The film photography revival - So wrong on so many levels

[@homerhorowitz7649]

Pretty sure I just figured out my very own version of hell: it would be a guy in front of a green screened, fake living room, trying to convince me that analog is dead and art is a pass/fail subject.

[@homerhorowitz7649]

@Phillip Banes haha that’s like saying oil painting is dead because it’s less accurate then graphic design. Great art is made within limitations.

[@anthonyandrew6725]

@Phillip Banes Does it ever occur to you that art might not be a technological race?

[@anthonyandrew6725]

@Phillip Banes I wasn’t replying to anything implied or suggested, it’s a straight up question.

[@andrina118]

@Phillip Banes Some good points there!

[@forrestunderwood3174]

@@phillipbanes5484 Maybe the grading scale for others isn't based on whether something is high-tech or not.

[@joshhenderson9492]

Nothing will ever beat looking at reversal film on a light table

[@trevorsowers2202]

True Story!!! As long as I can buy slide film I will continue to shoot it.

[@autodidact537]

Or the beauty of a colour slide projected on a big screen.

[@CathodeRayTube99]

True dat!

[@trabouliste1037]

It is possible to expose reversal film with a digitally shot image and I like these slides a lot!

[@CathodeRayTube99]

@@trabouliste1037 Yes. A machine called a Film Recorder does this at the resolution and colour gamut of the film. Photographing a computer monitor or a TV with a film camera will NEVER give as good results. I've got an Agfa PCR4 film recorder which has a native resolution of 4096 by 2730. I'm looking for an Agfa Alto (or PCR16) which goes even higher. Know anybody with one for sale?

[@bongani_a4789]

Film photography helped me with dopamine detox and in turn is changing my life. The delayed results made me more intentional with photography (something that is spreading to other parts of my life). I shoot digital for convenience, but for creative reasons, I choose film exclusively and nothing (and no one) will ever change that (except Kodak with the price hikes hahaha). So, try both, find what works for you !!!

[@teagueshoup]

Am 1000000% with you.

[@teresashinkansen9402]

The irony is that digital actually does not give you reward in the way you think, actually analog might give you a higher boost of dopamine, because you condition your brain to anticipate, you take the photo and have to wait, you put effort then you get the reward developing the image. So while it might be helpful to lengthen the time you need to receive a reward it gives you a great dopamine surge, which might be great for people with depression, and the reason many people seem to be so passionate of analog, tough they are so passionate that they come up with silly arguments to justify their flawed medium as better.

[@julianmarinoramos2302]

I don't think analog is a good dopamine detox. You keep purchasing stuff (film) and that gives you dopamine shots. Analog photography is more attached to consumerism, because it keeps you purchasing and having material results of your stuff, that is an intoxication of dopamine.

[@greggreaves1727]

All excellent points. However, none of them take away from the joy of shooting (and processing) film. Why drive a stick shift? Why paint? Why cast clay onto a wheel when I can get a perfectly fine bowl at the dollar store? I don't take pictures to sell or pay my bills. For me, getting up in the morning, and catching the first light - walking half the day to shoot 15 exposures on my 645 - coming home in the afternoon - developing the roll before dinner and hanging it - then scanning (yes, with my digital camera) at the end of the day and maybe posting a few shots to instagram is, for me... a day well spent.

[@JorgeRodriguez-jt5mr]

The dream

[@straydog6166]

And end up with a digital picture in the end ...doh

[@lukehenderson5097]

​@phillipbanes5484 wet printing is an entirely separate still from judging composition and changing light conditions, there are some people who would happily live in a darkroom putting their interpretation on someone else's negatives just as there are people who will go through 3000 shots taken by a digital photographer and picking a dozen to edit in photoshop. Yes some people do everything, but it's not a requirement of the form. I'm someone who likes to do everything up to creating the negative and fixing the image, then farming out any touch up work, (wet or digital,) because it doesn't interest me as much as planning and going back out on my next day out.

[@markmwj]

I feel ashamed about my voightlanders sitting on the shelf collection dust. Also about going "shutter-less" and "mirrorless with my Nikon Z8. I have even made still images from some of my video! And while I'm letting it all hang out. I don't miss the time when I spent my weekends under the hood working on my European stick shift cars. I have gone to the "dark side" with my Lexus ES 350. I don't intend to go EV any time soon. I have limits which I will not go beyond...

[@maxhoughtonmusic]

@@straydog6166 a digital scan of a film image is not a "digital picture". That's like saying a digital scan of an oil painting reduces that piece of art to a digital picture. The form of the art still shines through in a way that couldn't if it were digitised to begin with.

[@apitsios]

photography is an art and you cannot approach art issues in terms of practicality, let alone not being a photographer yourself.

[@BingoBabyO]

@@truesoundchris reproduce reality as technically feasible…. Which reality are you trying to reproduce? Yours? The bees? Another humans? Every medium is an interpretation of reality .. if you are measuring for scientific need then yes you can argue that there is a goal for the measuring to find synchrony or agreement among multiple participant towards a goal… but if you are taking a photo for yourself - then it can be art… seems to me like you have no understanding of what art is.. or what other people think or feel…. its ok. You can be alone. No one will be bothered I’m sure.

[@michalisf1955]

@@truesoundchrisSo much nonsense in such few line!

[@warrenmurchie6599]

Wow, after reading the dribble you have just written the word moron comes to mind. Photography is most certainly an art. You are mistaking the woeful holiday snapshots you took as an annoying child for true photography. Pull your head in, they're looking for wood.@@truesoundchris

[@sdrtcacgnrjrc]

​​@@truesoundchrismaybe you're just trolling, maybe not. I'll number your statements: 1) as such, no 2) possibly it's intention, but not the case (look at your average Instagram post ;-) 3) no, it very clearly hasn't. 4) & 5) huh?? Ironically, you can't get much more subjective than your comments (including 2 & 3 above)

[@norcatch]

I'm a photographer of close to 20 years, and yes, you can.

[@simseeye6725]

I'm sorry but YOU are so wrong on so many levels... 1) I've never, ever, heard anyone refer to analog photography as "chemical photography". Not that it matters, really, but it sets the tonality for the rest of the video. 2) Not everyone who's into film photography is a bearded hipster. That's such a cliché that it's not even funny anymore. 3) You don't like film grain. It's fine. To each his own. Personally, I don't like photoshopped images, fake skin, fake sunrays, fake sunsets, unrealistic colors, and cold, surgical digital images. And grain does not necessarily affect image quality or sharpness. I have sharp images that were taken on HP5 pushed to 3200. Sharpness is mostly related to the quality of your lens and an adequate shutter speed setting. 4) The look of B&W film is also highly affected by push process, choice of developper, temperature of the developper etc.. And yes, with digital, you can choose the look you want, but most people either don't (and rely on presets) or go for the "wow" factor (see the trends of over processing, over saturation, over HDR, etc...). And you also have a wide variety of film looks available (and you had even more before people decided that film was dead) : from simple Portra to vivid Velvia to Aerochrome... 5) The one thing where digital has a clear advantage is speed. On that, I agree. 6) Not being able to see the picture right away is actually cool : you're in the moment, you're not chimping and losing the perfect moment, and you keep the great sense of expectation. And when you develop a roll you started months ago, you rediscover pictures you had forgotten you even had taken, and it's a lot of fun. 7) There are tons of viewfinders, clear and bright in analog. There are waist level VF. There are rangefinders (so no blackout). I imagine you know all this, but you don't mention it. And selfies ? Sorry but they're way overrated. 8) Yes, 36 shots. Or less. It's enough. From years of using both film and digital, I can assure you that I don't get more keepers in digital than I do in analog, because I put more thoughts behind every film frame, because I don't think "I'll fix it in post", because I'm more in the moment (as mentioned above). And I don't get 10 identical frames taken on high fps... Sure, I won't get that split second moment between 2 frames that I would have had with a high fps digital camera, but I'm sorry, 20 fps (common on the latest digital cameras), that's not photography anymore, it's videography. 9) Winding on and rewinding is FUN ! 10) You don't fight against with your digital cameras ? Only one speck of dust ? Seriously ? Sure, if you never change lenses or use a mirrorless... 11) One other point I'll give you : people do tend to scan their negatives rather than printing them. Why ? Because of our fast paced world, where everything is convenient and where people don't want to put in time and effort. That has influenced even analog shooters. And it's a shame, because a darkroom print really is a fun process that lends beautiful results.

[@dzava]

most important of all that man has forgotten is the fact that its not just "shooting film" and developing it etc. Its something relaxing where people want to slowdown and chill out. Sure you get perfect pictures out of the latest Nikon, Sony, Canon digitals and much sharper, without grain and other things. But was not the point of it. And speaking of which - I myself went to film because I just dont like this sterile looking digital pictures. Everything is perfect, smooth. I like to see some pictures imperfect with grain and colors because thats what makes them unique.

[@MrB0unt3y]

@@dzava Thats exyctly my approach. Life isn't perfect and with all these perfect pictures on social media it's refreshing to not always have the perfect framing, arperture or shutter speed. Embracing the imperfection.

[@tomamyx3980]

Take it from someone who has studied and practiced printing techniques for more than 50 years... the darkroom can at various times be boring, repetitive, frustrating and maddening, and does not always produce beautiful results. There are some who have made 20, 30, even 40 and more prints of the same negative before they were satisfied with the photograph. And sometimes you just have to give up on it altogether. We who have done this sort of thing for a living sometimes gain the greatest satisfaction from an imperfect print, simply due to the amount of effort we had to put into it. To merely say it's "fun" does not do it proper justice. Satisfying? Yes, mostly. Rewarding? Certainly! Well... most of the time. Relaxing (see the comment from "John D")? I should think not!

[@semperfi-1918]

I agree 100% i will admit on 11 tho. I do not have a dark room nor a room at the home to make the prints yet and to upload them on the computer so ill have to opt into doing as said. But... all in due time and process. I got a free pentax and it is a sweet camera with 2 awesome lenses. In due time tho in due time.

[@straydog6166]

@@dzava Add grain then.

[@raphajptube]

It is pretty simple.. if you are a real photographer, or have any respect for the craft, you would never go on a rant on any form of photographic expression. I grew up during the transition period. Photography was hijacked by computer "nerds".. not photographers. This Video is an offspring of that phenomenon.. just 10 year too late. There are so many ways of photographic expression. Find one that makes you happy and enjoy photography!!!

[@warrenmurchie6599]

Very well said.

[@j.k5654]

Ur points are based on the fact that we shoot film to get the max reproduction output. Which is wrong. We Shoot film cuz it’s less than digital, it’s more artistic, it’s different. No one shoots 35mm to compare it with digital or anything else. This video is useless honestly. I never commented like this before but I just couldn’t ignore it now. It’s like talking about painting.

[@j.k5654]

@@joshmcdzz6925 You agreed with me in one line THEN contradicted yourself in the next line … 1) You say there’s nothing artistic about it… then you AGAIN say it’s all a subjective feel… Guess what, Art is subjective 🤣🤣🤣🤣 2) You contradict yourself by saying photography is ART. Guess what genius, film photography is photography 🤣🤣🤣 3) Then you nailed my point (confirming it) by saying we can use ANY medium… while being AGAINST film 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. You must be on something and it’s a hell of a drg.

[@agylub]

Wrong. I have perfect Kodachromes, colour and B&W negs from 1974. I have family B & W prints from 1900. But I have dead hard drives, CF cards, SD cards and various other digital media which are either dead or there is no hardware to support it. Consider that

[@warrenmurchie6599]

Actually, you are completely, I mean 100% wrong. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Digital data definitely degrades, there is no doubt about that .@@truesoundchris

[@warrenmurchie6599]

So you spend your life chasing your tail, forever hiding your little files in ever more places in the fear that what it is stored on is going to fail. You buy more and more hardware just to store the same image over and over again. Yes, if you are careless in how you keep your negatives they may become damaged. But if you simply keep them stored in a dry place they are there pretty much good forever. By the way, data transfer can fail at the time of transfer thereby losing your image forever, and don't say that never happens, because it does.@@truesoundchris

[@EddyTheChump]

Art is not just a technological enterprise. Ask yourself this question, why did painting not die when photography emerged? The answer is allegorical for why people continue to use film in a digital world.

[@norcatch]

Because painting is generally demonstrably different in expression to photography.

[@joshmcdzz6925]

​@@norcatch Well said.. I wonder why people will compare painting to photography.. it's like comparing a car to a computer.. no relationship unless you really want to dig up one..

[@maxhoughtonmusic]

@@joshmcdzz6925 ironic you give the example of comparing cars to computers, as practically all cars manufactured today run and entirely rely on computer systems. Regardless, film photography has the capacity to naturally showcase light and colour palettes in a way that digital alternatives cannot, allowing it to function in a painterly fashion if you get to know your different kinds of film stocks, so the comparison is apt. In any case, photographers should all know there are benefits to both digital and film photography and shaming someone for choosing either is a detriment to the art form

[@DFermain]

It's all in the negative. Magic that digital can never replicate. The physical capture of light in time.

[@charlesdesobry9446]

Exactly. Film leaves in index of a space/time, whereas digital just reproduces through sensors.

[@EtO124]

@@charlesdesobry9446 whoa that’s a cool way to see it

[@Jay-jb2vr]

Perfevt explanation

[@teresashinkansen9402]

But that's just subjective. Different mediums that by the very definition will never be able to replicate fully one another. Is like saying this apple pie will never replicate the flavor and taste of orange pie. The irony is that at the end digital also has a physical process that turns a projected image into physical data. which later gets digitized.

[@TimGreigPhotography]

@@teresashinkansen9402Exactly. It's still analog after the sensor.

[@mike747436]

This whole issue of 'film vs digital' has been done to death! One is not intrinsically 'better' than the other. It's a pointless argument. I shoot with my cellphone for convenience (and that's probably the strongest argument for digital), but it's analog all the way when I want a mounted and framed fibre based b&w print for my wall.

[@michaels5166]

It's just a stupid waste of time and another one who THINKS their biases, and preferences speak for others...

[@toddysurcharge771]

I agree Mike. I am going to the Smoky Mountains next month and I stocked up on film as I will shoot film for landscapes as it's easier to get nice prints and not have to really edit anything.

[@robiulahmed]

Well, some people will never understand! Us film photographers enjoy the process. We prefer cameras that can be many decades old with the quality of engineering ensuring it lasts. We also prefer how it looks - something digital hasn’t been able to recreate. Furthermore, when you compare digital medium format to film medium format, it’s literally like comparing super 35 to IMAX.

[@enriquekahn9405]

I learned on film myself and moved on to digital as soon as it was truly practical. I talk to younger people who are trying out film sometimes and their reasons seem to be 1- Film offers a unique look even when you've digitized it afterwards Hard to argue with this. This seems to parallel a lot of the thinking around audio analogue gear in that if you want something that mimics something that's decades old you'll probably get better results using the period-correct equipment and processes than using modern processes and messing with them in post. It's an artistic choice and it's fine but it's not my choice. 2- With film you have to really think about composition etc. for each individual shot instead of shooting 60 times and hoping one of them comes out how you want it I kinda get it, it's fine to talk about just forcing yourself to do the same with digital but it's certainly a different feel when every shot you take is costing you money 3- They like the old gear for its own sake and enjoy using it I 100% get this. A lot of old photo (and audio) gear has a really nice feel to it. There's no reason why modern gear shouldn't be just as pleasant to use but too many manufacturers seem to have the attitude that as long as a feature is *technically* in the camera their job is done, even if nobody will ever actually use it because it's buried in a menu that's in a menu that's in another menu ad infinitum.

[@Bonsees]

Daddy chill. Yes, digital photography is technically practical, I don’t think anyone shooting film nowadays still believe that film is more practical or technically “superior” to digital. But by this argument, nobody should be painting landscapes using oil paints either because you can just take a photo and photoshop the heck out of it to look like a painting after. There’s a fundamental difference in the process and the philosophy of shooting either film or digital and I think it’s up to the person to decide which one is better for them. They’re both art forms, and either form deserves their place ❤️ But sure, I’ll put down my kombucha now 😕

[@Ortopedija1989]

There is only one "problem". if you not processing film from head to tail, then something is missing the idea! I shoot with film and "chemical" printing out, hanging at the wall only few of photos but results are not even close to digital. And it is time consuming, takes years to build skills to the level 1. It might be fun, but frustrating a lot of time.

[@cainabel2553]

Nobody should be painting anything as an authentic trace of landscape for later generations.

[@warrenmurchie6599]

What the hell. Are you some new kind of dickhead greeny or something?@@cainabel2553

[@OMGsupershy]

sorting through 36 shots way less time consuming than when I shot digital (double tapping) and later having to sort through hundreds of similar looking photos. what a headache.

[@jasongold6751]

I hate editing! One of my digital cameras has old battery. Good for 40 shots, less if cold. I love it!

[@teresashinkansen9402]

If you can't be arsed to short thorough your photos don't take hundreds of shots, so easy. I really cant figure out why people comes up with this silly excuses. Film being an inferior format due the reason you have limited exposures is better? Well you can do the same with digital, fill a memory card with files so you can only shoot like 40 photos and that's it, become forced to use them more efficiently, cover your screen so you cant see how the photo looks like and use fixed iso. Enjoying analog for what it is is great, anyone can enjoy whatever they like but claiming that is better than digital and coming up with this reasons for it is just nonsensical. Is like saying horse riding is better than cars because they have feel and horsemen had to know they horses and not cold machines also they are better because is a pain in the ass to park a car while a horse parks itself.

[@tomstickland]

Don't take so many images then. Apply the film camera mentality to your digital photography.

[@ripemangosmdm7997]

Crystal clear, oh dear! No thanks. The fully digital process from camera to image to computer to file and editing to printing on a printer....and the only experience of being part of a non digital experience being holding the camera and walking about in the world or setting up a studio shoot...not fulfilling to me, personally. Just the process and the unknown and the feel of older gear and the repairable nature and less and less plastic parts (depending) is what pulls me in and keeps me nestled. I see why people shoot digital, don't think either is better for the over all of photographers, but for me, it's film. Feels proper, works how I want it to, helps me learn, keeps me working at it, and gives me variance and not just a sharp image. Also, the mid way point of this video where you explain the process and make it sound like it takes 100 yrs. Ha! I go out each day, shoot a roll or 2 or 3 and head home, heat chems, while that's happening, I load my tanks, then I develop, hang to dry, scan if I want, and then head to the darkroom where that process also takes no time at all to start making prints of images I feel worth printing. It's not for everyone, but it's not exhausting, it's exciting, it's like making a delicious meal, an old family recipe! Magnifico!

[@briglnai]

couldn't describe it better... well done!

[@mikejankowski6321]

"...the feel of the older gear..." yeah. Less to fiddle with: select film, set exposure, maybe use a filter. I love how digital gives me so many control options, so quickly, and I can see the effects in real time. But to not have that is more of an adventure, and is sometimes preferable despite the impracticality. I have no clue how to post-process a digital shot to "achieve a film look", let alone a particular film stock. I shoot a variety of films and digital, in different sizes, just because. I am lazy so I have my film processed by a professional lab (just like back when I shot Kodachrome and loved it). Nobody else sees my photos anyway, I am just in it for the fun.

[@TheOnyxMage]

No clue if you'll read this but i'll explain my view. -I was born in the 90s, film remind me of my childhood. -i originally got interested when i found my grand-father's camera, i only had the intention of putting one roll through it originally. -I fell in love with the colors. it basically helped me define my style. -I love taking my time adjusting physical knobs instead having to dig in menus and such. -having a limited amount of frames pushes me to search for the perfect composition. -I develop my film and scan it and catalog it myself. its meditating and i love it when i forgot what i shot and it turns out amazing. honestly, i'll go back to digital in time. but right now i'm enjoying the imperfections and the physicality of film. Hope it helped, cheers!

[@AudioMasterclass]

Thank you for your comment. I read all of the comments and take them into consideration. I don't often reply as I feel that the comments section should be a conversation among commenters rather than a back and forth with me. As I said in the video, but some commenters seem not to have noticed, there are good reasons why lovers of film should choose to stick with film rather than move to digital. Anyone who has chosen film and is happy with it should continue to enjoy it to the max. DM

[@autodidact537]

@@AudioMasterclass The problem with digital is the person merely 'sprays and prays.'

[@commentariat]

@@AudioMasterclassor perhaps you’re not really able to defend your rather silly argument in this video.

[@harveyblue4108]

@@autodidact537I will have to comment on this. There are some types of photography where you kinda have to spray and pray which makes digital more applicable. For example I do a lot of wildlife photography. Specifically owls. If I were to shoot film (which I do when it makes sense) I would be wasting an incredible amount of money and and time. So when I nail that shot of an owl in the dark or in flight, I am still very proud of it.

[@teresashinkansen9402]

​@@autodidact537 Which means they are unable to have self discipline and might not have the passion to become good photographers anyway. If you are interested in actually becoming good a digital camera is so much better because you can learn so much faster and cheaply and might even save you $$$ in film so once you are seasoned you use those skills on your analog shoots. With analog you have to take the photo and you are limited to a few exposures, that might push you to do your best effort but then depending on what you are photographing the opportunity might be missed or might be too far to return, you have to spend time and money in the dark room, that is enjoyable but not always with time it becomes more monotonous if you actually shoot a lot, then if all goes right you can see your photos and get feedback about what you did or you didn't do right, so the feedback to learn is much longer. With Digital you get an idea and test it out, you get feedback faster and meanwhile someone might be in the dark room you could be actually shooting and improving. Learning is all within you, if the advantages of digital are more of a crutch for you then you might want to reconsider what photography is for you, is it actually taking a snapshot of your reality and artistically displaying it or is more about enjoying the process than actually what you shoot.

[@gabelobato7267]

If grain gives a “false veil of authenticity” then the crispy , flawless sheen of digital is the absolute lack thereof.

[@tompoynton]

Nailed it. Digital is horrible.

[@davidbelgrave1971]

This video is also known by its more accurate title: "Old man yells at cloud"

[@AdrianBacon]

As a film photographer, I don't disagree with much of what you say here, but would like to add that one of the primary reasons why I still shoot film (in particular BW film) is because of its archival qualities. Case in point: My grandfather recently passed away and he was an avid photographer, both film and digital. We still have all his film negatives, and are slowly sorting through them to see what is worth keeping and what isn't. All the digital pictures he took? No clue. I've looked and looked and looked to try to find his archive of digital images (he's got a solid 10-15 years of taking digital images under his belt), and have managed to recover a handful of images that were still on some of the SD cards we found, but the rest of his digital images are effectively lost, locked away behind some password somewhere or stored on some computer or HD or cloud service that I don't know about, and now that he's gone and none of that stuff is being paid, it's also effectively gone. I have no doubt that when I get old enough to pass away, his film negatives will be passed down to my kids or grand-kids, and all my film negatives will follow with many of my digital images also effectively lost. I'm not saying any of his or my images are important to anybody but our family, but that's archival power that digital still has yet to even come close to. True, none of this is not without problems, but either way, I'd rather have images I care about on BW film for that reason alone. Also, yep, films dynamic range is generally *awesome*. Digital has gotten a lot better over the years, but still has a ways to go before it even comes remotely close to the dynamic range that many films are capable of.

[@deadpool6072]

This is also the reason why all the movies shot digitally are being stored in film negatives for archival purposes. Celluloid last thousands of years given it is properly stored and maintained. For digital things, you live with the constant fear of it being erased in a press of a button.

[@geraldmcmullon2465]

I know a number of people who relied on one store place for all their digital image. Drive broke lost everything - a whole in the early life of their children. Even when practising good back up I have digital images loose a bit (computer bit) and the image can't be fully shown. The back up duplicated the fault before being discovered. As the "source" was analogue it did not matter but I have original digital photographs do the same. Usually you can see this on the computer with thumbnails. but for video film not until you carefully watch the video again. Many friends use cloud storage. 20 years ago my ISP lost their server and all the content of the customers web site. I have about 4Gb to up load again (over a dial up modem). But I know people with web sites and storage of 27Gb with no back up. A crash or a missed payment to the host and everything lost. It is entirely possible that we will know more about the Victorians than about 21st Century life in just a couple of generations with all digital materials collapsing. Certainly our personal family histories.

[@AdrianBacon]

@@geraldmcmullon2465 I think we're in the digital dark ages and just don't know it yet. There's a lot of permanence issues that still need to be worked out with digital that are far less of a problem with analog. That's not to say analog is problem free, it's just that analog has had a long time to mature, and it is very mature as a result.

[@jasongultjaeff9397]

Well said. I shoot lots of film, especially of my kids growing up and it's amazing how many people aren't backing up their digital pictures well, often losing everything with an old phone that dies. And then you have the old dead computers, the old floppy disks, old zip disks. Out of my oldest pictures...its the stored negatives that still there when I want them.

[@hal4192]

Digital... 20 pictures of the same thing... Over and over again.... All lost on a computer. Film. One or two pictures per session.... Two months later excited with the results and putting them in a photo album or a picture frame. I've gone back to film.... My biggest regret is that I took up digital when my kids were about two years old. Digital has its place...I use it for copying documents etc.... Quicker than scanning.

[@hal4192]

@IIWII Yes. I totally understand. I take photos of my friends and family. Horses for courses. 👍🏻

[@hal4192]

@@truesoundchris I agree with most of what you say. One consideration is the type of photography you're involved in. I personally use my camera to record events and people... Mainly family and friends. I mostly use black and white film but occasionally colour negative. Then there's ' digital rust ' to consider. Horses for courses I guess? I'm not a complete Luddite btw. 😂👍🏻👍🏻

[@GabrielSykes]

On the first day of a college film shoot a couple years ago, I was doing behind the scenes documentation, some was video, some was photos, all was digital. The raws folder contains 591 photos, after wading through them and editing the ones that were good, the jpegs folder ended up containing 26 photos. Keep in mind this was for day ONE of a week long shoot that I did bts photography and filming for every day. The amount of photos I considered usable was less than a roll of film, and every other day had a similar turnaround. As for film, I shot a friend's Halloween party on it. One roll of Kodak Gold, another of Portra. 72 photos in total. When they came back from the lab they were all usable, despite the fact that I was downing white russians the entire night and was incredibly drunk. The care and forethought that film forces you to take can not be understated. Drunk me had a 100% turnaround on film, sober me had an approximate 4.4% turnaround on digital.

[@TrueKyanite]

congrats on being featured in Grainydays' new video Edit: Also, have an open mind next time, try to research why people shoot film instead of just saying that its wrong to use.

[@mikejankowski6321]

Actually, he ended on a sort of open-minded "to each his own" note, and made a similar reply to OnyxBlackSmith. But it sort of negated his whole rant.

[@lukefarmer8165]

If you're not getting dust on your sensor, you're not using your camera enough

[@michaeltuffin8147]

He’s probably never swapped a lens.

[@pancholini]

I understand your point and I shoot both digital and film. I do digital for efficiency and client work, I get it, its quicker and you can reach more people much faster, I have clients from all over the world. However, nothing compares to grabbing a film camera, with just a couple of lenses and take a trip, a hike or just a walk in the city. That sensation of holding an old camera, aiming and making your brain work 10x more before shooting, and once you shot, move on with your life, not knowing if you got the shot right. Not even knowing how it will look once developed. And then, going to the lab to get your photos developed and printed professionally. That feeling when you get your photos back is compared to the feeling when you were a kid waking up on Christmas day waiting hoping to get all the gifts you asked to santa claus. Film photography makes you a better photographer and makes you appreciate photography and the craft itself much more. Digital photography has devalued photography because people don't feel like they're getting something tangible and they think anyone can just click a shutter button with a high end camera and be a great photographer.

[@SpaceZombie]

Much like how musicians often own many guitars, you use different tools for different reasons. One not being objectively 'better' or 'worse' than the other. It all depends on the context and what you're trying to achieve. There's good reasons to want imperfections to occur in order to amplify a certain emotion or aesthetic.

[@Verdoux007]

That last point was just plain stupid. Just because I have to digitize the film negative/positive doesn't mean that the results would be the same as if I had just taken a digital shot of the subject.

[@PhilTaylorPhotog]

I work for a high speed camera manufacturer, and under no circumstances would anyone go back to film for that…digital outperforms film by far more than in the stills photography space, however, I also shoot medium format and large format personally for the simple fact of imaging area…there is no practical sensor which covers these formats, providing both the “look” and practicality of these cameras. The “look” I refer to is not of grain, colour or bokeh, but simple physics…there is a requirement to change perspective (physically move) for a certain field of view, and this provides a certain “look”. This is a result of magnification between subject and image plane, and CANNOT under any circumstances be replicated or faked on current digital formats. Further to this, it is not viable, commercially to invest in R&D to make this possible despite the users who want this. Other factors such as the feel and sound of analogue equipment are purely subjective, but still valid. This doesn’t make film “bad”, it just makes you put a higher priority on new tech when in reality there should be a balance. The film revival is a great learning experience in the areas of chemistry and physics which are extremely difficult to teach using only digital means.

[@CalumetVideo]

Very true! Honestly I shoot digital, medium format film and large format film. I can’t see any reason to shoot 35mm film when we have the equivalent in digital format. I do agree with the guy, why use a digital camera to scan a recently shot negative, this seems to defeat the purpose. For those anticipation shooting film it is becoming more expensive with the higher cost of film cameras and film. The costs of film cameras and film has more than doubled in the last few years. I always tell people interested in film photography, get a low cost film camera, use low cost black and white film to start and send it to a lab for processing. If one wants to go further and develop, then one will need the chemicals, tank, timer and a changing bag. This can easily run 75.00-100.00 Then if one wants to scan, a good decent flatbed scanner will run 200-1,000.00. Then if one wants to print in the darkroom, one will need an enlarger, holders, trays, tongs, filters, a safe light, paper safe for storage and enlarging paper. This set up can cost at least 500.00. If someone is looking to shoot digitally, a good used DSLR, lens, Lightroom and photo printer can be had for as little as 600.00.

[@artvandeco4135]

next he'll be ruining Christmas for children by telling them there's no Santa Claus.

[@BingoBabyO]

Let me give you an analogy from your audio world… when we moved to digital capture for audio - we found the clean clinical and ‘cold’ sound lacking of something… later on we found ways to emulate / model and eventually replicate the distortion character of the analog transformers and tubes giving us back the coloration of those analog systems - we found out we like 3rd harmonic distortion and such things…. I love my digital gear - but I also love knowing how to faithfully model the analog versions from the past… and I even partially question if we have lost something in the discontinuous signal vs the purely analog one ( perhaps there is a minuscule magic between those lovely samples? )…. Then on to film… in film we still notice that its process does something to the color and contrast… we feel the curves with our eyes…but beyond that we have yet to fully model the grain softening ( dehancer comes close but not the same as the smart impulse modeling of our amp replications ) - I also notice that film did something to skin - perhaps a frequency and contrast smoothing in a certain skin detail band - something that is still slightly not replicated by our film fakes in digital. We are close…and I feel the film users also sense that loss of something continuous - as I wonder why my tube amp just ‘feels’ better and more alive than my very well done digital replicas… I dont think its all nostalgia….I think there is still something to be said for the real deal - something of a slowly vanishing art… something worth trying to fully understand and preserve. I love my digital tools… but i respect my analog universe.

[@BingoBabyO]

@@truesoundchris wow are you constipated? I got some fiber pills for you old man. I thought I was a grouch but you take the cake today birthday sir.

[@BingoBabyO]

@@truesoundchris btw since you ‘perception’ is a ‘construct’ of your biological mechanisms and your brain chemistry… the idea that you KNOW what is real and actual is such a foolish concept. Your ‘measures of reality’ change with the speed and direction of travel of the percepting locale - and not to mention the pathway I just described making everyone perception one thing or another… having a problem with people desiring to explore their taste of what is good and not is really… really a self centered view.

[@andrewbuckler]

What about the preventative cost of digital? I got into film because (professional) digital kits were $10K. You can get shooting with film right now (professional quality) for hundreds of dollars if not less. You need 2K for a decent prosumer digital kit...with which you may grow bored very quickly. Digital sensors otoh have "left the door open" for film, and for that I am happy, I see no reason not to give film the second life that it deserves.

[@aaronfitzgerald9109]

Film photography SHOULD be revived! I just got a Canon 7s, from 2004 and got a whole bunch of films of various types! Film is simply better; digital does have its place, but Film is better because it's an electronic dopamine detox, it makes you think, compose and plan your shots, it stops you ending up with endless junk on your computer and the images from a film processed in a wet lab look heaps better than photos printed... and the BEST part is the delayed gratification you get waiting for you to finish the film then take it to get developed!

[@Martin-wb8bc]

Feels different. Cameras look cooler. Choosing what film to put in depending on the light is much more fun that twiddling with the settings. You're paying money for each photo so it's riskier and there's excitement to that. The list just keeps going.

[@waynepesuit9520]

I really enjoyed your take on analog vs digital. I started shooting in 1952 using 127 that I could develop at home as we had a darkroom. Fast forward to about 1965 were I was an RIT student in Rochester using a Pentax Spotmatic. All my shooting was for my personal use and I really enjoyed it using mostly KII and K25 for my work and with Kodak locally it was easy to get processed. Fast forward to the mid 90s seeing the digital products on the market I was reluctant to use any of them as I am used to shooting with primes and the full frame bodies were out of reach price wise. Anyways I eventually got a Nikon D5 but I could never get the look I wanted and only recently I realized two things: 1, I finely figured out that I am going to have to spend time to learn lightroom or similar to fine tune each image with the look I want, something I have never done yet. and 2. This is a hobby for me which means I want to feel satisfied with my result. Even though I send out film for processing I still like to do my own developing. I remember doing E4 and then E6 later and mostly B&W. I didn't do C41 because I did not have the gear to make nice prints. Anyways I now realize it was the process that came after the shutter click that was part of the experience and reward of taking a picture. Something that is entirely missing in the digital work flow. Digital is nice and convenient particularly when the deliverable is a set of image files and not prints. However I still like to slow down and using manual gear snap off a shot here and there and when I have time do the development my self. I even got a used Noritsu scanner and printer that goes up to 12 x 36 that I like to fire up now and then to make silver halide prints. I guess I am just old fashion but there is nothing like looking at a 6 x 12cm color transparency where the colors just jump right off the film and look really nice. Well Velvia 50 does help with that.

[@andrina118]

Transparencies are definitely better than prints. My Dad always took slides not prints and then you get that cool "flat screen" backlit effect that is more like viewing digital. Print quality degrades over time also.

[@cameronwilson8561]

I started on film, got a digital camera as soon as they were available and in the last 3 years got back into film. Because sometimes it’s nicer to go fly a kite when it could be much easier to just go pop a pill.

[@c128stuff]

Having decades of experience in commercial and non commercial photography, I can say there are multiple points to 'analog photography'. First of all, there simply do *NOT* exist full size medium and large format sensors yet which can also achieve high shutter speeds. This is highly specialized use cases, and many of the traditional medium format use cases can now be done with 'full frame' digital cameras. But architectural photography for example really benefits from large format because it offers a lot more room for optical correction of perspective and manipulation of focus. There is a second reason for film photography, it forces you to think before you shoot. That doesn't mean you'd use this for actual commercial photography typically, but it is a very good tool for learning to 'know' what your camera is going to see before you even started getting your camera.

[@cromyjr1592]

Turn off LCD of your digital camera. If it also has a top monochrome LCD, ignore it. Fill the SD card with pr0n so you have space left only for 36 photos. Now you can think before taking digital photos too.

[@andreasattic1830]

I like both digital and film depends on what I'm doing but grain is not ugly I love grain as big as golf balls

[@MaggieKB]

I shoot both film and digital and find that both have excellent use cases. Also, of the photographers that I know personally, most are boomers or older and NONE would think of shooting film. In fact, I am the only one who does shoot film. Yes, I am a boomer and I returned to film after decades away but I still shoot my DSLR Nikons just as much. It has nothing to do with not wanting to adopt something new. However, our local camera repair shops are swamped with work to repair old film cameras. I have had to wait 12 weeks. Why is it like this? Because people like shooting film. So what if we scan to get our results? Frankly, paper printing in the darkroom is less important and can be replicated well with a printer with software. So really modern film photography is a hybrid. AND also note that there are AAA movies like Dune being made today with film again as they get a unique look but they do scan and make a digital copy for post processing. Finally, digital does encourage laziness in that it is so easy so we shoot far more images and select rather than taking the time to really apply the craft. Film demands that we actually know what the camera is doing and to be successful, we must do that. The analogy that works best for me is like driving a vintage sports car with a stick shift vs a modern automatic everything car. If all I want is to get to a destination, sure the modern car is a great choice. But, I want to have an experience and some thrill, give me the stick shift.

[@jonathand435]

Sounds like mainly trolling to me. I shoot both and enjoy both.

[@bongani_a4789]

If You happen to come across this comment, pause the video and read the comments, they will help you more than the video.

[@MrKenrwi]

I have both. I love film it’s just fun to shoot. The process is more personal, i.e film type, color or black and white, iso, positive or negative, day light or tungsten etc. Waiting for the results is exiting and yes sometimes disappointing. Operating a film camera is also different and part of the fun I speak off. Digital is also fun of course, I choose to do both, double the fun. I hope film will live on for years to come.

[@super8freddie]

I started taking photos in 1974 with a Kodak Instamatic camera, then a Praktica TL1000 reflex camera on 35mm film, now using digital cameras since 2004, I still have my old Practica but I now only photograph digitally so you are so right on so many levels.

I am the 4th generation of photographers in my family since 1870 and you are so right!!! Thank you from Patagonia Argentina

[@kyles7087]

As someone who has purchased a film scanner to digitally preserve my grandmothers slide collection and various other family negatives, I found this quite amusing and interesting. I have been using Silverfast to scan them in, which was quite a learning curve.. figuring out everything from colour spaces in digital, various formats and even getting the settings correct for the type of slide (many of which are Kodachrome Slides). It’s a big task, but I have been quite impressed by the dynamic range and vibrant colours contained in these pictures that were taken around the 60s-70’s. Thank god photography went digital! Although I do still cherish film in cinema, and even for preservations sake. It’s still the norm to preserve movies shot on film, to new film stock rather than digital. Digital certainly has its own set of issues, though I don’t think they are as immediately obvious.

[@lukefarmer8165]

“I don’t understand something, so therefore it’s wrong and everyone should stop”

[@jasongultjaeff9397]

What bugs me about this: I like the look of my 35mm shots better, and I've been a hobbyiest from the earliest days of digital photography. Did the boring hours of photo editing and sitting at a computer (work all day at a computer, then come home all night and edited 100's of raw photos) and chased all the gear and the trends. I still have a good Fuji mirrorless set up and lens set, but I won't buy another digital though. I prefer the look of my film shots and feel I get more "keepers". Smart phone for convenience. I feel the digital hobby photography is dying anyway...killed by the smart phones.

[@AudioMasterclass]

I've read a *lot* of comments on this video. As you might guess I disagree with most of them. But getting away from the computer is most definitely a thing. I might make a video on this, combining both audio production and photography. DM

[@TheFilmFellow]

Well I do apologize I haven’t resigned myself to hours and hours of digital editing mastery which digital photography requires. Have fun sitting behind that desk while I’m out shooting. And no, digital cannot recreate the film look of a certain stock. This is technically impossible. Furthermore, don’t you Love having to upgrade all your software every time Nikon spits out a new NEF file or dangles a new camera in front of your face with 2 extra pixels. And yes, the photo is right there in the viewfinder in any film camera. Why else would you click a shutter? You are entitled to your opinion but the reason we shoot film is exactly the process you seem to mock.

[@Simbosan]

I use digital photography almost 100% of the time, but the dynamic range and latitude of colour transparency is still much better on film unless you get a serious high end digital camera. I think those two factors warrant a much higher weighting than a .75! Lovely lush blacks and non-blown out skies are much to be desired

[@AudioMasterclass]

Yes it's worth saying that the dynamic range of film is available to anyone with even an inexpensive camera. DM

[@teresashinkansen9402]

I hacked my camera to shoot HDR (but you can still do it manually though is much slower) sure can't shoot fast moving objects with it but still offers far wider dynamic range than film. So that is not a real issue with digital.

[@johnlloyd8109]

Sold a Canon AE-1 recently, only to receive an email from the buyer a few days later claiming that "the screen doesn't work". I replied, asking what he meant as, due to being a vintage film camera from the 1970s, the AE-1 doesn't have a screen. He insisted there's a screen on the back, and it didn't work. I asked him to send me a photo of it...turns out it was the metal frame you could put the torn-off bit of the film box in, and he was entirely unaware that there was such a thing as non-digital cameras.

[@AudioMasterclass]

That's so funny. It was a good camera in its day. DM

[@jasonkrupp2326]

you're forgetting something really important. It's a hobby for most of us. It's fun to walk around with an old film camera. It's a conversation starter, no-one ever stops to ask about my DSLR, but I get a ton of questions about my 1970's era Olympus OM-2. There's an emotion attached to pulling out a binder full of negatives and prints from years ago and looking through them, that's much different than searching through folders in a computer. I look at screens all day for my job, I like to minimize screens for my hobbies.

[@robbellphoto]

This feels like click bait :-) totally worked on me ! I shot film in the military, couldn’t afford digital! My images are beautiful. No regrets

[@richardsimms251]

It is nice to bake a REAL CAKE at home compared to buying a “factory cake” from a store. Nice video. RS. Canada

[@DennisZoller]

In case of client work, yes it's inconvenient. I would probably never shoot any advertising job on film. But as a hobby? Best thing ever. Printing a picture without anything digital? Chilling in a darkroom on a rainy sunday? Open up a fresh package of HP5, put the film in the camera, only 36 shots. So simple. Love it. It's about the process, not the final product.

[@maplestreetpictures7454]

I love digital. I really love the editing process. I love being able craft the look in post.

[@jdhfSD63gH]

you can do that with film too but film grain usually leaves even more room to edit than linear pixels

[@OrangeMicMusic]

From a psychological point of view the desire of some people to work with, or revive old technology, is simply because of insecurity, even among professionals. The lack of "knowing better" or "being afraid of the change"

[@wajh7769]

I started shooting film 3 weeks ago and it has helped me learn more about photography way quicker then my digital camera, trying to compare these two different mediums isn't fair, film is nowhere near as sharp or easy to shoot as a digital camera but the whole analog process of everything makes the overall feel of shooting way better, also i tend to over analyze photos that i take right away which makes shooting digital less enjoyable. The delayed gratification of shooting film can't be explained.

[@teresashinkansen9402]

To me is the other way around, with film learning is slower because is not until I develop that I get feedback to better my technique, with digital is faster and much much cheaper, If i have an idea I can test it and improve so much faster. Learning is more about yourself than if its easy or hard, if you don't learn with digital because its "instant" then that means you don't really have the mindset to improve and only with the drawbacks of analog photography you were forced to do so because who wants to spend $$$ and lots of time not putting as much effort learning with analog. Might as well fill a memory card with data so you can only shoot like 40 photos and put a money jar were every time you use up your 40 images you put 10 bucks, fix your iso and cover your screen so you can't see what you shoot until you go to your "darkroom". Why many humans need something to take effort, hurt or punish to get something good out of them.

[@idagrns]

Ok there is a lot to unpack in this video, but the viewfinder part is just bad. Viewfinders are the same as before it depends on what camera you have. you still have digital dslr cameras that flips the mirror. Many of these have built in screens inside the viewfinder, but i personally find that to be worse than just a regular viewfinder. You still have digital point and shoot cameras with a viewfinder that is disconnected from the lense. The screens on most cameras are not good enough to use alone. you very often have to use the viewfinder to be certain that the focus is on point (on mirrorless and dslr cameras at least). Yes the screen can give you a better idea of how the image looks, but this alone is rearly enough to get a good clear picture.

[@bentbilliard]

The best solution is to use both, imho. Film, as long as it still exists, (as well as cassettes btw.) is a very tactile experience and you don't get that with digital. It's slow and complicated and prone to failure, but it's a beautiful, mind blowing, process to dive into and learn about where it all started. Digital is easier. But much more versatile. The results can be as beautiful as film. Do both, decide yourself or keep using both. Don't miss out on anything. Life is short.

[@AudioMasterclass]

I will come back to this topic at some point. One point will be that the camera I use for my videos, I only use for video - never stills. It has *SO* many parameters in so many menus that although I can understand them all, I couldn't possibly become fluent in them all. My old Olympus OM2 had focus, aperture, shutter, exposure compensation, auto or manual. Just five choices to make before pressing the button. And on auto, I didn't even need to set the shutter speed. DM

[@AlGreenLightThroughGlass]

Each to their own... for mine I get the analogue experience adapting film era lenses to my digital cam, and never liked working with chemicals. But if any one wants to shoot film all power to them.

[@tonymonaghan5993]

I also thought of a good analogy. You could say drawing with a pencil is dead because we now have Ipads with Apple pens. I have both but I would far rather be sketching with a pencil on paper any day. You do whatever makes you happy. It is a revival because it is obviously making people happy. If you don't enjoy it then don't do it!

[@josephtraub7018]

There are a huge varieties of adjustments in Large-format-fotography that can be done, in between the lens and your film. Tilt-shift lenses exists and can be used on digital cameras. Foto-stacking can expand the field of flattness digitaly.

[@lensman5762]

Do you really think when you use a digital camera , it is you who has made that photograph? Have a good look inside of those computer boxes masquerading as a camera and see what there is inside it. Then try and convince your self that it is you who made that photograph you are so proud of. There is room for both. Stop fretting about it.

[@abelsanchez155]

At the risk of sounding like a luddite, I believe that film photography and similar analogs work to re-humanize the person. In era where technology delivers consistent error-free results across all facets of life; music, design, photography, writing, etc., it’s good to find recesses where we rise and fall on ‘mostly’ our cognative abilities.

[@brentbrown51]

For me, it’s not just about the photo - it’s about the process.

[@jbaxter007]

I completely here where you are coming from, back in the late nineties i was looking to invest in a film slr camera to take nice pictures of my children and the odd landscape, as the camera we were using was a very cheap point and shoot. Having invested in a few top notch lenses and a few more camera bodies, i was very happy with shooting slide film and some black and white at which time i used a very good pro lab for all my processing. A few years into my hobby i was looking to gain more experience and approached a wedding photographer to see if they needed a trainee photographer, unfortunately at this time film wedding photographers were becoming extinct and the photographer was soon to retire and predicted that film would be dead within 10 years, how wrong he was He took me on as a non paid assistant, i would take candid whilst he did the money shots. He would always say to me that i needed to invest in digital if i was to break out on my own, i was reluctant. On a few occasions he would hire a local photographer who would shoot digital, i believe it was a Nikon D 2 at that time, very expensive bit of kit. The interesting thing is that when i and the wedding photographer had our prints done and compared them with the digital prints there was no contest, the film prints won hands down, for colour, saturation and contrast ,hardly any grain to be seen. where as the digital prints looked all wrong the greens looked artificial and skin tones overall looked like plastic.. So i made a decision from that moment to remain loyal to film photography it was also a financial decision. I decided to not be a film wedding photographer ,as the trade in my opinion was being saturated with digital photographers at this time. I still shoot film and have invested in a Darkroom in my spare bedroom over lock down and love the whole process from shooting to developing and printing.

[@fabianmallmann4834]

I wonder...when digital is so much better, why did movies, photography, and music become so much worse since the digital revolution. Every artistic digital domain still tries to reproduce the look/feel/sound of the golden analog area. What everybody fails to understand, the presenter of this channel as well, is that it's exactly the limitation and the fact that you can't push every possible decision to post-production, that makes the analog-based workflow so much more suitable for the creative process. I worked as a musician, a photographer and a programmer. So I do love computers and I see the benefits of digital. But if I could keep only one tool for each job, it'd be a Nikon FM2 for photos, a 335 with a tube amp for music and pen and paper for solving problems.

[@tomamyx3980]

Enjoyed your commentary... takes some courage to boldly proclaim your opinion! As for me, I feel strongly both ways! I like shooting film for the sheer pleasure I derive from my Minolta X-700 SLR AND my Kodak Brownie Hawkeye (Don't laugh!), and at the same time, I am (mostly) enjoying trying to learn all the nuances of digital photography. I shoot one or the other (or both) on a whimsically rotating basis, as the mood strikes, and I don't care what anyone thinks about it! My age (mid 70s) permits me to thumb my nose at naysayers and elitists!

[@MGrose407]

Although I agree with the last part about turning it digital in the end, there’s still nothing like anticipation of the results from learning to read light and seeing if you composed your image correctly with a limit amount of frames and being limited with your ISO as well. Also while 35mm can be replicated with digital cameras, medium and large format still doesn’t match the physics and look yet. The one thing in 35mm that shines over digital is color slide film. It’s limitations of 3-5 stops still challenges the photographer to get it right while at the same time being a physical representation that can be viewed on a light table or tablet. Also if you’re lucky enough to get a carousel…imagine rotating slides of a family trip to show people which definitely has a nostalgic experience than seeing it on a tv screen. I was lucky enough to shoot some Kodachrome right before it was discontinued and now I just need to repair my carousel to show those incredible photos! Comparing it to chemicals…digital cameras become obsolete after a few years and the batteries after they can’t be recharged or no one makes them, they become a environmental hazard as well, including the cameras themselves. Electronic waste is far more worse than chemical waste from photography has become over the years. I don’t see people holding on to their digital cameras made in 2003 for nostalgic reasons.

[@davidjb9199]

I have to disagree with your entire premise. Is digital better than "analog"? In some areas yes, in others, definitely not. There is no such thing as the perfect medium, and this seems to be your point that digital is - it is not. Why do I (or anyone for that matter) have to be limited to digital (and according to today's pundits, mirrorless) photography? I chose to use whatever medium suites my "vision" (if I can even claim to have any) or just what moves me. The important point is to be motivated to capture an image to begin with and it matters not what you use to do that with - period. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, it is just that it is very narrow. While I don't agree with you, I have to say this was stimulating at the least!

[@jackmurphy9527]

While we’re at it, let’s tell Picasso and Van Gogh how to paint too… lmao what a joke

[@stevehunt4660]

Nope, sorry, over opinionated, under educated...

[@erwintimmerman6466]

I think the whole analog revival is based on value. Anything that's available conveniently, in abundance, and for cheap doesn't have real value. Spotify, Netflix... More music and films than you ever have time for listening to and watching. In better quality than you'd ever need. Digital cameras... Thousands of shots virtually free. With analog you make a deliberate decision. You have to put in effort to work around the limitations of the format, which might get you unexpected results. This effort puts back the value into listening to music or taking pictures. Quite literally even because it costs more money. I think that's the huge appeal. I never thought that the "back in my day we did it like that" sermon ever would be cool to young people, but here we are 😆

[@tallaganda83]

Yep film does suck. Film cameras are fun to use but expensive and every shot is one closer to failure with parts becoming harder to get. Any APSC or above will basically produce better results than even medium format film. I would try to master post processing personally.

[@mjstow]

If you're a shallow depth-of-field fan like me, there *is* a use for film... saving money. I bought an old SLR for a fiver (Praktica). Then I bought an old f/1.4 lens. So I can take full-frame f/1.4 photos cheaply. How much would it cost for a full-frame digital camera with an f/1.4 prime lens? £2k? more? So I use a cheapish digital camera (Fujifilm X70) for 99% of my photos, and only use the analogue SLR when I want shallow depth-of-field photos with a ton of "bokeh" (not a word I'm keen on, but it gets the point across). Great videos by the way; keep up the good work.

[@laku4412]

Some good points. But none of these were why I like shooting film. I shoot film because... well... I like it. It's fun and I enjoy the process. Nothing more to it. Professional use or wanting "the" picture? Yes, digital all the way for me, too. But I think it's the same for a lot of time-consuming manual procedures (like whittling, knitting, ... you get the idea). Yes, there's better solutions. But the process is very enjoyable ^^

[@stojanovicmiljan]

Film is materialisation of art (not talking here about vacation shots). Digital image is not more than mere image, but film photography is a physical medium, a graphic technique similar to print. It is more of a monument than mere illusive data.. Digital is all about the image representation of an image idea and nothing more. Analog is also about image but so as substance and material. Its more like a monument or sculpture or oil painting in that sense. Film is also about manual interventions and "lucky mistakes", about artist intervening on a medium, not just about image look. Digital is image-centric, while film is a process-centric, so process is controlled by an artist so it has imprint of human manual intervention, so it is human-centric in that way. Film encourages human interaction to the process and that gives a credit to an Artist. Film is more of a drawing in that sense,(painting with light) while digital is more of mere picture. In Digital the aim is to make a picture and image, while in film the aim is to intervene on picture while it is formed, similar like in drawing, sculpture or oil painting.. collage or aquarelle so it is more about manual skill. Not to mention that digital causes inflation of images, so images became less worthy and more of a commodity. But in Art, commodity is all but important.

[@MrGrungydude]

The only reason I don't shoot more film is because of the price, im always running short to buy my own developing supplies and now the price increase for kodak. The developing and scanning equipment keep me from going fully in. Besides it being expensive I love film. I love learning about the history of the cameras I own, how they revolutionized camera technology, I like how it feels in my hands. There is a whole community with great people that you get to talk about their film experiences. If I was financially stable I'd shoot film exclusively

[@hishighnessarthur5936]

hey, what's your qualification to spread such wise words?

[@tomstickland]

Some people are film camera enthusiasts. Many are film camera bores, assured that their choice of old medium somehow makes them edgy or more artistic. Like music, we can tolerate technical imperfections if the artistic result is appealing. I've got some very pleasing photographs from small sensor cameras like the Canon S90 or even my phone. A lot of enthusiast photographers request a viewfinder on a camera but I'm happy to use a screen.

[@richardsimms251]

I love film photography. I only shoot B and W as film and develop it myself. One good film photograph is worth 1,000 digital photographs that all look machine-made. BUT Good video RS. Canada

[@archerpiperii2690]

As others have commented: You are speaking in factual terms, and on that basis I would agree with you, digital is better than film - especially for commercial applications. However I (and probably others) shoot film for the film process; I enjoy the slower pace of film photography, I enjoy time in the darkroom and sharing the story (stories) about how a particular image was made. Film photography has it's place; maybe that place is not right for you, and that is fine. But film is an important medium for others, and for us, it's not wrong. Phoenix, AZ.

[@chrisdals5182]

I accept all the points you mention - every single one of them. But not one of them will stop me from going on holiday in two days with my Canon A1. 😊

[@AudioMasterclass]

I might have been an A1 kind of person back in the old days, but fate took me to the OM-2. It was a lot of fun back then. DM

[@chrisdals5182]

@@AudioMasterclass it's the ritual required: LPs required you to handle the record right, brush the dust collector and clean the stylus. With analogue photography, it's calculating thesettings before taking the photograph, making sure the sun is behind you and then developing the photos.

[@michaeldelacruz6370]

You are technically right, but photography whether digital or chemical/mechanical/analog, you can't really bash at it because the process behind creating photos through the different mediums is sort of like different religions as it has a certain life style, routine & community associated with it that helps people who prefer a certain medium/style to ultimately combat the monotony in their lives. My point is that as for photography, the technical superiority of digital cameras when compared to film technology does not matter at all, not even in the slightest. Every option we have as photographers to do photography are all for different situations, all offering various forms of taste and artistic expression.

[@TheSP3CTR3]

I'm sure you had to unlist this one because of the comments section, so I'll be more reasonable: your opinions on film photography miss the point of the recent revival OF film photography. I've shot for years on digital and recently switched to shooting primarily film (I still enjoy digital, it's just not my preference) exactly because of the "problems" you pointed out. Delayed gratification is the point, limiting your number of shots is the point, not being able to rattle off 10 shots in a second is the point. The variety of film stocks and their unique looks are the point, you cannot perfectly recreate that with digital at all. The film photography revival is a revolt against the instant gratification and clean, surgical, sterile look of digital photography. Artistic expression isn't a pass/fail game, it's an expression of one's perspectives and view of the world. That's why so many film photographers produce zines or prints for personal use or sale. Anyway, I'm glad you enjoy digital photography, but to say the revival of film is "wrong" entirely misses the point

[@AudioMasterclass]

Thank you for your points which I have read with interest. Regarding the unlisting, it isn't the comments because I've enjoyed them a lot and it's fun when a commenter accuses me of being 'an old man yelling at clouds' and similar because it shows that they have nothing substantive to say. The issue is that I have a number of videos that really need a different home, perhaps a new channel or perhaps even a different host than KZbin. In the meantime, all of the revivals videos, and others, can be found at www.audiomasterclass.com/blog/audio-masterclass-videos-retired-from-youtube DM

[@ThePooper3000]

I love film photography because of the experimentations that I can do, and the weird unexpected results that I can get. I especially love souping my rolls of film. Specifically in my piss. I can't piss on my digital camera and get a souped image. And recreating the effect in Photoshop goes against the entire idea of unexpected results.

[@mikejankowski6321]

"recreating the effect in Photoshop goes against the entire idea of unexpected results" Brilliant! I had not thought of that aspect, but so true. Intentional simulated unexpected results, perhaps?

[@ThePooper3000]

@@truesoundchris Nah, I'm not trying to capture reality or make a permanent record of what's in front of the lens. Never cared for such things. I just want to make cool images. To me art can simply just be that: cool images. Doesn't necessarily need to be more than that for me.

[@AstonsVintageTechnologyWorkshp]

I use both professional digital and, professional film cameras, and they both have a place in my camera bag for very different reasons. Naturally if I wanted something in black-and-white for instance that I can print in the darkroom that will last a hundred years, then the film camera gets used. I have lengthy experience from digital prints,, both professional and multiple manufacturer-home use printers, from the domestic to the professional market, which have all faded in different ways, over the years. If you want permanence, the chemical print is the only way forward. Kodak and Canon ink's are some of the worst, and Epson professional inks are better but still not perfect. The former will last approximately a year, whereas the latter, will last about seven years. The chemical based prints done in the 1970's are still perfectly fine. As for grain, film photography has always had gaussian natural looking grain, and to a certain extent, the only cameras in the digital realm I've found, able to simulate this kind of look even slightly, are the Canon range of digital sensors. Not forgetting the fact that digital cameras have real problems in the shadow areas of an image as opposed to the film cameras which have a problem with the highlight areas, either of which if exposed into that area, cannot be pulled back. Nearly all the other manufacturers of digital sensors have what I would consider to be "ugly grain", which is disturbing to the eye and look unnatural. Digital cameras obviate they're lacking sensor sensitivity by layering multiple captures or increasing the voltage to the sensor to pull more information out. This has inherent problems with either smearing, per pixel, or artificial noise being generated. As many have said before, film is expensive, and as such forces the individual to consider what they taking before they push the shutter button. This in turn means that every single frame of the film is evaluated sensitively, as opposed to taking half a dozen shots with digital, with the average individual chimping at the screen to make sure the shot is correct. I have adopted the film 'mindset' with digital, allowing me the advantage of not having to delete innumerable pointless images due to not having composed the shot correctly, or not noticing a distracting element in the frame. I'm guessing from the viewfinder comments, that you've never used a professional camera with a very short blackout time of 87 miliseconds or less, or even better still a pellicle-mirror camera with no viewfinder blackout at all, such as the Eos-1NRS. Both these particular cameras have a large viewfinder with 100% coverage, which is infinitely better than most of the digital cameras out there at the moment. (I don't include mirrorless digital cameras in this statement, because obviously the viewfinder is horrifically awful, even if they are 100%) As for the 'look' of film, yes they can be simulated with various means, both "in camera" and post-processing, but side-by-side comparisons done by various people on KZbin and myself have found that the conversions are still lacking in a certain 'je ne sais quoi'. Disregarding the poorer quality lenses of the film era, film still has a warm organic feel to it, whereas digital has a cold dispassionate look even after processing. I'm not saying everybody should run off and go get a film camera and start shooting willy-nilly all over the place, it's a personal preference thing, and as far as I'm concerned, a forty plus year experience of film and conversely, digital from its inception. Just my two penneth. :)

[@AudioMasterclass]

Your point regarding grain is interesting (as are your other points of course). I remember the 'fixed pattern noise' of analogue video cameras that had a CCD sensor. Ugly indeed and clearly we haven't quite seen the last of it. DM

[@scotthullinger4684]

If you learn photography with film cameras rather than with digital cameras, the lessons you learn about both the art and science of photography sink in MUCH more deeply.

[@bknight407]

That is like saying that acoustic guitars are useless because we have electric guitars. Pigment ink jet prints have improved but They doesn’t really compare to a well crafted silver print for most things. Chemical photography is expensive, messy, toxic, and time consuming. Digital photography has replaced chemical photography because it is way more convenient at every level. Silver, platinum, potassium ferrocyanide…. All of these processes are beautiful, authentic, and still relevant. Film grain can be very beautiful and is part of the cultural language of photography. If you don’t want it then change the film, format,and or chemistry.

[@mjstow]

For decades film manufacturers have attempted to accurately recreate the colours of reality. So my problem with Kodachrome fans is this. Kodachrome had a particular "look". That can only mean that it was *failing* to accurately recreate the colours of reality. As a colour film it failed. Sure, it failed nicely, but we can fail nicely in the digital realm now. I await the inevitable death threats.

[@rolandofuret2658]

Everything you said was correct about the convenience of digital but it is not very convenience if your hard disk breaks down and you don’t have a back up on the cloud. You are old enough to remember the diskettes, the CD’s the DVD’s and so on. Where are the photos from that era? The chemical photography as you called it, is a process and the result is physical negatives, not computer files. The handmade aspect is also enjoyable for many people. If your battery is dead, and you do not have another one, you are out of luck. One thing you forgot to mention was the pollution and water waste that the film process makes. The most important is everyone can choose what they like the most. Cheers mate

[@andymouse]

Nostalgia fix ! my first camera was a Zorki 4K, enlarger was unbranded and the rest of the gear Patterson of course. Favorite paper ? the best like my transistors and that was Ilfobrom Lol ! first digital camera Was a Minolta Dimage 5, now the phone is the camera...cheers.

[@eyesonly4451]

(1) Digital is for pros (who should be shooting MF digital) and consumers taking Insta snapshots. (2) Digital is both boring and uninspiring. It's good making client deliverables on schedule but that's about it. (3) Digital images are far too difficult to preserve over long periods of time (e.g. decades). (4) Digital is boring. Yes, it deserves being said twice! (see 2 above) (5) Film forces one to think about the final image, rather than just 'spray and pray'. (6) Film photography is a multi-step discipline that represents a personal creative challenge. (7) I can see my analog Provia 6x7 images with zero-tech between them and my analog eyes.

[@TheDeamonLo]

I shoot both. I love them both. They are very different experiences. I think the negatives (no pun intended!) of film can be safely disregarded in our modern times with access to advanced digital cameras. If you only had access to film, then yes the limitations can be frustrating, but these days it's a choice. And there is nothing wrong with having such choices when it comes to artistic expressions or hobbies. If you can't stand the idea of dealing with film and a chemical process, then by all means there is no reason to every touch it.

[@MichaelLenz1]

What means “revival”? We continue to use photofilm all these years. None of digital cameras come even close to the resulution of large formats of photofilm. Even 35mm can be 500megapixel equivalent, and such film really exists.

[@Pumpcity27]

I think older people are beginning to get bitter that kids are getting just as good if not better results with a $150 SLR, having more fun, and getting all the attention.

[@joelacevedo8418]

Truer words have never been spoken. Digital was widely adopted early on not because it was inherently superior but because it was convenient and easy. You don't need to know any of the fundamentals (aperture, shutter speed) starting out with digital and most importantly steady hands are no longer a prerequisite with image stabilization.

[@andreiannuzzi3578]

Very good video and just in the time i am buying a film SLR...when i got $ to buy a decent camera we were in the digital domain...but grew up seeing our old grained family photos and others i took myself with a cheaply crap point-and-shoot film cam...whats funny is that the digital camera i could buy at first was noisy and very bad shooting at low light....😅 The whole mess just got real good when i could afford a good APS-C SLR...then came the time to see real quality...thats why we're turning to the first line: buying a film SLR ,a good one though, i can see what i have missed with that junk camera, and because it is selling cheap and i can use all my lenses with it plug-and-play....why not ? But i agree with you entirely....the fun and curiosity are the drivers

[@SUBsystemHawgCranker]

"wHy BuY a CaMeRa YoUr PhOnE hAs OnE aLrEaDy" You could just.. let people enjoy things. If people wanna jump on a trend just because it's popular, whatever.. but I personally enjoy the work that goes into film photography, as well as mixing vinyl records when I DJ. it's about the process.

[@gregoryluna535]

Analog audio sounds a lot better in typical systems compared to digital audio. At least on my systems.

[@jjcale2288]

Digital made photography cheap. Digital made music cheap. Digital makes intelligence cheap. Sad times we live in.

[@maidsandmuses]

Depends I think; digital can be as expensive as analogue depending on how technically invested you end up in it. Digital certainly has enabled more pernicious exploitation of planned obsolescence, reducing functional lifespan of some $$$$ products (incl. software) to a short few years only. On the other hand, certainly the cost of film processing used to make you think twice about how to take a photograph. J.J. Cale is a legend by the way, no-one did the Tulsa sound better 👍

[@jjcale2288]

@@maidsandmuses very well pointed out my idea about digital photography being cheap. We push the shutter button way too easily and this makes us the proud owners of loads of (mostly crappy) digital images which we don't live long enough to review. Oh, it's just me, I'm not suggesting this is the case for everyone😁. Anyway the wind blows!

[@VicerFx]

People shoot analog exactly because of these things, the slow process makes you think way more about your photos, composition, what you'll shoot. Shootings digital where you can take a lot of bad photos till you find a good one, film forces you too be a better photographer (if you don't want to waste money lol). Grain is actually a nice thing, when the grain is fine it adds a subtle texture to the overall image and it feels organic, way less artificial that the sharpness of digital. Film gives results that can't be entirely replicated, specially talking about the color spectrum. Finally, it's a hobby, a passion, it's just people making art the way they like and that's nothing wrong with that, photography didn't kill paintings so why would digital kill film.

[@VicerFx]

Summarizing: not everything it's about pristine perfection