Film doesn't make an image special
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- IG - / jessesenko
My Site - www.jessesenko.com
Dmitry's film scanning setup - www.blackscalelab.com/
Where I source most of my music - bit.ly/2XHUo2O
This is the cam I shoot most of my channel on - geni.us/KU0vT
With this lens - geni.us/qz6LR
And this filter - geni.us/43jo3SO
You don't need an expensive mic - geni.us/FjFYQ
And this is my fav cheap micro tripod - geni.us/nW71M
This the best light for a talking head. I prefer the low-profile VS a lite dome - geni.us/940csq
BUT this with a softbox might be all you need to save some $$ - geni.us/hjUI1JJ
This is my new favourite hard light for my tabletop setup - geni.us/ooMgi
I love this rolling stand for shooting around my studio - geni.us/NSQQQL
0:48 - Image First
5:59 - Let’s rescan the original negative
10:11 - why I still love film
12:25 - More Shoe Cam
I'm a little bummed I haven't received any shoe cam comments yet. Tough crowd!
Makes me think of the old joke about putting mirrors on the toes of your shoes
I'm only interested in women feet pics. Sorry.
I hate all those /diots who think they are MEGA ARTIST with film hahahha. NICK KNIGHT! TIM WALKER make images with digital PHASE ONE! thats POWER
I just understood, very funny 😂
Yeah, see, no one wants to admit they know what it's for. But I'm not worried - it's to check for rust spots under vehicles, right?
Film will never make your images special if you are using film for a mediocre image.
On the other hand, film has/gives a special look. It’s NOT a special wand 🪄
A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
But it's my pig and I love it, with lipstick even more so.
@@nikoladimitrijevic8172
And that’s all that matters mate… your love for it.
Most humble comment section 😂
you're assuming the "lipstick" is film and therefor makes photos better, even if it's not a great photo. I don't think that's a good analogy. The lipstick might be digital... to be honest, with filters I really don't know if there is a difference between film and digital. So there is no "lipstick".
I think all of us need to be reminded from time to time that it’s not about the camera, it’s about the photographer. Always appreciative of how thoughtful your content is, Jesse.
Thanks, Henry!
@jessesenko I hate all those /diots who think they are MEGA ARTIST with film hahahha. NICK KNIGHT! TIM WALKER make images with digital PHASE ONE! thats POWER
duuude...the "is film just a really expensive instagram filter," was a crazy line that's going to keep me up for days
My biggest takeaway from this video
I've been told so many times my camera takes good pictures but until we have truly AI sentient cameras, my cameras don't press the shutter button.
Woah Chris, your comment was so good! What kind of keyboard do you use??? :) as always, thanks for watching, Chris!
@@jessesenko It's a digital keyboard on my phone, so, you know.
A camera TAKES pictures. On a tripod, with the timer in full auto mine will take a sharp, well exposed image of what is in front of it. But a machine doesn't know what your are trying to express and use it 's tools accordingly any more than you keyboard knows what you want to say and can make literature without you. My keyboards have sat here for 25 years and have yet to produce a novel on their own.
@@mrca2004 Fully agree, except it can't set the timer on its own.
Much the same way guns don't kill people. People do.
I’m dying, Picasso sponsored by squarespace is the best way you could make that point. Such a funny and effective line
And the CZcamsrs that actually matter aren’t the ones talking technical details, they’re the ones talking about ideas. Love the videos keep it up 👍🏼
Thanks Riley!
I appreciate how honest this guy is with his audience. He never puts anyone or anything down, but his approach to GAS and other phenomena has been immensely helpful to me as a professional starting out. Thank you, Jesse.
As an artist, film may or may not make your image special. Concerning art, many times its the consumers making the determination of special, with some artist's not even needing that, because they create with what makes them feel special, and let the chips fall where they may with the consumers of the art.
I liked what a fellow professional said... I don't care if they like it so long as they buy it.
4 mins in - I prefer the film shot! But not because it's on film - I just like the composition and the colours better.
The best camera is the one you know, and the one that allows you to get the shot in your mind
Everything else is for fun (which is a big part of film for me)
@@wavelengthstudio the best camera is the one you left home. Lol
Same! I think it just works so much better with the framing and the warmth
i like the warmth
Me too!
I feel film really shines in direct flash, light low scenarios. It just looks nostalgic and magical.
I have some leftover pack film which is just a joy with direct flash in an old Polaroid Land Camera that drags the shutter a bit... total magic.
You can also get that look digically
@@SolidBlueBlocks you could probably get close, just not the same.
That was the best disclaimer on not letting your audience down I could imagine 😂 that’s some legit honesty
Man, from taking pictures with both, took me shooting 4 rolls of film and developing them to have the same thought, everybody on the internet seems to glorify film as the ultimate photographic tool and just forget that Film is basically a preset to 36 frames. It's like people forget the best tool is not the tool, but the concepts, the content, and the vision itself. Really happy you made this video! First one i see from you aswell, subscribed.
Keep making stuff your channel has inspired me to just shoot my own way and your diy nature inspired my current project
The fact that the old low tier crop camera with a toy lens is basically on par with a medium format film, tells us a lot about film
It all depend on what you are shooting
My recomendations brought me here and I'm staying! These videos are really my cup of tea. The look, the topics, the gear, the filmmaking, the music, the humor. Spot on! 👌
Thank you! Appreciate it!
I’ve been shooting for 24 years now, professionally and as a teacher now. I shoot digital for work, film for pleasure. They’re just different tools for different jobs for me 👍
Same! Thanks Royce.
Cinematographer Steve Yedlin did an amazing deep dive on this, and this video confirms his thesis, that the look of the final image isn't dictated by the format it was shot on, but how that data was processed or the post pipeline it went through. And that the differences between formats and camera brands are technical, not aesthetic.
BS. See the movie Oppenheimer shot on medium format film. Compare it to fat man and little boy shot on digital. Night an day. MF film looks like you can walk into the image. Sorry, digital "medium format" even for 50 grand for a body is crop medium format. In film 645 is the smalled mf format and digital is 1/2 to 2/3 that. The look of mf is you get closer with a longer lens. Instead of a 135 mm for headshots at 7' with digital, I use a 250 mm with 67. It produces a subtle but different aesthetic. Now the measurebators can't measure it so they deny it exists. Same with lenses that produce high inter tonal contrast. Can't measure that so they say it's a myth. I hope they are my competitors.
@@mrca2004 Your response doesn't even disprove what i'm saying. I'm talking about the aesthetics of an image like color, contrast and highlight rolloff. You're talking about format sizes, this is different, that is a technical difference, nothing to do with aesthetics of the format. The field of view of an image is ultimately dictated by lens, sensor/format size is only part of it, it has nothing to do with the technology. Medium format digital can literally produce the same field of view.
@@mrca2004 Also, you mentioned about digital "medium format" camera being crop medium format. The Alexa LF (if that's what you're referring to) has a full frame Vista Vision sensor, it's not medium format. It's equivalent to 8 perf 35mm film.
Both are two different mediums as it’s for the photographer to pick which one is best for themselves. I happen to fall in line of shooting film rather than digital as I feel much more creative. As someone who photographed on digital for years and made the switch to film it became much more fun and enjoyed my results much more. Editing is now more enjoyable and faster.
Most photographers tend to try and make photos look like film when they can just shoot on film. Plus you can spend $1000 on 2-3 film cameras with lens and film right away whereas digital cameras set ups cost 2 to 3 times more depending on your needs as a photographer.
I encourage anyone looking to try film to try it and you will be much happier.
I went through my film phase back in 2012 and the same question you pose, "is film just a really expensive instagram filter?" changed my relationship with photography!
Dude i love this channel so much like im not even exaggerating i involuntarily smiled when i saw this in my recommended
Awesome! Seriously means a lot!
Loyal to yourself and change over loyalty to a brand... well said and backed 100%.
I often prefer my digital photos over my film photos. But have come to realize this is just how I shoot. If I have something I want to shoot with intention I bring my main digital camera; it supply’s me with assurance that I’ve captured the shot, tons of latitude in post if I discover a look that is fitting later in the process, and I know it inside and out. I’ll often bring a film camera to shoots I do and using the film camera feels like an after thought post shooting an amazing digital photo. It’s really just your own preference and work flow that should inform your medium; not the other way around.
That sunbathing fella is me waiting this channel to take over.
I don't think film is better personally and I shoot mostly film. I like the way it looks and I like the operation of using the camera and the process of developing film at home. It's more of a creative process that I prefer. The photographer makes the images good. Not the camera or whether it's film or digital. I think it depends on what the photographer is comfortable with and there will be an audience for your work if you put it out there.
Never been let down. Keep on sharing, Jesse
glad to see Jim hopper sharing his photography with us! 😂
I'm not sure if this an improvement over Ron Swanson
i think film generally looks better than digital, especially unedited, but not enough to single-handedly make a photo good.
Your eye is the first camera you need before you touch the physical camera. After I learned to train it, my images feel like they could be felt and the people around me could feel them. That's all that matters :)
My intro to fotography 20 years ago in Paris, as a total noob I made 2 fantastic shots with film Konika Pont and shot camera. 20 years later, have shot hundert of thousand of pictures, I still cannot get to that level. The light and colors in those two are nothing short of amazing. My point is being if one manages to find the right Parameters for the shot on film, results might be hard to achieve on digital. This of course to be considered as subjective. Me personally preference your shot on film
Man argues about how arguing is useless to perpetuate an argument, I feel cheated for watching this in its entirety
It's crazy that you mention the Mavica - there's a local car meet that I go to every Tuesday and one of the hosts shoots on a Mavica. One of the coolest cameras I've seen!
Amazing. I would love to see it out in the wild
This is great advice and insight. Agree with a lot of what you said and I hope a lot more people can take it to heart as they continue to create and grow. Looking forward to your next one!
Thanks Ardie!
Thank you I just started like you, I practically and economically and efficiently prefer digital but I love my film photos took back in Time with I body for b/w, one both for 100iso colour and 1 body for 400iso colour. I don't use light room but photoshop and I feel like you say that photoshop crops and handles skin tones and micro contrast and gamma spectrum worst than capture one. I would like to create a preset action like in photoshop but on Capture one, like a recalibration for out sunny day, another for foggy days another for winter days, another for incandescent lights another for mixed hue lights, another for neon lights, another for led lights and 3 or 4 for black and white for example a highly contrasted a low contrast with gamma shadow lights recover, a general one and a bw with contrast skies. Can you please help me to figure out how can I create a n action to auto calibrate and then add my preset all saving my choices applicable with one single click on Capture one? Thanks
I would just build the look you want and save it as a C1 preset. I have lots I save for different looks. I then export for photoshop through C1 to do any major editing (this keeps the new PSD/TIFF showing up in C1) in and then apply the grain to the photoshop-edited file in C1 to tie any retouching together.
Preach Jesse. So many young "chemical photographers" out there think they're creative, or special, cuz they use film. Old guys know better. I shot medium format film commercially for 20 years. Didn't have a choice. That's what we had. Funny, I never hear anyone calling out film for the tremendous environmental impact it has. From its manufacturing, transportation, distribution, shipping, and not to mention development, #carbonfootprint. Let's stop pretending film is cool. It's not. BTW: Can't wait to see "Twisters" shot on Kodak film! 🙂
Thank you sir! And this is all very true! And as for Roger Deakins, who famously abandoned film, I just rewatched No Country for Old Men with the kids and the film was so noticeably beautiful, lol. Enjoy the movie!
@@jessesenko "Old Country" is an incredible film. We were lucky enough to see Tarrantino's "The Hateful Eight" in one of only a handful of theaters projecting it on 70mm film! Absolutely incredible. He really committed to film. They had to rebuild projection equipment and scour the country to find technicians to even run the equipment. It was a huge undertaking.
Leaving the border visible can throw off NLP when converting. It's better to crop out the border and then uncrop after converting.
Thanks! I need to play around with it some more for sure
I like how you brought up the point about using analog cameras. I find that there is something about going to the very basics that grounds you as a photographer and gives your brain a chance to think.
It’s easy to spray and pray with digital. Painful when you miss the shot with BW medium format film. I learn more from my mistakes with film than I do with digital. I also get more wins with digital though too.
Keep pushing for those wins!
Great video! Thank you!
Shooting with Fuji XT-5 and custom film presets set up is allowing me to "shoot film" without shooting film. I'm sure the same process can be made with other cameras. I can say with full confidence that after shooting Ilford HP-5 for many years I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a digitally acquired photo. Sidebar - I still shoot film for the process.
The legend of Leica in the 1930's film days forgets to mention the ASA of film back then was 25 and 50. That included the larger formats. This strongly contributed to the legend of the sharpness of the lenses. You wanna see micro contrast, use Panatomic X. Kodachrome 25. People were shooting 4x5 on these emulsions. Incredible prints were made of groups of a hundred people posing and every one of them etched in detail.
Next year I’m going to shoot my first wedding as the candid photographer. Cameras I’m using - Canon rebel t6 w/ nifty fifty, and Sony a6300, lens undecided.
What is that photo storage box you have in the beginning of the video?
It’s my “case” from a portfolio my photo agent and me had custom made about 10 years ago. The other photographers had similar cases and they all fit in a box. I wanted it to feel like a mix of an old vinyl box set and a drawer you’re snooping in at someone’s house.
@@jessesenko Haha I loooove it. Amazing
The digital shot looks like a random iPhone snapshot at the local pool and the full frame from the film shot just wasn’t framed as well though idk if the digital was cropped
I really find the film shot much better, but then again it depends so much on post processing... Anyway, it doesn't take anything away from a really good video!
I like the film photo more overall, but wish it was cropped on the sides a little (like the digital shot). And yes, I know the TLR is 6x6.
And I agree that a good photo is a good photo regardless of the medium. It’s all about the creative process and what you’re aiming for.
Thanks! And I cropped it 6x7 in the video! It's ok to crop!
I shoot film when I want to give my images that film look.
An image that is just "realistic" and sterile. I use different film stocks and formats to match my vision. It adds to the fun.
Just shoot digital and diminish the quality to the film level.
@@romani8494 google "digital hp5 vs analog hp5". Left is digital with "emulation", right is real film. Not bad, eh? Just because some disposable film camera snaps (shot with direct flash) that were printed on 15x10cm then scanned look low-quality doesn't mean film in general equals "low quality".
@@romani8494
I have not found any digital that I can afford that matches the quality of my medium format and large format images.
Which film look, depends on the choice of film you use.
Jesse, loving the quality of what you've been putting out. Don't feel rushed to get new vids out, just keep bringing the quality. All the best to ya mate!
Thank you! Appreciate it! The bigger numbers kinda spook me! I don’t feel so anonymous anymore
I remember back when i started using film back in 2018-2019 some youtuber said: “using film is not a bandaid to make your pics look better.” That made rethink film photography from an elevated artform to just another photography tool, and shot the heck out of it lol.
Glad to see you back. I can’t see the hype with film. If you want to be limited by 36 photos… shoot raw and buy a small SD card. I saw someone you know packing a bag of film stock for a photo shoot. So limited, who? Not him. If you just like it, awesome, but can’t sell it as a fix all solution. As a learning tool... You’ll learn a lot, but imagine what you can achieve with painting. My first camera was a Konica Minolta, that I’ll own and will work forever. But there are enough things to make you anxious, waiting a few days to see if you messed up your family vacation photos should not be one of them. Again, glad to see you.
It’s a very expensive analog Instagram filter for some, and those people are missing the point… the process of film. Film is like therapy for me, but I’m pretty pragmatic about how incredible digital photography is. Thanks for watching!
I’m also curious about “who I know” lol
@@jessesenko I just assumed that if you knew Matti, you also were acquainted with McKinnon.
@@jessesenko Like grinding coffee, and making your own camera gear. Thanks for sharing, I'll search for a way to slow down some processes.
All this time subscribed and never been let down.
Thanks Thor!
I grew up at the frankenstein-time of having analog film-cameras that were electronic. I.e. Electronic metering, auto flash etc.
So I never needed to learn the ins and out of a true manual camera.
Today I enjoy my full frame mirrorless camera. But I understand exposure, composition and run it manually as it gets me the shot I want. The speed and agility of the camera gives me the ability to keep precious memories of my kid.
But it's still important to learn about composition and purpose of a shot - not just spray and pray.
Someone once told me that you can have the "film experience on your digital camera" by simply formatting your SD Card to only allow 30-40 images on it. Works wonders when your digital image counter is that low. Keeps the "pressure on" without the hassle and cost of film.
Thanks for keeping my mind critical and provoking thoughts of the "everyday stuff".
My favorite camera of 15, at least in 35 mm, my nikon f6 film camera nikon sold until OCTOBER 2020! Auto focus, dead on matrix metering, 1/8000 shutter, best view finder I own, 5 fps power winding, has aperture and shutter dials like my d850. Run and gun, street, it's a dream.
When I was starting out a photographer I looked up to told me to take the camera out and just find compositions. Take one shot or don't even worry about it. Just study framings, walk around an object in you want to photograph and process how the light/angle/frame dictates what works for you.
I thought I was the only one who used the floppy disk digital camera. Man that thing was slow but I loved it so much.
lol. It was so fun. I remember we would hold the frame for 10 secs while it was writing the image to disk because we were worried it was still capturing.
I bought one and I think it was close to $500 I finally dropped it and broke it 😢
Good video. I began with film back in the 70s (monochrome, using an Argus C3), and only switched to digital in 2011. Looking back at the older shots, there are a small number that still hold up, and are among my favorites. It is only because my eye for the worthwhile shot was so trained that I can do anything with my digital devices now.
Thanks Michael... That's all it comes down to, and now, regardless of whether I'm carrying my film or digital camera, I'm not snapping a shot unless it's a good frame. I'll go out and take just six frames sometimes with my digital camera.
I bought a Mavica too. Lots of fun. Haven't used film since.
REBEL XTi!!!! Oh, man, I used that thing professionally for years. Had a bunch of other Canon Dslr's to grab at any moment, but that little xti was my go to for some reason. Good stuff.
That was a big one for me. My first “real” dslr. Got me enough gigs to save up for a 5dmkii. Thanks for watching, Keith!
YESSSS!!!! thank you for saying it finally
on digital or film question i think it depends on the theme or style of your photograph,in some cases like sports digital always wins
Im going to be honest- I wholeheartedly prefer the film photo
It's all preference I'll always pick film for my personal photography anything else I'll use my phone or my alpha
A tip for negative lab Pro that took me way too long to realize, crop your image and then convert the negative. Saves you a lot of time trying to get the white balance correct. NLP is pretty awesome
Awesome! Thanks for the tip. Just starting to figure it out.
Is that not what birder buffer is for so it ignores a certain percentage of the edge?
Film isn't only an expensive filter. It's also a very cheap (35 cents for a FULL-FRAME omg!) disposable camera sensor that later transforms into a physical "raw file". The built-in creative filter is free. You can swap these "sensors" by trying different film stocks. Cool thing is that you can have true monochrome "sensors", not debayered witchery. Bad thing is you can't produce color "raw files" at home. At least I can't, I'm afraid of all that poisonous chemistry. BW - easy and safe with caffenol. Another cool thing is you can get a larger "sensor" like medium format or very large "sensor" (sheet film) and even build your own camera from scratch if you're into DIY, no electronics required. Images aren't so special, but experience is very special. +Printing from film is another dimension full of experiences.
I WOULD love to try this “very large sensor” you speak of and would probably DIY it with the kids. And the cheap monochrome “sensor” is my fav. Thanks for watching!
I prefer the digital shot. The lack of direct sunlight and the cooler colors make it even better. The sun isn't shining and yet he's lying on his lounger sunbathing. It's hilarious.
I think the thing about film is it makes me slow down. There is something about waiting on the action and framing you want. In turn I think that makes me better at shooting on digital. Also I have that canon rangefinder you have on your foot.
Totally. It’s a reminder to slow down when I’m shooting digital too. And my “shoe cam” is my dad’s old Canonet from the 70s. I’ve never gotten it to work though. Would love to fix it. Thanks for the comment, Tony.
It wasn't until I saw your website that I realized I'm in your old studio at TCF. Steve from OHM suggested checking you out but you came up organically.
Amazing. Small world! I can smell the building just thinking about it. Say hi to Steve for me!
Would love a video on composition. What are things you love to do
It’ll be a lot of “this looks good. oh wait, what about this?”
@@jessesenko yeah I’m for that
Love the shoe cam Jesse. I've been taking photos (at least occasionally consciously intentional) since about 1954, with my Brownie. More brand and off brand cameras than I can remember, later, I fully agree. I enjoyed your style and sense of humor here. I hope you keep up the good work. I too will continue to attempt meaningful (at least to me) images for as long as I last. 😏
Awesome! You must have an incredible timeline of cameras and shots to get you to today. I've been wondering if all the older images with the white borders from the 50s in my parent's albums were proper projected prints or contact prints made with the negative right against the paper...
@@jessesenko I believe most were projected. In the 50s a lot of the adults taking snapshots of us kids were using wind advance cameras with 620 or 120 roll film. Most of the drugstore prints were bigger than that. I'll pull out my some boxes and albums with my parents and relatives. Seems like some 40s and early 50s B&W could be contact size. I took my first 35mm sunsets etc. in the 60s with my dad's Argus C4. :)
Interesting point. I feel like on what the picture was taken on only has a small part on what makes an image special. What really makes an image special is how you the artist decided to take it. After all I believe photography is just a way of how the person holding the camera sees the world through many aspects of photography we know today.
That whole speech let me down.
Film has provided me a good education on photography. Film is expensive so to best utilize the film I have, I was more thoughtful about its use. Digital photography does allow anyone to “spray and pray.” I also grew up on the tail end of film photography but the SLRs of the late 90s and early 2000s had auto features so I was able to shoot and pray even then. Since the resurgence of film I have slowed down and learn how photography best works.
Definitely a part of maturing is slowing down and shooting fewer frames... I find myself doing that. Being more intentional and not firing a shot until I'm happy with he exposure... regardless of film or digital. Thanks Adam!
True. It depends a bit on print size, but at relatively small print sizes, digital or analog makes no difference. At larger print sizes, you may be able to spot digital artefacts and of course the natural grain of the film.
100%. And it’s kinda sad my brain processes this in terms of a web or small print portfolio. Things that sell me commercially, and not big prints that show off the work properly. :(
@@jessesenko It is very impressive to see huge prints. I once saw some enormous prints of Koudelka's work in Mexico City. Amazing. It must have been analog, because this was way back in 2001 and his photos were already quite old by then.
There’s sort of a cliche that limits enable creativity. A lot of digital cameras are functionally unlimited. The very top end cameras from Sony and Nikon have capabilities that I know I could never use. I’m taking pictures of things I see in my daily life, a lot of pictures of my kids. I use film. It operates at a human scale. I have a digital camera, and I might buy another one. But I don’t need things to be perfect.
Sounds like you’re having fun exploring your different processes. The limits are fantastic. Lots of people buy gear on hypothetical extreme use-cases. Thanks for sharing.
I look at the colours of the digital shot and I go "bleh", which was exactly my reaction to my own Canon 450D shots. I turned virtually everything into black and white back when I used it because there was just something wrong with the colours coming out of that thing, even shooting Raw. Having grown up at a similar time with a film point & shoot I much preferred the colours coming out of my CCD digital cameras that I had before the 450D, even though the resolution was much worse in comparison and they only produced jpegs. For the last 10 years I've shot only film because back in 2014 I couldn't afford the cameras that produced good colour - yes, film is expensive, but it's not the upfront cost of a new digital Leica! Fast forward to 2024 and I just got a Lumix S5 IIx for video. Didn't expect to be using it for photography because bleh, digital colour, right? First thing I did was to put a real time LUT onto it that emulates film. And it's actually brilliant?! The other day I was walking around in the most beautiful light shooting pictures with it and I know that if I had taken the pictures with my old Canon 450D I would have been so disappointed, but with the Lumix I was getting exactly the kind of thing I wanted - It was a Fuji Pro 400H simulation, my sadly discontinued favourite film stock. And I haven't even put any film effects on the shots yet, just straight out of camera was such a good starting point. Back in 2011 when I was shooting that 450D I tried every film emulation software I could find and none of them got me even close to the colours I wanted. Reds and greens just never worked out. I always suspected that it had something to do with UV and Infrared filtration on those older cameras. Now I can get the look I want without spending hours in Photoshop on a colour balance layer. Colour science has come a long way, that's for sure.
Thanks Lilly, and yes, digital colour has been a frustration my whole career with cameras. I liked my 5D, but then switched to Sony chasing resolution only to find out that the colours were horrible. Happy with my R5 these days, but I'm always doing backend work to try to make them feel "nice"... film takes away those extra screen hours I don't want to spend. Thanks for watching!
@@jessesenko The colour science was the main reason why I didn't go for Sony already years ago. There are some people who seem to be able to pull it off, but I just didn't want that kind of a headache in my life. The R5 seems quite decent indeed whenever I see other people grading it and the S5 II footage grades really nicely too. No comparison to the Canon 700D I used to use for my talking head footage. It just falls apart if you don't nail white balance exactly (which I rarely managed). Film is so much less of a headache when it comes to colours.
Well done. Even though I am not sure why I needed to watch a twelve minute video to understand that the photographer makes the shot.
Nevertheless it WAS good to hear someone calm and collected talking about what should be common knowledge.
(....and now for the Ford vs Chevy comparison please... ;-) )
Like, spit it out, Jesse. Am I right? :) Thanks for watching.
I think what most people are forgetting is that with film, it is a medium that you can’t do over. Once you take the picture, it’s there you can’t delete it. You can’t retake it. I think that’s what makes film so special over digital. It’s not just the grain that is inherently with film, it’s also the fact that you can’t redo it. You get what you take and I think that’s what makes it so special. Obviously digital is better over film in the sense that you can make any photo whatever you want with editing so I would not disagree with the statement that digital is better than film, but I think film takes you back to bare bones photography.
Yeah the decisiveness is definitely a great teacher.
This video has such a refreshing artistic perspective on photography. I love it
Thanks for watching!
If you take the psychological significance of the developement process out of the equation (you get the film developed externally), doesn’t shooting with a dslr on manual mode and manual focus with the screen covered/flipped so you dont see the results and the smallest SD card you can get so you can't take more photos make it basically identical as the film shooting experience? If it's really about the limitations of the film shooting, why not just create them artificially? What is so different about a camera having a capacity of 36 pictures and intentionally deciding not to take more pictures? It then really makes the film seem like the expensive instagram filter you were mentioning. At the same time, instagram alone thrived so much because of these artificial limitaions. I just keep wondering what will we do after we run out of older technology to romanticise by the nostalgia we couldn't have experienced. Imagine a 3D printed camera handcrank for artificially slowing or speeding up framerates used as stylistic effect on tiktoks/reels…
2:29 the only reasonable answer to “why you shoot film” imo, saying “i like the color” are the equivalent of “i use dumb phone because i keep scrolling on social media” bruh, just train self control, lol. Film color achieveable on digital, even halation, grain and bloom, even border. With faster process.
Glad i find this channel, truly underrated..
I mean, not really, you can edit halation in, or use an old lens to get a similar effect, but halation is specifically a physical defect of shooting on film.
For me, shooting on film is a challenge, if I can get a shot of a flying puffin on film, It feels more earned because it's physically more difficult to achieve.
I shoot most of my shots on digital, because it's easier to get the shot.
I shoot on film because i just like the process, and I like the defects that aren't present in digital, i like limitations.
@@GeraintDafis i think you mistaken halation with bloom. Bloom could be achieve with old lens or filter. Halation are from film defect.
Both achieveable on digital, you think its impossible because you assume i edit on lightroom(?) i think you should look into davinci resolve film emulation to get what i mean, specifically cineprint16/filmconvert.
I also like the process of loading, crank slr lever, rolling finished film, developing, scanning, and having physical negative of flying puffin would be even cooler, haha. But sometime shit happen on film, open the camera and the film not rolled perfectly causing most to get burn, i dont like losing a picture of me and my mom like that. The process arent eco friendly either (i might be wrong on this), so i just use couple 4 or 8gb card on digital for the limitation and be intentional.
I still sometimes get the feeling “i wish i have negative roll of this pictures” while editing digital, lol.. so i still use film but on very rare occasion
If you like the image you get what's the problem?
Film is a tool. Digital is another tool. It should be of no surprise to any competent photographer that in many cases digital might suit your vision more.
In this case I’d reckon it’s because it’s a graphic wide shot with a composition that benefits with more detail offered by the digital sensors resolving power.
The image is also a limited color pallet which might have been rendered by your digital sensor in ways that you preferred.
But it goes without saying, for some looks film might work better.
I think “better” is a meaningless term really. It’s just a matter of the two tools providing different looks and utilizing the look you prefer.
It’s possible to regularly use both.
The better comparison is 35mm tri-x and digital. True the content and composition are the pre-eminent aspects of photography, there is a look that defines the viewing experience which is based on artifacts as desirable, or lack of . So in BW film there is a grain structure that some find very desirable (that grain is evidence of the underlying technology and has also the result of obfuscating detail). If you shoot in BW you've omitted some information that existed in the scene. If you have a visible grain structure you have lessened detail.With less detail you get a conceptual lift from the image as only the minimal aspects of detail are present. So from one perspective the viewing of the image intent, depending on what expectations are given, is enhanced by a defocusing of the mind and making easy for the image meaning to be seen without less important aspects.Sorry for the rambling zen narrative but this subject is an unexplored aspect of photography that I've not seen addressed anywhere.
Thanks Mark, and I talk about this more in my film (like, directiing, not photography) practice... how sharpness is not necessarily the virtue youtube filmmakers would say it is...softening the image so the idea comes through vs the literalness of the scene is important. On the same page as you... and also just spent a small fortune on Tri-x last week 😬
I loved my Pentax 6x7 and large format camera but you can make any digital image look like film. The resolution in a mid range slr is better than film now.
A fart, I mean art lens, a high mp digital camera, over/under saturating, blurring a background with digital gear doesn't make something special. Note, the folks that talk about their gear, wringing their hands till they get the latest and greatest never show their photos. Ansel nailed it, the most important part of a camera is the 12" behind it. Also, there is nothing worse that a sharp image of a fuzzy (or no) idea. No matter what piece of new gear, if someone hasn't put in the time and effort to improve or master the craft, they will just take the same crap with digital just sharper , or grainy crap with film. I shoot film 80% of the time and my 45 mp d850 does lots of film scanning. Neither means of recording light is "superior," but each produces a particular look that someone may personally prefer. Unfortunately, the hipsters have jumped on film expecting, like that lens or digital body with some crazy new feature will transform their work, they thought film would do the same. It doesn't and since they have the attention span of a piss ant, move on to the next cool thing in no time. That's sped up because film takes some knowledge and effort, failures coat money and plunking down a credit card doesn't suddenly having them kicking out "art."
lol, well said. I just want to push people (including myself!) to not get religious about it and to look down and make something special!
I wanted to shout that on twitter few days ago. These days people are posting the most boring pictures ever and because they say "[whatever] in 35mm film" does not make the photo good! It’s a boring photo! As for the quality and aspects of the film, I don’t think digital and post-processing can ever mimic the chemical reactions, because it’s an ~organic process. Anyways, love digital and love film.
About 15 years ago, I took a snapshot of my dog with an Olympus OM-10 that I bought brand used in 1988. I don’t know why I didn’t use the Nikon D70 that I already had, I might have been running a roll of film through the OM-10 to see if it still worked. Anyway, the dog picture was awesome, and I decided to enter it into a juried show. Except the juried show required the entries to be in digital format. Instead of doing something sensible like scanning the image, I got out my D70 and reshot. Yes, the D70 image was a bit crunchier than the buttery smooth film image. But the soul of the image was the same, and the jury didn’t know or care that I had another, smoother image in my back pocket. They accepted the image into the show. I still have the print on my wall. I have no idea if the print is from the film or digital image. It really doesn’t matter.
Love it. I’m sure the dog was impressed by the film and sparkled just a little more for you :)And my OM-1 has been calling my name from the shelf for the past few days. Maybe I’ll pull it out this weekend. Has half a roll in it from last summer. Hope the seals are good!
Thank you very much. Agree with you at 95%, but. I think some some technical convenience/advantages/possibilities is play some role, especially in some "challenging" environments. And ultra fast AF and limitless card is needed when you should definitely have this image, without any excuse. So, from this perspective, maybe brand/model/technical features have some right to be discussed. But I am totally agree, that photo are made by photographer, not by self-desiding-what-to-do-AI-assistant.
I just bought a film camera, again, after 20 years, and I hope, now I understand why ))))
Be happy! Very interesting videos! Have a nice life journey!
100% with you. And those technical choices will be made because you know what you're doing, have built a process, and know what you have to achieve.
Or the significant difference in focal length being that the film image is less compressed. I mean, that's why I like the digital version better.
Aight, hear me out, betacam tape. All videographers should still learn via betacam tape. Why?
BECAUSE I HAD TO!
lol. I ALMOST included a shot of us setting up all the beta tapes like dominoes at the agency I worked at when I mentioned it in this vid. They went around the whole floor of our downtown tower. We were such focused employees.
The film shot looks better… imo. Great work 👍🏼
Why do your videos always just slap. If vegas odds had a bet for over under 100k subs in 2 years, I'd take the over.
lol. Thanks Joseph! My secret is a month of self doubt and loathing!
Ahhh, the debate that will never die. You're right, both are great and both are valid...though I don't think that anything I shot on film holds any special reverence or experience of feeling "more intentional" or anything when I look at those photos - when I look at the photos, even as the creator of them, I just see a photo I either like or don't like. I feel pretty unconcerned about the gear/process factoring in to how I feel about the actual photo in the end.
Is music made/played with an acoustic guitar better than music made/played with an electric guitar? There's no one definitively, universally true answer to that kind of question.
100%
I really gotta say the film shot looks better. I am biased to 6x6 aspect, but the digital shot feels over-exposed at times. Maybe if you just tuned the digital a little I'd like it more.
I'm still using my decade old Samsung NX1. It's the only system I have every lens from, and I can't think of any good reason to "upgrade."
I seriously didn't know Samsung made cameras! I know pro photographers who still shoot on "terrible" 10 year old digital cameras because they know the tool so well.
I totally agree, I think while film isn't necessarily better, often times constraints make better art, sometimes being forced to do things while not having all the convenience digital provides can make you approach things in a different way.
Choice paralysis, right? It’s that simple approach which keeps you focused and active, not buried in the settings. Thanks for watching!
Ein gutes Foto,ist ein gutes Foto. Ein gutes Foto auf Film,ist etwas besonderes.(organic) Ein gutes Foto (digital),ist einfach ein gutes Foto. 🤷🏻♂️✌🏻
For negative lab pro, you don't need to white balance the picture prior to converting the negative. NLP will do that for you. I think it was a grainydays video where Jason told everyone to do that, and the creator of NLP commented and said it wasn't required.
I struggle to understand the point of this video because it seems like a multifaceted critique of the culture around photography, and it also simultaneously calls out amateurs and professionals alike. It argues against film, but then shows that the film picture is better. It argues that the medium is not what makes the picture but instead singularly the photographer's skill, but this is not true. The photographer chooses the medium for the photo at hand. Large format sheet film has fundamentally different bokeh characteristics than full frame/35mm cameras. If subject separation is something needed, large format is the way to go in this case. The real point I am trying to make is that a photographer must be deliberate in their usage of a format/medium to create extraordinary images.
I guess that the disparity in your point is that composition, leading lines, framing, exposure, and subjects are all related to the actual taking of the image, which is what you talk about (taking images), but the medium and the format is the part of what enables you to capture images the way you see it in your mind.
czcams.com/video/dAZCMqjKfsI/video.html at time 28:45 there is a picture of a chair. This picture is not possible to be taken on a non-large format camera due to the interactions of the lens size/focal length/bokeh/tilt-shift if applicable/film sharpness from the size of the film. This is apart of the discussion of properly choosing a medium to take the photo at hand.
Reasons film makes an image special:
* Film has different highlight rolloff / handles high and low exposures differently than a digital image. Occasionally a picture will required overexposing your highlights, and film can handle that without losing all highlight detail whereas digital can't.
* People are usually more impressed by in-camera picture taking.
* It's fun to see your pictures weeks after you shot them - fun suspense in waiting.
* Analog grain is more visually appealing than digital grain
* Because you can achieve the medium format bokeh characteristics without breaking the bank.
* Because you can shoot large format literally at all. LF doesn't really exist unless you are talking about cinema cameras, and even then, I don't think it compares to sheet film. Apples to oranges a little bit there.
* It produces an 'original' via the film negative. Film negatives probably will outlast anything digital since it's a real object anyway. My kids will inherit my photos like I inherited my father's.
* Black and white films share a lot of characteristics with B&W only cameras like the M11 Monochrom, but I also don't have to spend $10,000 to do it.
* Film forces you as a photographer to slow down to take a better shot both since it costs you money and you don't have that many shots on a roll. This is something that you yourself noticed since digital just let you get away with taking a picture with worse settings. (somewhat similar to what you said)
* It is a very tactile process
Reasons film makes an image special in a generally unliked way:
* Film exposure characteristics are absolutely not usable in every situation. Low light is bad, high contrast is bad.
* Underexposed elements get a pretty awful green cast. It's iconic and culturally significant (Cyberpunk 2077 green cast is the same hue for example), but it looks terrible.
* $$$$$
Reasons film makes an image not special according to the video:
* Film is a format like anything else. If you take bad pictures your pictures are going to be bad (which this is the point that this video makes).
Imagine painting and someone coming along and saying, "Using oil paints doesn't make your painting special." It is so inanely topical that it's almost confusing on what they would really mean by that. Of course it doesn't make it special, was anyone confused about that? It's not about the paint, it's about the characteristics and so on.
Here is my final statement. If anyone out there really thinks that their picture is special solely because it's on film, they are not photographers enough that I will care about their work or opinion. Art is made through deliberate choice, even if that choice is to be not deliberate in their actions.
I spent 1 hour writing this comment out.
Appreciate the time you took for this. Thanks for the NLP tip. I'll keep that in mind. I think, fundamentally, a lot of people argue about gear on this site, and I find that a bit of a distraction. Gear & medium choices or experimentation should be driven by your practice... I'm glad the topic is not lost on you, however I'm surrounded by many people who call themselves photographers but don't even know what a portfolio is, what "editing" really means, and I like to nudge people like them a bit.
Look at that shoe cam shot 👀
👞📷
Definitly always more about the person shooting not the camera or medium. I do however think shooting film a couple times at least if you have the opportunity can help develop your skills. It’s a good exercise, slows you dont and makes you more conscious about conditions and light etc.
Yep. Love the slowness.
I like all the fun toys that come with film! If I have to be a serious big boy I’ll use my gfx if I’m going out I’ll take a film camera and have fun ruining images
I agree totally and it irritates me that a hashtag #filmsnotdead instantly gets an Instagram post about 100 more likes that a digital shot regardless of any inherent artistic merit. I've done both film and digital and it's the image that counts. The famous photographer Stephen Shore (greatest images on 10x8 film) had an instagram account - and all his shots were digital - a commenter there was saying how amazing his shots were and was it the 10x8 ? He replied no it was an iPhone!
Haha. His work is so great. I will generally start tagging everything with that hashtag because, as a statement, it’s generally true, even if the post is digital.
Analog circlejerk brought me here 👀