Film doesn't make an image better
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- 👉🏻 Become a better photographer in 1 minute:
codymitchell.co...
🎥 Check out the gear I used to make this video:
codymitchell.co...
🌐 Website:
codymitchell.com
📷 Instagram:
/ degreesoflight
Hey Cody, I made this vid a while ago, but I think your video and mine are pretty aligned. The thing I recall saying (haven’t watched that vid since I posted it) Is “film doesn’t make an image special… you make an image special” I’m 11 years older than you so I lived through that transition, and it was the digital camera revolution that gave me free reign to actually have a photo career. It bypassed a lot of gatekeepers. So in the spirit of trying to inspire people to build a personal creative vision I try to downplay the technology. Clickbait titles aside, of course film is special, I shoot it all the time and echo the same sentiment you do at the end of my video. But my film is only special to me… if you get what I mean. Film can be an ingredient in an exceptional body of work, but not a stand-in for vision. We can argue about it in a future video :)
Hey Jesse. Thanks for watching and listening. Thank you for sharing your stories and perspectives. Thank you for the thoughtful, respectful response. Thank you for being a good sport. I agree. I don't think our ideas are at odds.
As I said, my intention was never to disparage. Just to contribute. I wouldn't have felt compelled to chime in if it weren't in response to a voice that I believe is worth listening to.
I admire the ethos of your content and the value you share. I think we need more like it. I would love to learn more about your experience living through that transition.
I hope that you make a video about it, and that we can "argue" again sometime. :)
Wishing you success in all your creative endeavors,
-Cody
Well said Jesse!
Film is better than digital in my opinion.
It makes you a better photographer, I am at my best when shooting film if you are photographer it would for you as well. I think you need to choose a medium for certain situations if you’d like. If you are doing wild life probably digital but you have a battery and it can die, film is analog. Knowing your light meter and exposure by eye is key or having a lighter on camera.
People say film is an expensive “instagram filter” bla bla bla. A digital camera cost like $5000 for a great camera with a lens. Hell even $1000 for a base model that’s an expensive purchase. Even people buy presets that make there digital photos look like film.
My film camera cost $500, hell a Kodak fun savor is $15 and yeah it looks better than anyone’s presets for sale.
People edit their photos to look like film haha JUST SHOOT FILM. They won’t because they are lazy and would rather have a camera do everything for them granted they still have to compose the shot.
In the end if you call yourself a photographer you should be one with the camera and the process pick a medium go with it if you shoot digital great don’t edit your photos to look like film and bash film photography. If you are an established photographer there’s no reason you shouldn’t be shooting film and supporting the medium. If you shoot film great!
@@Ninetythreezereos How old are you? Anyway, that’s a whole lot of foolishness, film is expensive if you actually photograph for a living, if you need a specific thing to call yourself a photographer, big chance you’re probably not
@@catbread2585 what does age have to do with anything? A photographer is some who takes photos professionally you can do that for work or for your own self professionally so therefore anyone can be a photographer typically yes you should pick a medium digital or film and own it to yourself what you are shooting.
Film is expensive so is SD cards and batteries, investing into photography in digital or film. If you shoot film for work then I’d hope you are including the cost of everything in the budget for the job or you’ll never make money. Same for digital whereas you’ll be editing hundreds of photos for hours I’d hope you be getting paid for your editing time.
I bought film camera because of you. Wife is not happy.
Well I am. Tell her she can blame me!
Haha, and she won’t be happy with what comes next, it never ends with just one camera 😂 wait until you get into medium format
😂😂😂😂 best comment lol
hahaha... love that. Let her wine... no... give her wine ;-)
I started with film 40-50 years ago. Worked in the darkroom for a long time and studied Ansel Adams’ books. I moved to digital as soon as the quality was there. Neither is better, it only matters to the photographer.
It’s easy to rattle off a ton of exposures with digital, but you don’t have to. You can be as slow and deliberate with digital as you are forced to with film. Ansel was very slow and deliberate with his exposures. The key was that he knew his equipment: what it could do and what it couldn’t. He also knew what he could do with film development and with printing to get what he wanted.
I believe it is a matter of personal choice and knowing how to control the entire process, from exposure to final image. This is what Ansel did. I work to do the same with digital. My process includes a fair amount of post processing. I do not see it as cheating, but as using what is available to achieve a vision.
You nailed it my friend. I am 40 years older than you and a few years ago I arrived at the same place. Wading through 50 or 60 nearly identical images in Lightroom, not my idea of fun. Getting out with a camera, walking the streets, getting in the moment, taking pictures, I realised that was what I enjoyed most and film, with it’s intentionality and the focus required to achieve good pictures, is perfect for me. I still shoot some digital but love the analog experience so much more. Keep up the great work, you have a wonderful gift for communicating clearly and without prejudice. All the best.
“I cherish my mediocre film images more than my best digital images” - I 1000% agree with this.
My film images just feel REAL in a way the digital images never can.
The thing that makes my images special is that the final product is what I had envisioned, no matter what medium I used to get there. I can have just as much intention and slow down just as much with digital as I can with film, it is about how I approach the work, not the gear that I’m using.
Yeah some people act like it’s just impossible to be intentional with digital. Sure film does force you to be intentional, but you can still do more or less the same thing with digital
I began shooting film in the early 1960's when my fascination with the images of others took me in the direction of creating my own. Through the tutelage of others and trial and error I developed a way of shooting that I became comfortable with. I owned a well equipped darkroom and processing my film was just an extension of shooting. When I bought my first digital camera, I treated it just as I had all of the other cameras that I had owned and shot with it exactly as I had with film. I still visualized my shots, walked scenes for the best point of view, and used a tripod, a remote shutter release and a hand held light meter. Having a digital camera didn't take away any of the enjoyment that I felt when a cool mountain breeze chilled my face, or when the first rays of morning light began to fill a mountain valley below me. While I followed the light by adjusting my exposures and shooting as the lightfall changed, I was never a fan of just blasting shots. I still meter, by hand so no need for bracketing except in very high dynamic range scenes. Today, processing my images digitally feels like the same connection that I had to film while working in my darkroom. In essence, the only thing that has changed for me with regards to workflow in 64 years is my camera. My process and my enjoyment of it are the same.
I agree with you. I am 60+ year old and started from 35 mm 45 years ago. Started digital 25 years ago. Felt the same way as you and now back to the film. Shoot both with 35 mm old olympus om1 and medium format 4.5x6, 6x6 and 6x9. More satisfaction with the process and more work on the frame, not technical issues of the camera.
I enjoy photography even more than 40 years ago.
What you said at the end of the video really resonates with me. I feel like, as a hobbyist, I've started taking my own photography too seriously and worrying too much about taking good photos, rather than taking photos because i enjoy it. When i was a kid, i would take my camera everywhere and take photos of everything, so I'm trying to get back to that this year. I've also come to realize that i hate editing lol so i bought a fujifilm xt3 and have been shooting a lot more jpegs with the film simulations and recipes. So far, I've been enjoying my photography a lot more that way. I would love to shoot more with my film camera, but the 14:59 film is expensive, so i usually stick to digital.
So glad to hear that. Excited for you!
I started out on film, and im buying a digital camera to do my own scanning. However, I plan on using it as a camera to actually shoot with to offset the cost of fim. The urge to go out and shoot sometimes gets restrained when I remember that each shot is money, so having a digital camera should help with that. But, ill never abandon film as long as its somewhat affordable.
I think ill stick to shooting film for special episodes of life like traveling to see family and friends, or going to new places, and ill use digital for when I want a high volume of images for a particular event or activity.
Really great video. Thoughtful reflection on the process for both. The film does feel deeper in the end!
This was a refreshing video! It’s always great to hear different perspectives and engage in respectful discussions based on personal experiences. The debate between film and digital has been ongoing, but ultimately, it all comes down to personal preference, whatever works best for you and brings you joy. I come from the film era, where I developed my understanding of light and the various ways to measure it to achieve the desired exposure. I’m truly grateful for that foundation, as those skills naturally carried over to digital. Over the past 15 years, I’ve primarily shot digital (99%), which has allowed me to explore strobe photography, mixed lighting, and cinematography lighting.
As for slowing down and being intentional, I already visualize the final image before I even press the shutter. Neither film nor digital inherently makes an image better, it’s all about the photographer’s vision and execution. There’s an old saying: *garbage in, garbage out*, but even so, if the photographer finds beauty in it, that’s what truly matters. Happy shooting, everyone!
Working in the darkroom and making prints is also a special moment with film. The rolls I process myself versus the ones taken to a lab have more importance to me and my body of work.
That’s true. Developing your own film and especially making prints in a darkroom is such a lovely process
Fantastic video man, very well said! As much as I’m invested into digital, there’s always special something about film that keeps me coming back to it.
Oh man how I relate to everything you said in this video. Feels like you are narrating my own journey through photography. Thank you for making this!
Hey cody! Its always great watching your videos and it’s a pleasure seeing you upload again. I took a short break from film for about a year because i felt burnt out… mainly because of taking pictures of my car and only my car. Lately I’ve been just going for casual shoots with my point and shoot cameras and I’ve rediscovered my love for photography. My most recent daily carry now is my Fujifilm Tiara. Its so small and easy to carry anywhere.
Your thoughts are spot on. As someone older than you, I feel a need to go backwards and relish each step of the process. The manual-ness of creating and the time it took is therapeutic, and gives soul to the finished project that can be seen when done well. Keep it up
Cody, your videos are the content I really enjoy! I love that it’s about ART and expression. Keep making stuff like this. We appreciate it ❤
Oh, where to begin...
I got my start a few years ago with making videos about classic motorcycles. Made some for YT. Lost the fun quickly. I wanted to tell a story, and it just ... wasn't working.
A few weeks ago, I decided to rekindle this desire by looking for a camera that matched the age of my bikes. I figured a vintage bike deserves a vintage camera. The idea was to still film, but film my travels and show key moments through the lens of a still film 35mm. As luck had it, I found 2 for cheap, both the 1965 Nikomat FTs, with a Nikkor 35mm lens and a 50mm.
After some repairs and about dozen different rolls of film, it has been a blast to learn them and push myself. So much fun has come out and memories have been rekindled, marching a lot of what you spoke about. What makes this special.
I've watched each of your videos, some (like this one) multiple times. You hit the nail on the head. When Sinatra's "That's Life" rolled in, my man, you nailed the ... feeling. Thank you.
This vid was spot on. Professional, yes, but you presented something so key, so valuable. Seriously, thanks for putting this one together.
I have to agree with Jesse, and you at the same time.
Subjectively, of course somebody can find shooting with film special, whether they like the process, or they prefer the results.
Objectively, and only seeing the final results, the digital shots can always be edited to look pretty much identical to film, but film can never have the flexibility of digital.
Absolutely. I mostly agree with him as well.
This is true, if you mean by film photography a method that includes scanning and digital processing of the pictures. You can´t produce darkroom prints digitally. The nearest equivalent would be printing with a Frontier or similar system, but this is not viable for most people, as the systems cost tens of thousands of dollars, and need a constant output of pictures to keep the replenished system working. And in color, all of the lan equipment uses additional color printing, which produces pictures looking different from those printed in darkroom using subtractive method. They are not worse or better, but the look is different. Inkjet or sublimation prints look also different. Many scanners don´t work as well for black and white films as they do for color film. Many of the scans of B&W films do look worse than well made darkroom prints look like.
Cody, God knows how much love and effort you pour into each of your videos for the sake of the love of photography. Please don't stop making them
Something I appreciate about some modern day digital camera is the ability to turn the lcd around so you don’t chimp your photos right after taking them. Mind you it still takes some presence of mind not to flip it out, or check via the viewfinder but it’s a happy medium for those wanting a more deliberate approach with their digital cameras.
I can wholeheartedly agree that the whole process of deliberate shooting on film cameras is a big part of the experience for photographers and often reflects in their work.
I really really enjoyed your articulation of what makes us weirdos love the medium so much. Nailed it mate.
One thing I've noticed often when people compare film to digital is they will choose a subject or a scene where the two mediums will perform similarly. In Jesse's example, he's chosen a scene with not a lot of variation in color and not a lot of contrast. Only when you push the limits of what the different mediums are capable of do you start to really see the differences between the two.
"finite and fleeting like life itself" here lies the meaning. couldn't have said it better.
I absolutely agree with you! Film does make an image special and it really makes the process of shooting special. Only film photographers know this feeling that you get with film and don't get with a digital camera. But to me, not only does film make an image special, it also makes an image better. Becuse no digital camera will ever give you the colors and grain that you get with film. And no digital camera will ever give you light leaks that you sometimes get from a film camera. But the main thing about film photography is of course the feel of it, the process of shooting and the moment when you get your scans form the lab. And as for me, I never edit my film photos (in terms of color/contrast editing). Because otherwise there's no sence in shooting film. Yes, you have to think twice while shooting to get decent exposure, but when you get it right you also get the feeling of satisfaction. Let me put it this way: when I want to make a photoshoot, I take my digital camera and do it. But if I want to make it special (special for myself, first of all) and make the images special, I take a film camera and a roll of film.
I found film simulation to be a happy medium for me. I treat each shot as a deliberate composition, never shooting in bursts.
It gives me the pleasure of taking my time to compose and expose like film does, but I'm granted the luxury of fixing a few mistakes through the raws.
I think the major difference in technology here is that digital invites the "spray and pray" culture, where taking the initial image, where skills like lighting control and composition tend to relegated to "post". Film usage doesn't offer those carefree (careless?) options, because cost and time give you a couple of opportunities to get one shot right. This difference requires skills of the film photographer at the point of image "capture" which most digital users never bother to develop because they focus on "the fix" rather than the planning. For my serious, planned photography, I still shoot film. For my casual or social photos, I use a 15+ year old Canon Power Shot. Both do their thing.
My pet peeve with people touting digital as the _"spray and pray"_ instrument vs the _"precision and mastery"_ medium of film is, with intent, one can always shoot with consideration on digital and make every shot count.
Honestly, when people say this kind of thing, what pops into my mind is not _"wow, they want thoughtful shooting experience"_ and instead (pardon my blunt phrasing) _"oh, sounds like they lack self discipline"_ is what I ended up with.
The only real difference in the (emphasis here) *moment to moment shooting experience* is one _can_ easily spray and pray when needed, whereas one's wallet will be in holes on the other. Any other difference is purely a psychological or personal issue. If someone can't limit themselves on digital and shoot film to do so, that's a mighty fine solution, but try not to then blame and disparage digital because of one's own shortcomings (this isn't necessarily directed only at you good sir).
In an ideal world where films are still cheap, I can just arbitrarily decide to use the Canon PowerShot for my "serious" photos and a film camera as my casual shooter because the result won't be as consistent (due to many variables such as my skill, the film quality, and film development process). In fact, I think most people who shoot both these days are usually in this camp even with the sky rocketing film prices.
I have heard the kids saying too many times that you can do almost anything with your film, as they can fix everything in "post". Such as stand developing C-41 in room temperature with cheap-o chemistry used already 50 times without replenishing. You know what I mean. Is this film photography any more, if the end result is heavily edited digital file?
@@b6983832 Well, we both know that "the kids" cannot do what they claim in "post". They make such claims because they don't take the trouble to learn how to process film properly. That situation is further driven by a lack of standards of what image result is minimally acceptable. I suppose it is part just being lazy, and part not having a convenient and recognizable resource to learn proper techniques. The parable of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind when you look at the number of YT channels which play this game. A similar problem exists with image composition. IMO, the majority of YT channels based on photography, film or digital, are posting images which are at best casual snapshots of little or no interest, as though just getting any image out of their chosen technology makes it a well composed image of an interesting subject. A film negative, scanned to a digital file, then "processed", necessarily runs the gauntlet of the worst aspects of both film and digital technology. IMO, no, that is no longer film photography, for better or worse.
Film makes you appreciate a photograph more, which for me, is where it makes an image better. The time and energy invested into every shot sticks with you, especially if you're also processing your own film and scanning/printing it. The constraints of film also forces you to be more creative and thoughtful. When you can't just crank an ISO setting, you are forced to compromise other settings like aperture to get a shot. You can force yourself to do these things with digital by limiting the process but most of us don't. In my opinion, digital has given us more capability with the tools but has reduced creativity. Film sparks the creativity again which is why I think most people love it when they use it.
Great video Cody! I love the discussion and the approach to adding to it.
Im all for the process too. I had the same experience with "burn out" with the results oriented digital photography i did starting out nearly 10 years ago.
Shooting film to me is 30% results and 70% process. The process is where we learn. The process is what keeps me hooked. The process is why it's fun for me now!
I still shoot digital for clients and I've become more intentional with pressing the shutter button during these shoots and it's resulted in a higher yield of usable images too
I watched Jesse's video when he uploaded it and basically agreed with him, but had the same thought as you illustrated in this video. Plus for me shooting black and white somehow film does feel better / special for me, specially when I take images of my kids on b/w film.
Great conversation of both of you and happy shooting - greetings from Germany :)
Great video, to both content creators. But especially great explanation of the draw of film. I'm recently back into photography, and I use a lot of old cameras from family members. Some of the glass has every aberration known to humankind, but every image that thing takes? Sacred. It's a moment of connection.
I'm new to film, born a couple years after you and I agree with everything you've said and even said a few of the same things a couple seconds ahead of the video
Honestly, I loved hearing your perspective. I think you really helped me see this whole thing in a way I had yet to mentally formalise but 100% agree with. I wanted home coffee, so I bought a proper espresso machine rather than a pod machine. Not because I'm a coffee w*nker, but because I want to be able to do the whole experience to make a ritual of it. To be present with such a "meaningless" process.
Your take on the topic is pretty good. I wasnt sure what to expect based on the title since ive never watched your channel before. I think most "film vs digital" arguments is kinda a tired trope. One doesnt have to be better than the other if the user prefers the process. I hate editing on a computer and love making prints in a darkroom. Quality and detail? More and more the images im drawn to are gritty, lower quality, lower details, but very high in composition, light and line skills. I dont see watercolor vs oil painters getting in many disagreements about what is better on a technical level.
Agree with your assessment about more of a connection with taking a picture with film versus a digital camera or iPhone …. Having grown up with film cameras may be a factor but I personally am more present and conscious of taking that one shot versus the hundreds of clicks with my phone. As such I can usually recall quite readily the memory associated with that photo …. As for the thousands of photos taken with my iPhone…not so much…. 😊
Wohoo!! I'm currently binging your entire catalog here on YT, and up pops a brand new video! What a time to be alive. :) Cheers!
You’re right! Thanks for providing a different perspective on this subject
Always enjoy your thoughtful reflections. Couldn’t agree more with your conclusions. And I grew up with film.
Cody and Jesse are two of my favourite people 😊
Watching this makes me understand why the X-Pro had a moment some years ago. I never really got it, but I see now that the way it takes the screen away from you (you have to flip it round to see it) and offers a mostly optical viewfinder is a bit more in keeping with the ‘taking it blind’ approach of film cameras. Combined with the film simulations it’s obvious who it was targeting now.
I guess the difference is you retain the RAW as a backup, so if you do blow it you haven’t completely wasted the shot. You also have no real limit on captures although I suppose you could use a smaller SD card. 😂
As a returning photographer, this is the kind of image nerdism I can't get into. Show any of the sampled images to a non photographer and they will make a subjective decision about it, regardless of which the photographer thinks has best colour or contrast etc. This is personal preference of the shooter. It's a personal endeavour. No one else's opinion matters, unless you're doing commercial work
I love your videos: you/they make me want to pick up my camera and shoot. That's it--simple photos with no pretense other than enjoying the moment.
Very interesting! Good content sir. Well reasoned and courteously put to my ears. Literally, the year you were born, I came back from a 3-week New Zealand trip with 36 rolls of 36 exposure slide film carried back in a lead-lined bag. I had no idea if I had _any_ images. To say it was nerve wracking is an understatement. As soon as I could afford decent digital -- Oy, when you were 7 -- I was all in. I was so grateful to be delivered from not knowing in the moment if I'd captured that moment or if it would only live on in my rye-soaked memories. Maybe one reason you like film is, during spectacular moments in your life, you CAN record digitally as well. You can always have some type of backup. There were no such affordable options in '94 to my knowledge. I appreciate that others love film for a host of reasons. It just interests me not at all. Light, composition, opportunity are all hard enough to come by without the vicissitudes of film. BTW, many slides from NZ made me very happy. No rolls were blank. I still use one scan as the background on my iPhone.
I love that story, Brian. Thanks for sharing!
I really enjoyed this . I grew up early 80s so I was a Polaroid and 35mm baby
I shot digital and then switched to film. I am back to digi as I can’t afford to shoot it often (single dad of 3 ) BUT… occasionally I will shoot photos of friends and family on instax square… those photos are very special. I do agree, the process of how you shoot really changes depending on what you shoot. But I have been working on slowing down and taking time and not over shooting and it makes it that much more exciting .
For me, the special thing about analog photography is that I only get to see the picture days or weeks later. When I take the photo, I make a bet every time. I certainly have an idea in my head of how the picture will turn out and my experience also tells me how to set the exposure correctly. But I don't know whether the picture will turn out that way until it comes back from the lab.
That's why I think more consciously about my settings because I don't get any direct feedback on the camera screen and this mindset has also significantly improved my digital photography and even my day-to-day work as a cameraman.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Brilliant and inspiring take. Thank you so much for sharing.
Definitely. I've only ever shot on film starting on 35mm 10 or so years ago and finally residing at 4x5 cause I realize I just don't shoot enough to justify keeping a medium format roll open for months lol. I think the process makes it special as in it changes the route you get it final product, and that usually has you ending up on a path you or the viewer expected
I shoot my personal, meditative work on analogue 100%, prortrature of young, energetic kids on Fuji f1.2/58mm 100% , and all business related and travel photos on iPhone.
Each has a special place in my heart. Digital gives me automated, low hangung fruits while analogue delivers the pleasure and fun, as you well put. The icing on the cake is home development of films, that is invaluable, though invisible for the world.
Thanks for your thoughts and inspiration, well put!
I recently got a Nikon F4 and it has changed how I shoot digital and edit. It really makes me look at the fine details to make the shot worth it and with it being digital I can pull the trigger as much as I want without being sad about spending a kidney every time I want to shoot analog. I do appreciate how slow analog is, it really makes you take in the subject and it creates sort of a story with the picture. I am considering adding a small action cam to the bottom of my F4 to record the subject while framing the shot so you can see how the process goes down haha. I have really liked photography over these past few months, it makes time go by slower :)
You almost make me want to return to film. And yes I can understand the need for art. And the one chance you get with film. But for me it comes down to control, cost, and the environment. Today, control is a big issue with film. One must find a great lab and even then there are the pictures that aren’t quite what you want. I spent many days in the dark room. Storage is an issue too. Hard copies are still with me but my space is limited. Thankfully the old way is still around to play with. Enjoy 👍🏻👍🏻
Well said. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
You put more effort in each frame. That's why film feels more connected practically.
I ‘m from an older generation and I’ve always loved all kinds of film cameras that I grew up with. I started to really not like manipulating the photos in digital to “perfection”. Fun for a while but now try to get the look I want in camera with digital. Theres room for both and I enjoy both. Some of my favorite photos are from film that are not overly edited “perfect” photos. Some are even out of focus and that’s alright to me.
I think the danger with film photography can be that the process be used as an excuse for lack of intention. I.e. the intention is to just shoot film. It takes time to learn how to handle and shoot film so the learning is really gratifying and it gives you a feeling of achievement regardless of the success of the image itself.
This is all fine but in my case once I got to grips with it - loading, shooting, film stock variety, format variety, developing, scanning, printing etc I realised that once printed it made no difference how I shot the picture to how much I valued the image down the line (a few years later).
Don’t get me wrong I still love the process and shoot film still but I shoot film nowhere near as much as I used to. This all took place over the last 10 years.
I will say though I loved the learning and in a way it made me fall in love with photography.
Mmm just talked myself back into extolling the value film shooting again - forget everything I said 😂
Watching your content on my new TV wall is just amazing✨
I think both forms are great, yes digital is a bit easier travel wise with airport scanners & keeping the film safe and within good conditions. But I’m also at the point now where I feel like film just seems to require less of me doing work to it in post and provides me more enjoyment and surprise in the outcomes. I came to Vietnam without my film this year and I miss it terribly.
Rad, love the video and I like your take on the analog process.
I suspect that a lot of the color gradient you're getting with the film shot is lost on digital because of the amount of glass elements in the newer lenses. Those vintage lenses with low element count just really do have something that gives a photo that certain "je ne sais quoi".
How dare you to respectfully chime in instead of beefing?! RUclips isn't what it once was... and i'm so glad about it. I loved to hear about your process and approach to photography! :)
I may can contribute something to this. I was born in the 70s. In other words I know both worlds. And even for me it was like a new experience to load the M6 with Film again. I think younger people discover that our digital lifestyle makes our days super fast, and not always more easy. Now they load up film and it’s like experiencing a time travel. With the M6 I need to think, I need to plan my intention a lot more compared to any digital camera. Even though I did shoot a lot film in my life, the M6 reminded me to slow down my lifestyle. I also love my digital Fujis, no doubt. But super relaxing is the use of the simplified engineering of the M6… it’s very simple to me. Shooting Film is a very different psychological state…
Film it’s special and magic when u take the photo and the magic come back again when ur developing ur film and a other level of magic when u print them. Digital it’s great but will never be the same vibe.
While I enjoy the extreme flexibility with the raw output from modern day sensors, I absolutely hate the culling and editing process of digital. Film slows me down, makes me think more about each exposure instead of shotgunning it, and from an editing perspective is much faster (IMO) as there are far less corrections needed. Side note as a fellow Bendite, I loved the Smith Rock shots!
Completely agree. And hey neighbor!
i like the imperfections of film. it's not perfect. just like life itself
My 2p worth…Got back into photography in 2015 with digital and despite struggling with colour (and too many hours on Lightroom) have images I like. Some of which would have been difficult on film.
But I still miss ‘the look’ - most of the new to film fans on YT, Instagram etc seem to use negative film and get (want, or tweak?) very varied results from scanning. So, many simply haven’t experienced the sheer beauty of looking at a Kodachrome, Velvia or Portra slide. For reproduction in print and on monitors it might be possible to make digital look like film (if wanted) but there is something special about the colour, lightness and balance of film done well. Not to say it’s necessarily better or always suits usage well but it’s still got appeal.
BTW - to give some context to my preference, I grew up with film; used 35mm since 15 (on a very old fashioned Zorki, but 3 of my favourite/best images were made with that), then onto 6x9, 6x12 and 4”x5” to sell to picture libraries, book publishers, calendar makers etc. Still used 35mm for me but they generally wouldn’t look at 35mm except for ‘street’ stuff back then. Mostly transparencies.
Couldn’t wait for digital to save the cost, hassle etc. but had to take a cold turkey break for 15 years just as DSLRs came in!
My solution now has been to sell the newer (higher pixel) cameras I’ve bought (revolving door) and settle on, for me, the Holy Trinity of Canon 5Di, 5Dii and 6Di with my old OM2 and a Nikon F100 for special occasions/the right job/fun.
The DSLRs because to my eye they give the most pleasing colour and contrast I’ve found, needing little PP, and are so close to those things I love about film.
In my opinion the Leica M10-D is the Sweetspot between analog and digital Photography. A cheaper alternative could be a Leica M8 or M9. The process of taking pictures is very similar to analog Photography and the results are digital!
You are making an excellent point. It's too easy to take many digital images which makes it a lot less satisfying. Also, the process of editing feels a little bit like cheating. Thanks for your honesty!
As a photographer, I feel if you start by using a film camera; you carry the philosophy of having limited shots so take the time to frame your subject matter. You then can embrace that with your digital camera.
If you are taking a thousand photos of the same thing for perfection, it takes away the feeling photography is supposed to connect your audience.
I enjoy shooting film because having a fully mechanical camera feels just so much better and so much more fun
Can't argue much, still... I'd say the lenses do change the final image, way more than film vs digital.
Great video, loved it. I hope one day I will have the resource to shoot film too.
For me I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it is the process that I love the most. It is the process that provides me with the experience that I'm looking for. For others the final image might be the end goal.
Whether that process is film or digital is irrelevant to everyone but me. I'm trying to formulate a video in my head about the importance of being selfish as a (hobby) photographer and this idea of what does (or doesn't) make an image better is very relevant (as long as approached from a subjective lens).
I really enjoyed that video. Thank you for sharing. My mind is whirring now with deeper thoughts on this. ❤
Love this idea. Please share if you end up releasing the video to the world!
Awesome video man! Super entertaining
I'd say there are two main things you get from a film camera that you don't with a digital cam. One, straight out of cam feel and character. Two, the experience and process from loading to development.
I think what Jesse was trying to say, or at least how I’m deciding to interpret it. Some People get too pretentious when shooting film and think it automatically makes them more of an artist. I occasionally shoot film if it’s for a specific reason, but I’ve learned to treat digital like film… slow. Choose your shots wisely. Plus, shooting film seems pointless if you can’t develop your own film or at least print in the darkroom. Otherwise you’re shooting film just to scan it digitally and edit it in Lightroom. If I decide to shoot film it would have to be large format for it to make sense. That’s just my opinion.(by the way, I’m not saying you are trying to be pretentious, I just see a lot of other people that are)
As always such a great video!
absolutely agree ✌
I do not like to edit 99% of the time, so film suited me fine until I started developing and scanning myself. Then that process became a chore, and I started shooting more and more digital jpegs straight out of camera, especially at bigger family events. I'd like to get back to film a little this year, because the shooting experience is really something I enjoy. That said, I've also come to really like the flexibility of a good zoom on a digital camera, being able to spot something and compose exactly like I imagined is gratifying, especially since I started with primes on film.
Honestly, although i think your video is great, and i agree with your opinions, i'm growing a little bit tired of discussing whether something is better than something else. What is better? Why? Better for who? Better for what? in what way? Almost every little thing about photography, at least when you understand it as a creative process, is absolutely subjective. Instead of asking what is better, why don't you ask what is more fun? What sparks your creativity more? If you answer those questions sincerely, forgetting about megapixel counts or dynamic range steps, you may find that many of the limitations of film photography are, in fact, better for you. Or maybe not, who cares...
hey, love the video, Can you tell me how you putting such a great music and still monetize, just curios how can i get to use this with monetization.
Thank you! This video is not monetized.
@@Codacolor Oh really, then a great taste in music 🤙
The ‘intentionality’ of the process is a personal and technical decision that requires discipline to achieve. I have experienced often the tedious ’culling’ of photos shooting wildlife. I also shoot a lot of macro where the shots are sometimes stacked. The stacking is part of the process so I give it a pass. The wildlife on the other hand needs careful consideration as to how many shots is just enough. I use a focus analyzer from OM Systems which reduces the tedium a lot. The discipline comes in how you set your modes. I have been leaning into single shot and highly reduced shot modes In order to achieve that sense of intentionality and have succeeded in reestablishing my personal connection to the process. Does the film look better than digital out of the camera? For me no. With film things are baked in to an extreme with digital I have a base amount of baking which gives me various films of my choosing then edit from there again discipline / trial and error. I will end by saying I loved my time with my Nikon F2 and 3 and Tri-X which prepared me subjectively to make the decisions I make today.
I just love your content, I feel like i recognize some of those mountains. Do you live in Alberta? I know I'm an internet stranger but I would love to connect.
Digital has its place but film is reacting to the light photons, digital is recording the photons to 1/0. It will just never be the same, film is just simply beautiful.
Are you shooting digital or film when you're travelling? Those travel moments are special so I'm kinda afraid to mess up my shots if I were to shoot film.
I really really love the film photo of the girl with the Patagonia sweater.
I personally believe a image is special because the image is special (lighting, composition, subject matter ect ect)
You can fake the film look easily by getting the contrast correct, then adjust the colors and grain, then reduce sharping and a smaller file in export.
But will the image be better or special…. No I don’t believe so
A good image is a good image, you can’t save a bad image in editing or if it was shot on film
You also can’t replicate film completely as it depends on your exposure and your scanning process
Great video !
I'm 54. I shoot both film (35mm, 6x7, 645, polaroid and Instax) and digital (Leica, Nikon, Fujifilm). Sometimes I'm in the vibe for film, other times for digital. It varies through the year. I also think the final result really does not care if it's film or digital. The subject, light and composition dictates the viewer experience (and emotion) looking at a photograph. But... there's a very substantial difference between both formats, which I really like in favor of a film photograph. The physical object. An image captured in a piece of plastic and silver halide spread gelatin it is kind of special. The physical object in your hands (even being a small 35mm piece of plastic - even more medium format and even even more large format) holding the image in its surface it is for me really magical and a completely different feeling than an image "made of' ones and zeros and in a SD card or, even worst, in a cloud service on the internet. A digital image is nothing, a real image on a surface of a gelatin base piece of plastic is a real thing. For me that's the fundamental difference. Not the result. The result really does not matter. You can add grain in digital pictures very realistic these days or tone down the image if you want a kind of film look.
Well said! I feel the same way. Film is for the romantic photographer.
Its strictly a feeling thing, film isnt better, digital isnt better its all subjective
All of the things you mentioned are special about film aren't exclusive about film. You can always shoot like you describe while using digital. It's all, like you said, about your personal process and ability to stick to them. Film forces all those things you said, while on digital they're all optional and you can opt out of them.
Besides, if film or digital is what makes a good shot good, then... Yeah, that's not a good shot. If a photo is good, it'll be good regardless of the medium or the gear that was used to take it.
this needed to be said
2:18 bingo - the massive editing to make digital close to film is annoying. id prefer to get the actual look than fake it
I’m from Jesse’s generation.. but I resonate with your point about shooting film. I just shot my daughter’s 11th birthday on a stylus epic and the images were much more meaningful to me than if I had shot it on digital.
“Why would so many people shoot film?” I think that “many” is actually a RUclips, online collective. Locally I am the only one I see shooting film. Come to think of it since phones took over I seldom see real cameras of any kind being used anymore🤷♂️
I struggle to say which I like better in my own photography. Sometimes my film is better sometimes my digital is better. However, I think a lot of that has to do with glass, I wouldn't say I have the best glass for my Minolta film cameras where as I am using G-Master glass on my Sony. However 3 minutes in your film image blows the sony image out of the water in my opinion. I am sure I am going to feel the same about the rest because you're shooting on an amazing film camera.
Love the video man. I have fallen back in love with photography due to film. I grew up shooting film with my dad but my personal and professional life have all been digital and it becomes so mundane after a while. Now shoot film I have had to learn to slow down and pick my shot. I have had to wait to see results and there's something about all of that that makes it so much nicer. There's nothing better than sitting there and getting an email with your scans and just scrolling through all your photos. It's expensive, it's generally probably not as clean and "professional" looking but it's nostalgic, it seems to tell a story better and honestly it's nice just using something that's not so high in technology. You and I are the same age and everything in life has been about technology and advancements. It's nice to pick up a camera from 1964 and take photos with it!
What scanner do you use?
I like shooting film, not because the images are "special" but because of the process. I prefer the process of 1. shooting black and white film. 2. developing the film, and 3. creating a darkroom print. Maybe, for me, it's just because it takes me back to the days of my youth, when I converted our basement bathroom into a darkroom, and used that through all my years of high school, but still, when I first poured out my chemicals into trays after all these years, the smells just hit me like a ton of feelings. In any case, for me, it's the process, and less the result--well, other than the resulting print I can mat and hang ;-)
Well said Cody
i exclusively follow this channel for the slight chance that there is a Frank Sinatra song featured. Today delivered. See you next week.
Just a thought to share…many of the limitations of film (limited shot number, view finder only) are the differences as you described. It seems you could replicate a bit of that with a 512mb card in my digital camera. I could also stick to EVF only. I’m not a film guy, but I could see value doing some shoots where I limit myself (number of photos, EVF only) to gain perspective through the challenge. Nice video as usual.
Sounds like a good experiment. Please report back with your findings if you try!
amen dude, amen