I now have a small camera collection where a Nikon F4 sports and fashion motor camera from the end of the analogue era and that Rolleiflex are my favourites. But I can appreciate just any camera solely because these days they always had a life before me and I´m looking "down the scope" where someone created their memories in a distant past. I also like to experience the different constructions of them, as a pure luxury that helps me move muy focus from struggles in life to some trivial and slow, and completely backwards. The Zen aspect is obvious and barely needs mentioning. I have set up my own lab at home and in there it´s exiting to get into the head of famous photographers who "lost it" in the darkroom. Is a known movie kliché too right to be insane and have a darkroom. Small wonder! To stand there and see ones pictures being successful days, weeks, months or years after or even your deceased relatives negatives become visible on paper and to realize "It´s fucking amazing! Yes I got it. This is it!" and then to wait for the gradients to pop, and one STILL don´t know if ones estimations are right until going out in the kitchen where the picture can be seen in daylight for the first time. Doing it with friends can be an experience too. Last time I helped a friend who´s dad recently died, to reveal pictures from dads rolls, from the 70´s and on. It was so emotional when he told me about his fathers habit of not letting him use his cameras, and I related to that in a sense because I have a similar experience but with a summer house. It ended up with me giving my friend a Nikon FE and two lenses and I said, don´t be to careful with it, use it!
I recommend every analogue beginner to buy a TLR because they have the fantastic aspect of flipping the image in the viewfinder so that the objects you aim at really just becomes light, shadow, objects, abstractions. and that´s just about spot on what a photographer should learn to see. After some rolls one can practice stealth photography, to keep talking to the subject (if a person) and take the photo two seconds earlier than they expect, because they expect a mirror reflex sound and they they kinda "What?". And voila, you got that person a bit off guard ;).
www.photrio.com/forum/threads/classic-tlrs-and-street-photography.141039/
Then you go to a photo exhibition and you will see things you did not see before..
Thank you for your thoughts I can relate especially the FE but you do need to be careful with them they are awful prone to lock ups, the ikon flex is a great camera when you get used to it, and no the darkroom is a great place to meditate today.
What the hell is a 'reinessance'?
I shoot about 80% analog, expired film, rest digital. I like the fact I do not see what i'm doing. I have to rely on experience and craftmanship to get what I want. No 1.000 pictures to have 1 lucky shot.
Medium format squares are wonderful. My Yashica TLR stopped functioning recently so no film for me for now. 35mm film is cool but I’ve always had inconsistencies with developing my own c-41. I like digital, it’s just so much easier to work with.
For me the experience with film is much better, the camera, process etc. I have been disappointed so many times with my film images, but the ones I like the most are also the film images. So I conclude I am not kidding myself that film rules.
I had a darkroom print, and a print from scan done just to see if there was any difference between fully analog image and digital conversion. When I got the two prints back, without knowing which was which. I picked the darkroom print as the one that had “the look”.
Does film feel more authentic? Scanning is a. Wry weak area of film photography.
@@olitography yea it does feel more authentic. Why fake the film look when I can shoot the film. Having something tangible (the negative). Film forces you to be more thoughtful and careful as opposed to spray and pray and delete hundreds of dreadful images. After taking photography more serious about 8 yrs ago and moving to film, I found I learnt more about exposure and composition.
Never used dightal still shoot on 4x5 and 8x10 film camera they never came out yet with large dightal camra in the fomat I want I don't shoot in small format camra
I shoot both and use them for different things. In all honesty though I much prefer shooting film and most of the film I shoot these days is medium format.
Over a hundred years ago there were people who argued that photography was inferior to painting/sketching. Now there are people who argue that digital is inferior to film... A hundred years from now we will be a humorous case study for art students somewhere.
People still argue that photography especially digital photography is not an art form, and frankly when looking at Facebook groups about fine art photography, one has to wonder if they have a point, the biggest exception for me is David Hockney and his approach to photography
Now days I prefer digital photography due to the fact I can take lots of pictures and the quality is great. However if you asked me pre 2004 I would of said film without a doubt. I feel that film photography has reached its limit as far as quality not creativity, and digital photography keeps on getting better and cheaper. I still remember the first digital camera that I feel in loved with it. It was the Canon sd400 from 2005 and it was the first ever camera that I tough look better than film and way better than my friends digital camera, a camera that used regular batteries and after 20 pictures the battery was completely dead not to mention the picture colors look pretty bad and pixelated.
I think that's very true
Film is the only photography; using a digital camera gives you a gaggle of pixels but it's not 'photography'-- it's electronic imaging. I use digital cameras as well as film cameras. Whatever I use, I'm still a crap photographer.
Excellent video. I'm happy shooting film and digital, but my heart belongs to medium format, square...
I can see that,
Fully agree
The thing always ignored is permanence. I still have BW negs and Kodachromes from 1973. I have lost images on 3” floppy’s, Zip discs, bumped HDDs, SD cards, etc. I still have family photos from about 1895.
That is a really important point, I can’t remember if I did mention that in that video, but it definitely something to mention in the next one
Cloud storage means never losing images. Welcome to the 21st Century.
@@fredbloggs545 I shoot about 200Gb month. Cloud is too slow and too expensive
Well presented…. Film any day and all day…for me
Hey -- I recognize that fort! I follow Nicola White who mudlarks on the Thames in London as well as the estuary areas and she has been out to that fort as well -- she did not find a secret gallery either -- but hey, a gallery is anywhere that you display art, right? So the fort is a gallery of graffiti and now of photography! Check out Nicola White on her RUclips channel "nicola white mudlark - Tideline Art" -- she posted a video of a visit to the fort about a month ago (but it might have been of a pre-lockdown visit). Digital *can* be easier than film (and often clearer/sharper), but film and digital are different. Great art can be made with both. Love to see you using the vintage cameras. Try out a few of the plastic/bakelite pseudo TLR 120/620 cameras and if you can go for the crossover of vintage "cheap camera" look with well-composed, artistic photos....
It’s Grain battery on the market as number 1 the Thames if you’d like to buy it? Ive seen her stuff, she goes to a lot of places I really like. Sometimes we find pipes and cap badges too.
@@olitography -- I must admit that if it had a few more walls, indoor plumbing, electricity, Internet, air-conditioning and heating -- and I was rich (!) it is tempting!!! :-) Hey -- do you have a recommendation for a paint for fixing pinholes in early 20th-century folding/bellows cameras? I have tried a few different types of tape, but none adhere very well, and all get in the way of folding back up the bellows to close up the camera. Thanks!!!
Film is just plane fun! You have to get it right first time, with digital itis too easy to look at the screen and think that the image is good enough. with film you need to take the time to be sure. But in the end it is what you are trying to do, does anyone use film for wildlife, sport or children?
One might argue sports children and wildlife amount to the same thing.
great video :-)
Thank you, I found some lovely pictures on your Instagram, especially the infared ones,
The ability to dozens of frames to get the one great shot is a distinct advantage of digital. But that process also feels just a tad bit like putting a typewriter in front of a monkey … and marveling at the day he types out a masterpiece.
I use film on photography for me, I use digital when its for work.
Yep, would you prefer to use film if the client gave you the budget for it?
@@olitography Oh god no, I take 1000 photos in a day when I am working.
I shoot both film and digital. FIlm is where my creative end lives. I am responsible for the product start to finish from camera to darkroom. Digital is nothing more that computational photography that is great for production work. It is just so easy and is getting easier. Remember when the world wide web came out and all those books on how to navigate the web. Don't see them now do you? This is what is happening to post production digital work. It is getting easier and easier and pretty soon you won't need to be a wizard on adobe photoshop/lightroom, etc. Those products are becoming more and more intuitive. Plus....the fact that you can shoot at such speed with impunity and negative dollar value for the most part.....well where is the sport or more importantly, where is the art in that. Simply stated, analog is an organic process for me much like painting would be for a painter. Digital photography is no different for me that using a calculator to execute a mathematical problem. Anyone can do it. Any doubt...... search any type pic on instagram and see all the fabulous digital pics that pop on the screen. Enough said.
Heyy :) I resemble with what you said very much. But I also think why is it like this is really the amount of time we spend with one or another. To get a digital photo is like to get a result, or some aim. And to do a analog photographies is like a following or revealing a story...
Is dentistry without anesthetics still relevelant in 2022?
Anaesthetics were first introduced in 1846, that pre dates celluloid film, i think you've missed the mark on that one.
@@olitography the point is: once you have a new technology that solves 100% of the problems you had with the old one in your own job, you rarely stick with the old one, especially if it is way cheaper.
Two different things...none is better than the other
Probably irrelevant but I have a hard time watching movies that aren't film. Film in movies is magical, koyaanisqatsi was just too beautiful.
It`s not enough to shoot one analog film! Analog film shooting means more. You have to understand the camera, the film, and the process behind it. A film needs long-term exercise and a lot of patience.
one roll is better than no rolls, telling people they need to shoot 1000 rolls at a cost of around £10,000, to "master" the medium is not constructive, its gatekeeping.
In art, there is no such thing as relevant or time period, based on medium. Do 1920s music in 2020, it doesn't matter as long as done creatively.
Personal preference is always film
I have phases,
@@olitography I think every medium has it's own specialty and you can use whatever you like as that would best describe your idea, instead of applying one's effect on the other to get the desired impression, because it gives it away sooner or later and makes it look a little cheap and fake.
If people have time and money for the right medium, the result will always be worth it. This way, like you say you have phases, it keeps things interesting, because you're boundless.
Forget the cost of the film! Compare the cost of a full frame dslr/sharp lenses, fast cards, computer, decent printer etc vs a film/darkroom setup. Canon r5 and 50mm rf = nearly $10,000 CAD.
Ok that's £5000 or there about a roll of film is around £10, so 500 rolls not accounting for processing. You'll need to shoot around twice that to get good at it.
@@olitography10£ a roll? My condolences. If it takes 500 rolls before you get good, you might want to look at doing something else. Remember, my quote only included one lense. It also doesn't address digital cameras 5 or so year obsolescence cycle. Not for me thanks.
@@rickdacosta9727 I think we might be talking about a different level of photography
I like the video but don't agree with the explanation of the difference between digital and film shooting.
It's your choice to review your image. Don't review your image.
It's your choice to shoot 1000 frames. Don't shoot 1000 frames and instead use a small capacity memory card such as a 2GB or 4GB card while shooting in Uncompressed RAW or TIFF.
The process is different. No just shoot in full manual on your digital camera.
I use a Nikon Df. It's not a film camera but it's close to one. That even includes the rear of the camera to which Nikon copied the design directly from one of its film cameras yet many reviewers who instead of doing journalistic research just claimed it was a copy of a D600 back or current Nikon design well it's not it's the design of an old Nikon film back accessory (can't recall the name)
My first lens I bought for it was a 50mm F2 H. Due to that lens not having the tab, you have to flip the little lever on the DF to use it.
This means you not only have to select you aperture the lens but dial in your aperture on the camera body. All other controls are fully manual. Aside from physically loading film it's the same process minus advancing and rewinding your roll of film.
Many photographers didn't process their own film negatives and to be perfectly honest shouldn't due to the cancer risk processing film possesses.
Great now you have your prints, then what?
A 2GB SD card on the Df only gives you 32-36 frames. If you select on the SD card Lock prior to loading it, you won't be able to format it.
I understand the whole process of shooting film vs digital, I just don't seem to have the click, click, click issue some seem to have.
The biggest difference between film and digital is digital performs better in low light while film performs better in high light. The film characteristics of the grain definitely sets itself apart from digital.
In all honesty photography isn't an old art form, it's still new whether it be film or digital. Painting is a old art form, sculpting is a old art form. Photography is almost 200yrs old. Painting is over 40,000yrs old if not way older. Hieroglyphics even older.
The process of photography became healthier. The mindset of photography is individual based. It is your choice to shoot slow, it is also your choice to shoot fast. Shooting film does not mean shooting slow it just means you didn't have a 2nd body ready to go.
I can't disagree, maybe I can with regard to Dev chemicals causing cancer, in that I don't have cancer and can find no article to say that they do. In terms of your approach to digital, everyone is different. In the video i'm trying to say that you should try film to build discipline to the way you work. Thats not to say that you can't build it without (but majority need to see something to act upon it). Theres only so much you can cover in a 9 minute film.
@@olitography Film basically forces you into it. I think you should look into long term low level exposure. I guess I did make it seem like that developing film has a direct connection to cancer. Not anymore it doesn't but back in the early days of darkroom chemicals it did. Currently it's several other issues mostly harmful to the central nervous system.
Digital is just trial and error for me - look at screen, adjust. I have just received my most recent provia slides back and I would say I am happy with 30 out of 36 of them (which for me is a good hit rate, its normally about 20). And I get so much more satisfaction from film. The clincher for me is that I have acquired a full pentax mx kit (4 lenses) for under 200 quid.
Sounds great, keep shooting
3:34 can't we use AI or a tool to make the analog image as clear as the digital?
Why not just use digital if you want that
because then it's made out of pixels@@olitography
I wonder, same old discussion. What should you choose?..I guess, it's what works for you. I can only take away one argument for digital, it's cost that's too with respect to pay you get. Many other channels also has the same argument for digital. Otherwise, I don't see any other arguments anywhere, which tell you one is better than other. I think they are different in all respect except they are a photography medium. Film vs sensor, darkroom vs software, grain vs noise, asthetics vs sharpness, in all respect, they are different and can't/should not be compared. I don't buy the argument, that film makes you a better photographer. Many young people who shoots digital belies this argument. Hope, I didn't stir any controversy or hurt anyone.
Many analog machines had "Auto" mode. Digital ones also have "Manual" mode too. So, implying that one can only learn how to master the photo shooting with film machines, is misleading.
I didn't imply that, but I wish I had because its 100% correct! To master photography you need to master the process (be it digital or film) and the medium of light. Auto or Manuel mode are both irrelevant at that point.
with film there is a time distance between shot and result which makes you consider what you are doing more. But to use your logic lets Think about the masters, and wonder...
...Did Ansel Adams or David bailey shoot on aperture or shutter priority?
@@olitography If you read close, I took the care of writing "master the photo shooting" not to be confused with "master photography", which you 100% did and missed my point, because the latter is obviously much more than the shot itself. Nowadays many people take pictures, but very little few make photographs.
Time distance in film photos is real between the moment one takes the shot and the moment one can contemplate the result. But not everyone contemplates or reflects about it, which means that not everyone who uses film is a better, or more virtuous photographer than the digital using one. That distance can also exist as well in the realm of digital photography. One can always revisit the image and reflect about it. One process is not superior to the other. A real Photographer will think his, or her work, be it digital or film, just like a Painter, a Writer a Designer and other creators would.
Being just a guy who shoots mostly with an old Pentax SP1000, seems to me that your question is rather Silly and Pedantic.
You are scanning with an flatbed scanner, only thing you can evaluate is the scanner by doing this. You lack the necessary equipment and knowhow to do this. Scanning is not just slapping film on any scanner and pushing a button. Its a skill that takes time to develop. And you never use flatbed scanners, unless you got an old proper professional one that has actual proper lenses.
So your telling me you can’t see the difference between pixels and grain? Unless you use a drum scan? Wait “An actual proper scanner with a proper lens” All while commenting on a video designed to describe the basic differences between the two at 1080p, done for no budget on RUclips.
If you’d like to pay for a drum scan to make it easier for you to tell the difference I’ll happily send you my paypal.
@@olitography
Grain is pixels on a scanned image that is then viewed on a screen.
Yes I went fully digital, but I still mange to shoot a roll of 120 every month or so.
So your not really fully digital
@@olitography I manage to shoot 8 to 10 rolls of film a year, everything else is digital.
I love the discipline film demands. I am a better photographer for it. I am a lazy driver when I am navigating on my mapping app .. my ability to return home without it confirms as such. I am a lazy thinker the more I rely on Alexa to find answers to my questions. I am a lazy photographer .. the more I rely on automation to capture and post process my images
Stephen, very important question, would your life have been more for filled if you just tried a bit harder? Your allowed to say no.
@@olitography to the contrary. my life has been quite fulfilled as a result of trying harder. . By choosing to think and act for myself And leaving automation to those who choose to sleepwalk through life
I'll choose to lose £300 every single time to shoot on film, and even suggest to make c-prints when possible. Film is so unique.
I do love that, but generally id only do that for my own passion projects
@@olitography same here, but I want the clients (and other people) to see how cool and aesthetic it can look when done properly. And since I work in fashion I love to see the artistic director freak out a bit because they can't see the immediate image on a screen ;)
I think it is unfair using a 400 iso film that is so grainy and soft. Why don’t you try fine grain slow film instead?
It would have not given me the exposure I needed, so I would have had to push it to 400 which would have made it relatively more grainy.
olitography
A tripod or flash will allow you to reach to an equivalent exposure.
Film vs digital is a personal preference... nothing to do with the work that you do. If you get paid, digital. For personal work, film.
That's sort of how its working out, but these days film is getting boring again
your RD vs my Bronica film , no chance you blow that up to 4ft by 4 ft , digital blow ups look terrible to me .
5D, depends what you blow it up for, I use digi for work, that way i take home more money, when the works blown up to Billboard size the size of the dots get bigger, so it works, ive had exhibitions where we've blown up 5D mk1 stuff and its looked ok. I have a Hasselblad 501, I use it a lot for personal work, and sometimes people think its too sharp, and clients don't want to pay or wait for film. i think what I'm trying to say. Is it all comes down to taste
why no one talking about the dynamic range 😊
I do discuss dynamic range, but its misleading when it comes to comparing film and digital. Film is better when over exposed and digital when under this means the dynamic range may be same but in different places
Film photography is actually not analog because there is no electricity needed to make an image. It's painting with light not painting with a binary or continuous signal. For a device to be analog it has to be electrical.
"The term analog signal usually refers to electrical signals; however, mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and other systems may also convey or be considered analog signals."
I won't give a thumb up or a thumb down about comparing Digital vs Analog, but in technical side there were wrong things in scanning your films (probably wrong or auto settings which do not represent film qualities)
Anyway comparing Film vs Digital is relative to personal opinions and personal experiences that everyone wants to bring in light, but is funny that every single youtube compare video is done wrong. You can't compare an analog wrong scanned film with a digital enhanced in camera processed and later in post processed photo. If you want to compare film with a digital photo, do it in film's equivalent... meaning compare your digital camera RAW image captured with a correct film scan image. Film is an Analog RAW format while every image captured by a camera out of its RAW format, is enhanced and post shoot edited in camera automatically. A digital RAW photo suck at big if you compare it with a negative scanned and inverted by adding "Exclude Film White" layer + adding "White Environment" layer... that will invert correctly what the film captured and how it captured (without interfering with any enhancements). Yes, digital cameras suck in their native raw image captured... while film is ready to go and if you place it in an enlarger it will print better than any its digital enhanced representation and in no compare to digital if it is printed in its RAW captured way.
But analog in its beauty is also so delicate and dependent to many hands or processes that brings it in first place for fine art prints and when it comes to expenses and fast photo assignments it can't be the first anymore as the digital is cost effective and fast result
This was very well put, thank you much!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Film vs Digital? Once you indicated that the negative needs to dry over night before it can be scanned, you lost me. If you're going to use film and develop the negatives, you need to print the image on light sensitive paper in a darkroom and using an enlarger.
What I like about film is that you have to think through your composition, lighting and all the components that make a good image. You can't just shoot and look at the back and if you don't like it, have another go at it.
This will translate to your creating images with your digital cameras so it is actually a good exercise to improve your photography
Its a reference no one got to the Cappa D-Day neg's that were destroyed by rushing the drying process, scanning or printing negatives is another debate, i don't have a dark room right now so cant make a video about that
I'm sorry, but you are comparing under unfair conditions. They scan the film with a scanner that is unsuitable for this test. The film is the cheapest that Fuji offers for amateurs. It's like comparing a Lada with a Ferrari. It would have been fair if they had used the same lenses and a professional film for 35mm. This would then have to be scanned with a suitable scanner. With medium format it should have been an SLR and not a TLR.
Thanks for your passion as a photographer, Everything you said make sense. In 90's people was care about if you shoot 35, medium format or large format. Now! We are a digital world, who care about film!!!, accept if you nostalgic from the past of film era. Anywait, I really appreciate what you doing, what it is important, your belive, Have fun.
Thank you
digital has killed the passion and the magic from photography..the FP4 is brilliant film..by the way
I used FP4 a lot as a kid, but dumped it for TMax when I went though my soot & whitewash phase, thank you for watching my videos.
Again, as always in these kinds of tests, you are comparing the scanner to the digital!
This has NOTHING to do with film vs. digital.
And those scans are horrendous!
Your grasp on how film works also seems to be severely lacking.
There’s is not clumping. And the analogy to sand painting is faulty at best.
@Pete Melon as with digital, the initial, capture is all important. If you didn’t use a tripod or a steadying surface, and didn’t achieve exact focus then you won’t have detail.
Go to Photrio and write the same. You’ll get shot down in a million ways.
If you have been scanning for 20 years chances are you have used some pretty cruddy scanners to start with, and you might still be.
Dark room printing relies on critical focus (a really good grain magnifier is not optional) and an enlarging lens at least as good as the taking one.
Grain is not a primitive like a pixel, it’s an image carrying canvas. Grain can be partially exposed and the overlap. They are also different sizes and stochastically distributed.
@Pete Melon garbage in garbage out?
There are many very knowledgeable people on Photrio and not just empirical knowledge. There is actual scientific peer reviewed research to back it up.
Many people hang on to old stuff far too long.
Unless you really splashed out on something exceptional back then, then you won’t have any idea. Good scanners are just not made anymore.
Epson, Plustec etc. are all overpriced crap. Good news is you can have excellent results today with a macro lens and four to six overlapping shots of a 135 frame.
Sensor designers would love to be able to have irregular pixel grids. That’s free antialiasing.
The overlapping grain is part of what makes grain not be anything analogous to a pixels.
The shape and size of the grain varies and the projections on and off the film is not 2d in any sense, even when using highly collimated light.
And also grain is not binary contrary to popular folk myth.
Grain can be exposed and developed to any degree and the shape of development will have some contribution to image forming.
In other words there is part of the image within the grain. Of course overlap also plays a part here.
It’s also very important to keep in mind that the grain we perceive, has very little to do with actual photographic grain.
It is stochastic clumping (like stars in the sky or random peaks and valleys on a statistical curve.).
It’s something that would be avoidable with still irregular, but more uniform distribution of the photographic grain. But alas it’s not been possible up to now.
This “grain” is very information rich and should be resolved perfectly.
Unfortunately when scanned with a very low res scanner (like any you’ll buy today) this grain will make interference patterns with the regular pixel array of the scanner and create what is known as grain aliasing. This will make you think you see grain long before you are even close to out resolving the film.
You need at the very least 80MP to do justice to something like Ektar 100 or TMax.
But if all you aim for is to share your photo on Instagram or 4K (8MP) monitors, less will do.
But why are you even interested in the technical sides of photography then?
Comparing a digital DSLR color image with a 4X5 B&W image of a camera with a leaky bellows and a very very dirty lens ??? That's not comparing apples and oranges. That's comparing apples with cats. How can you draw ANY conclusion from such a comparison?
I wasn’t comparing digital with damaged 5x4 I noted that that part of the test didn’t work. But you’d know that because you watched the video before you were triggered
That isn't a "comparison" . You used expired film in a mediocre camera, you admitted you used a defective large format camera. I have never needed to check on what I captured on film. Film doesn't take an hour to wash or needs to dry overnight. So you don't know what you are talking about. I'm sorry, but a 35mm color negative can produce grainless 24"x36" prints. No digital camera yet can make images 25 times bigger than the sensor without seeing the pixels. Kodak used to produce a 40 foot tall by 120 foot wide image from a 35mm Kodachrome II or later a Kodachrome 25 slide displayed in New York City's Grand Central Station. Let's see your digital camera do that. I own and use both. There is NO difference in a PROPERLY exposed film image in highlight or shadows than in a PROPERLY exposed digital image. Scans on a computer monitor are meaningless. Make a paper print of both, properly (a digital print from a digital file and a photographic print with silver halide from a negative) for a real comparison and not your "I'll rig the 'test' to get the results I want" blathering. You certainly love to hear yourself pontificate on things you know nothing about.
I would be happy to see some of your results, if you'd like to share?
@@lisaw150 Product of a grammar school
"Before it can be scanned" - you're still not really shooting film mate...
So you're clients are still requesting contact prints and C-type proofs from Metro, or Ceta? No then your just being a dick.
Superb ! Superb !
Photography is so annoying. I love it with all my heart but tha5s only because I've seen how people react to a great shot. All this bullshit about film vs digital and entry level digital vs high end digital is so fucking stupid. A good shot is a good shot and can be achieved regardless of gear. Nobody has ever seen a great shot and said "man this would be really great on medium format film" or "this would e better with a full frame digital" please stop with all the hype bullshit and just buy and use a camera that you like and if you're talented or just happy shooting then you're a master I your own right. This is not aimed at this video but more at the volume of videos flooding my feed about camera quality. It's all just jargon and bullshit meant to create groups whi can band together against o e another like "film " people vs "digital" and so on and all that nonsense when the image is all that counts