Digital doesn't feel the same, film just hits differently.

You're quickly becoming one of my top 5 favorite film photography youtubers! One hundred percent agree with all the points in this video!

@GabrielKania

22 күн бұрын

Who are the other top 5?

@lucadipaolo1997

22 күн бұрын

Same, I've really enjoyed the content on this channel and it's definitely in my top 5 alongside attic darkroom, analog resurgence, kyle mcdougall and grainydays. It has a good mixture of news, guides/reviews and other content that is very relevant to the community.

@SageEpyon

22 күн бұрын

@@GabrielKania KingJvpes, Bad Flashes, grainydays, and Yvonne Hanson! Enjoy!

I love shooting film. The whole process of developing at home and printing in a dark room and so has also something very valuable.

Great video dude! The points were spot on! I hate sifting though the way too many photos I take when shooting digital. Also I think there is something important about removing yourself from the photos you take while you wait for them to be developed

Something about them mirror slaps! 😌

I have both a Hasselblad and a Nikon F4, love them both. I have 16 year old photos of my son on kodachrome, none of my pictures taken on my phone at the same era exists…. I bought several rolls of Ektachrome E100, and I am keeping the slide projector alive, planning on gathering all my family members in october for a slideshow with popcorn!

i for one like having the time for me to develop my photos to find out they suck instead of learning that instantly on a little lcd screen

Agree on all points. I really find shooting film to be more rewarding. I try to take the same approach with digital as I do with film. I don't chimp and only take 1 or 2 shots of the same composition. I, too, don't like going through a ton of digital images.

Congrats on the Skillshare sponsorship, my man!

I shoot film because : Of the feel, the look, the aesthetics, the enjoyment, the process, the results, the quality. Yes digital gets results but its the technology which achieves that. It has its place. However I thoroughly enjoy the process and when you achieve a cracking image the feeling is un matched.

Fantastic breakdown man. I'd agree with your points, and I'll add one of my own: I like the mystery of it. The wondering how a shot will have turned out, the excitement of trying a new film stock. The limited nature of this process helps push creativity in a way that I don't think digital can. I think for a lot of us, the answer can kind of be boiled down to "because I like it" Does there need to be any more reason than that?

I never stopped schooting film. I don't even edit my film photos. I take all my film to a local lab and get it developed, scanned and printed. They can do a way better job then I could ever do and would not want to spend time developing and scanning while I could spend that time doing other things.

I think we like or appreciate something new or different. I grew up from film so using the thought process of composition to make it count. Bulk rolls for 250/exp was affordable then I have 10 yo DSLR’s w/ low clicks. But for action sports I love digital to get that focus bracketing at 11 fps

I started with film, because I have the same problem when shooting with my smartphone taking around 70 pictures in a 14 days trip and didnt even rewatch them until today and even now when i use my Fuji Xs-10 i am limited to 4 recipes (more than enough) and shoot like it would be film taking time for the shot.

I started in film I bought my SLR in 1977 a Pentax K1000 I moved up to Pentax ME SUPER & ME SUPER PROGRAM I kept 400 film in one camera and 1600 in the second camera for low light. I recently Refurbished a Pentax Spotamatic I got the camera as a kit with a number of Takumar lenses I put the camera on a shelf unti somebody gave me a roll of film . That's when I found out the light seals were worn out . I replaced the seals for a few dollars for supplies from Walmart. Now I need to take the camera out and see if I still have a problem with the new light seals

Shot film for thirty five years. Worked in a professional lab that catered to professional photographers. Shot a Leica M3. I know film for the shooting to the processing and printing. Switched to digital in 2006. I felt like I was released from prison. What I can do in my home digital lab was unimaginable in the 1970’s professional film lab. No more test prints, felt tip pens, and dodging and burning black and white. No more test strips on the film processors. I don’t miss any of it. You want nostalgia turn your digital camera to manual, single point, single shot, and manual focus. Welcome to 1960! I’ve been there and I will stay with the digital cameras and processing that only allow for a single limitation. The imagination of the photographer. Good luck with film.

@JHurrenPhotography

20 күн бұрын

Hahahah. Right on man. You're probably not as addicted to the internet as the rest of us (slightly) younger folk. Internet addiction has given anything that encourages more time away from digital tech a major importance. Sure sure, I can switch off my wifi while retouching my digital photos, but I don't! That's addiction. For me, it's a digital prison I'm escaping in those hours swishing hot chemistry around in my bathroom, until those glistening slides emerge. All the best

I don't know whether it's because of the inherently deliberate nature of shooting film or something else, but my success rate (number of keepers vs. the total number of photos taken) increases tenfold with film, from 1-2% to around 20%. Also, film is just so much more fun.

3:23 35 mm, 120 or APS, with the latter having a _much_ higher market share amongst non professionals than 120.

I love the excitement of getting a roll developed. The look is "nostalgic" and often ethereal. I also lowkey think people look better on film... Also the instant gratification/taking 100s of pics digitally just makes it feel, for me, less special?

What's the best lens? Nikon Kogaku Nikkor-H Auto 28/3.5 or Nikon serie E 2.8/2.8 ? It's for street photo and i only use aperture from to 5.6 to 16.

I love shooting film and digital. Both are great mediums for photography. But you can shoot just as slowly and methodically on digital by slowing down and limiting yourself. Film is a very deliberate medium that has no advantages over digital, but it is a good medium if you want a certain look or workflow.

@jackbeausoleil6053

21 күн бұрын

i mean i wouldn’t say is has no advantages like if you’re shooting 120 or large format you can get much more resolution and shallower depth of field than a comparably priced digital camera

@ultrasonicradiation

21 күн бұрын

@@jackbeausoleil6053 For medium format film cameras, you pay the price in the rolls of film you shoot, while for medium format digital, you pay for it in the camera at the time of purchase. But first generation GFX 50R are very cheap nowadays compared to Mamiya 7 or any other medium format film cameras. The image quality, dynamic range and ease of use for digital is still unbeatable from a purely technical perspective. But the film does allow different 6X7, 6x6 format sizes, and provides a unique nostalgic look.

Convincing the general public to shoot film in 2024 in this economy is an uphill battle. Yes, a cheap camera is less expensive then digital but when you are looking at over $100 for film, developing and scanning, most people won't bother. Especially when you have to wait to see your photos. I love film, but Im certainly not spending $100+ every time I want to shoot 36 photos. Even my instant film cameras are less expensive than that. People are much more likely to buy a disposable camera and shoot film a lot cheaper.

I love film because it's real and has a physical imprint - and it's not photoshopped or computer generated.

Nice video. But film IS NOT expensive. It is as cheap or cheaper now than at any point in history.

@OriginalTLab3000

22 күн бұрын

That is not true. At least not here in Germany, where I am, and not for colour film of any kind. However, for some weird reason or other, film used to be cheaper in Germany than in any other (European?) country. Even adjusted for inflation, film in the 90's used to only cost a fraction of what it costs nowadays. Yes, some stocks like Velvia 50 already were expensive back then. Others weren't. And there always was a cheap alternative. Every drug or photo store had its own brand, often selling C41 film for 2 or 3 DM or slide films for 6 DM, often _including_ developing and framing! 6 DM in 1998 adjusted for inflation would still be less than 5 EUR. Let's be generous and make that USD 6. Do you really get a slide film and developing for less than 6 USD, nowadays? Edit: Or even later! I just held a cartridge of Kodak Ektachrome in my hands that still has the original price tag from 2010. The price was EUR 3.50! Three Euros fifty just 14 years ago! Impex sells these for EUR 29, now! 😵‍💫 What the...?

@tim31415

22 күн бұрын

@@OriginalTLab3000 The presenter is in the US and it is reasonable to believe most of his audience is US based. You can check actual catalog prices from past decades and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an inflation calculator on line. If you actually do the research, film prices from the 60s, 70s and 80s were consistently higher than prices for the same film today, even for price outliers like Provia and Velvia. Perhaps in Germany you were used to AGFA films which are no longer available. It is unfortunate that these options are gone. But it is definitely not true that film prices are higher than historical averages. I can buy a roll of B&W film for less that the price of a cup of coffee.

@OriginalTLab3000

22 күн бұрын

@@tim31415 I don't know whether his audience is mainly US based or not. Is it? And what does it matter? It was your statement, not his, and it is... sorry, it's simply wrong 🤷‍♂ KZread is global and you can't just ignore the rest of the world, especially when the video is in the new lingua franca, English. What a weird concept! You might limit your answer to your part of the world, though, to maybe make it right, like I did. AGFA can not be the only or even main reason for the cheap film prices in Germany. It was a really very strange thing indeed! The no-name films were often rather made by Kodak (like the very common Paradiesfilm) and only sometimes by AGFA. It was not only AGFA film that was cheap! I remember my last real vacation in 1999(!). I was in Ireland and hadn't brought enough film to capture the vast, impressive beauty of this magnificent island and nation! I thought, a dozen films would do - but no, not by far! I've always been a Fuji guy, so I bought some more Superia, there - for more than twice the price in Germany! I know that Germans shot more film per person than people from any other nation. But even that in combination with AGFA doesn't fully explain the low prices.

@tim31415

22 күн бұрын

@@OriginalTLab3000 For those people who can't do their own research, the Jan 1981 edition of Popular Photography has an ad in the back for Adorama. This lists Kodak EDP, 36 Exposure, 35mm at $8.49. EDP was Ektachrome E6. This includes the film and processing. Per the BLS Inflation Calculator that is equivalent to $30.65 today. Adorama is currently listing 35mm Ektachrome at $21.99. Dwayne's will process that roll for $7.50. That's $29.49 for film and processing. So shooting Ektachrome today is actually cheaper today than the heyday of film in 1981!

@jorghahn2903

21 күн бұрын

@@tim31415Did salaries also increase 3.6x times in that period?