CIVILWAR movie, through the eyes of a soldier and photographer

The 2024 movie, civil war, starting Kirsten Dunst · Lee ; Wagner Moura · Joel ; Cailee Spaeny, is a fantastic description of war photography through the eyes of a veteran photographic journalist. The movie jumps in towards the end of a civil war in the U.S. The story follows a small group of journalists as they navigate the country in search of the ultimate story.
This video will touch on the gear the team used my thoughts on the movie.
Spoiler alert, I loved it.

[@MrTomhanna]

The young photographer didn't use the film camera because she was a hipster, it was because that was the only camera available to her, the one she could afford. She didn't have $12,900 for a digital set up like the older photographer could afford. The lesson is use the camera that's available to you. It's the photographer, not always ethe equipment.

[@TheFilmKrewe]

That is a good half of the reason why I shoot film. I can’t afford $4,000 for a digital camera but I could afford a film camera for $300. I’m 28yrs, I’ve been shooting film for the past seven years. First camera was in Canon AE-1 Program. I’ve gotten better cameras over the years, but I don’t even have an inkling of wanting to switch to digital. #FILMFORLIFE

[@robbellphoto]

Great comment ! Agreed ! HOWEVER….. there come a point where you NEED the right tool for the job. Film , without flash, in lowlight is impossible, especially fast action. But I’m open to suggestions on how to make it work

[@LupusAries]

@@robbellphoto And good digital gear is not that expensive. For example my purchases were (used unless stated otherwise): -1XD300S used, I think 13,000-ish shutter actuations, 1 18-70mm kit lens, 1 Nikkor AF-S 70-30mm VR (II I think) 356 euros -2 CF cards used 20 Euros -1 CF Card 32GB new 15 Euros -4 SD Cards 32GB new 20 Euros. -1xNikkor 50mm F1.8D+1xMetz 58 AF-1 Flash 150 Euros (camera shop with warranty) -1xNikkor AF-S 200-500mm F5.6E VR (Birding and Aviation lens) 936 Euros including postage (barely used with left over warranty) -1x Nikon D700 (36,000 shutter actuations)+3 EN-EL3E (one original 2 Blue max*)+Battery grip (third party not that great)+improved strap 360 Euros. -1x Nikkor AF 35-70mm F2.8D 210 Euros (seller with warranty) (awesome beautiful lens, a friend that has a D500 just bought it as he loves the quality, he also has the 17-55 F2.8 DX) -1xTamron 15-30mm F2.8 49,95 Euros. -1x Thinktank Backlight 36L black used 200 Euros (barely used, as good as new) -1xThinktank Hydrophobia Eyepiece for Nikon Screw in 30 euros (New) -1xthinktank Hydrophobia eye-piece for Nikon slide over (APS-C and consumer cameras, the D300S still has that slideover eye-piece cover)) 30 euros (New) -2x used MB-D10 (one each for the D300S and D700) 26 Euros each (second came with the AA holder) so 52 Euros -5 used good condition (battery life 0) original Nikon EN-EL3E batteries for 5 each so 25 Euros. -1 set of Panasonic Eneloop AA NimH batteries (40 Euros) (New) -2 sets of Panasonic Eneloop Pro AA NimH batteries 26 Euros (Black Friday) (New) Also got as gifts from family -1x Loewpro Fastpack 250 AWIII (my original backpack) (new) -1x Thinktank Hydrophobia 70-200mm Rain cover (the 200-500 fits barely inside it) (New) Now imho those Hydrophobia eyepieces are highway robbery. But I got a pretty useful kit for much less than the 12k you specified. Namely 2,934.95 Euros including taxes. And that's a setup with which you can do architecture and wildlife photography. If I didn't want/need the 200-500 F5.6E this would be under 2,000 Euros. A used 80-200mm F2.8 might be more useful for a journalist, while costing about half. I could've probably gone with the D500 instead of the D700 and saved a lot of money on lenses while still getting much better low light performance. But the D700 always had been my dream camera and I wanted one. The D500 is a goal for the future, after that I don't know, maybe a D4/D4S, the D5 is still too expensive as is the D850 and the autofocus system of the latter is so-so compared to the D5 and D500. The D3 or D3X would be nice for collector and or portrait, but the D700 handles portraits just fine and also architecture photography. Although a new sensor would help in low light. If we add the two gifts that would be about 132-ish euros for the Rain Cover right now (164 normally)and 110-ish for the backpack so an additional 242--284-ish euros. This was my spending over about 2.5 years Oh and for the record, I learned to photograph on my Parents's Nikon Fs until they got stolen, then fell out of it for a few years than used an Olympus SP-550UZ to regain my love for photography. I even shot some airshows with it, and that camera was a dog. It took longer for it to save a raw than for me to rack the shutter on a Nikon F and the autofocus was just painfully slow. So in desperation I manually focuse on those air show photos and got a few useable out of it. I then switched back to my mom's replacement for the F, the Nikon FT with full manual lenses. I ocasionally still shoot film, just not action. Also in the long run, film is much, much more expensive. I shot one trial session at the airport to try out the 200-500mm and fast image rate of the D300S with 1,500 photos, which ammounted to about 562 Euros for 42 Kodak T-Max ISO 400 film rolls. That's more than the D700 and the D300S+2 lenses cost me. Just for buying the film, without any development costs. And that's not even calculating in stuff like using Portra which is 18 Euros a roll. Oh and you need a decent scanner to efficiently digitize those images, on the low end someghing like an Epson V700/V800/V850 Pro (the latter goes for 936-ish euros), or on the high-end a Nikon Coolscan....2000+ Euros used. Digital is costly up front but cheap over time, analogue is cheap up front but costly over time. It also takes 40 minutes to a few hours to scan the film and then you have to develop it. And that time constraint is just a no-go for modern photo-journalists. You take a great shot and you can publish or send it to your publisher 2-4 hours later at the earliest, by which time all the others will have send theirs in first. I love film and imo it is the best way to train yourself, but in modern day photo-journalism it's just not viable. P.S. I'm never going to sell my D700, I will use it until the shutter breaks.

[@DR-wf3eq]

Hi, great video! What b&w film stock do you think she is using?

[@FandCCD]

I was wondering the same thing! If I had to guess, it would be Tri-X.

[@MrTomhanna]

My question would be what film would you have used?

[@FandCCD]

@@MrTomhanna I’m guessing she would have used Tri-X 400. That seems to be the go to for old school photojournalists.

[@TheFilmKrewe]

@@MrTomhanna The real question is how & where is she getting her film from?

[@JakeCBlackwellKI5QXJ]

I loved your review of Civil War. I absolutely loved this movie. Thank you for talking about the photojournalism aspect of this movie. I feel like that part was over looked in some reviews I've seen. I liked how they focused on the horrors and trauma of war for the people who are there to show the world what is happening.

[@lukasalberter9886]

I see your point about shooting black and white and put more emphasis on the faces and emotions that way. However, when it comes to photo journalism I think this comes with a risk as it adds a filter. Not in the way that the violence gets more bearable as it kinda hides the blood and gore, but more in the way, that it makes it seem like a thing of the past and I don´t know if that´s the right thing. Especially when you want to show the cruelties of war in a journalistic sense I think it should feel urgent, relatable and real. Anyway, that´s just my two cents. I´m not a journalist and I´ve never been in a warzone. And about the movie. I really liked the idea, the concept, the visuals and especially the sounddesign, but the last third kinda broke the immersion a bit for me as the way warfare works in terms of tactics, fighting distances, use of equipment, etc. wasn´t properly researched and even I as civilian, caught myself thinking "I don´t think that´s how that works". The whole atmosphere was an A+ though!

[@robbellphoto]

Great point about the black and white. We should I guess be given all of the information to process and the lack of colour does somehow remove an element of reality

[@FandCCD]

Great review of the movie. I thought it was pretty cool that the character Jessie was shooting film. What I would have loved to see would be someone shooting a battle worn Z9 that was worn down to bare metal. That would have been kinda cool. I feel like their cameras were too pretty for the situation. That’s cool you were a soldier and photographer. Did I understand correctly you live in the US now? If so, welcome! As an American, I agree with what you said 💯 about what could happen here. There is just too much craziness here thanks to the everybody gets a trophy mentality. Cheers!

[@robbellphoto]

We’ll see this week what happens …. Get your cameras ready people ;-)

[@jamie-zd1tj]

hey great vid! i am wondering what is that attachment on the bottom of the 35mm nikon?

[@robbellphoto]

Hi. That’s a battery pack which holds AA batteries ;-) . I also enjoy the increase in size and handling as I have a larger hand size

[@pjc3163]

She had a 35 mm f/2 lens on her FE-2

[@robbellphoto]

No way those indoor shots at night would have been that clean without a flash…. Zero chance lol ….

[@pjc3163]

@@robbellphoto I don't think they used film at all, all the shots were digital.

[@robbellphoto]

@@pjc3163 oh yes for sure of course I mean conceptually there is no way of achieving those shots they showed with that camera in that light without a flash

[@ahboy79]

Tge comment on the Fe2 shooting at 1/4000 sec to freeze. Technically speaking, anything 1/250th sec freezes action anyway. Not sure of that matters?

[@robbellphoto]

Thanks so much !!! Always rocks to get great comments

[@LupusAries]

In short no....aviation and wildlife hobbyist photographer speaking. It all depends on the speeds and size of the subject. If I shoot a helicopter with 1/340 on my 200-500mm F5.6E I get nicely blurred rotor blades, of course VR is highly recommended at that point. A fighter at 1/640 might not be sharp. For larger birds (avians not aircraft or bird birds! ;) ) we often use 1/1000th of a second to get them sharp and not just because of the focal lengths, 1/1500 to 1/2000 for birds in smaller sizes and the really small ones sometimes need 1/4000. I've also heard from those that shoot hummingbirds, that if you want to freeze their wings in a picture you need around 1/8000. And that's why most wildlife photographers don't bat an eye at ISO 1600, 2000, 3200, 4000, 6400 etc. pp.