Each Time You Use A Digital Camera, You Kill Photography

The Photographic Eye is devoted to helping you develop the most important skill in photography - your Vision
When you're ready to take your photographs to the next level, check out 'Learning To See'.
A system trusted by 1000's of photographers to help them see the photographs that others miss
Click here to start your journey: bit.ly/46QiCcX Break creative ruts and develop your unique photographic style with Focus and Frame!
Gain 30 years of photography experience in 4 weeks.
Only 7 spots left for the next cohort which starts August 12th.
Don't wait, sign up now: www.thephotogr...

[@ThePhotographicEye]

A photographer who moved with the times - Edward Steichen: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJK3lXurZtlgas0 Did you start with film, or has digital always been part of your connection with image creation?

[@largophoto]

as a professional photo technician ..process films ..and led several photo teams...I started scanning my film images ..probably the first step into digital ../

[@Sven-R]

I started with film, then did slides for a few years (one reason being cost, the other one I liked to see the photos on a silver screen). When digital came up, my first camera was a Canon Powershot A20 - 2 Megapixels, which was already giving nice results. I was so happy going away from Film, just because of easier storage, less sorting etc. And now, where are we? Tons of folders with JPG and RAW and an insane amount of photos and thinking about backup strategies, organising digital albums, online presentation… 😁

[@darkhorsefive0]

Started as a child with a Polaroid. Moved up to my first film camera, a used Canon AE-1 Program which I still have but haven’t used in years. Bought it from my uncle along with a bag and a couple of lenses. I progressed to other 35mm film cameras and film/slide scanning into Photoshop. Along the way I used various compact digital cameras and progressed into DSLR cameras starting with the Canon D30 (not 30D). Currently using a Canon 5D Mark IV… and an iPhone. I have always admired and been inspired by the works of great photographers using all sorts of media. It has always been “the photograph” that mattered most to me. I don’t claim to be great at it, but I enjoy it immensely and continue to work toward getting better at it. 🤷‍♂️

[@ViaOjo]

I started with film but had no one to teach me and have never taken a photography class in my life. I allowed myself to be sucked into the digital age but have now gone back to film. Film development costs have become outrageous so I’ve started developing my own. I don’t have an enlarger so I have to scan my own images and then touch them up in photoshop. I feel uncomfortable with the “digital art with an analog heart” theory. I don’t have problem with people to subscribing to that theory, it’s just not right for me. I just feel that I’m still manipulating data. But right now it’s all I have.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

I started with film in the '60s as a child. My dad gave me his old Brownie, then my uncle gave me a Kodak Instamatic 104 for Christmas. I dabbled with darkroom development in the late '70s as a college student. I started shooting digital in the Aughts with a P&S and finally got a DSLR in 2012. But it's only in the last few years that I've really gotten into digital processing and it's completely changed how I shoot. Now when I frame a photo, I don't just take the scene before me as the end product. I envision a final image and imagine what I'll do with the RAW file to get the final result I've imagined. Or, I'll make a mistake and instead of tossing the file, I wonder what I can do to to make something different from what I originally intended. Learning new ways to create is definitely keeping me young!

[@DI-cm5xc]

Personally, I believe the biggest change is the way we display and share images rather than the way we capture images. Even film shooters ( I do shoot a little film) can easily pull their images into the same digital work flow. If you sell prints or books, your end product is still a physical item. If, for example, your’re a news or sports guy, digital is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I imagine Sally Mann is still shooting on glass plates and John Free is shooting film on his F3. Pick what you like and run with it. I do miss my darkroom from the 70’s, but not enough to set up another one.

[@DonGiannatti]

^^ Yes, this.

[@tvm2209]

Well said! (ps I noob to photography & videography but can tell you speak from raw so thank you

[@grandpascuba]

Personally I am concerned about the future history. It used to be that when Grandpa died, you would find old photo albums in his stuff. You could go through them and remember events, you try and figure out who some of the people were. Sometimes these albums would end up in local history museums. Now, when Grandpa dies, all his pictures are on an old laptop. There may or may not be someone who has the wherewithal to go looking for photos. They may or may not be readable or displayable. Image formats can disappear from software support. (Anyone remember Kodak Photo CD, or FlashPix format?) Artifacts in the digital realm can be ephemeral. All the fossils we have are from creatures that had bones or shells. Creatures that were made entirely of soft tissue didn’t leave fossils. I fear that digital media is the soft tissue of our culture. And a thousand years from now, people will be as clueless about our culture as we are of early humans. Nothing but cave paintings.

[@SimonWillig]

For me, digital is a real blessing. As a young man I was never into darkroom stuff, so the time between pressing the button and seeing the result was always quite long. That, together with my ignorance and impatience, made that I did not evolve and eventually stopped taking pictures. The digital possibilities and the joy it gives could not be more different.. .

[@charmerci]

Me too exactly!

[@aes53]

I spent a whole lot of time in the darkroom back in the film era, developing film and trying to master printing. The thing I remember was how laborious the printing process could be if you were trying to get your vision of what the image should look like onto the printing paper. Then, if you succeeded you only had one print so careful notes of exactly what you did were necessary if you were going to make more than one. When I first encountered digital photography and Photoshop, I realized that it would allow me to sit in a comfortable chair in front of a computer screen and make the image what I wanted it to be. I could also drink wine while I was doing it, which brought the photographic process to a whole other level.

[@jpvvandermerwe87]

. . . i still miss those days with all my heart. I loved making those notes, so that i can reproduce a 2nd or 3rd image of the same quality in the dark room.

[@arneheeringa96]

I still do BW on film and darkroom. Because I need to work with a computer all day the craftmanshaft process involved with film is so much more fun and relaxing.

[@theren8311]

I had an AE-1 for over 20y but never got it to work until 4 months ago. I needed a battery and I just couldn't afford one. The camera was a hand me down from my father who basically disappeared when I was 1. Essentially, photography was the only thing I'm proud of taking from him. The crazy thing was, when I finally got a battery for it off Amazon (no one in my country sold it apparently), I forgot to buy film. So I got that, but then I found out no one in my country developed film any more. So now I have a 30+ yo camera and no way of being productive with it unless I did it on my own. I looked up how to develop film, but if I couldn't even get film to purchase, then getting the fluids required would be even more impossible. Shipping would be a nightmare. Eventually, 2 months later I got my first digital camera after taking out a loan for it. I wish I could experience film, but my location just wouldn't support it.

[@jimmason8502]

@@theren8311 My son, where do you live that you can't get film and developing supplies delivered?

[@theren8311]

@@jimmason8502 It can be delivered, but clearing customs would be a ton of trouble where liquids are concerned. For a lot of chemicals, clearance certificates are required.

[@michael-4k4000]

Omg, photography is dying? What do we do know? This is the worst, we are all doomed….. thank you for your support Sir, I didn’t know photography was even sick and now it’s dying……

[@DanielleDeutschTV]

"You press the button, we do the rest" paved the way for digital photography in what took awhile until computers caught up. The quote unfortunately stripped a lot of what I loved about the process of photography. I didn't want to just press a button and wait until someone else had all the fun before I saw the images. That magic was part of the process that I loved! So far the digital process hasn't given me the same immersion and love of the process that film gave me. I mean I could've spent 12 hours in the darkroom and then ask for 20 more minutes at the end... So far with 10+ years in the digital darkroom I haven't found that kind of immersion yet. It's just part of the film process that I loved is watered down a lot and for other reasons too I'm in a period of life where I want to spend as little time as possible with the computer so I can undo the rounded shoulder posture that computers are kind of becoming famous for giving us. Just my two cents.

[@arneheeringa96]

I still do BW on film and darkroom. Because I need to work with a computer all day the craftmanshaft process involved with film is so much more fun and relaxing. For colour I have used a digital compact camera, just like C41 in the old days (no manipulation). Recently I bought a cheap used mirrorless camera, so now I will try my luck on RAW.

[@andrewlarking7492]

I feel every part of this comment. I miss the film wind on lever, no screen, seeing the image appear on the paper. I would spend a happy day in the dark. Digital is technically better in every way and so much cheaper, but has lost the soul. I have found printing (digital) at home to rekindle the love. It’s not just click and wait, doing it properly is just as involved as a darkroom print. And the results are wonderful.

[@titovalasques]

This is very reminiscent of what the musical world went through in the beginning of the eighties when synthesisers and drum machines became more mainstream. Established musicians saw it as a threat that would steal their jobs and replace them. Little did they know it simply added to their contributions and in some cases helped them while creating a plethora of new art forms. My biggest problem with innovations like these is that it usually doesn’t benefit people giving them more time but benefitting industries who tighten deadlines.

[@WolfQuantum]

I am 64. I shot on film on and off for decades. After leaving the Army in 1994 I worked in portraiture, news & events, and some freelance work, plus my own personal work, in film. Walked away from photography at one point. Later as I got back into photography for my own love of it I ended up going with a Nikon D90 and wondered through digital to this point. There are some aspects of shooting on film I miss. There are things about digital that are both blessing and curse. I can shoot much more than I could afford to with film. I almost always shot on professional transparency film or professional portrait film. Due to the costs of film and processing, I was much more careful with my shots. In action settings, I got pretty good at anticipating key moments and prefocussing. Bracketing was limited to only when I was sure I needed to. Digital gives me the opportunity to shoot many different angles and treatments. Or machine gun a moment to get "just" that shot. However, it means a lot more time spent reviewing, deciding, and processing the images. Sometimes you can get caught up just in trying various treatments of one image. Then you have several variants of one image and have to try and narrow those down to "the" image. There are aspects and image characteristics I miss with film. Some of those can't be gotten by shooting film then digitizing. It has to be analog from start to finish. That means skipping the LED enlargers too. I enjoyed the process of capturing the image right in camera and being less involved in the post process. With digital, post-processing is as much a part of the image creation process for the photographer as is the initial capture of the image. However, you get more latitude in capturing the image with digital. From dealing with exposures to cleaning up images to completely changing the mood of the image. There are positive and negative aspects to film and digital. Choose what makes you feel more of yourself immersed in the making of your images. Most laymen viewing and images that really appeal to, even move them, feel the image first. At that moment they aren't asking what equipment you used or the settings. The first thing is how the image speaks to them. And most importantly, to you.

[@Fabella100]

While I used to be in a camera club at school for a year or so and developed some film I stopped photography until the years ago. I am amazed by the bitterness in the photography world about these discussions what a "real" photography is and which rules to follow. I think it's all tools to create something - may it be pleasing, shocking or plain boring. It's like a language don't fight about the font, talk about the meaning 😍

[@NorthForkFisherman]

Unless it's COMIC SANS. That's a hill worth dying on.

[@charmerci]

For decades, I used a manual film camera, the wonderful Nikon FM. Film processing was expensive and I had boxes of photos sitting in the corner unlooked at. I reluctantly got into digital photography - and only because my brother gave me a point and shoot 14 years ago. Digital got me back into photography. I get instant feedback and can evaluate and adjust accordingly. I no longer have to limit the number of photos taken due to cost. I can crop and adjust the photos without having to wait for the photos to come back and then tell the processor how to make some strange crop and how to adjust the contrast, etc. and then wait again.... and so on and so on. Digital has made me a much better photographer...period and much faster than film could.

[@bfs5113]

My own three blind men and an elephant account as an enthusiast, is that I already experienced my Eureka moment, seeing the first B&W print developed, and had earned my IT degree before I bought my first SLR (F2A + MD) back in the late seventies. I paid my film club dues by carrying around SLR + MD + BP + zoom + hammerhead flash + external lead acid battery pack and processed & printed B&W and Color for decades. Also, I had played with broadcast TV at the same time. To support my first DSLR, Canon D30 back in 2000, I built a computer with dual processors and an array of 10K RPM SCSI HD. I started printing digital images with the first consumer color inkjet printer and bought an 8x10 dye-sub printer with my D30. Hence, I was fortunate to move into the digital and videography era prepared, without any issue with teaching an old dog new tricks. Thus, they all have similar importance and priorities to me. I don't value the retro look, tactility and slowing down with film or immediacy with digital, but rather the future such as the Star Trek's 3D holodeck. Where I can interact with the computer to transform old photos or videos into interactive virtual reality. Similar to what Ansel Adams once said, "...the print is the performance". Skills and experience from the past and present can still be useful if one serves as a director of photography, for instance. A photography teacher can recreate HCB's jumping man scenario for the students to understand and practice the decisive moment with a RF. People can experience the fun of preparing an 8x10 LF camera while seeing the decisive moment disappears in front of them. Isn't that fun, instead of holding or looking at old photos and telling the good old days stories? If we look back at the rear-view mirror, HCB once said to William Eggleston, "You know, William, color is bullshit".

[@jamesoliver6625]

The shift from film to digital (I got my first camera in 1963 and developed and printed my first roll of film at the same time) has enhanced what you said regarding image manipulation or fixing. In the 80s, in the prepress industry, I ran into the precursor of Photoshop, Digital Darkroom (not an Adobe product), a 1 channel bit of software set up to output B/W film halftones for the print industry, and when I ran into Photoshop it took about 5 seconds to realize Adobe had purchased DD and made it 3/4 channel with application to color separation work in competition and support to Scitex image manipulation. Very convenient. And it taught people to quit looking at what they shot before they shot it because you could "fix" the blemishes before you output the film. Then when the digital tech hit the consumer market the technical art of color separation was dead. "Just make it look good" was, and is the mantra. And from about 1993 until 2010 when I retired it bled into the professional image making world we dealt with. Anyone with a computer was a "graphic artist" or "photographer" and creativity and eye became digital effects and gimmicks. It reminds me of my teenage granddaughter and her phone and TikTok. The encounter with graphically or compositionally arresting images that I had experienced at Uni in the late 60s and early 70s turned into a cacophony of trite, imitative, derivative marketing pieces. Was digital the fault? To me it's like seeing a wasted meth addict on the street and wondering what their first encounter with drugs was,....and what was lost in the transition.

[@tomrandall6539]

Your videos are like motivation speeches every time. I'm not a professional; I don't earn a living from photography, but I still align myself with this. I'm purely digital; I've only ever known digital. I was a teenager when my dad bought me a tiny little Sony digital camera, and I took it with me everywhere I went. I've always liked taking photographs, and recently I've gone back to those ways of thinking. It's a typical scenario. A few years ago, 2013/2014 I was taking pictures with my phone on my travels, and was interested in deeper aspects of image making; I wanted to know how I can make some colours look a bit more like what I saw, or how I could make the sky a little nicer to look at other than a blown out mess all the time. So I bought into the digital camera world where I learnt about digital development (taking photos in raw formats). I spent months, countless months researching gear, sensor sizes, lenses, image quality, features. I became obsessed with the gear and I hadn't bought anything. Suddenly I was obsessed with the thought of getting the best gear I could afford, and I hadn't learnt anything about "photography". It happened because of marketing, because of that point you talked about so deeply in the video about where people argue about what the best is. I convinced myself I shouldn't buy sub-par gear because I would never take photos as well as if I had better gear. It started before I even got there. And it's not just photography and cameras this happens to, it's every piece of technology out there; music gear, audio devices, phones, computers, cars. It causes people to become braggers - and again, validates the points you made in your video. Despite all of the research I did over a silly period of time, and learning as much as I could about sensor sizes and all that rubbish, I ended up buying myself an Olympus camera. I never looked back. I take it with me whenever I go for a walk. I've re-entered the way of thinking that reminds me of why I like taking photos; I just like being outside. I like trees, the woods, the hills, the colours, the lights. That's all that is important. And because of that it's re-igniting other sparks. I used to work as a full time professional musician; music conjures up an image in my head. Likewise, a photograph conjurs up music in my head. Creative people just need to do some creating, instead of arguing about the tools used to create. This part of your video to me personally was the most important part. The only think I get a little concerned about is A.I photographic and music creation, where there is no human doing the creating. That to me is scary.

[@simonh]

I really do enjoy your videos! Thank you so much for posting them! I find it useful to separate photography into the art on one side and the craft on another. It isn't a hard and fast rule but I sense that often those who focus on the *craft* tend to hold much harder to traditional methods, while those who use photography as a medium for expressing their art are more open to newer technologies that enable them to realise their images. Digital (just like "instamatic"), to traditionalists, is perhaps cheating because they hold to a notion of the intrinsic value in artistic labour (suffering for your art?) being a component part of the validity of the resulting image. Artists, conversely, perceive the resulting image alone, and what it says, as the beginning and the end - in poetry, the value of the poem is in the formation of words, not in the pen with which they were written. My friend and I (amateur photographers in different genres) spend weeks discussing your videos. You are igniting incredibly positive discourse. Thank you again!

[@joelk8228]

What Joe said! Great series, I'm enjoying your programs. Thanks!

[@louhautdavid6451]

I just visited yesterday a wonderful exhibition of photographs in Cergy, near Paris, about intimacy and something like self fiction. There were recent pictures but also very old ones and it was obvious that they're all part of the same family. The real medium is light and the only tool, the eye.

[@RandomLifeProductions]

Photography is about an individual…. Perspectives. I was on the side of the millennium bridge yesterday, watching them frame of a picture of St Paul’s I took a picture of them taking a picture… composition…… photography doesn’t die it evolves… life, time emotion is ever changing and stopping that just for a second is art..

[@zrkiboi2083]

"Flying cameras!... cameras you can just YeEeEEeeet!"

[@kevinroberts1888]

I can still remember the very first time I saw a professional photographer using a digital camera. It wasn't long after I came out of photography school. I had spent three years studying and learning to shoot film. It was very discouraging at the time.

[@westcountrywanderings]

I can imagine that must have been incredibly disconcerting.

[@johngrant5448]

I remember seeing ghastly prints on the walls as the printer was trying to promote digital photography. When I was asked to compare an array of prints and to identify which were conventional film and which were digital, the bloke was flustered when I picked out every single digital print. It wasn't difficult to do but the majority of people couldn't. I eventually switched to digital in twenty sixteen and its difficult to master because it requires so much computer technology not to mention money, digital is mighty expensive with cameras, lenses and computers costing multiple thousands of pounds and decent prints costing hundreds each. Yes the quality has improved but we are restricted by the enormous cost of technology and the time that we have to spend making our shots look good from the original as it comes out of the camera. In the film days I could return from shooting a wedding anywhere in England and hand the film to the lab and shortly I'd have perfect prints to mount in the album. If I was still working I would have to spend too much time in front of the computer.

[@jozigirl7114]

I still do only film photography - the only digital photography I do is with my Sony Xperia. Film is expensive, but its true. Most digital photos you see on social media have been edited to death in post production and literally no longer a true representation of what was in front of the lens at the time. It's no longer photography. I have a guy who does my developing for me - I can have my shots on a memory stick in an hour's time without any need for post production.

[@darkhorsefive0]

Just wanted to say that I love this channel. I have always been guilty of being overly tech/gear focused. This channel has caused me to step back from all of that and consider the photograph more so than the equipment used to capture it. It has caused me to wonder how much better my photography might be at this point had I started with that focus 30+ years ago when I really got into photography. Thanks for what you do here. It’s not too late for me to refocus and improve from here out!

[@stefanstefanowitsch]

That is TED talk quality, love it! Not only about photography but embracing and welcoming change and creativity in general.

[@stephenreynolds6414]

I am middle aged and a digital convert, and for me digital became a catalyst for re-engaging with photography. Film with it's high cost per roll and processing made me give up shooting. I was never interested in developing film, so digital became my saviour.

[@PanAmStyle]

I agree with you. I started out in the film world - my first serious steps were in 1973. I’ve had a couple of “real” digital cameras and enjoyed some aspects of them such as the immediacy, the higher ISO capabilities, etc. But after all is said and done I *ENJOY* film and film cameras more. For me, basic film cameras, i.e., without advanced metering, several modes, etc., suit me better. The Leica, the (film) OM system and the like actually free me because there are not a dozen modes, buttons, wheels, etc. The controlling computer sits on my shoulder. And my subject matter is “captured” life and objects, not a creation, a constructed image. That’s just me - those who do otherwise have my utmost respect because that’s who THEY are and what they do. Bravo! I will admit a few things, however. I have collected more cameras and lenses than I need or use, partly because the vast body of film cameras is so interesting and fun. Second, two of the favourite photos I’ve made have been digital - one on a Fuji XPro-1 and one on an iPhone XS. They don’t necessarily “surpass” film photos that I’ve made, it’s just that they are right there with them. Third, while I currently don’t own a digital camera other than my iPhone, lately I’ve toyed with getting another XPro and sticking an OM, M mount or other 28 on it and just using that combination as a high volume street shooter - not as my go to, but in conjunction with my 4x5 and medium format “real” (ha!) cameras. BTW, I moved to Rochester NY in 1993 and so have been around for the Kodak implosion. I’ve met two of the men who developed the first digital camera. It’s pretty nice to be here, at least for now and have the Kodak photo ethos all around.

[@williamcurwen7428]

I am now 66 years of age and as a child, I started out with a Lubitel 2. After 20 years of digital capture I now work with a Phase One digital camera back producing my best work ever - NOW. My pictures look like paintings, and more like film than film could ever be.

[@TracySmith48]

I enjoyed this video. You touched on an idea I also think is incredibly important. In your "Secret Sauce" segment, you talked about professionals no longer enjoying the work they do. 5 years ago, I was feeling burnt out, depressed, and I realized I was only photographing and filming things professionally. I was not doing what got me to be a professional storyteller in the first place. Experiencing the images and stories. Creating because I wanted to, not just to get paid. I started shooting again because I wanted to, things I found interesting. The surprising result? It reignited my passion for art and stories. From experience, creating because you are inexplicably driven is the core of the "edge" we can lose by being "professional." I loved seeing the concept mentioned in your video; keeping your sense of wonder is paramount!

[@ratgirl13]

I used film cameras for 41 years, was gifted a digital cameras a few years ago and have never looked back-for me it was like I was using rocks to build a fire, and someone handed me a lighter-whiz bang! Traditions don’t die, they evolve-and in a fast moving world technology helps us keep up with the times; that being said people who prefer film cameras can still enjoy using them and those who prefer digital whether or not they switched from film or have never used film cameras can learn from the old masters. It’s a win-win situation all around. I enjoyed your thought provoking video very much Alex, thank you.

[@freemanchrisx]

"You don't have to participate in every argument you're invited to."

[@tonyperez5360]

Excellent video !!!!! From a person who continues to create since 1972 and as a staff photographer working for major Aerospace corporations ( Boeing , Allied Signal , Hughes ) watch photo departments go away because of Digital . Photographer were no longer needed. As they say only thing that's certain is changed ! My passion is greater then ever at 68. Good joj!! With this presentation!

[@ThePhotographicEye]

Thank you

[@craigkmw]

This remind me of the story i was told about why people didn't smile on old photographs, it was because it was seen as a very serious thing to have your photo taken, and it should not be tainted by showing emotions. I think portraits are generally more pleasing to look at now :)

[@the_astro_garden]

Alex, this is the only photography channel worth watching. Your videos are totally inspiring.

[@ThePhotographicEye]

Wow, thanks!

[@KentJohnson123]

The 80s Punk, The Face and great studio and natural light film photography - a special time.

[@moilami1]

Haha, I had the same very limited choice of what is good music. Have to say B&W is fascinating in a way that there must be something else than colors to make the image, captivating, shocking, or charming. And started with film, but embraced digital as fast as I could. Digital was liberating of the burden of expenses in photography! Made everything also way more accessible. Digital is the best thing what has happened to photography.

[@jbliborio]

Fantastic! I cant express enough how much I loved this video. Less argument, more photos.

[@WilsonPhotography1]

I’ve seen a lot of your videos now and I most say, I’ve enjoyed your take on photography, and this video by far is the best I’ve seen this far.

[@shellywilks883]

The best thing about digital is the fact that it saves you a lot of money and time. However, as you have so clearly stated the most importance thing of it all, is to HAVE FUN doing what you love. Can't get any better than that Alex. Thank you👍

[@1967davidsrebrnik]

In the long run it doesn't really save since one needs a good computer with a program to process and also more and more memory (even double to have a backup).

[@shellywilks883]

@@1967davidsrebrnik you are right. I guess we all have to adjust from time to time and work with what we have, the best way we can. Have a great weekend

[@autisticlife]

I have photographed film since the early 70's and still love it, currently I have several film cameras loaded for different projects. I got into digital in 2007 when I found digital cameras had matured enough to be something for more than early adopters. I love making photographs by whatever means, the tactile nature of film still does it for me, I love loading film, winding it on and using metal bodied cameras with a heft and tactile nature of thier own. I love the discipline film gives and use it to keep my technique sharp. For digital I like Micro Four Thirds, I don't know why it just does it for me and make most of my photographs on this system.

[@GregScratchley]

Briiiant take. I've always seen 'photography' as a form bound by one concept: recording light, through glass, on a medium. Glass plate, film, photosensitive paper, digital sensor - all the same in that regard.

[@TimvanderLeeuw]

Once again a very interesting video talk. I think we're about the same age but we came to photography much differently. As a kid I enjoyed taking pictures with my dads point-and-shoot film camera and in my 20s I bought my own -- but an attempt to shoot with my father's 60s era SLR ended after 1 or 2 rolls of film. I was intrigued, but I didn't get it yet. For my wife and myself, digital photography came as a liberation. Digital point-and-shoot photography, that is. It freed us from having to develop film so we took to it with enthusiasm -- with point-and-shoot compact cameras. Without getting into the actual art of photography. I didn't quite believe yet that I could really understand photography, really gain some level of skills beyond making holiday snapshots. Only since about two years ago I dedicated myself to getting into it more seriously, learning the craft, getting into the art of photography. And of course I do that with digital. ;-)

[@thissidetowardscreen4553]

My youth and early photography life was only film, because it was all we had. When digital cameras came around I switched, I did not see what the challenge film photographers were having. Yes, early digital cameras could not compete with film in image quality. The way I approach taking photos is still effected by my early film years and based on years I studied art at university. I don't feel that I have changed the way I approach how I shoot, I find having the art education makes me aware of things that I can draw when shooting images. I have shot some film recently. I found the experience to be like putting on old comfy clothes though at times it was a bumpy road using some vintage cameras. Digital/film...no difference to me, I think I just enjoy the creativity behind the images more regardless of the tool used!

[@pjbassman2253]

I started shooting film as a boy in the '60s. When digital came around I gravitated to it for its convenience. Then a few years ago I returned to film and I love the discipline required but I still shoot digital about as equally as film. I think both have their place.

[@marypinkerton3290]

I so enjoy listening to you. You help keep me from giving up. Thank you.

[@petertaranscorsese2900]

One of your very best videos in my opinion - thought provoking and powerful! - Thanks - Peter.

[@stanb.5261]

Shot film from the '70s to 2016 when I thought that digital technology had reached a level of technical maturity that I was comfortable with. My GR has allowed me to shoot in a manner that has increased my efficiency and proficiency, allowing me to capture images with IQ that wasn't possible in the film era. The medium isn't important- the image is!

[@65WZ]

I have two film SLR cameras that are in their bags for a few decades. Digital SLR was a wonderful transformation, instant gratification while still using similar techniques & skill sets. Memory cards are huge & can be easily backed up to multiple destinations, minimizing the oops factor. Sharing is different, most of my public photos are licensed under Creative Commons on the internet for everybody to make use of. Family & friends are all updated with memorable moments. No need to use the water well, the faucet is more convenient & practical 😊

[@edthesecond]

Two aspects of embracing different mediums that I've discovered: (A) Developing film, scanning it, and working it in Photoshop beats the hell out of wet darkroom. (B) If you push your digital camera under extreme low light conditions and then work the images in post production, things get weird, painterly, and extremely spooky. Art is anything you can get away with.

[@vawterb]

I'm late to the party on this video. You said some very good things in this video and I will need to watch a few more times. I'm going to be right up front about my experience. I'm 65. I had been doing photography with film for 20 years when I was hired as a darkroom tech at the local newspaper. We had a project to do that would have been literally impossible with film and I suggested we use digital equipment. This was in the mid 90's. Many organizations wondered how we were publishing daily photos from Armenia in our paper in the US. It wasn't easy but we did it. Since that time I've had a very difficult time adjusting to digital photography and still don't have it down. Just this week I was looking at 70's and 80's era film cameras with the idea of getting one again to use. At the same time I fully recognize that I would be giving up many, many advantages of digital cameras. I need to get to the point of using digital cameras as automatically and instinctual as I used film cameras. I have to cut myself some slack for the learning curve. Thanks for the video.

[@VictorReynolds]

It's whatever works for you. It doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital. Or if you shoot with a smartphone or a large format camera. I shoot smartphone and Instant, and I am perfectly happy. Thanks for sharing Alex!

[@olgapivovarova4123]

You’re a philosopher and I like it. It’s a pleasure to listen to you. Thank you

[@oncleschultz]

The way your express about photography speaks to me. A lot.🏃🏽

[@jonase5457]

Listening to you I was reminded that quite often I find myself thinking just how much the photographers from the "older generation" that taught me would have absolutely loved and enjoyed the freedom and possibilities of digital imaging. They are long gone for more than two decades now, but I can't help thinking what wondrous things they would have created. Being a rather late digital migrant (2011) I don't miss film one bit, I would argue that current technology brings us back to the creativity and control of the earliest days of photography just by different means. Thank you!

[@trevor9934]

I started my photographic career in the early '80's, using transparencies. When I was able to engage with digital I embraced it for the release from the costs and capacity limitations of carrying and processing film. I had a discussion with a fervent film aficionado who bemoaned the prevalence of digital and touted film's superiority. I asked him if he was to offer a digital camera to any photographer in the 19th and early 20th centuries if they would reject it - I would say very much NOT! The tech is neutral: neither good nor bad - it is how we use it...

[@treffnix_72]

"In the past everything was better. Even the Future" - Karl Valentin (German Comedian 1882-1948). I love your open minded thinking. You are an fresh and important opposite to all these rules repeating "photographers"

[@timday8331]

Years ago I took photography in junior high.. darkroom stuff and all that.. I found it quite fascinating. About nine years ago I was gifted a Canon T4i and over the past four years or so really started to take photography more seriously as a hobby. I was also gifted my late great uncle's Canon AE-1 Program and have started shooting film along with digital. What film has done for my digital photography is slow me down. You can't just snap away with film unless you have a large bank account. That mentality has moved on to my digital photography as well and I feel made me a better photographer. Both have benefits, at least for me.

[@b991228]

I started as a kid in the 60’s with the Rollieflex DLR that my grandfather bought me but I grew bored of photographer and lost the camera. Years ago I again took up photography as digital photography first got started. Now I’m more obsessed with it than I have ever been. I do have times when I do miss film but in the end I have come to realize that with photography it’s not about the film, the optics, the hardware or the software. These are no more than the ever evolving tools used to render the final image. Yes, each medium will create a unique style unto itself but it is only a tool. This final art we are seeking comes only from our own unique special visualization that makes photography what it is today.

[@stephenlpitts]

As a huge opponent of digital and later to most enthusiastically embrace it, it's amazing what you can do now in such a relatively small format. Anyhow, I gave it an enthusiastic thumbs-up, but think this whole discussion sidesteps the key issue around the different technologies and that is proper disclosure. Buyers of photography--justified or not--may have strong preferences and the producer of the artwork should be completely candid and open on the techniques used in the production of their print. There have been some well known digital artists which have fabricated extremely fanciful stories on how they "captured this special moment" and it was artificially created. Thanks!

[@esanford]

First, I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation (to call it a mere video is insufficient). I started photography in 1957 when my mother bought a 620 box camera to be shared between my two sisters and me. That began my love affair with photography. I've only switched to digital in 2013. What persuaded me to change was that cameras approached 20 MP and could rival my Hasselblad 500CM. The other thing that caused me to move to digital was Lightroom. Although electronic, it gave me the same feel that I got from the wet darkroom with burning, dodging etc... I totally agree with each of your points. I especially liked the fact that you mirrored the history of photography throughout your "lecture". Younger people today don't understand that many things that are accomplished with digital were done with film and negatives in the past. The Kodak story is a classic example of how a disruptive technology changes an entire paradigm.

[@honeysucklecat]

This reminds me of the debate between vinyl lovers and digital audio. Digital is best and the gap is just getting wider.

[@wanneske1969]

I love the analogy between photography and punk rock. Love the Siouxsie pic a lot

[@davetabler8924]

Brilliant title selection on this video, because of course all the many many shooters who adore creating their work digitally will immediately be up in arms to see what you've got to say about their beloved tools. New digital tools, as with Kodak's breakthrough Brownie camera 100 years prior, are still just that: tools. I have no doubt that 2 generations hence photographers (some, not all) who staked their claim on today's technologies will bemoan whatever the latest available tools are in favor of 'the good old ways' of imaging they grew up with. But the greatest tool any of us have to work with yesterday, today and tomorrow is still the one between our two ears.

[@str8sh2ter]

Great video. I started with film in the 70s. I purchased a digital a couple years ago. I dug out my OM1 a few months ago to play with Black and white. The pendulum will keep swinging back and forth most likely. The freedom of digital and the spirit or soul of film. thanks again for a great video.

[@joeycarlson5934]

I got three chords and a holy tee-shirt, and I'm gonna go with it. Best line of the 2020's

[@lesberkley3821]

I just loaded up a film camera (Nikon FG-20). I also formatted the card in a Fuji X-S10. The problem with the (endless) film versus digital "debate" is that there is no "versus". There are just different media. All are valid. There are people making beautiful images with 8x10, 35mm, digital cameras, phones, Instax, pinhole (film and digital) and lots of other "formats". My first picture was published in 1963 (Leica IIIc, Tri-X). I am now seventy-one. I know people my age who have embraced digital and who have gone back to large format film. Yes, digital has produced an awful glut of bad phone photos. Yes, there were lots of film users who took close-ups of their index finger. Yes, digital files will be lost forever when computers crash. Yes, that is avoidable. Yes, many prints from film were thrown out. More negatives were discarded. People tell me about the "purity" of "old school" print making. To which I respond, "What if I take a digital file, create a negative from it, and then make a platinotype?"

[@paganhoneyproductions7688]

I finished high school in 1994 to give you a idea of my age. I remember digital vs film. I was curious about digital because in my family film was "a waste of money" or a "Scam" because "what are you going to do with those photos anyways? They aren't going to make you money". Digital was a way to cut my parent off at the knees. I also remember film people did not like digital and many told me so if I brought it up. One of the problems I always had though was how photographers dressed and the air they gave off about themselves. I would assume many photographers were aware how things appear and the importance of appearance, so most photographers I met dressed nice. Remember I wasn't meeting war correspondents, I am meeting people who own small studios where they mostly do family portraits. I remember men with neatly trimmed beards and long sleeve turtle neck sweaters. I come from sawdust covered blue jeans people, I always felt like they thought less for it being that way. In the end, film looked like too much work but all the "experts" had convinced me digital wasn't worth my time. Honestly, looking back, digital wasn't ready, the tech just wasn't there yet. Now though, I think digital looks great, there are so many amazing photographers out there using digital and I'm happy to use "learning photography" as a excuse to go exploring 😁. I don't plan on selling anything or making any money but I have gotten to the point in life where money seems like a bad choice in motivation.

[@backwoodstrails]

The one thing I found that digital did hurt were the portrait and wedding film photographers. Anyone that took a cute digital photo of their child hung out a shingle saying they were a professional. They put the camera setting on "P" for "Professional" and shot hundreds, if not thousands of photos at a wedding in an effort to get some good images. The film guys (especially the medium format shooters), had to nail every shot because of the cost limitations of shooting over 10 or so rolls of 220 film. Film photographers knew about proper exposure because the cameras were simply shutter speed and aperture adjustments only, and of course, lens selection (almost always prime Ziess lenses). When I would ask any of the weekend warrior photographers to explain hyperlocal focus, inverse square law, the zone system or circles of confusion, their head would spin. Several of my friends that stayed in the business had significant income loss. And yes, I do know that "P" really does not stand for "Professional", it was just an industry joke at that time.

[@ivanbarrientos7106]

Your best video so far, IMHO👏

[@alanmoulsdale6172]

I think film photography and digital imaging should co exist as genres. I do both & really enjoy them. I am a hobbyist. I don't make a living from it, I do it for fun. I enjoy making images. I also like music & vinyl albums co exist with downloads. Also B&W film co exists with colour. Great video, thank you for posting.

[@beachbumblog]

It's so interesting the way people see photography and it's forms of "purity" as if every photo wasn't in some way manipulated. Even from the very beginning - we staged, we lit, we focused, we found ways to make our photos look better. The only real difference is the way in which we do it now and how available it is to everyone. It sure is easier in many ways but all of the oldest principles still apply. We still get much of what we've always known and learned from the same understanding of art. Once you put it all back as art - who cares whether it was digital, film, paint, sketches, etches, or carvings - it's about what it means to you.

[@washingtonradio]

I learned photography in the film days and now shoot digital only. My personal preference is to shoot digital not film. To me, the exact technical methods of capturing, editing, and presenting an image is not important. It really comes down to how is photography and related fields are defined. I prefer using a very broad definition where it is defined as a technical method to capture images that allow the photographer to express their artistic vision. What technical method one prefers to uses says much about their artistic sensibility and vision; a sensibility and vision that may not be mine but is just as valid as mine.

[@photosneverdie]

I love the positivity and inspiration I get from your videos!

[@bobneedham6224]

Terrific discussion on a important subject

[@martinlawrence8427]

Another thought provoking and insightful video…top stuff!

[@davidgodfrey1815]

Great content. Over 50 years ago, I watched the image appear in the developer tray for the first time, I was hooked. Today I turn on the printer, set up the image, and press print. I get nastalgic for film, but ultimately most of what I do is digital. Digital cameras are so amazing, being able to switch ISO from frame to frame, having next to no cost per exposure, smaller, lighter, higher quality. Yes there was some great glass 40 years ago, but there is some amazing glass today.

[@kyoshiphoto4045]

Great video. As a professional, I love digital. As a photographer, I still love film. I can create the same images with both but as a medium and workflow, I still prefer the process of film. While I love the look of film, there are many digital cameras and edits that can very closely create the same feel. Even some digital cameras like the Fuji GFX100 use film profiles that look like their analog counterparts. I love film mostly for the emotional connection. It isn't a tangible argument nor will it matter to the new crop of photographers, but it is what it is. That being said digital has been great to me and it is still enjoyable to learn the new possibilities of these new tools. There is prestige with digital images. As critiqued as photoshop is, it is still a lot of work to visualize a great photo. The #1 selling cameras aren't even traditional cameras anymore, they are phones. Phones which are sold with their camera as the primary selling point. Phones which in the hands of the right photographer, can produce amazing images. You go on instagram and there are photographers that can rival the best of the classics...

[@vawterb]

Thank you for this video. I greatly appreciate what you are saying. I've had a very difficult time adjusting to digital photography. To the point that I did very little photography for 20 years. This, only to find that I had my toes in it enough to realize that I had become familiar enough with digital that I was automatically thinking digitally. It is high time I returned to photography and started producing work one again.

[@ThePhotographicEye]

Thank you for watching

[@davidcaskie6680]

I started in the film age, with a commercial studio using 8x10 and 5x7 sheet film for most of our work. We were one of the first studios that tested some of the initial commercial digital cameras being offered to professional studios (Kodak was one of them), and yes, they were all awful... Multi-scan, cable connected, and the size of old security cameras. We thought there’s now way these were going to catch on, but, they got better, and better, and better, and now I’m all digital. The one thing I learned is that my “eye” didn’t change with the changing medium, but my thinking and process did. I went from being really pre-production heavy, and thinking about the shot I wanted down to the last detail, as you only had so much film to work with, to a post-production editor with the freedom to shoot as much as I wanted trying a multitude of different ideas onsite, it was/is fantastic! Don’t get me wrong... I still love film, but I really love the freedom of digital! Love your channel!

[@fourdogfilms8833]

I've always heard the same sentiment since I started shooting professionally in 2006 that digital is the death of photography. But I've always just accepted that you can change that. You just have to rise to the occasion and get better and more innovative with your craft. Creatives will always find a way to be creative and people who just "pick up" a camera or any medium will most likely stay mediocre. Its up to us. Thanks for the video, very interesting watch!

[@joturchetphotography1968]

Another thought provoking video, thank you. I started photography using film and reluctantly went to digital in the early 2000s. With the introduction of Fujifilm mirrorless cameras I grew to love it. However 2 years ago, stuck in a creative rut, I went back to film, shooting medium format and 35mm. I love grain - the textures of a film photograph. I have my own homemade darkroom. I love the processes and find shooting film a mindful experience. That said, I don’t use film for paid photography for reasons of speed and accuracy so I guess I am a hybrid photographer. With all the technology that is out there however, film is most certainly not dead - there is a huge international film community out there, to the extent that lots of new and creative films are being made. The downside is that Kodak are cashing in on the film revival and are increasing the price of their films to ridiculous amounts, and there’s the rub; I am struggling to afford to continue with film photography! And then, and probably most importantly, film photography is most certainly not environmentally friendly so I feel I am being driven back to digital for good. But enough of the debate, fIlm or digital, it doesn’t really matter, for as the saying goes, a camera doesn’t make a great photo - it’s whether you have the eye and most importantly that you enjoy photography.

[@emotown1]

Yes, but nothing like the same amounts of photographic chemicals are being used these days compared to, say, in the eighties. It’s a minute fraction. So, yes, most photographic chemicals are nasty environmentally, but relatively speaking it’s small beer these days. I mean, in my town of about forty thousand people, I and maybe a couple of others still do darkroom stuff from film. Thirty to forty years ago I’d imagine at least ten times that number of enthusiasts doing it, not to mention the chemical waste from the local chemists and ‘pronto-print’ shops where the general public got their prints done. So, yeah, the environmental angle should not be of too much concern these days. Well, it obviously is for you and I respect that, but the small scale these days allows me to still do it and sleep at night. Just my two cents on that issue.

[@keithfox2995]

I think its all about the process and how you feel doing it . For me its film only, and LF.

[@pierswoo76]

Agreed, apart from people who shoot film and never print their images but just stick them on insta with hashtags like "filmphotography" thats criminal!

[@trevor9934]

A lot of what you describe is not simply about technology, it's about human nature - our psychology. We all live our lives within what I call comfort zones: behavioural environments within which we are not unduly stressed. When we are young our comfort zones are very flexible as we experiment - try stopping small children from pushing their bounds! As we get older, our comfort zones mature and at a series of points we establish comfort islands, from which it is harder for us to move. For example, when we go to school our exploration is continued in a channelled form. Some will continue to explore and learn but most will find a state of comfort after that, but without expansion our comfort zones become shells that are more and more traumatic to break out of. For those in that situation, change becomes stressful and threatening. Photography is an excellent example of comfort zones. On the art side, it conforms to the pattern of all art: in that there is a movement, followed by a counter-movement. For example, Neo-Classicalism was followed by Realism and that by Impressionism - each of these rejected fundamental elements of the previous genre. Photography movements have followed the same pattern. With photography as an art, it was almost like the creation of the universe - in the early years the technological environment was not mature enough to clearly establish a dominant genre - photography lived in a sort of cosmic cloud. It was a period of technological gestation as people tried to use it to create art and record their environment. For example, in the earliest period, 1840-50 exposures were very long and the technology to record and process an image was problematic. Yet, quickly people created improvements that allowed for the creation of portraits - albeit clumsy, formal ones: yet this tapped into a desire of the mass of people to record images of those close to them. Previously, only the rich could afford a painted portrait, while those of lesser means had to cope with silhouettes. From the beginning the capturing of portraits was embraced, and made photography a commercial success. Daguerreotype studios exploded around the world within months of the process being announced in August 1839, and studios were soon common in most countries. As technology improved the cost reduced and the quality improved - we have examples of Tintype images being sold by the 100,000 of soldiers going off to fight the American Civil War. The development of the Wet Plate process allowed reproduceable images of some quality, but the photographer was still tied to the studio (although many had mobile studios). The Dry plate process of the 1950's allowed the plates preparation and processing of plates to be separated from the image capture, while smaller cameras freed the photographer from the tripod. The invention of roll film by Eastman in 1880 and its application to his Kodak camera in 1889 was a disruptive technology: not only did it massively reduce the size and cost of taking an image, but it democratized the recording of images, so anyone could record the minutia of their lives - something that was rare until that time. This was extremely threatening to the professional establishment that had a virtual monopoly on image creation and production. It was really in reaction to this in an artistic context that Pictorialism evolved as the first formal genre of photography. Photographers had grappled with the identity crisis of photography from its inception: was it just a technology or was it an art? Some pioneers had attempted to establish photography as an 'Art' alongside painting against considerable push-back from an establishment that felt threatened by the new medium. Paul Delaroche (historical painter) wailed: “From today, painting is dead” when he saw a Daguerreotype. Yet painters like Degas used photographs frequently to capture poses for their paintings. Photographers took on the classical paintings: in 1847: Thomas Couture created a facsimile of the 1511 painting "The School of Athens" Raphael painted in Rome. Couture used 30 negatives blended to create his own version with 'The Decadence of Empire' - to say "look, photographers can do this too!" (Cindy Sherman has continued this with her version of Caravaggio's Bacchus in 1990). Naturalist began to record ethereal impressions of aspects of society threatened by the industrial revolution: e.g., Paul Henry Emerson created several lyrical publications in the 1880's of Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads. He was certainly not the first: in the 1940 Octivius-Hill first coined the phrase Naturalism, while Julia Margaret Cameron created allegorical or mythical images in the 1960's,and finally, Henry Peach Robinson defined the term Pictorialism in his book of 1869. However, these artists had all been within the purview of specialists in the field. The Kodak took the tech out of photography and the average plebeian could suddenly make photos. This was an asthma to those struggling for professional and artistic recognition. So, the Pictorialist movement was founded: essentially rejecting the clarity of the new technology, and its reproducibility with the uniqueness of the 'hand of man'. They deliberately manipulated images to make them soft, ethereal, romantic and unique by defocusing, manipulating the negatives through painting on them scratching them and double printing. Often, having made a satisfactory image, the negative was destroyed to render it unique - and echo of the uniqueness of the painting. The digital revolution was, to me, equivalent to the invention of the roll film, and the new "Kodak Moment" was actually the invention of the camera cell phone. This was profound: its portability meant that almost anyone could carry a camera; its digital nature meant it cost nothing to capture an image, but most profound of all - it could instantly transmit that image to an individual or the whole world via phone and internet technologies. It has elicited the same responses as the Kodak did in its time and it has had a similar, if not greater impact on society. The Kodak, digital camera and cell phone have removed the hitherto mediated ability to make and capture images. The WWW is, in itself, the greatest change in our engagement with knowledge and creativity since the printing press in the 15th century. Up until then what one could read was controlled by an elite of clerics, the rich, and intellectuals. The printing press made the dissemination of information a democratic medium and our levels of knowledge and invention exploded as more active minds could engage with new ideas. The WWW not only turbo-charges this, but allows anyone to publish: again, a function previously held by publicists and editors. The result is an explosion of ideas, within which the image and video play a huge role. It has allowed artists who might never have been discovered to be recognized, but has also produced a lot of rubbish, and in some cases had precipitated social and political events of major significance. So, is photography dead? Well, while the masses use different media, the capture and production of images is more prevalent than ever - we get about 85% of our sensual awareness visually, so we are programmed to want to see images. Has it been degraded by the new technology? Yes and no: it offers new paths to create as never before, but the unmediated transmission leads itself to the publication of material arguably best kept to oneself. That again is a function of humans, not the technology, but the tech HAS turbocharged this. People still produce Daguerreotypes, tintypes, monochrome prints and Polaroids etc. So, for those harkening back to those, the opportunity still exists to practice in those areas.

[@gerhardbotha7336]

So true..I am an amateur - I dont earn from photography. But I am serious about photography in my limited way. Digital photography to me, has opened the development side of images. In film days, it was about shooting. You then handed your shots in for development. You had no real say in what came out. It was about how good you are at taking shots. Very few people had access to a real darkroom. With digital, every photographer can develop their own photos. Now it is about taking shots AND developing them. That adds a completely new dimension. Shoot RAW! its GREAT! I am not into the digital sharing scene really - I am from the cold war era! Flickr is about the most I get up to.

[@spirg]

Fantastic channel , my favorite on Yt

[@kermitage]

Pleasure listening to you, sir, as well as watching those great pictures chosen for illustration.

[@grahamhobbs3501]

One of the reasons that people connect with old school photos is that they (mostly) show something that was in front of the camera when the shutter a released. A lot of digital imaging is indeed more like painting than photography for that reason - it's not a bad thing, but it's not the same and it (for me at least) is processed in a different part of the brain.

[@TL-xw6fh]

I've been taking photographs since the early 70's, shooting mainly in B&W. I am now totally sold on digital photography since there are truly no comparison between analogue and digital. Digital beats analogue films hands down. I get much better control of tonal gradation and a huge capability to fine tune my images to exactly what I want. Digital photography has immensely improved my photographic skills and images I create. The biggest bonus is I simply do not have to spend hours and hours at night processing films and prints, and it cost me literally nothing to experiment to my heart's content.

[@WilliamWallaceRoss]

I still use my Pentax K1000, along with my Sony a6400. Mainly use film during the winter months to see what I can capture with film and one lens, my 50mm f1.4.

[@pelagieweber8565]

Your speech is very clever , interesting and inspiring, thank you so much!

[@ashsphotolounge]

I started as a professional using film - couldn't wait to ditch film and was one of the first pros in London to shoot theatre on digital - and now I have partially returned to shoot film as well as digital - as both mediums offer unique advantages. For myself the joy is that I can shoot on either my 5x7 view camera, or my Sony mirrorless and show the two images side by side on my website or on the wall. I can digitally manipulate scans of my large format negatives - or print digital images with cyanotype. We have never had it so good as far as photographic mediums are concerned, we should celebrate them all :-)

[@scrptwic]

I bought my first digital camera in 2004 a 4 megapixel point and shoot and never looked at my film cameras again. In 2005 I bought a 6 megapixel DSLR I still use as I leave it in my car for daylight drive around photography. In 2008 I sold my film cameras and have had no desire to photograph with film again.

[@gentleman-shutterbug]

Hi Alex. Fantastic video, as always. In your video, you mentioned that many people held onto film because of nostalgia. I have been shooting and developing film for almost two years now, but it's not out of a sense of nostalgia, really. When I did shoot film as a young man, I shot it the way people use their smartphones today -- I didn't understand the process at all. I just knew how to load film and push a button, and I usually hated the results I got back from the developer. A few years ago, my father handed me his 1930's Kodak Brownie Six-20 box camera and asked me to take care of it. I decided I would try to make it actually work. I took it apart, cleaned it, and I learned how to load 120 film onto antique 620 spools. To save money I developed it myself. I was astounded at what came out of the chemical bath, and found myself hooked. I really enjoyed the whole process, and as I purchased some cameras with better lenses, I also enjoyed the fact that I didn't need electricity at all -- I wasn't tethered to a plug or a battery pack. Carrying a few extra rolls of film (reloaded inexpensively at home) was less of a burden, both in weight and in cost. These days, I usually carry a 1976 Konica AR TC or a small Russian camera from the early 1980's, a Smena 8m. I'm an old art school guy, so I enjoy the craft involved, and I also believe in keeping the "old skills" alive, because they're new to me. Am I against digital? Not at all. It's here to stay, and digital video is a lot of fun to play with and edit. I'm like an acoustic guitarist who doesn't expect screaming electric guitars to go anywhere. :) However, digital doesn't interest me in the same ways. Analog photography is also kind of a survivalist's medium. If all digital cameras and even if all film vanished tomorrow, we could still use home-brewed chemical processes and go on. But that's just my own silly prepper's fantasy. Thanks again.

[@ledesclos5321]

Thank you for your sharing your wisdom and insight. I find it as fascinating as viewing the work of others.

[@tremaincheerful4189]

An inspiring and empowering presentation of wisdom and imagery. Thanks for the encouragement to experiment with all the range the media has to discover! Nice grooming, by the way..

[@glen-draketoolworks7186]

I'll be 81 in a couple of days, I've seen enough change to know that it is inevitable. Go with it.

[@Fifty8day]

Yes I like this kind of content KZbin!!!❤

[@maryl1833]

Photography today is extremely exciting because you can fix it to be whatever you want it to be, I.e., an art form. I read an interesting comment by a Chinese photographer who said that photography as a historical storyteller can no longer be trusted since the advent of digital, because a photograph now can not only be ‘fixed’, but it can be ‘changed’.

[@chrispatmore8944]

I was born in the 1950s and got my first camera at 12, a Polaroid Swinger, which started my lifelong love of photography. When I started getting serious about it in my late teens I shot mostly slides (Kodachrome 64, and Ektachrome sometimes). I shot mostly surfing and occasionally live music, then travel photos. I loved the results those films gave. When I went to art school I started using and developing and printing B&W, because it was required, although I had already been printing my own Cibachromes from my slides. I was a relatively slow adopter of digital because in the early days it just didn't deliver what film could. In my work life I'm primarily a graphic designer, having learnt in the days of hot metal, photosetting and paste-up, but when I saw my first Macintosh I knew it was the way forward and jumped straight in, despite all the old naysayers. I love using new technology. When I did finally move to digital photography, it was partly pushed by the graphic design as it gave me an affordable, quick way of getting images. I pretty much abandoned film as I was shooting live music and digital was a far better tool when working in colour in the artificial low light. I've gone back to using film again, for black and white, and digital for colour and convenience. I still love shooting a bit of film, but I'm happy to use anything (except a phone). And I'll use print and digital for my photos, with a certain amount of necessary crossover. Analogue or digital have different applications and experience tells me which one works best in the moment.

[@kevinhanley3023]

It is different for me. I always had a curiosity about making images. But I was moving in a technical path as a young man. I was an electronics tech studying to be an electrical engineer. Film was inconvenient. Chemicals a buzz kill. Digital wasn't a thing. I was busy. Then as time passed, technology started to allow me to manipulate images that already existed. I bought a printer in the 90's that came with a disk of applications like Avery products. One was a image editor! Now, I could use existing images to make art. I made iron-on transfers. I converted color images to B&W or to "pen and ink". I cropped, I colored, I manipulated until I was pleased. Then, the Digital Rebel. I didn't have the cash until Nikon released the D70. I was all in at that point. I never had Photoshop Anxiety; only Photoshop Excitement. So, Digital unlocked the art world I had avoided (chemical inconvenience). And I don't think I am alone. If you plot the history of sales of digital cameras you would see that the world started to explode with new artwork making equipment! I was not alone. The world embraced the new technology. Only those with a huge investment in film were worried about the state of the art. They just didn't understand. And now, there are cell phones with their own digital camera revolution. I love it.

[@AlanKlughammer]

I was trained in large format B&W film photography in art school. When I learned of Digital some time in the 1980's (Photoshop 3 or something like that) I found it liberating. All at once, I could create images the way I wanted. No longer did I have to spend days, and hundreds of sheets of photographic paper to get where I wanted t go.

[@beadericjones8869]

I think your views and emotions relate to a lot of aspects of life, not just photography. Very powerful.thank you very much. Bead.

[@5000Helme]

I enjoy the process of film photography and developing. I dont care so much for the result. I adore the sound of liquids shaking. It is so peaceful. Digital stuff is a niche in my world. Thanks for your video.

[@fenlandwildlifeclips]

Nice positive thought provoking video.