Why Film Is So Much Better Than Digital
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2022
- Why Film Is So Much Better Than Digital
Film photography has made a huge comeback over the past few years, and after trying it for myself I realized why. Film stocks like Kodak's Portra 400, Ektachrome, and even black and white stocks like Ilford's HP5 all have their own feel that you just can't get no matter how many filters you throw on a digital photo.
Credits for Music Used:
• Dyalla - Help Me, OP-1 ( • Help Me, OP-1 )
• Single Friend - High Speed Dating ( • Video )
• The Westerlies - When the Ash Settles ( • Video )
Credits for Footage Used:
• Jerma985 - Photography rant - Zábava
I used to shoot a lot of film.
Like, A LOT. It used to be my only medium as a photographer. Digital cameras felt lifeless to me and I had no will to deal with all the technical bullshit that those modern cameras need you to go though in order to be used properly.
Then, price began to rise for film stocks. And now, I have a clear idea if what I spend each time I release the shutter while it was never a thing in my mind before. I started to have that Damoclès sword over my head telling me "you'll run out of shots pretty soon, and film rolls are expensive... do you really want to take that picture or do you want to save it for a better occasion?"
And the only thing it did was to hurt my creativity. If you don't allow yourself to test things, fail, and allow yourself to fix it, you'll never improve, and I was certainly in that vicious circle.
So I did the thing that I though I'd never do : I bought a digital camera. I did my research, meaning that I bought a camera that had a control structure close to my Nikon FE, had a good image quality and most important of all, a good viewfinder, didn't care if it was electronic or optical as long as it did the job.
And know what? This gave my creativity a big boost that I never though I would get out of any camera. That allowed me to press the shutter anytime I felt like it, not thinking about the fact that I had limited exposures before reloading an expensive roll. Once I got though the technical stuff about teh specific camera body that I had, once I got through the editing softwares like Lightroom or darktable, I realized how closed my vision was.
Your photo is not "less good" because you can copy it. It's not better because it's unique either. The fact that it's on a digital medium means that I can show it to more people, and if the unique factor really is important, just print it and delete the file on your computer.
The fact that I could shoot hundreds of images a day with the only limiting factor being the time that I had, and not how deep my pockets were changed the game. The fact that I'm not only spending less, but also creating less waste was something that I was completely oblivious about when I was a film shooter only.
So, in the end, is Digital better? Is film better?
Neither are better than the other, they're just made for different things. Digital will allow you to express yourself and let your creativity go without limit. Film will be more focused on the memory and what it means to you. I'm shooting digital, and I still shoot film with my old Nikon FE. And if I really miss the look of film, it can be replicated, either with color or grain/texture really easily with digital.
It's just a matter of perspective
They used to call me the Roger of film.
Matthieu, nicely put. Film and digital are simply tools.
Yes thats true. Also they are so different thats really hard to compared them.
I like my film camera, my go pro, my nikon dslr.
Its just about doing what we love and enjoying it.
Yes! I find virtue in switching between both. Film limits you, then you improve and use it in digital.
What's missing in the current warm and fuzzy romance with film is a discussion of what happens after the snap of the shutter. To complete the "film" experience, the photographer really needs to go in to a darkroom, hopefully with proper ventilation, and get their hands wet. Just getting the film scans back from the lab and running them through Photoshop is not a "film" experience. It's a digital experience.
Dude when you used a jerma clip I thought something auto played
i think what truly makes film special is all in how it looks. it seems more "authentic" and i think the reason why that is is because the way film looks is almost like how we see it in our minds for real. like when we go back to a memory in our heads its fuzzy, grainy, light scorching. etc. all things that film and old digi cams do. i think this is why they are more reactive than the sterileness of digital. because its a more matching look to how we see and feel it inside of our minds remembering things.
Fantastic video, and I agree with the emotional content. Same with analogue audio. Emotions are very much infinite.
This is the first time I’ve ever seen someone use a Jerma clip unironically.
While I appreciate the sentiment, it does not mean you cannot use the same mindset using digital. You can be as deliberate and in the moment with digital photography if you put your mind to it. It’s an exercise in discipline at that point. If it’s a matter of achieving a particular look, say a film look, then I would postulate that a significant level of effort and artistry would be required in Lightroom - just my opinion.
Nice one 😎📸🎞️
That’s what they said to me, back then!
Also, for some reason, my film photos look more… 3D, more like if you where there. Its just
Magical
It's not.
Film is a different medium. Not better, not worse, different.
And a negative is not a final image; nor is it definitive. It's interpreted to make a print.
Film gives you that fussy feeling of uncertainty, digital doesn’t because it ALWAYS come out technically perfect. But in terms of composition and taking the shot of the subject they are the same medium. Oh, film ISO speed is the limiting factor I would say 80% of the time. Digital does not have this limitation you are able to shoot any time of day in any lighting conditions. So Digital is easier to shoot.
Okay I'll be honest, the title is meant to be provocative. I generally have the same opinion as most of the comments say: It's not better, it's just different.
I called the video "Why Film Is So Much Better Than Digital" because it's an opinion piece about why I like it, not a statement of an objective truth. I simply found shooting film far more creatively inspiring than digital as a beginner.
That said, now that I have experience shooting film, all photos I take regardless of the medium are better because of how film encourages you to hone your photography skills. Because of this I suspect that as time goes on I will drift away from film in favor of the convenience that digital photography offers.
I have been shooting film from 1970 to 2007, 110 film, 126 film, 135 film, 120 film, 4"x5" and 5"x7" film, from 2007 and still going I only use digital Cameras and I do not miss film, in fact I am very happy with digital Photography in many ways, biggest thing is that there are no chemicals in my photography any which weighed heavily on my conscience a lot because of the pollution.
I fall back on old film practices, budget exposures, checking the lens cap, and monitoring carefully what film is being used. As for digital and film both can have stylish effects in capturing memories. For composition I generally rely on one photograph in street photography. With an iPad app like hUJi taking up now the bulk until I get a new DSLR have two SLR’s a Pentax K1000 and a Canon Rebel eos xs. Film always has a much higher quality and not as much need for touch up.
I took one of the last of ky hogh schools photography class with film and a darkroom. This was in 2003. Glad I got to go through that experience, and yes, film is superior. It looks better, especially motion pictures.
There is little difference. Composition is the same. Correct exposure is correct exposure. The only real difference is cost. I used Canon EOS therefore reloading fast/simple. I'd often shoot twenty or more rolls a day. Film has a heel and a toe giving you a look that can't be faked in Photoshop.
BTW I only shoot COLOR.
I did not expect the jerma clip haha. I thought a video autoplayed to a jerma compilation.
i respect film photography, film photography is like world war 2 Lockheed P-38J Lightning fighter plane, they can perform but slow, against an DSLR or Mirrorless which its like a Modern F-16 Fighting Falcon figther plane, it's the same, but different in terms of speed and advanced tech.
Hi, what is the camera model you use. Thank you.
I mainly shoot with a Pentax K1000!
@@stopmo6845 Thank you.
Coming from a time (I was brought up and learnt my skills on 10x8, 5x4, 6x6 and 35mm film in the 70s) where film was more financially viable to shoot, I don't think that I'll suddenly shooting more film in the 2020s.
I believe that shooting film doesn't remind you of how it / your subject looked when the shot was taken, as your eye has a wider "dynamic range" / ability to see every nuance and light variation, where as film doesn't.
Digital on the other hand can and of does represent more closely what the human eye sees.
I don't have some silly romantic idea that shooting film automatically makes a shot better like most film shooting hipster types like to have. Having said that I enjoy shooting the occasional roll of film, but I don't find that the medium a shot is taken on makes any difference.
I’ll tell you something
You get it. I ust picked up a Contarex bullseye camera, and I am looking forward to seeing what i can do with 36 photos.
Cowboys takings pictures like the old days back then. 36 photos enough for something dangerous
100% the exact thing I say when explaining to someone why I shoot film. Its the physical nature of it.
Great video and my sentiments exactly! Hey man, groovy turtleneck you’re wearing! Very mod looking. You look like 1965!! Now all you need is a Nikon F hanging around your neck!
in a nut shell: film expensive, gotta be careful
And Dangerous!
The blue power ranger excites me
I don’t see it as more expensive. Take Modern mirrorless full frame with a 50 1.4, computer, memory cards, batteries, filters, ps/lr subscription and lastly time sorting through and editing. All that is thousands and time consuming.
While a film camera with a 50 1.4 can be had for a couple hundred. Leaving plenty for film and no time editing.
I started in digital. I mean I'm pretty old, so I could have started with photography but I just had too many other creative outlets back then. So I got quite good at digital and I love it. But then I got a 35mm camera and... even the worst photos I take are more special to me, I guess. I've since got a medium format TLR, and that's even more so. I love film. Is it better than digital? I honestly don't care. As long as both exist, I will use both. If I was forced to pick though... honestly, I think I'd go with film.
You only have one foot in the water: start developing your own film, and get an enlarger to make your own prints. Any old watermelon-on-a-stick enlarger can do black and white, and they're cheap, but even small format enlargers with dichroic filters for color can be had on the auctions for a reasonable price. You haven't experienced "hands on" until you go from film canister to finished print with only your own hands.
While I also shoot film, I disagree with a lot of the points made. The only three things which in my opinion are better than digital are:
1: the artist's emotional connection to the work
2: film forcing you to improve as a photographer and put more though into photos
3. Conveying light brightness
(What I mean by #3 is that human eyes don't perceive the sun, for example, as just a set of pixels that are at maximum brightness, very bright objects like the sun have bloom, atleast to me, and film mimics this effect. Bright spots take up more space the brighter they are. Perhaps digital can mimic this effect with some thin coating on the sensor, but I have yet to see that done.
I feel like it's more accurate to say that film is more fun
Sounds like you're new to film? Okay, get a Mamiya RB-67 with the 80mm standard lens on KEH. It'll run you about $300. This is the most accessible and least expensive way to distill the "film experience".
Unless you're aiming for whole hog analog, i.e., going to wet darkroom for prints, the most problematic stage with film is the digitization. Doing that well either takes really expensive equipment or a lot of baling wire, duct tape and chewing gum. If the latter is you, the much larger 120 negative from a 6x7 camera is lots more forgiving.
Once you grow into more sophisticated digitization gear and workflow, the negative is still there to rescan; you'll marvel anew at what's on the film. You'll see, print and present in a whole new light.
Oh, you need to get into doing your own development. Much of the controllability with using film comes from thinking jointly about the specific film type, exactly how to expose, and the development regime (chemical, dilution, temperature, time, agitation). Really, pressing the shutter button is only 20% of the process. The rest of it is development and printing.
If you want to try this, start with Ilford HP-5 and DDX developer. This combination is very forgiving. Better technical results, and results with a wider envelope of possibilities is Kodak 400 TMax (TMY) and Xtol developer under various dilution and regime.
Out of curiosity - why would you recommend a Medium format camera? I found that lots people online seem to recommend the 120 route and I honestly cant understand why - its far more expensive than 35mm, you get far fewer photos and the cameras are bigger and heavier.
I understand if you want to do studio work or want more resolution in your photos it can be useful, I've started shooting 120 from time to time for that reason, but the best way to get better at film photography or photography in general is to just have more experience in the field taking photos - and for that 35mm seems to be far more forgiving and cheaper. Just my two cents
@@ellyrion8173 The recommendation is in context of the video. Stopmo expounded on the reasons why film is better than digital (I don't agree actually.) However, for what he mentions, 6x7 or larger gives more concentrated expressions of those characteristics than 135, small format film.
As I mentioned, the 5x larger film area means it's much more forgiving digitization. Even an Epson flatbed gives okay results.
... And then there's the darkroom. Frankly, with film photography, particularly for B&W, development and print are inseparably key components of the process. If you're not doing these, you're really missing out on what it truly means to shoot film.
MF equipment like the RB/RZ-67, Hasselblad 500, Pentax 645, etc. have removable film backs. This lets you easily swap film and customize for different development regime across a single shooting session.
For example, my RB-67 field kit used to carry at least three backs. One loaded with Acros, one with 400 TMAX, one with 400 TMAX but labeled "pull 2" to indicate pull development later. The scene to be recorded dicated which film back to use. With almost no exception, this simply can't be done with 135, small format film cameras. Think of this as the ur method of twiddling the ISO dial and watching the zebra.
@@RobertLeeAtYT My bad mate - I didnt consider the video at all before replying to your comment, I'm so used to 120 elitists on Reddit that my knee-jerk reaction was to question you haha.
I think your points make a lot of sense, for enlarging and developing yourself 120 is much more forgiving for sure - loading 35mm onto a spiral can be a nightmare! I wish darkrooms were a little cheaper these days - I just came home from finishing university where they had an amazing cimmunity darkroom with unbelievably cheap chems and a room full of enlargers (which I never got to properly use :( ) , Wish that I could find something similar here in London!
And yeah I'm with you on the film-digital debate, they both fill their roles after all. Looking to get into digital too and buy a Fuji mirrorless at some point in the near future - I got into photography with film which has taught me a lot, so being able to use my Zuiko lenses on a new platform is just perfect!
@@ellyrion8173 B&W is still relatively inexpensive, certainly the cheapest among film workflows. Really, all you need is a changing bag and a usable way to digitize.
Look into Kodak HC-110 for developer. Here in the States, it's $25/bottle. That's in concentrate so makes 16L of developer. You'll run out of interest in film photography before running of that bottle.
HC-110 used to to be a favorite makeof press photographers. It pushes well. I still have a 12 year old, half empty bottle sitting in the closet (I use Xtol mostly.)
As for digital, I'm primarily using Panasonic micro-4/3 (MFT) now. I carry a GX-85 / GX-80 with a 20mm f1.7 daily. It's small, rangefinder style camera.
If you're just pulling a system together and is cost sensitive, consider full frame mirrorless. Consider adapting old lenses. This gets you access to high quality optics on the cheap, and importantly without crop factor issues. Just remember, optics are a significant, if not primary cost component to building up a system.
There are nuances on choice of make. I like the Panasonic S line. I'm considering a used S1R actually, about $2k USD.
and now to really blow your mind , learn to dark room print, you are covering 50% of the experience if you are not dark room printing your own work .. this also means you will learn to develop your own negatives , which is are form to its self , don’t under estimate the importance of negative development !! longer and shorter dev times different dilluations, different temperature, different developers , all give you different results !! it will teach you more about your work then any other process will !!
Analog photography is definitely more intimate than digital, but Fujifilm is getting pretty close to the zen of it.
Imagine a digital dlsr that spew nfts
Hmm.... It's easy enough to build. I know there are plenty of apps, like Photure that do this but not with "real" cameras. Are NFTs something you've lots of first hand dev experience with?
Worst comment I have EVER SEEN!!!!!!!
@@hotdog3195 I disagree. It's a fine idea. It's a nice way to publically authenticate and without ambiguity that you are the author, the originator of the image. It's the equivalent of holding onto the film negatives in the pre-digital days.
There are few legitimately useful uses for a blockchain. Something like this is one.
Film is not better but different.
You have a greater cost per photo instead of free. So you learn to take better photos because there’s no redos.
A great learning tool
But once you learn that, you can use the same technique with digital and you get the best of both worlds.
They used to refer to film as quite a different name…
Real film make images soft and round . Diffusion of the lens , light , film , and emulsion on paper give it that traditional look . Digital operates
Under the sharpening of organized matrix of spots that act like news paper halftones on a piece of ink jet paper . The technology and materials
Have gotten so good as to try to emulate a real photograph , but you can not fool the eye . Tonal scale , feel and look of emulsion on paper
Can not be reproduced any other way .
Silly rambling from a person that didn't have to put up with film photography for 50 plus years (no options back then). Had you that experience under your belt I'm pretty sure your outlook would be very different.
That's 100% correct. I grew up in a world where digital photography took over for the objective advantages it has over film. Because film is so much less prevalent today than it was 50 plus years ago it has an air of intrigue to me. It's different from what I'm used to and I find that inspiring. I'm not saying that everyone of all ages should feel the same way about film, that's just how I feel.
No ! I shot film from 1970 to 2007, NEVER again, only digital now ! I am very happy not to think of th pollution from the film industry any more. Digital are much better !!!
Why film is better than digital? I give it to you in one word, character.
Digital is a character, film HAS character 😂