Film vs Digital: What Makes Photography 'REAL'?

[@dangilmore9724]

Film, especially large formats, is simply fun. The process becomes the whole point.

[@qnetx]

I’ve been shooting and developing film for over 50 years and I’ve been shooting digital for 20 years. I enjoy film for the process and I enjoy digital for the convenience. My analogy is that shooting film is like cooking a meal from scratch and digital is like heating a frozen dinner.

[@creative_cozmic]

I just tend to focus on the image rather than the medium (film or digital). Yes different cameras will offer a vastly different experience but spending my time concentrating on the photos I create is for me the most important and fun part. I do use modern manual lenses rather than just letting autofocus do all the work plus manual mode so I'm at least not letting digital technology completely take over the experience.

[@zippywalker6406]

Digital is just a different process and processing to make a print can be just as hands-on as film (creating color profiles, etc). Polaroid is more like a frozen dinner.

[@RogerBays]

​@@zippywalker6406Polaroid is a frozen dinner made me smile, thanks for that.

[@Goodwine59]

Excellent video…!!!

[@jonc8561]

Not a huge fan of this analogy. I believe as long as the editing process in digital doesn't bleed into "digital art" territory, I think we're fine.

[@barkloud]

This video really hit home for me. I started taking photos in high school, in the mid 80’s, then went to college for photography. Through the 90’s, I rented a B&W darkroom in an arts facility, and I was hardcore ‘darkroom photography is true photography’. My day job was printing at a commercial lab, and I could see digital creeping up, to the point I was taking Photoshop classes to keep up with my job, but stayed in the darkroom for my own work. Then I ran into a unique situation. I was diagnosed with MS in the mid 90’s, and by 2010, it became physically impossible to stand in the darkroom long enough to print anything worthwhile. So, I had to give up the darkroom and pick up the laptop. This felt like a betrayal, though the timing was perfect to allow me to still work on photography with my disability. I had a years long creative rut during this switch, just feeling like a complete traitor to my own ideals. I now love using my Nikon Z6, and processing in Lightroom and sometimes Ps. I even take advantage of my iPhone, especially since it shoots in RAW now. It took a long time. I do, however, still really miss the darkroom…

[@damo42315fg]

I started to use film again a few years ago. The act of taking with film feels special and tangible to me; there is a sense of excitement in the care, planning, deliberateness and anticipation (or rather not knowing) that I love. I always seem to cherish my film images more than the digitals. The digitals are somehow arbitrary and capricious in their ease.

[@luisarevalo6112]

I was 18 when I shot my first B&W photos. I use to buy Trix-400 in a bulk roll of 25ft. I learned to look at the image I wanted to capture before I pressed the shutter, and recall it when I processed and printed. Today I use a refurbished Nikon D7500 and I still look at the imagine before I press the shutter. I love the film process and for me the digital process is the same. Yesterday’s dev solutions are today digital editing software. I have never had a digital photo that has not be processed to get the imagine I had in mind when I pressed the shutter button, and yes at times I still manual focus!

[@smithsphotography1]

I do digital too but I also love the feeling of using my Mamiya 645. The connection to film and camera is like the feeling of driving my manual transmission classic car. The attention and concentration to operation feels as being a part of it.

[@terryroth2855]

Myself, I haven't thought about film photography in terms of authenticity but in terms of enjoyability. Great video here.

[@judeemclaughlin]

The authenticity of a photo depends on the person pushing the shutter not the device the shutter is attached to. And yes, sometimes I miss the more deliberateness of film.

[@Original_Old_Farmer]

You are making some good points. It's all about where you are (emotionally) and what you need. I've done color film photography with film all the way to enlarging. I'm glad I did that, then. Now at 74 I am into esthetics of the image, not the tactile side of film. But may I put something out for your consideration. Building a large format (using film plates) pin hole camera. The closest I have come to this is making a pinhole and then shooting the image with a camera. It wasn't solar photos, but it was taken on a very bright day. It was just an experiment. I got sharp images doing this, but it had extreme keystoning, which I knew would happen. Be safe.

[@davidbiddlecombe8602]

I think your spot on. I’ve been doing this photography thing for 40 years and back in the day processed my own colour slide and B&W film / prints, but always lab processed colour print, because it was too difficult. Now I only shoot digital and I do not miss film one bit, not at all. I’m more able to produce the images that I want digitally and be more certain that I got what I wanted at the time of shooting. I do understand the desire of doing the analogue process and all power to those who want to go through the process from start to end. I less understand those who shoot film, send it off to a lab and get back digital files to process in LR. Photography is a house that’s large enough for everyone and long May that be the case, but for me film is firmly in my rear view mirror.

[@sarahjansen118]

I like the disussion You opened up and the thing of slowing down when doing film is very much what i love and gets me into creative mode. Another thing that helps me is to be limited. When i go out for a topic or thing i want to discover, I take just 1-2 rolls of film and one fixed lens. These limits or constraints help me to see and be careful in what I'm doing. Metering the light, thinking of where I want to have my lights and shadows. Another thing is the time between seeing something and -after careful consideration- taking a shot and seeing the result. I never got into digital (except my phone) and the main thing keeping me off of digital is having instantly a result. This hinders me of being careful.

[@JBMotorrad]

"What's driving those who've only known digital to film?" The same thing that drives them to vinyl records, turntables, manual typewriters, physical books, etc. A large part is just novelty, I'd wager. I don't expect a resurgence in film use worldwide. ;) I actually was turned off by digital in the very early stages. I spent more time at the computer than I did in the field. The whole reason I enjoyed photography since I was 5 was the total immersion in the image capture moments, not "Post processing", that soulless activity. :) My daughter, 25, and her fiancé, 27, just purchased a "Polaroid" type camera. Novelty and fun, but will probably soon collect dust on the shelf. I think I would so enjoy a talk and walk with you around town with a film camera at the ready. I enjoy your perspectives and delivery very much. I've still got my Nikon FA ;)

[@RichardMaguire110]

Geoffrey Crawley used to write in AP that film gives a de facto original immage rather than a file of ones and zeros. I have used film for 50 years and never stopped, I like the phisicality and pace of film photography. I would love affordable reversal film to be available, this is my favourite, it has to be got right in camera with no possibilty for adjustment later, it refined my technique.

[@markburgess276]

Love all your videos. Thanks for being so erudite on all things photographic. I mostly shoot digital but really enjoy the process of film. Use a Mamiya C330 and have all the lenses they made and lens selection is just one aspect of the leisured approach to making a photo that I love. I don’t want to crop down like I can on digital so invest time in getting the frame spot on. And of course spot metering and making a considered decision about the exposure that gives the best compromise.

[@jeff8289]

Hi Alex. I think you hit the nail on the head about the resurgence of film. If there is a common comment I hear about the process, is that it causes you to slow down. In my mind, it enhances your vision as an artist, as opposed to something of lesser classification. Those of us of a certain age started with film. Some of us moved on to digital, some stayed with film, while others adopted both mediums. What attracts me to film is the deliberant mental steps needed to achieve a desired outcome. For me personally, my happiest times with a camera is when I haul out the 4x5. Not only is the image quality beyond anything else I have produced, but more importantly it provides me a link back to the very foundations of photography - that I too am performing the same steps our photographic forbearers undertook, although with much more reliable results. Glad Po decided to make a showing...

[@scrptwic]

I bought my first digital DSLR In 2005 and have shot film until this year I bought a Pen I am shooting film again I hadn't shot film since 2005 , when I got my DSLR camera. I feel digital is real and am so glad we have it to photograph with. Film to me is when I have the time and I am not rushed as it takes me longer and I am more careful with film as each picture costs real money. I remember going to Europe in the early 1980's and shooting 55 rolls of film compared to returning in 2022

[@karmagroovy]

Yes, shooting analog is a wonderful experience and there is a sort of magic about film that is different than shooting digital. I know I was "wowed" when I looked through a ground glass viewfinder or when I saw an image appear on the photo paper in the wet darkroom for the first time.

[@atl_mx5]

I started with photography 35 years ago on an old 110 film camera. When digital came, I made the switch without thinking. Recently I’ve come back to film after my parents found some old gear. Like you said, the slowing down and the methodical checks when taking pictures with film made me just fall back in love with it. I bought a Nikon F2, some lens and fell into some gear acquisition syndrome for a bit. I just got a Pentax 6x7 with mirror lock up. I love keeping my negatives, I love holding them up and looking at them. It’s just very tangible, 10 frames on a roll. I used to have an Mamiya RB67 but it was a bit cumbersome to walk around with. Thanks for sharing your story and thoughts about film. I’m really interested in seeing some of your new film work as you’re coming back from a hiatus and experience with digital. I feel like digital compliments film. Allows you to get a large number of trials and errors, just the sheer number of shutter counts to learn with. Then you move that experience to film and can breathe with it. You dance with your camera and make music.

[@DGLuxton]

I love the discussion at the start about authenticity. It turns out we have a similar path: I fell in love with photography while borrowing my brother’s AE-1. Now I’m using a Mamiya C330, while having a rebuild done on a Hasselblad (yes, these things are expensive!).

[@billbromer]

I agree, the enjoyment of taking a picture is why I go out and try to make photographs. I still take my Canon AE-1 out with me even though my R6mkII also puts a smile on my face. I remember buying and sending my film to Seattle Film Works and getting the slides and a CD or floppy disk with low res digital images. I wish I could find those old disks, but I still have most of the slides.

[@ray_wilton]

Discussing film vs digital, while you had an actual elephant in the room - superb! I do both, depending on what I'm using the images for. Black and white or colour, abstract or railways, sharing or personal, film for the former, digital for the latter.

[@jamesbarnes3063]

Again you said it right on the mark. You do what makes you happy.

[@caerphoto]

I don’t see film as any more “authentic” than digital, except in the sense that you end up with a physical object (the negative/slide). However, I do think there is enormous value in creating a finished physical manifestation of your pictures, ie a print. Prints are what makes photographs “real” for me: a physical object that can be handled, moved around, and will last for years, decades or even centuries. Images on screen are woefully ephemeral by comparison.

[@madtabula6638]

The negative is the witness. It was there when photons of light hit the film. The other is basically zeros and ones that move from one media device to another copied over and over restored. You get the point.

[@tedbyrom2748]

Thank you for this very good video. I began shooting film when I was 9 in 1948. I bought my first 35 mm SLR in 1965. The first thing I noticed about it was that it was too easy to take too many thoughtless shots. Later, I even acquired an 8x10 view camera, but eventually I got rid of everything analog (cameras, darkroom equipment, etc.) except for my Nikon F2 (the last fully mechanical pro line camera Nikon made) which I continued to use from time to time and even today. Digital cannot be beat for color work, but I missed black and white film. Several years ago I bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M for about 25% of today's cost.. I always wanted one back in the day, but the cost back then was prohibitive for me. It is one of the best things I have ever done. The 12 exposures per roll has changed my approach significantly for the better. When I develop a roll I can not only remember each shot, but also the intent in my mind when I took it. You have alluded a number of times lately to the Hasselblad which you seem to perhaps want, and my best advice is, gut it up and buy one. You will never regret it. (I now own two with four lenses and would not part with them for any digital camera on the market).

[@JerrisEverydayPeople]

I have an old Canon G10 that makes me think and I love the images I get from it. I also print at least one image for myself from every time I go out with this camera. It’s not the camera I use for jobs, but for the art that I want to create for myself to enjoy in my own home.

[@yippyskippy2066]

Having started in 35 mm film then moving into large format film I have a sweet spot of affection for analog. I do shoot primarily digital now but occasionally venture back into film which sparks the need to slow down and think more rather than just shoot and move on. In my humble opinion shooting film is a step back which lets me spring forward in so many different ways.

[@Fatherpayton]

I started shooting film at 17, I’m 23 now and exclusively shoot film. For me it’s all about the process. I can get a product I’m content with on digital but the journey with film makes me much happier. Also as for medium format recommendations I absolutely love my Yashica Mat Lm. Extremely simple to use yet very satisfying. It’s become my most used (and cheapest) medium format camera.

[@alissong.]

For me was a Paulie B. Video, the Trevor one, until that point I didn't know film existed, now I have the Chinon hè used on the vídeo and a contax G1, and i am poor too, but i love it 😅

[@charlesk323]

Excellent discussion. The beauty of the conversation is that there is joy and creativity in both methods. I love both and have the luxury to choose one or the other depending on the result I am trying to achieve or the process I want to engage with as I make images. The "look" can be quite different (of course) with the different film types and formats, and typically, a print is my end goal-for digital as well. But, I will say, as an example, that when I set up and execute an image with my 4x5, and it works out (color or B&W) it is an amazingly satisfying experience. Seeing the massive negative projected by the enlarger onto the easel and crafting a well-balanced print in the darkroom is sublime. I love my blad X2D, but it's not the same, almost too easy and I am not nearly as invested, artistically or emotionally. I encourage anybody to run a roll of film through a camera (any camera...hmmm, a Retina IIIc?) and see how it feels when the results come back from the lab or your home process (which is easier than you might imagine.) It's a cathartic exercise.

[@stevemphoto]

I took my C330 out yesterday! I think I have 6 rolls of 120 I need to have developed on my shelf lol. But I love pulling that camera out from time to time.

[@mgman6000]

I just took my c33 out 2 days ago and developed the film the next day all a tactile experience

[@VictorReynolds]

I shoot both digital and Instant. I love the digital for the convenience and Instant for its quirky artistry. Each medium has its place on my photography; work one not being better than the other.

[@seaeagles6025]

Hi Alex, I think it's good to shoot with Film and Digital to keep our enthusiasm when photographing, and not to be bored. A lot of young photographers that grew up in the Digital Age and want to experience what it's like to shoot with Film. Like Cassette Tapes they are making a comeback especially in America, and young people want to hear that Analogue sound. A lot of well known Artists have released a Cassette recording. Loved this subject Alex, thank you 😊.

[@markholliday6395]

I recently retired and bought myself a new digital camera. I am enjoying it and look forward to getting back into capturing and creating images. I also have my Nikon F3 that I've had for about 40 years and that had been pretty much just gathering dust for the last 15-20 of those. When I opened up my old camera bag I found that there were 3-4 rolls of Tri-X that I had never even opened plus another roll in my camera. I believe those "expired" around 15 years ago but I plan to go ahead and shoot them anyway. My guess is that the images will be very foggy so I'm shooting subjects with that in mind. I will probably not get anything very interesting, but it is nice to feel the weight of that camera in my hands again!

[@tpitman]

I think the same about art done on a computer and that handmade, like the example you showed at the beginning. Or like your previous post about the tactile feel of handling a film camera, vs the endless menus in the digital ones. I was a graphic designer for years, thrilled with the advent of Adobe software, but eventually missing hand drawn illustrations and mechanical art for prepress. Another example is in signmaking . . . with computer driven vinyl cutters creating "perfect" letters. I miss seeing hand-lettered signage done by someone who was really good. It wasn't "perfect" . . . but so close, yet it reflected that tactile connection between the painters hand, the brush, and the paint.

[@gregdarroch1946]

I learned using film and am happy to never go back to it. I don’t fancy smelling like Kodak Dektol again. I absolutely support your view on authenticity. Perhaps there is some magic lost with the developing tray, but I really like using software to produce my finished images these days.

[@ChristineWilsonPhotography]

I agree authenticity isn't dependent on medium , but I do like the aesthetic of a print as apposed to screen. I grew up in the film days and darkroom , the only thing that makes me want to go back to film and darkroom is pure nostalgia for the process. Digital is just to convenient now, and less expensive. Authenticity comes from your heart and your own creative mind.

[@TristanColgate]

The thing with price is: high end digital equipment is *expensive*, and while low end gear is enough (I've never gone beyond MFT), the culture of digital photography pushes people to ever newer gear. For film I have about 10 cameras, from half frame to a 4x5, and everything in between, including a Hasselblad 500cm. All of that has cost me less than a mid range sony and a bunch of good lenses. Yes, there's the ongoing cost of film, paper and chems. Maybe in another year It'll all start close, but rather than one system, I have 5, and everything for printing.

[@sprout995]

I, like you cut my teeth on film in the 80's and 90's. And back in 2004 I switched to digital. Fast forward to December of 2023 and a camera shop in Japan made me a deal on a Canon 1v. And I do not know why that excited me so much. But I ended up building a dark room and buying an enlarger. And it reignited the fire in me for photography. Don't get me wrong I still love my R5 and the simplicity that comes along with it. Yet picking up the Mamiya rb67 inspires me to shoot something. Thank you so much for your channel and your inspiration.

[@louiebodenstaff6772]

Another awesome video ...Just bring back simple cameras, like the D700, and bring back the fun ... Most people don't use all the fancy features on modern cameras anyway ... Love the "Soutie" bit, greetings from South Africa!

[@AlaskaBrian]

With digital photography and heavy photoshop, people started getting jaded, feeling like they were being lied to by photographers too often. Now with AI that has become infinitely worse, and will continue to get worse and worse. As Kyle Hill has been saying on his channel, AI is leading to the death of the internet and they may be a rise of desire to return to "meat space, i.e. actual connection outside of the digital space. I think film photography is one version of our art's version of that. I also agree that people love the process of film

[@RogerHyam]

Spot on with the content production anxiety Alex. I see it like cooking. There is a spectrum all the way from insisting on growing your own veg in the garden at one extreme to buying pre-chopped veg and a can of sauce at the other. A snap on my phone is great but it can have the satisfaction level of a packet of crisps compared to cooking for the family. People have been throwing their arms up in disgust ever since Kodak said "You press the button and we do the rest" in 1888. The story of photographic progress has always been one of deskilling. Personally I see photography as a cultural activity and as such I want to actually DO it - rather than pay someone else to do nearly all of it for me. That means I do a lot of analogue stuff with my own hands but also some digital too. I had an enlightening moment recently reading about Stieglitz's Camera Works in which all the images were hand pulled photogravure prints. This was a complex and difficult process, requiring dedicated pre press professionals, and so far removed from the lonesome photographer making images in a darkroom. Today those photogravure specialists work at Epson and Canon making inkjet printers. It inspired me to chill and use a more hybrid or pure digital workflow. BTW: We don't have a problem calling real ale real ale. There is even a campaign called CAMRA. Why not call analogue capture Real Photography? Digital is just keg conditioned alcopop! 😀

[@wjgraham63]

Heck yeah!! I started out using film/ film cameras 41 years ago.

[@TFUTM]

Old cameras are fun to shoot. Using a 2005-2010 camera is a lot more difficult than a modern machine. You have to frame the shot right because you can't just shoot wide and crop with 10 megapixels. You have to expose right because they blow highlights easily and there is only noise lurking in the shadows. You have to time it right because you don't get 20 frames per second. They are harder but it is fun and the pictures look great.

[@RogerBays]

I've always enjoyed taking pictures, but never enjoyed messing around in a darkroom, so digital photography, when it finally arrived, was a blessing. And after a 50-year wait it didn't seem in any way unauthentic to use it. Artists have historically been early adopters of technology, rather than luddites. I'm not so sure there is such a thing as an authentic or unauthentic photographic method. We could create stories about such, but would they be true? Surely the important thing is . . . if you push a shutter and end up with a photograph you are operating a camera.

[@stephan2774]

I just enjoy photography and everything what comes with it. The past, the present and the future. I do not judge or rate the hardware or the process. We are so lucky that we can use cameras, films and processes from the birth of photography in the 19th century up to know. And the end there is the picture (in most cases as I just learned😉). Great, what more could we want😊

[@SteamfanScott]

There is just something about film. An ambiance and warmth, as you say authenticity that can’t be replicated by digital media.

[@TimSeraphiel]

I started out with film (14 years) but haven't looked back since I moved to DSLRs 20 years ago. I found film to be painful and slow. Buying the film, getting it developed (was too lazy to do my own developing) and scanning it to computer. Rinse and repeat. Digital is so much easier and cost effective.

[@JaredTremper]

I think more and more the idea of “authenticity” is really about the imperfections that are truly human (so-called “wabi-sabi”). I can slow down digitally using manual focus vintage lenses. And yes, slowing down can create opportunities for thoughtfulness in the photography process. It isn’t about a “look”.

[@ianbowes1241]

A thoughtful video. Authenticity, in my view, is dependent upon the vision and motivation of the photographer, rather than the image recording medium. I acknowledge that analog photography requires a considered approach but I'd argue that it's quite possible to apply that to digital photography too. I still try to get everything correct in camera, my approach hasn't changed. There's a certain ritual involved with film which appeals to many photographers, I know, but having had no other option for 30 years before I got a DSLR, it holds no mystique for me. That said I'm all for choice, and if film's your thing, great, embrace it. To me, it's all about the final image, not the means by which it was achieved.

[@jresin_photo]

I started shooting on film so the process for me taking a photograph is pretty much still the same shooting digital BUT I miss one thing about film photography, the darkroom. As in introvert I found the darkroom at my old work a kind of fortress of solitude, when things were to stressfull or when I needed a break from people I went down to the darkroom, put on some good music, enjoyed a cup of coffee with myself as company and just developed photographs. Using a computer is fun and all but sometimes there's to many distractions for me to handle.

[@brianmiles-t1g]

I used to take photos with film, and could do this manually, but now I have worked with dslrs and mirrorles ,and can still work in manual mode. There are lots of people work in automatic mode, so if they want to use film cameras they would need to learn. 😊

[@jpsteiner2]

I had bought some old OM mount film camera lenses and adapted them to my digital camera. Out of curiosity. Recently I picked up a plastic Kodak film camera for $28 that could be reused. Basically uses hyper focal distance. Load film, compose, snap. It was just simple. I then came across a refurbished OM-10 35mm film camera for $100. I bought a few rolls of B&W and color film. Since every shot costs $, I slowed way down. Thought much more about composition, light and exposure. And, not getting instant gratification makes the anticipation much more real. I'm not about to sell my digital gear. At the same time, the act of manually advancing film is oddly fulfilling.

[@xpost92]

I think film teaches discipline, restraint and care. For those who have spent many years shooting film moving to digital doesn’t change much. This is different for the younger crowd that hasn’t learn such techniques, given keys to the candy shop first time they picked up the camera. It’s like learning to play music, sure you can load up some software and AI a track but don’t you want to learn music to command your instrument? Very similar concept

[@kevinscotton]

Personally I think it has a lot to do with the younger generation being built from the ground up with technology and digital cameras, and a lot of those people starting to reject the life that has been built for them by the generations prior. It’s photographing with intention, it’s not getting sucked in to the digital screen to review images. When your camera isn’t taking pictures, it’s a lot easier to step back into the moment and enjoy what’s in front of you.

[@bernardbonnici6887]

Interesting discussion, I would not do film for street photography but yes if i have time I would do film for landscapes.

[@JoshHollandsworth]

Perfectly mirrors where I am currently at. I grew up on film and learned to use a wet darkroom in school. Digital happened and I switched because cost wise it was cheaper. A big upfront investment but recurring cost were nil. Last week I finished my first roll of film in 15+ years and loved it. When I’m out with my mirrorless I can spray and pray through TONS of exposures while somewhat being checked out. Film I was in the moment. I made sure I composed the way I wanted. Most importantly I slowed down. I thought about what I wanted to convey and what I needed to do to make that happen. It took me. The photos are equally authentic and a good photo is good regardless of the methodology, but for me theres a level of connectedness I have with turning the focus ring, the snap of the shutter, and the crank of the advance. Slow and methodical and very much in the moment. I still have a lot to learn and Digital will definitely be less expensive on my journey but I have a feeling that analog is going to be a constant going forward. I am optimistic that process of shooting film will cross over to digital and help me remember to slow down.

[@philliphickox4023]

I love cibachrome prints.

[@yopuivideo]

"One can fire a 20 frame burst for the chapel job. This doesn't mean one should" Michelangelo

[@davefaulkner6302]

After reading the comments (166 of them) few people point out that film has an entirely different look to it than digital, in a way that digital can't seem to replicate. Also film has a dozen palettes -- Color negative looks different than color positive (e.g., Ektachrome); Portra 400 has a completely different look than Ektar. And then there are dozens of BW films each with their own character. How much fun it is to try each and see how the same scene is painted differently for each film stock. As someone pointed out, it's films imperfections that make it unique and fun and worthwhile. Digital is like programming; film is like painting. My recommendation for a Medium format camera are the Mamiya 645 series. The 645 format (roughly 6cm x 4.5 cm or 1.33 aspect ratio) is 3x 35mm resolution but the cameras and lenses are still small enough to be hand held and modular -- you can swap out lenses, viewfinders, film holders. Very versatile and like having a 35mm system but with better resolution and more modularity (e.g., you can swap out the film holder to go from color to BW). I have a C330 and they're great too, but bulkier and less modular and get use to looking at the ground while shooting. If you want to go hi-res then go 4x5. Nothing like 4x5 for those hi-res landscapes -- digital can't touch that kind of performance without $100k of digital equipment -- and it's really 19th century tech refined! All mechanical, wood and cloth; film sheets as big as a book.... It takes me at least 20 minutes to take one shot -- Slow and deliberate meditation on Light.

[@michaelcary9467]

Back in April this year I was looking to get back into shooting medium format film and got a RicohFlex DIA 6x6 TLR with a fixed 8.5 CM. Really like how small and compact it is compared to something like the Mamiya 330. RicohFlex DIA is a camera that really slows you down as the film advance and shutter are completely separate so you have to remember to advance the film after each shot or you'll ended up with multiple shots on the same roll of film. Of course if you like shooting multiple exposure that is really easy.

[@sbai4319]

To me, it’s about the act of creating images. The process of the darkroom is magical, but so is digital.

[@jamessprenger7340]

So why, in my late sixties did I get back into film photography after a hiatus of several decades? In two words; it's fun. That's it. That's my reason. I'm seventy two now, still making images. It's my hobby, not my profession and I really have no interest in arguments or debate regarding digital vs film. When I see a good photograph it makes no difference to me how it was made. It can be smellier than digital, though, so film photographers remember to wash your hands!

[@stephenjones6902]

Both is best

[@2trilltochill]

I don’t know for sure but I imagine there’s many digital shooters who have a nice camera and know very little about the exposure triangle. They just shoot automatic and let the camera do the work. Where as working in the limitations of a fixed iso and limited shutter speeds and apertures forces you to be creative with lighting and technique. Which may make one more “authentic” as a photographer. That’s maybe why I shoot film. Also I just don’t like the way digital looks unless spending hours in light room which id rather not.

[@myoung48281]

Digital has no soul, to use the hackneyed phrase. Lots of people convince themselves that a technology that is designed to eliminate any visual traces of itself is a good thing, but it's more like taking the brush strokes out of a famous painting.

[@andymcgarty3099]

I think its all about the Emperor's new clothes! Same as the vinyl revival. I spent years getting rid of grain and blur, or whistles and pops, but now we think its cool to be lower quality. I still have my ETRS and OM-2, but no plans to put film through them.

[@FIKAndzo]

I think some of the appeal might be due to the limitations of the film. You have a finite number of shots so you have to nurture the sense of WHEN is the right time to take a picture - compared to digital, where you can shoot as many times as you like, and decide which shot is the best one later. This was atleast the most thrilling part for me! (me being an amateur photographer interested in film)

[@photography_jsk]

I like using old cameras. I also like the limitations of plastic toy cameras. And you can really only get those experiences with film. It's also something I'm so used to, given that film was the only way to go for the first 25 years or so of my hobby, that using it feels second nature to me. Then again, I use my phone all the time for pictures and have DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Some of my favorite photos are ones I took digitally. So, to me the image will always rule over the medium. But I sure feel a whole lot more deliberate with film than I do with digital.

[@gohumberto]

This goes on a bit .....I'm 62 and did the whole Ilford film, Patterson chemicals, darkroom thing, back in the day (Circa 1977 - 1988) In 2001, when I bought a 2Mp Fuji Digi-camera I loved the convenience of a digital "snap camera" but I honestly never thought Digital would compete at the high-end with film. It seemed technically impossible. (Damn that Moore's Law). Last week (July 2024) I bought a 5D "Classic" (a 2005 camera). So I can also honestly say that it took just 4 years for digital cameras to compete with film at the high end. Also last week I bought a Canon EOS 500 35mm film camera. I have no intention of developing the film myself. It's more of an experiment, to see how much the "film thing" is real or whether it's just nostalgia. In fact nothing sounds better than a high bit-rate track played though a great amp and great speakers (But it's no fun staring at the box of an SD Card). Personally I think film is ALL about the process, the sense of involvement. It's like Vinyl records. Every blind-test proves Vinyl is no better than digital music. It's about the Amp, the pre-amp, the speakers. It's about holding the record. It's about reading the 12" sleeve notes while you listen. It's about having a real album, on a real shelf. It's about seeing the grooves and understanding how it all works. I fully understand why younger photographers are using film. It's a magical process. You never forget the magic of seeing your image start to appear in the developer. I envy them seeing it for the first time. I envy them that feeling of holding that final print and thinking "I made that. I did all of that". I think my nostalgic 35mm trip, without processing the images myself will prove that the process is everything. I fully expect the actual results, even using Canon L lenses, on a thoroughly "modern" film camera, won't match up to a 19 year old DSLR (never mind my 50Mp 5D-SR). By removing the actual process I think I am about to prove that it's ALL about the process and, if you don't develop the film/prints yourself, you may as well go digital. EDIT. OK, having a limitation of 36 exposures adds a certain dynamic to your photography. It focusses the mind (especially at current film and development prices). So can I suggest something I do every so often? (1) Turn off your image review on your DSLR (no chimping). (2) Go out for the day and take 24 images. No more than 24 and no deleting any. 24 contiguous images. (3) Come back home and print the jpgs to 6x4 postcard prints. No editing. I can promise you that you will enjoy looking at those prints far more than you ever enjoy chimping at your camera's LCD. I can promise you that you will be more focussed on composition than usual. You'll be out there searching for those decisive moments, rather than machine-gunning every possible opportunity.

[@Meauxgreen]

I went back to film, partially, because it requires much more planning to get the shot right in camera. I also end up with hundreds, if not thousands, of RAW files on digital, that clog my hard drive. Going back to basics has its advantages. I liken it to baking vs buying fancy pastries. Both are delicious.

[@nikoladimitrijevic8172]

Probably it's a matter of semantics... perhaps people misuse the term in an attempt to describe something else... variety of results as a result of a more complicated and somewise uncontrolled process (different labs, scanners, expired film, bad exposure...). It gives the impression that the film has mind of its own, and people associate that with authenticity. I love your channel and perspective on the subject! PS English is not my first language so it is possible that my explanation is a bunch of nonsense :)

[@JKL246]

I can understand the appeal. Enjoy! I never want to touch film again haha. I do, however, regret apparently donating my grandfather’s old film camera at some point I have forgotten about in the past. Not quite sure what I would have been thinking…

[@munarong]

I'm just a hobbyist with no budget so, even though I like film more, still have to go with digital. The thing that turning off on me is the edge sharpening and overly smooth texture and the last is blocky structure of digital photos. I know that the raw digital image is basically as good as film, so I largely blame image compressors such as jpg and the unnecessary image processing that come with cameras and compressors. Now when I take pictures or videos, I do anyway I can to get rid of that digital look I mentioned before, because to me, film photos (also movies shot on film) still look natural and more organic feel out of camera, digital have to do so many post processing before they're as natural as film in my opinion. Thanks for the thoughtful video. 👍

[@michaelhall2709]

One of my favorite KZbin photographers is a fellow San Diegan who prowls Death Valley and the canyons of Zion National Park with a large format camera that looks like it could have been manufactured in 1920, composing his images on an inverted ground glass and exposing his sheets of Provia film based on calculations he makes with an external light meter. Oftentimes his reward for all that hiking in the cold or blazing heat is photography that, on reflection, he’s less than satisfied with. I admire his dedication and commitment to his craft enormously, but would I swap gear with him? Definitely not, and it’s unlikely that I would even pursue photography as a hobby if I were obliged to. That said, I’m somewhat discomfited by the ease of image capture and processing in the digital realm. Modern equivalents to the kind of dodging and burning that Ansel Adams did in the darkroom a century ago are one thing, but for me even minor object removal is iffy, sky replacement totally beyond the pale; and saying “It’s your image, do whatever you want with it” just too facile. We all want more options as artists, but when anything is possible, what truly matters?

[@WilsonPhotography1]

I love my Mamiya RB67 and my Canon EOS3. And all my current gear for my DSLRs works on the EOS3 (lenses, triggers, etc).

[@sheldonswears1481]

My reasons for shooting film. I get more joy from shooting with analog cameras. They have had a life before me and have captured 50 years of memories before I have owned them. The picture taking process is slower. Compose, measure the light. Take the picture. Whereas shooting digital you blast the same scene and take 30 almost identical photos. It’s nice to slow down……..

[@dusanmal]

Very similar film to digital history and indeed, I second the slow down/calm down in the film process. However, I experienced one more "authenticity" issue during film-to-digital period. Not directly related to digital but indirectly. However, the transition let me experience it and had major impact on understanding my photography since. I am scientist so early on I got camera that would appeal to a scientist Sigma SD9 with Foveon sensor (great technology that avoids Bayer pattern sensors but, in hands of Sigma without industrial ability to make it what it should have been in time). Well, my involvement and satisfaction with photography went steadily down, no joy. For a while I chucked it at life changes and so... However, at a photography fair I got free samples of Ilford IR film and got my old Fujica ST601 and IR filter... To deal with metering I chose to use zoom lens on my SD9 to match frame intended for IR to be quick and accurate. On the very first test something that I knew deep down as a Physicist but it did not float up to my conscious level before hit me like a ton of bricks... These are NOT the same images! Crop sensor at "85mm equivalent" is NOT 85mm on full frame. It took "in my face" example to detect that loss of joy. What was disappointing me with SD9 was framing of 85mm with feeling of 50mm lens... Now I knew and things got better.

[@jimofmarseille]

I think that the main difference between film and digital can be summerized by this analogy. When I go swimming in the sea for some km as I do all year long for years, I take the sea as it is. If there are big waves, I swimm differently than when the sea is as flat as a lake. But if i go swimming in a swimming pool I choose whatever I want. Different sensations, necessity to adapt to what the sea, Nature, offers to me. In a swimming pool the contact with nature is gone, the only contact with naure is the water (that taste awful in a swimming pool compared to the salted sea). No fish to watch in the swimming pool, just tiles. When you shoot film, the film + developper make you a proposal, with all its limitations, and you have to deal with that and be creatrive with this proposal in printing, developper choice, etc. It's like playing blues, only 3 chords, and you have to be creative and put your soul in those 3 chords. At the end of the day you put more soul in 3 chords than in a infinite possibility of chords. Same thing with film. With digital, it is like if you were swimming in a swimming pool and having the possibility to add any fish you want, any sea plants and algues you want. Great, but is a certain way faked. And AI is even worth, I installed some opensource AI image creation on my computer, first of all you need huge processing capabilites for a 1024x1024 image, then no more contact with reality. Just admiring your bloated ego. Film is about light and chimistery to "tweak" light from begining to the end. It is on the whole process dealing with the surrounding reality . With digital, you have light, then a file you can do almost everything you want with, then eventually an object at the end, a print, but for the vast majority of photographers, there isn't even this print at the end. Just a file on a hard drive, or maybe an image lost amongst billions of other images on a social network. Your landscape on street photo right beside an infuencer bullsh**. A prin goes on your wall, or in an art gallery, it is a choosen space where the print doesn"t sit right beside an ad for dampers or tooth paste. A negative or slide doesn't need energy to last in time, a file does. A image on Instagram does. In that way film photography is more human. With no energy you can keep the neg AND the print. With digital you can only keep the print with no energy. Youu can do developper with instant coffee and vit-C. Not with digital. You'll always need a computer and electricity. That said, I do shoot digital, and seldomely on film. On thing is certain : I have more fun and pleasure shooting with my HAsselblad V or my OM bodies than woth my to notxh Fuji digital cameras, or my old Phase One MF. I did images in diigtal that were not possible on a 100% analog process. I had wonderful surprises on film I wouldn't have expected ! As usual the way is the middle way, not 100% analog, or not 100% digital. But... I think that the thing we have tro think about is why film is coming back, specially within younger generations. Why this need of "anthenticity" ? Maybe the film is not the solution for the lack of authenticity, but the lack of authenticity is a real subject. In film the "magic" of physics and chimistery is here, something we don't control fully and we have todeal with with our intelligence and sensivity, something you can change the result with simple paramters like temperature, agitation... accepting flaws, playing with flaws as a way to enlarge our creativity, in digital, I think it disappeared. When I was a kid I could feel like an astronaut and made a spaceship with a deck chair by just turning it upside down. Imagination goes further when there are limitation. My deck chair was quite a limitation to go into space ! But I as feeling like Neil Armstrong ! And human being are subjectives by essence. Remove this possibility of subjectivity and we become things, machines. I think the film is like my deck chair, it is a proposal I have to imagine with. Maybe the mimitation of the analog process is a better offer for imagination because it is not perfect ? Today I make my images look like high speed films, grainy, "dirty", not perfect at all, but more room for imagination in my prints, I hope. It is not a question of real photograhy vs fake photography, it is a question of connexion with reality, matter, time, subjectivity. With film you are dependent of what the film does with your intention, at I think it leads us back to the real world and its wonders we can't really fully grasp. Only our imagination can give us answers. Maybe wrong answers, but who cares ? More ego in digital, more humility in film. Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe we reached a saturation pike with the digital ecosystem (cameras, networks...) and we need to go back with more minimalism, like when are more advanced in age, we go back to more essential stuffs and are finally more happy. But I have to sincerely thanks digital : 12 years ago, I bought a 503cx with lens and back for $400 ;). Sorry if I was a bit long, but subjectivity is all about shades of grey, not 1 or 0 ;). This is just my humble opinion.

[@jamesoliver6625]

As a bespoke furniture maker, it's the difference between an Ikea desk in a box, and a desk from a unique design and execution. Same/same. Although I shoot digital, my five year old D850 still has less than 3000 clicks because I shoot like I did in the early 70s. Yes, authenticity in within the eye, but the world of digital image making rarely rewards that. As a student payiing my own way through school, I did not take any casual images. It cost money to toss a trash image.

[@szymonkomarnicki5649]

Dear Alex, if you are still on the hunt for a "hassie" alternative then in 6x6 format Rolliecords III, IV, V are great and quite inexpensive. With their biggest advantage of low weight - less than 900g (so nice to carry around, and so small!). Yashicas 12, 124 etc also great, slightly more heavy (1,1kg) but their lens is beautiful for portraits. Rolleicords tend to come with quite dark ground glass, but have parallax correction. (Xenar and Yashinon are both tessar design). I got Rolleicord III and Yashica 12, I love both BUT if you love "hassie" get a "hassie" because you will NOT be happy with a camera you don't enjoy using (and probably buy "hassie" anyway ;) ). All the best!

[@superkrell]

Not to disagree, I`ve been a film photographer using a Leica M3 and lastly a Nikon F2. As of now the price of film and development + shipping and the time to get your photos back brought me in another direction. Here the Leica MD262, (no LCD screen) with a vintage 50mm Summicron Rigid has the same working pace as the F2 with the benefits of digital...!

[@chrisloomis1489]

I love the 120 and LF Film , I have a LOT of rare frozen FUJI 50 ACROSS .... and my beloved 120 mm also , I find the 35mm is adequate , but larger is better. EBONY / ROLLEI / NIKON F3 / and my Leica MA and M3 .... I love it ! ♥ I have fallen out of love with the SONY system and am building into there SL -3 Leica system now.

[@kevinarmstrong3415]

I imagine my grandson looking for an image of him with me to show his grandson. As I can of my father with his father from the 1930s. Which way is more efficient and reliable? 1. Go to the cupboard and pull out the negatives stored by date or 2. Find computer, switch it on, find hard drive with image or connect to a server and search for the file? Assuming the technology hasn’t degraded, or the subscription lapsed. That’s why I shoot film alongside digital.

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

I grew up shooting film. I never had a darkroom. So my experience of film was shoot, send the film to the developer, get it back. In digital, I have a darkroom. I shoot raw, I develop in Darktable, I publish in either print or for screen viewing. I have learned so much as a result. I know that when people wax lyrical about the colours of their camera they are speaking out of ignorance. I can implement my (limited) artistic intent. For me, digital all the way. Better image quality, cheaper, more flexible, and more control. I think the resurgence of film is a passing thing. One area I still think film has something to offer is in medium format and large format- a real 6x6 size sensor is beyond the reach of most, so film it is

[@gregpantelides1355]

I think in terms of being able to make a print with relative ease… film makes the most sense for black and white and digital makes the most sense for color.

[@tonyperez5360]

Photographer 50 years since highschool 1973 film is my roots digital been in my work since it appeared as pro Had many cameras now have to many I enjoy them for what they are ! Good video ! Now 3 Rollei's 3 4x5's 3 Nikon's F2 1959 Leica 1 1932 no Hasselblad had that for years as a pro now love my RB 67 & my 645 pro TL MY digital Canon Mark III & 7D mark ii I enjoy being teather shooting fashion too many cameras shot many weddings on C330 oh forgot to mention my 4x5 press camera and last night usec my Canon ;5 D Classic oh yes also a Canon P !! Did I mention my Minolta 101 some day I will get down to jut a few cameras they will amazing tools

[@peterlieberzeit3138]

Saw this after two weeks of abstinence from youtube (the upside of summer leave ;-) ) . As usual, very good food of thought. However, this time it tickled me a bit to contradict at points. The discussion would be endless and definitely goes beyond the possibilities of commenting a video on YT. However, just a few "flash thoughts": the discussion reminds me of "vinyl vs digital (ok: originally CD, but those times are over)". Also, personally I do not get the point, why the recording device (sensor vs emulsion) should influence my style of photography, if - and that is a big "if" - I have an image in mind that I want to create. And not just "spray and pray". And third: I also started with film, but only developed b/w myself. And really started learning/understanding photography with digital and digital developing. Because it gives me all the opportunities to play my heart out. Do not get me wrong: I am not against film at all. If someone wants to use it, it is definitely a good choice. However, since I went digital in 2005, I shot 3-5 (do not remember the exact number) in slides, because I was afraid to take the "expensive" digital camera to a country whose safety I did not fully trust. So for me personally, it is the better option. Finally: I am not sure if "authenticity" is not a misunderstanding of the concept of what an original is. In terms of film, it is tangible. In digital, its obviously not.

[@SloopJohnBeeRockabilly]

I grew up with film. I shoot digital the majority of the time now, but I like to shoot film on various vintage cameras, mostly rangefinders; mainly for street photography. I love it all. I find more baffling that the ‘experts’ consider mobile phone cameras as an equal to a proper camera of any kind. I do shoot with a phone but mainly to record a possible location for a proper shoot. Film photography is more real I guess as one creates a tangible, physical image - the negative. 👍📸

[@dougtunison]

Authenticity means that the outcome is the genuine expression of an individual's unique perspective, experiences, and emotions. It's not connected to the process or the output.

[@nzlemming]

Poe is most definitely authentic.

[@LloydSpencer]

The expense of film is enough to kill any creative impulse in me. I simply cannot afford it. So I have sought other ways to slow down and get more absorbed in the process. One way was to use the very decent EVF on my digital camera. I do sometimes go into the woods with a monopod (although that quickly becomes TOO slow for everything I want to photograph. Since switching to digital two decades ago I have bought at least half a dozen film cameras... but never put a roll of film through any of them. But I have spent a LOT on printing out my photos, making photobooks and so on.

[@urbanimage]

Having started working in photography in the mid 1970s I've lived through the transition from silver halide* photography to digital. Digital is hands down better, but film, especially if you can get into and a darkroom and print your negatives, is more involving and there is a certain feeling of crafting an image that digital doesn't have. I wouldn't say a film image is more authentic than a digital one. AI generated imagery is certainly an interesting development, and it will be fascinating to see how this evolves. * Calling film / film cameras analogue is a personal pet hate - it's not analogue in the technical sense, though admittedly analogue is acquiring a new and novel meaning of "not digital". On the other hand, I do rather like that in the cycling community some refer to non-electric bikes as being acoustic 8-)

[@kevin_stenhouse]

I have a similar background to you, old school film shooter who shot digitally professional for 15 years. A couple of reasons I shoot film. 1. Separating process from result. It really allows me to be present while shooting. Also there's often a bit of a suprise when I finally see the results. Can be good or bad. 2. It has to do with this quote from Brian Eno (below). I love grain and I love the way film "fails" as opposed to the way digital does it's best not to fail. Sounds dumb I know but what I use to try to avoid with film I now embrace. It's more than nostaligia its about pushing a medium to it's limits. I think digital can be inauthentic when it's trying too hard to be filim. At that point it really is replicating something and is no longer be true to it's own specific characteristics. Push a medium to point of breaking it. It's the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. ˜Brian Eno

[@ChrisAlvarezAlvarezImaging]

I began shooting in 1977 with a Nikon FM, I shoot a D850 today, here is the bottom line- It's not the film nor the camera that makes the image, it's the lens and the artists edit. That was true in 1977 and its still true today. Film is the simply the "medium" digital sensors surpassed film years ago, it's always been the quality of the lens that "sees" the subject, and the artists "vision" that creates the final image, all the rest are gimmicks and conveniences. Some folks feel that film is like vinyl records, that somehow using film give a vibe, or effect, nope, film comes in color or b&w, then you have to get it processed, or stain your fingers processing it yourself, but 9 times out of 10 those film images will still be scanned and edited through some adobe product on your laptop. Save yourself the trouble. The key to excellent image making isn't the medium, its learning how to see, and the only way to do that is to take a lot of images until you can transfer the image you see in your head, to the screen or to a print, there is no shortcut, and a boring image shot on film is still a boring image.

[@BroScro]

interesting! thank u

[@Andy-rk9mu]

True photography is about slowing down, taking still, freezing the word. Not 20FPS and picking the best - maybe good for sports - is an antithesis of true photography. By the way, CCD sensors are also on the rise. That I can understand.

[@PhotoArtBrussels]

PS: depending on your lens collection; a nice Nikon F100 or Canon EOS 1N are so enjoyable to use. It is very authentic, the lenses are not so expensive, but hallelujah for auto-focus! Pick on up if you're sitting on lenses. ;-)

[@jamesdeng3561]

it is the uncertainties of analogue interesting me, I don't know how to develop the film, I don't have dark room to make prints, nor a scanner to scan. I know there are lots of tricks in those processes can change my shoots completely, just the waiting is kind of obsseing, is it so how sick😂!

[@philipu150]

I would agree that authentic is the wrong word (I haven’t seen the film you mentioned yet). I will say what I have said elsewhere many times, which has to do with the broader cultural shifts presently underway throughout western society, a subject beyond the scope of this channel. In brief sketch: I was a pro photographer for more than 30 years, up through about 2003. I returned to photography to work in nothing but B&W film, processing and printing in the darkroom, period. I know all about the retouching possible-for good and other purposes-in this medium, all of which traces back to the 19th Century, after all. I know all about the tonal manipulations we make in the darkroom to craft an expressive print from a single negative. I also grant that there are many conscientious photographers working in digital-including photojournalists, who have an professional as well as personal ethical standard to uphold. I love the film process, but I also have come to simply not generally trust digital to present an image with the same starting reality as what the film photographer does. I know very well how easy it is in image editing software to improve the composition just a bit, and then just a bit more, and then…. It can be so very seductive. I have long been disinterested in the super-saturated, over-sharpened, and similar digital specialties. And my own work is unapologetically “conservative" in that respect. But when I recognize an image as digital (and probably I don’t always), it immediately raises a question in my mind: Was what I see really there? Were elements removed? re-arranged? blurred? distorted? People are increasingly looking for something and someone to trust, something enduring, something worthwhile. Some find it in eschewing the digital realm-in many domains-for something physical.

[@AlkemyFrost-ju4hx]

Aw kitty! and as someone who is hyper sensitive to things like chemical fumes i'd be pretty sad if digital was completely discounted ^^; but also i do sometimes miss my childhood Polaroid so i kinda get it

[@scottplumer3668]

I shoot mostly film. I'm drawn to it by the expense and inconvenience. I jest, but I like film because I enjoy the craft of photography as much as the art.

[@jonjanson8021]

Digital photography is orders of magnitude easier to do than analog photography. It was one of the major selling points of digital in the first place. All good. Todays young hobbyist photographers need a hobby that's a challenging. A challenge is good . Climbing a mountain vs. getting the cable car. People climb mountains because it's more difficult.

[@lesberkley3821]

I mostly use digital, but it's not really easier than dropping a roll of film in a self-loading camera, taking pictures, and dropping the roll at a 1-Hour lab.😆

[@jonjanson8021]

@@lesberkley3821 We're talking about developing and processing the analog images yourself which is the nearest parallel with shooting and editing digital. Analog is way way more difficult to master than digital. It's one of the principle reasons why digital was introduced in the first place. It's the reason why most photographers converted to digital in the first place. Problem is it de-skilled photography, so now just about anyone can produce a technically competent digital image.