From this I feel it's fair to say that every hobby or art pursuit is inherently privileged. Having any amount of time and disposable income is a privilege. I am privileged to be an artist and educator, to be able to choose to pursue the all analog process, not just in shooting, but in developing and printing my work in my own darkroom; and one of my major goals is to make the analog process as accessible as possible to anyone who is interested. But bigger than that, I believe that even non-professional photography is not just a frivolous hobby, but is a cultural necessity, and the ability for folks to be able to document what is happening around then, and to preserve memory and identity is culturally vital. In this as well as in professional fields, digital photography and more so the smartphone camera has accomplished this better than ever. The smartphone camera is really the thing that has caused this rift. Before smartphones, photography was something that many people invested in as families and hobbyists as the only way to make images. Now no one "needs" to buy a camera if they also have a phone. Now every family and adult does not need to buy an induvial camera to make photographs, so the professionals and the hobbyists are left, and the markets have moved to support that smaller dedicated user base. In the niche side of things, many people are using analog photography "professionally", and there are plenty of good reasons why. There are also plenty of silly reasons why too, but it is equally silly to get on anyone's case for doing a hobby that brings them even a little bit of joy and fulfillment in their everyday lives.
Film is a much stronger archive format. People underestimate a physical master because our lives are so fast moving and ephemeral. The privilege point has some merit, but a lot of pro landscape photographers still use sheet film because the resolution is bananas. For large and medium format, film still is the standard for the absolute pinnacle of the industries. It’s hard to argue that if you’re working at that level that privilege isn’t a factor in some way, even abstractly. But to be honest, I think the sentiment expressed here is pretty baseline gatekeeping and gaslighting of people who, even if it is trendy, just want to have fun and do cool things. Don’t yuk other people’s yums. The clout engine and content space makes us all a bit mental. Nobody will watch Mr Reasonable take for very long so I get it. But you don’t have to shoot film, so why is it even an issue.
I don’t understand why people can’t just enjoy both. This console war mindset is f$&@ing stupid and has no place in the hobby. This dude is just being a hater because he’s not as successful as Peter. Instead of being a hater how about work as hard as he did. It’s not like his success was handed to him.
Unfortunately controversy is what sells soap. A video called "some people like film instead of digital" will get 1% of the views as "Film is racist!". Less views is less payout.
I shoot film exclusively. These guys misunderstand pretty much everything. Its about the interaction with the medium, and the satisfaction of taking and getting the photos.
Film is cheaper to get into than digital though, so not sure how it can been seen as a privilage 😅. you can get a camera + 5 rolls of black and white film and get those rolls developed / scanned for less than £200.
@@the_Creator2000 Sure, but so does digital. The peripherals around it you have to consider e.g. hard drives for back ups, adobe sub, a capable machine to edit on etc, they are all required to get get started, even an iPhone is min £600. I am not saying film is better than digital or it's even a good choice for most, but I am saying it's not a privliage. You can get a disposable camera, have fun with it, get it developed & have prints for £50, and a bonus you get that trendy direct flash look 😅
@@madebyjonny7637this! Film has a MUCH lower floor for entry compared to digital. Long term it’ll snowball no doubt but lots of people don’t have the means to drop $1k+ at a single time. You can thrift tons of film cameras and get cheap film and produce incredible photos. Similar quality in digital is always gonna have a much higher entry cost
It’s like comparing oil painting to water color. It’s just two different mediums. The experience is what it’s about and I think it really opens your mind to a new way of looking at things. But definitely overly complicated. Heh
Photography is expensive even the digital one. Chemical photo is about the whole process and different quality in dynamic range, experimentation, etc. And of course, there's a world outside social media that you may not consider....
Also you are not considering the backup that is film as a physical piece that may be here after all of us. Film photography is this big not as a trend but as a way to express and document the world for years now to the point that new cameras are being built again. And after all, is good because we are making photos in all these different ways.
I shoot a few film cameras. Its a deliberate choice and I go through a roll every two months or so. Main camera cost so much more than all my film cameras and developing combined
I've shot and developed about 20 rolls this year, self developing and scanning, along with digital printing at home goes a long way towards bringing the cost down. Color was scary at first but I'm much more comfortable now and prefer to do it for the control you get in being able to pull or push without paying extra for it.
dude in red just proved that he does it all for validation and likes. hopefully i’m wrong and he’s still passionate about what he does but it’s about the process, not the product my man.
$6k to get into mirrorless shooting? Maybe to be considered a professional but Panasonic G7 or any Canon M series and there you go! Pick up some vintage lenses and some adapters and now you're shooting with style.
true af lol. my recently bought A7s mk1 + 7artisans 35mm f1.4 cost around $375, my old Canon EOS M + 7artisans 25mm lens cost almost half of that. there's a treasure trove of cheap M43/APS-C cams and vintage manual focus lenses to look for. heck they can even go down the Chinese/Korean lens route (7artisans, Samyang/Rokinon, etc) and still wouldnt break the bank. 8/16GB SD cards cost cheaper than a roll of film nowadays if they wanna simulate that "36-exposure-per-roll" experience. and that film look? theres a ton of free filters they can apply on VSCO, Snapseed, Lightroom Mobile, etc.
I thought it was just me - thank you. Shoot film if you want; get prints. The camera is just a tool. If you're a good photographer you can see good composition and lighting and create a work of art with a phone or an old Canon Rebel. Want the film experience, cover the back of your camera, shoot pictures, don't look at them for a week. Then off load them. :) Great Video -Thank you
I think a key thing that these guys are glossing over is really the process of shooting film. I feel thats the main appeal. My advice to people who just PURELY like the film aesthetic is just to shoot it digital and edit it to look like film. its more consistent, and chances are they already have a digital camera lying around. No point investing money into analog systems in today’s age if you aren’t interested in the process and just PURELY want the results. BUT, If they are chasing an experience then give analog methods a go. Shooting film is a meditative process. You think about your images so much more when you shoot, simply because theres a smaller room for error. You don't have 128GB SD cards with film, at most just 72 shots if you are shooting with a half frame. And on top of shooting with film, I genuinely encourage individuals to develop it on their own, scan it on their own and most important is printing it with the use of enlargers. You become so in tune with your images, your eye becomes so much sharper when looking at colour casts (especially printing colour film). At the end of the day shooting analog is really just an unrivalled experience that digital can only barely scratch the surface on.
Yup i love to load, shoot, develop and scan it myself, i take part in most of the image making. And film is not that imperfect as people claim, that shit can get extremely clean.
Why not schoot film if you want to the look? I never understood of photoshopping a digital image to look like film. If digital is so much better there would be no need for that.
@@thevoiceman6192 great question. Totally get where you are coming from. But my logic goes like this: You don’t need a film camera for the film aesthetic. For me, the beauty about shooting film is the process. Its a tedious process where things can go wrong and you end up with a disppointing photo. Light leaks, film burns, negatives not coming out well from the development process etc. You can be a technically sound film photographer and shit still happens. Thats just part of the process. If people are PURELY just chasing that aesthetic I see no reason for them to have to go through that when they can achieve the look more consistently through digital processes and a preset or simulation. Plus, film is expensive. Especially since many photographers start off with digital, they prolly have a DSLR or mirrorless. Investing in a designated film camera, film stocks, chemistry or paying a lab etc. Ofc if you have money, then go ahead and give it a shot, I think the process really helps build your skills as a photographer, but for some they really just want the look and aren’t interested in all that and thats cool too. They know what they want, no point putting money into something if they can already achieve the same result with what they have.
@@markysng So do you say to traditional painters the same thing when they can use an Ipad for the same thing to quote you? Do you say to musicians. Why are you plugging in your instruments when you can go wireless? Again you said presets. A digital camera is a menu where you choose and the camera does anything for you. I would like to see a digital photographer use a digital camera like a manual film camera making all the decisions themselves without menu options and presets and no spray and pray.You say film gets light leaks and burns etc.. Crappy photos as you say. So Digital you get perfect shots everytime that are bangers with no imperfections?? And if you think so there would not be the need for photoshop or lightroom.
@@thevoiceman6192 you are comparing apples and oranges. Painting and Photography are two very different mediums. I was trained in fine arts before I shifted over to photography. Painting is a way more forgiving medium than photography. In painting if you make a mistake, you wait for it to dry and you can paint over and blend it nearly seamlessly. You can’t do that with photography. If you miss that moment completely, its gone. If something goes wrong while developing film, its gone. Theres no coming back. Also painting with a tablet vs painting with actual paint gives two different end results. When you paint digitally, and are producing and printing it, you get a completely different outcome vs painting with physical paint. Theres a reason why there is huge difference and the need to separate between digital illustration vs traditional painting. Even if you do print out a digital illustration painted on a tablet, it will never successfully emulate physical paintings. For photography, the end result is an image. You can make a film photo look like a digital, and in today’s context the end result is often the same outcome, a Tiff or JPG image. Unless your goal is to create darkroom prints. Then by all means go ahead. But then again, the appeal of using enlargers are mainly the processe that make you more in tune with your work. With regards to your second point on digital photographers shooting on full manual like film. You are proving my point exactly! Its the process that makes shooting film so appealing. Asking a film photographer to shoot everything as they would analog is asking them to alter their process, not necessarily their results. Thats why I say, if you are only interested in achieving the film aesthetic, aka the final result, and have 0 interest in the creative process of film, then just shoot it on digital and edit it.
I don’t think it’s getting main stream again. I get it developed that’s it. I actually like it for more of my personal home stuff, friends and family moments. The negatives are actually cheaper to store then my digital photos but I shoot sports i also have to store thousands of photos so storage is ridiculous for me , I need three back ups for those , I just needs negatives and one digital
The archival argument I think is the best one in the favor of film. If you want your photos to be kept by family for generations to come nothing tops film. It is a physical manifestation of a memory.
I grew up using 110 and 126 film cameras, then moved onto a Canon Felix 35mm, then onto updated versions of that, always a bigger and better camera. We camera users were always chasing the next best in camera technology, so that we could improve the odds of getting better shots out of a roll of 36 exposures. I had a hiatus from photography and now back and armed with a fuji xh2. Having gone through film and now using digital, I cannot understand why anyone wants to go back to film (other than instant cameras - they are always fun).
It's not a privilege, I would argue in some ways digital photography is a bit of a privilege when you're spending upwards of 2-3K just on a body, and then several thousand more on lenses. I happen to shoot both digital and film. In literally every way possible digital is better and if I wanted to I could very closely emulate film with editing on LR. That being said, the process of film is what I love about it. The meticulous process of taking your 36 exposures, then developing it (which I do myself), and then printing (which I don't do myself) and having this physical version of your image that there was an actual process to. This is what I love. That's the area where even though I have a digital camera I shoot film. I feel like Peter McKinnon is a bad metric to even talk about film. His experience always came off as a bit gimmicky and like he was trend riding. Nothing against the guy but that's my personal impression. Any major hobby is expensive, but a lot of the people I know who shoot film like myself aren't loaded. There are months where I can't afford to shoot much. Simple as that man. Also there are definitely hipster types in film doing it for aesthetic clicks and all but I know a substantial portion of people who do film for archival purposes. I have negative books of every role I have shot that I don't have to worry about digitally losing. I lose the digital copies, I can rescan it, print it, etc. This clip is ridiculous, y'all have privilege of stupidity on the matter at hand.
I shoot film myself and im a poor student, I make money by repairing and selling film camera's. I only shoot 1 roll per like 2 months but I always carry my canon model 7 with me. For me its about documenting my life and I love the feeling of the camera's. My canon model 7 only cost me 180 including a good lens and for that I get a full frame sensor with an f1:8 lens : D
Absolutely not making its way back but it’s not really a trend either. The small group of vocal fans of film have said it’s coming back for over a decade. It hasn’t as brands like Fuji stop making more and more of their film types.
If it shoots better than an old film camera then maybe it’s worth it. I somewhat get wanting to post film online. Cause how else are people going to see your world? Unless you work for a magazine
Every hobby is a privilege so it's a moot point. If someone wants a camera to take everyday pictures and post on Instagram, what's the difference between choosing film or a consumer-level digital camera? Both are expensive in time and money, especially if just for personal use; but, they're hardly different enough to make a distinction.
I grew up shooting with film cameras, and I can’t lie, I have no interest in ever going back. I still have some of my older Nikon and Pentax film cameras that have not been touched in years. I honestly, get more joy from using my old Nikon D1X over any film camera.
That pricing is a garbage comparison, you can buy amazing high resolution mirrorless cameras used for under $1500 inc a lens or two Compared to the cost of buying ,processing and scanning film it's a very small expense
Film is already back. Kodak had to hire 24/7 shifts because they cannot keep up with the demand. It never died so maybe not a trend as you mentioned.I never stopped Schooting it. I take my film to a photo lab to be developed, And most of the customers are bringing in film to be developed. And digital is a disposable medium. The digital cameras coming out now are already obsolete. And do you want to sit at a computer for many hours editing them? I wouldn't.
Shooting on film is a privilege in the way that you only use it for personal use. Almost everyone spending 6k on a camera will use it for work. Imagine using film for a commercial shoot ‘hi client I could shoot tethered so you can see the image on a big screen with the graphic overlay, but installers you’ll have to wait three weeks and not already know what you’ll get
I would say this is down to inexperience. There are lot of top photographers using Hassleblad 500 line cameras for portraits, they know their craft and thats why they are hired. But even with digital if you're in experienced in a studio the work you produce will still stuck, you just get to see how bad it is sooner.
I'm old. I grew up shooting film, rolling film, processing film, ... shooting film these days is for hipster douchebags especially if it's 35mm. Never printing it no matter the format and only scanning digitals is the height of douchebaggery.
Lol, lot of silliness in here from the dude in the red flannel. Firstly - the "amount of steps" it takes - that is why people who shoot film shoot film. I am not talking about the people who hop into the trend and only post on social media (nothing wrong with that) but those of us who are truly passionate about it - we want the "work." I develop my own film (it is easy and inexpensive so I don't know why people act like it is rocket science....) I print my own prints, cut my own mattes, and make my own frames. It is called *craftsmanship* and there is an inherent value to that beyond the picture. Also, there are way more film photographers who don't do it for the social media than there are. You are basing that assumption on what you are seeing on - social media - lol. The internet is littered with film photography forums full or people who don't give two fornications about social media. The whole "film isn't a process you need anymore so it is a privilege" comment made me laugh out loud. Followed up by "we've moved past it, and made it so much easier" - since when does "easy" mean "better" for everyone? I will take the process of film over digital any day cause I am more involved and responsible for the outcome - and that leads to more sense of accomplishment and fulfillment in what I do with it. That isn't privilege - that is learning a process that requires effort and skill to get good at. I am a barely educated hillbilly and I can properly shoot film, and develop it. Takes me less than half an hour to develop two rolls of film. Red flannel dude acting like you need 14 days, a degree in chemistry, and live in a 47 bathroom mansion to do it. This video is a prime example of what happens when people who don't "really" shoot film try to talk about it in a way to compare it to digital (apples and oranges.) Or, this was just a hot topic to drive engagement. I dunno.
Trend, there's no practical purpose or advantage of it other than forcing people to know what they're doing before hitting that shutter button, I come from a background of being a wedding and fashion photographer from the the days before digital was even thought of
Film has higher resolution than any digital sensor created to this day, especially if we talk about Medium Format and Large Format film sizes. Conversely, digital is much faster and is easier to work with, hands down. We should all enjoy both mediums.
Oh give me w break with that privilege bs. Dude is rocking several thousand camera gear setup and he’s preaching about privilege of shooting film 🤡 Let people do what they want to do and have fun with that
I've been taking photographs professionally for 45 years and I'll never understand the current nostalgia for film photography. I’ve shot it all and I can assure you a modern digital workflow destroys all film based photography. People seem to think that the ‘process’ of film photography is somehow more authentic than digital; that some magical thing happens when you put a roll of plastic in a camera. Nonsence, the medium does not make magic, you do. Ansel Adasm, Brett Weston, Margaret Bourke-White, Diane Arbus, Eugene Smith and all of the great film photographers of the 20th century would have killed for the convenience, sophistication and efficiency of digital photography. Film is a 100 year old technology that is expensive, awkward and polluting [and I dare say, risks your health if you develop yourself]. I never want to dip my fingers in a film tank ever again. Using this redundant technology to make a career or make your art is pointless. These people are crazy.
That's was the dumbest take I read in a long time 😂 It's like asking why do artists paint with oil paint when acrylic or even photos exist. Or why use a piano when the keyboard can make the same noise. Every artist has their reason why they use their processes. And compared to all the toxic waste and power digital infrastructure uses, film is fart in space.
Nah bro it’s called podcast voice. He’s slowing it down to better pad runtime and think through his thoughts. Leads to longer videos and less editing before he actually thinks before talking. They’re talking tech which is numbers not some male podcast about how wOmENbEsHoPpIn
Film is a dead medium and people using it would be better served investing the resources in education. Stop looking for the " film look" and start exploring the digital medium.
This video kinda corny. Homie w the laptop was tryna make good points and dude in the red just tryna dunk and be edgy. To talk ab privilege while sitting in front of a camera just yappin and making money off it…….. lol
Hilarious to call it privilege lmao. My camera came w three lenses a flash and a bag and was $10. I loved photography but I couldn’t afford a similar level of camera in digital back when I was 15. I’d steal rolls of film from the drug store and just shoot. After years passed I was then an adult with money but still not quite enough for a decent dslr or mirror less so I bought a developing kit. Long term film is def more expensive but tbh if you had absolutely nothing, you can get incredible photos on film for less starting out than digital. I now have a decent Sony mirror less and use it very often but I shoot a lot of film still. I think you gotta take a step back sometimes. You are looking at it from only one specific perspective and almost refusing to view other ones. Guy in the flannel is smug and is generalizing a whole lot of people
From this I feel it's fair to say that every hobby or art pursuit is inherently privileged. Having any amount of time and disposable income is a privilege. I am privileged to be an artist and educator, to be able to choose to pursue the all analog process, not just in shooting, but in developing and printing my work in my own darkroom; and one of my major goals is to make the analog process as accessible as possible to anyone who is interested. But bigger than that, I believe that even non-professional photography is not just a frivolous hobby, but is a cultural necessity, and the ability for folks to be able to document what is happening around then, and to preserve memory and identity is culturally vital. In this as well as in professional fields, digital photography and more so the smartphone camera has accomplished this better than ever. The smartphone camera is really the thing that has caused this rift. Before smartphones, photography was something that many people invested in as families and hobbyists as the only way to make images. Now no one "needs" to buy a camera if they also have a phone. Now every family and adult does not need to buy an induvial camera to make photographs, so the professionals and the hobbyists are left, and the markets have moved to support that smaller dedicated user base.
In the niche side of things, many people are using analog photography "professionally", and there are plenty of good reasons why. There are also plenty of silly reasons why too, but it is equally silly to get on anyone's case for doing a hobby that brings them even a little bit of joy and fulfillment in their everyday lives.
Film is a much stronger archive format. People underestimate a physical master because our lives are so fast moving and ephemeral. The privilege point has some merit, but a lot of pro landscape photographers still use sheet film because the resolution is bananas. For large and medium format, film still is the standard for the absolute pinnacle of the industries. It’s hard to argue that if you’re working at that level that privilege isn’t a factor in some way, even abstractly. But to be honest, I think the sentiment expressed here is pretty baseline gatekeeping and gaslighting of people who, even if it is trendy, just want to have fun and do cool things. Don’t yuk other people’s yums. The clout engine and content space makes us all a bit mental. Nobody will watch Mr Reasonable take for very long so I get it. But you don’t have to shoot film, so why is it even an issue.
I don’t understand why people can’t just enjoy both. This console war mindset is f$&@ing stupid and has no place in the hobby. This dude is just being a hater because he’s not as successful as Peter. Instead of being a hater how about work as hard as he did. It’s not like his success was handed to him.
Excellent comment
Unfortunately controversy is what sells soap. A video called "some people like film instead of digital" will get 1% of the views as "Film is racist!". Less views is less payout.
I shoot film exclusively. These guys misunderstand pretty much everything.
Its about the interaction with the medium, and the satisfaction of taking and getting the photos.
bingo, exactly this
Bingo. 20 years deep in shooting film and I love the process.
Same with me and digital. It’s the interaction, not the tool.
Film is cheaper to get into than digital though, so not sure how it can been seen as a privilage 😅.
you can get a camera + 5 rolls of black and white film and get those rolls developed / scanned for less than £200.
If you woke up as a great photographer. You can still grab a cheap digital camera that takes great photos (on par with your film camera)
of course you can... but the topic was about privilage.
That £200 eventually stacks up bro it might sound good on paper, but trust me it'll eventually stack up
@@the_Creator2000 Sure, but so does digital. The peripherals around it you have to consider e.g. hard drives for back ups, adobe sub, a capable machine to edit on etc, they are all required to get get started, even an iPhone is min £600. I am not saying film is better than digital or it's even a good choice for most, but I am saying it's not a privliage. You can get a disposable camera, have fun with it, get it developed & have prints for £50, and a bonus you get that trendy direct flash look 😅
@@madebyjonny7637this! Film has a MUCH lower floor for entry compared to digital. Long term it’ll snowball no doubt but lots of people don’t have the means to drop $1k+ at a single time. You can thrift tons of film cameras and get cheap film and produce incredible photos. Similar quality in digital is always gonna have a much higher entry cost
It’s like comparing oil painting to water color. It’s just two different mediums. The experience is what it’s about and I think it really opens your mind to a new way of looking at things.
But definitely overly complicated. Heh
Photography is expensive even the digital one. Chemical photo is about the whole process and different quality in dynamic range, experimentation, etc. And of course, there's a world outside social media that you may not consider....
Also you are not considering the backup that is film as a physical piece that may be here after all of us. Film photography is this big not as a trend but as a way to express and document the world for years now to the point that new cameras are being built again. And after all, is good because we are making photos in all these different ways.
I shoot a few film cameras.
Its a deliberate choice and I go through a roll every two months or so.
Main camera cost so much more than all my film cameras and developing combined
I've shot and developed about 20 rolls this year, self developing and scanning, along with digital printing at home goes a long way towards bringing the cost down.
Color was scary at first but I'm much more comfortable now and prefer to do it for the control you get in being able to pull or push without paying extra for it.
dude in red just proved that he does it all for validation and likes. hopefully i’m wrong and he’s still passionate about what he does but it’s about the process, not the product my man.
$6k to get into mirrorless shooting? Maybe to be considered a professional but Panasonic G7 or any Canon M series and there you go! Pick up some vintage lenses and some adapters and now you're shooting with style.
true af lol. my recently bought A7s mk1 + 7artisans 35mm f1.4 cost around $375, my old Canon EOS M + 7artisans 25mm lens cost almost half of that. there's a treasure trove of cheap M43/APS-C cams and vintage manual focus lenses to look for. heck they can even go down the Chinese/Korean lens route (7artisans, Samyang/Rokinon, etc) and still wouldnt break the bank. 8/16GB SD cards cost cheaper than a roll of film nowadays if they wanna simulate that "36-exposure-per-roll" experience. and that film look? theres a ton of free filters they can apply on VSCO, Snapseed, Lightroom Mobile, etc.
I thought it was just me - thank you. Shoot film if you want; get prints. The camera is just a tool. If you're a good photographer you can see good composition and lighting and create a work of art with a phone or an old Canon Rebel. Want the film experience, cover the back of your camera, shoot pictures, don't look at them for a week. Then off load them. :) Great Video -Thank you
I think a key thing that these guys are glossing over is really the process of shooting film. I feel thats the main appeal. My advice to people who just PURELY like the film aesthetic is just to shoot it digital and edit it to look like film. its more consistent, and chances are they already have a digital camera lying around. No point investing money into analog systems in today’s age if you aren’t interested in the process and just PURELY want the results. BUT, If they are chasing an experience then give analog methods a go. Shooting film is a meditative process. You think about your images so much more when you shoot, simply because theres a smaller room for error. You don't have 128GB SD cards with film, at most just 72 shots if you are shooting with a half frame. And on top of shooting with film, I genuinely encourage individuals to develop it on their own, scan it on their own and most important is printing it with the use of enlargers. You become so in tune with your images, your eye becomes so much sharper when looking at colour casts (especially printing colour film). At the end of the day shooting analog is really just an unrivalled experience that digital can only barely scratch the surface on.
Yup i love to load, shoot, develop and scan it myself, i take part in most of the image making. And film is not that imperfect as people claim, that shit can get extremely clean.
Why not schoot film if you want to the look? I never understood of photoshopping a digital image to look like film. If digital is so much better there would be no need for that.
@@thevoiceman6192 great question. Totally get where you are coming from. But my logic goes like this: You don’t need a film camera for the film aesthetic. For me, the beauty about shooting film is the process. Its a tedious process where things can go wrong and you end up with a disppointing photo. Light leaks, film burns, negatives not coming out well from the development process etc. You can be a technically sound film photographer and shit still happens. Thats just part of the process. If people are PURELY just chasing that aesthetic I see no reason for them to have to go through that when they can achieve the look more consistently through digital processes and a preset or simulation. Plus, film is expensive. Especially since many photographers start off with digital, they prolly have a DSLR or mirrorless. Investing in a designated film camera, film stocks, chemistry or paying a lab etc. Ofc if you have money, then go ahead and give it a shot, I think the process really helps build your skills as a photographer, but for some they really just want the look and aren’t interested in all that and thats cool too. They know what they want, no point putting money into something if they can already achieve the same result with what they have.
@@markysng So do you say to traditional painters the same thing when they can use an Ipad for the same thing to quote you? Do you say to musicians. Why are you plugging in your instruments when you can go wireless? Again you said presets. A digital camera is a menu where you choose and the camera does anything for you. I would like to see a digital photographer use a digital camera like a manual film camera making all the decisions themselves without menu options and presets and no spray and pray.You say film gets light leaks and burns etc.. Crappy photos as you say. So Digital you get perfect shots everytime that are bangers with no imperfections?? And if you think so there would not be the need for photoshop or lightroom.
@@thevoiceman6192 you are comparing apples and oranges. Painting and Photography are two very different mediums. I was trained in fine arts before I shifted over to photography. Painting is a way more forgiving medium than photography. In painting if you make a mistake, you wait for it to dry and you can paint over and blend it nearly seamlessly. You can’t do that with photography. If you miss that moment completely, its gone. If something goes wrong while developing film, its gone. Theres no coming back. Also painting with a tablet vs painting with actual paint gives two different end results. When you paint digitally, and are producing and printing it, you get a completely different outcome vs painting with physical paint. Theres a reason why there is huge difference and the need to separate between digital illustration vs traditional painting. Even if you do print out a digital illustration painted on a tablet, it will never successfully emulate physical paintings. For photography, the end result is an image. You can make a film photo look like a digital, and in today’s context the end result is often the same outcome, a Tiff or JPG image. Unless your goal is to create darkroom prints. Then by all means go ahead. But then again, the appeal of using enlargers are mainly the processe that make you more in tune with your work.
With regards to your second point on digital photographers shooting on full manual like film. You are proving my point exactly! Its the process that makes shooting film so appealing. Asking a film photographer to shoot everything as they would analog is asking them to alter their process, not necessarily their results. Thats why I say, if you are only interested in achieving the film aesthetic, aka the final result, and have 0 interest in the creative process of film, then just shoot it on digital and edit it.
These are just people who take photos including "for busines" as was stated, they're not artists and it's evident very quickly
I don’t think it’s getting main stream again. I get it developed that’s it. I actually like it for more of my personal home stuff, friends and family moments. The negatives are actually cheaper to store then my digital photos but I shoot sports i also have to store thousands of photos so storage is ridiculous for me , I need three back ups for those , I just needs negatives and one digital
The archival argument I think is the best one in the favor of film. If you want your photos to be kept by family for generations to come nothing tops film. It is a physical manifestation of a memory.
I grew up using 110 and 126 film cameras, then moved onto a Canon Felix 35mm, then onto updated versions of that, always a bigger and better camera. We camera users were always chasing the next best in camera technology, so that we could improve the odds of getting better shots out of a roll of 36 exposures. I had a hiatus from photography and now back and armed with a fuji xh2. Having gone through film and now using digital, I cannot understand why anyone wants to go back to film (other than instant cameras - they are always fun).
I almost exclusively film... And have for like 29 years now. Anything I share is to share the joy of shooting photography.
The "Audacity" LOL!
It's not a privilege, I would argue in some ways digital photography is a bit of a privilege when you're spending upwards of 2-3K just on a body, and then several thousand more on lenses. I happen to shoot both digital and film. In literally every way possible digital is better and if I wanted to I could very closely emulate film with editing on LR.
That being said, the process of film is what I love about it. The meticulous process of taking your 36 exposures, then developing it (which I do myself), and then printing (which I don't do myself) and having this physical version of your image that there was an actual process to. This is what I love. That's the area where even though I have a digital camera I shoot film. I feel like Peter McKinnon is a bad metric to even talk about film. His experience always came off as a bit gimmicky and like he was trend riding. Nothing against the guy but that's my personal impression. Any major hobby is expensive, but a lot of the people I know who shoot film like myself aren't loaded. There are months where I can't afford to shoot much. Simple as that man.
Also there are definitely hipster types in film doing it for aesthetic clicks and all but I know a substantial portion of people who do film for archival purposes. I have negative books of every role I have shot that I don't have to worry about digitally losing. I lose the digital copies, I can rescan it, print it, etc.
This clip is ridiculous, y'all have privilege of stupidity on the matter at hand.
I shoot film myself and im a poor student, I make money by repairing and selling film camera's. I only shoot 1 roll per like 2 months but I always carry my canon model 7 with me. For me its about documenting my life and I love the feeling of the camera's. My canon model 7 only cost me 180 including a good lens and for that I get a full frame sensor with an f1:8 lens : D
Absolutely not making its way back but it’s not really a trend either. The small group of vocal fans of film have said it’s coming back for over a decade. It hasn’t as brands like Fuji stop making more and more of their film types.
If it shoots better than an old film camera then maybe it’s worth it. I somewhat get wanting to post film online. Cause how else are people going to see your world? Unless you work for a magazine
Every hobby is a privilege so it's a moot point. If someone wants a camera to take everyday pictures and post on Instagram, what's the difference between choosing film or a consumer-level digital camera? Both are expensive in time and money, especially if just for personal use; but, they're hardly different enough to make a distinction.
guys, keep the channel , the chemistry is perfect, and go broad with this subject
i'm glad i got to shoot film back in 2018-19 when a roll of Kodak Colorplus 200 cost ~$2.00 lol.
I grew up shooting with film cameras, and I can’t lie, I have no interest in ever going back. I still have some of my older Nikon and Pentax film cameras that have not been touched in years. I honestly, get more joy from using my old Nikon D1X over any film camera.
Average millennial mindset "That's just so much work"
That pricing is a garbage comparison, you can buy amazing high resolution mirrorless cameras used for under $1500 inc a lens or two
Compared to the cost of buying ,processing and scanning film it's a very small expense
Film is already back. Kodak had to hire 24/7 shifts because they cannot keep up with the demand. It never died so maybe not a trend as you mentioned.I never stopped Schooting it. I take my film to a photo lab to be developed, And most of the customers are bringing in film to be developed. And digital is a disposable medium. The digital cameras coming out now are already obsolete. And do you want to sit at a computer for many hours editing them? I wouldn't.
Shooting on film is a privilege in the way that you only use it for personal use. Almost everyone spending 6k on a camera will use it for work. Imagine using film for a commercial shoot ‘hi client I could shoot tethered so you can see the image on a big screen with the graphic overlay, but installers you’ll have to wait three weeks and not already know what you’ll get
I would say this is down to inexperience. There are lot of top photographers using Hassleblad 500 line cameras for portraits, they know their craft and thats why they are hired. But even with digital if you're in experienced in a studio the work you produce will still stuck, you just get to see how bad it is sooner.
Is film privilege just B&W privilege? 😂😂😂
I'm old. I grew up shooting film, rolling film, processing film, ... shooting film these days is for hipster douchebags especially if it's 35mm. Never printing it no matter the format and only scanning digitals is the height of douchebaggery.
I agree completely with this man's scorching hot take.
How do you even assess 150,000 photos? That's so over kill, you might as well just do video at that point.
Using spell checkers is a "privilege"
First time watching so sorry for not knowing your names, but I have to agree with the dreads guy.
A lot of work? We were using film cameras as kids and never thought twice about it. Other than the wait time what is difficult about it?
Lol, lot of silliness in here from the dude in the red flannel. Firstly - the "amount of steps" it takes - that is why people who shoot film shoot film. I am not talking about the people who hop into the trend and only post on social media (nothing wrong with that) but those of us who are truly passionate about it - we want the "work." I develop my own film (it is easy and inexpensive so I don't know why people act like it is rocket science....) I print my own prints, cut my own mattes, and make my own frames. It is called *craftsmanship* and there is an inherent value to that beyond the picture. Also, there are way more film photographers who don't do it for the social media than there are. You are basing that assumption on what you are seeing on - social media - lol. The internet is littered with film photography forums full or people who don't give two fornications about social media. The whole "film isn't a process you need anymore so it is a privilege" comment made me laugh out loud. Followed up by "we've moved past it, and made it so much easier" - since when does "easy" mean "better" for everyone? I will take the process of film over digital any day cause I am more involved and responsible for the outcome - and that leads to more sense of accomplishment and fulfillment in what I do with it. That isn't privilege - that is learning a process that requires effort and skill to get good at. I am a barely educated hillbilly and I can properly shoot film, and develop it. Takes me less than half an hour to develop two rolls of film. Red flannel dude acting like you need 14 days, a degree in chemistry, and live in a 47 bathroom mansion to do it. This video is a prime example of what happens when people who don't "really" shoot film try to talk about it in a way to compare it to digital (apples and oranges.) Or, this was just a hot topic to drive engagement. I dunno.
Facts
Trend, there's no practical purpose or advantage of it other than forcing people to know what they're doing before hitting that shutter button, I come from a background of being a wedding and fashion photographer from the the days before digital was even thought of
Trend for sure
Everything is a trend now and always.
Film has higher resolution than any digital sensor created to this day, especially if we talk about Medium Format and Large Format film sizes. Conversely, digital is much faster and is easier to work with, hands down. We should all enjoy both mediums.
Oh give me w break with that privilege bs. Dude is rocking several thousand camera gear setup and he’s preaching about privilege of shooting film 🤡
Let people do what they want to do and have fun with that
I've been taking photographs professionally for 45 years and I'll never understand the current nostalgia for film photography. I’ve shot it all and I can assure you a modern digital workflow destroys all film based photography. People seem to think that the ‘process’ of film photography is somehow more authentic than digital; that some magical thing happens when you put a roll of plastic in a camera. Nonsence, the medium does not make magic, you do.
Ansel Adasm, Brett Weston, Margaret Bourke-White, Diane Arbus, Eugene Smith and all of the great film photographers of the 20th century would have killed for the convenience, sophistication and efficiency of digital photography. Film is a 100 year old technology that is expensive, awkward and polluting [and I dare say, risks your health if you develop yourself]. I never want to dip my fingers in a film tank ever again. Using this redundant technology to make a career or make your art is pointless. These people are crazy.
That's was the dumbest take I read in a long time 😂 It's like asking why do artists paint with oil paint when acrylic or even photos exist. Or why use a piano when the keyboard can make the same noise. Every artist has their reason why they use their processes. And compared to all the toxic waste and power digital infrastructure uses, film is fart in space.
What is this some kind of woke thing?
Guys with long hair, he thinks he's him, and it's so cringe. He looks like he thinks every sentence out of his mouth is so deep and thought provoking.
Nah bro it’s called podcast voice. He’s slowing it down to better pad runtime and think through his thoughts. Leads to longer videos and less editing before he actually thinks before talking. They’re talking tech which is numbers not some male podcast about how wOmENbEsHoPpIn
@MrBaskins2010 you said a whole lot of words in a row, but didn't make a point. Did you mean to do that?
Film is a dead medium and people using it would be better served investing the resources in education. Stop looking for the " film look" and start exploring the digital medium.
oh S/U ---- just take pictures
This video kinda corny. Homie w the laptop was tryna make good points and dude in the red just tryna dunk and be edgy. To talk ab privilege while sitting in front of a camera just yappin and making money off it…….. lol
Hilarious to call it privilege lmao. My camera came w three lenses a flash and a bag and was $10. I loved photography but I couldn’t afford a similar level of camera in digital back when I was 15. I’d steal rolls of film from the drug store and just shoot. After years passed I was then an adult with money but still not quite enough for a decent dslr or mirror less so I bought a developing kit. Long term film is def more expensive but tbh if you had absolutely nothing, you can get incredible photos on film for less starting out than digital. I now have a decent Sony mirror less and use it very often but I shoot a lot of film still. I think you gotta take a step back sometimes. You are looking at it from only one specific perspective and almost refusing to view other ones. Guy in the flannel is smug and is generalizing a whole lot of people
lol, Why would any serious film photographer let someone else develop their film?