— For a more on comparing film versus digital and other photography tips, head on over to the blog!
Make money from your photos/videos –
FOLLOW SHUTTERSTOCK:
Facebook –
Twitter –
Instagram –
Shutterstock Blog –
42 Comments
— For a more on comparing film versus digital and other photography tips, head on over to the blog!
Make money from your photos/videos –
FOLLOW SHUTTERSTOCK:
Facebook –
Twitter –
Instagram –
Shutterstock Blog –
Just to reiterate, I'm not saying one way of shooting is better than the other. I just took the cameras and scanner I had and compared the different outcomes. Please don't kill me. – Logan
Could there be a light leak in the medium format camera?
Does he have a framed picture of Jake Gyllenhaal on his desk?
Pretty cool Lil Dicky does photography reviews.
Cool video. Every comparison video on YouTube is full of criticism. I thought you were very clear that this was not a scientific experiment but just you showing the difference between your digital camera and your film cameras and scanning process. I found it interesting. Thanks.
1:19 “If you’ve never shot with a film camera before, Portra 400 is a pretty good place to start.” Why did you make this claim?
I think this is a valuable comparison and one that can always add value, particularly to new generation of photographers who never used a film camera, as they can learn both its qualities and application to the current day. I also can agree with some elements of other comments about the scanning method. As an avid film user, I’ve learned film requires professional scanning to show it’s attributes properly and to look good in general. You’ll see this for sharpness especially, but also color and contrast. If you did another film vs digital video, which I’d love to see, I’d recommend having your film processed a professional lab with a Noritsu scanner, such as Indie Film Lab. Your film will be stunning, and hold their own. Thanks for posting!
Thank you for the comparison. I don't see myself spending much in photographic equipment as it is a hobby… so your experiment resembles what a normal person would choose. Using the same exposure, the same lens, and a high end scanner simply would not represent the way those mediums are used.
whose the guy in the photo frame ?
Definitely a much different look. Digital looks almost too clinical, like its not real in a way. The 35mm was pretty poor. I have to say I have used disposable film cameras quite a bit in the past and they looked much better than this. The medium format stepped up the image quality. I would say between the medium format and digital its a toss. surprised at how good the film handled the highlights
Film VS digital should be more about the process rather than sharpness and colour tests. Without using the same lens and even using different films will change how each photo looks. People shoot film for the process.
I want to get into photography, and I want to do mostly buildings and atmospheric shots. Medium format looks like the way to go, but I heard it can be demanding for a beginner.
I have never shot film and I don't really get what people like about it. The picutures seem to be super soft with low contrast and wrong colors.
How many digital pictures have you lost due to digital storage failure or degraded DVD and CD storage over the years? I've got 60 year old film negatives that will still give me a great picture…Something to think about just using digital..formats change over the years..not film…
you look like armie hammer's hispter twin brother
Digital blows highlights much easier than film. It also looks more boring. Film has the colour and grain. When you think of the process film goes through, the results will be very different from an image created from ones and zeros in seconds. Personally I prefer the look of film. It’s a similar reason why people are going back to vinyl. It’s the organic feel. There’s room for both mediums nowadays. We don’t have to choose from one or the other.
This is a $2k camera compared to a $50-$100 camera. Just saying.
Really helpfully bro😎👊🏾
hi completely unrelated but you look a lot like armie hammer
The V600 is a reasonable scanner but I get much better results using a macro lens on my camera and using a bright white light (artist lamp) to illuminate the negatives.
I'm not sure there's really a big debate between 35mm and full frame digital. The dynamic range, etc is considerably better on digital. Medium format is another story though, it holds up really well.
dude, the bokeh is diferent bcz of the lens. not bcz its film or digital
"Lets compare a $2500 camera to a $180 scanner"
light edit – sure bruh yer not editing bra sure…
do you even understand that you compare digital vs ditigal?! to make real comparion you had to enlarge your analog photos on paper ( do silver print, expose onto paper etc.) not digitialize them and make pixelated.
it simple a true photographer will always do film not digital
Not to pile on about the Epson choice, but I was struck by just how different (and poorly) the Epson v600 scans compared to a Pakon and definitely compared to a lab scan on a Noritsu or Frontier. It's just not a good scanner for 35mm, and I've scanned hundreds of rolls on it along with the Pakon (and many lab scanned). I'd argue you're not really even getting an accurate depiction of the film you're scanning (Portra on a Pakon or lab scan looks way different from an Epson, for example).
While it's very expensive to get high end lab scans, they truly are the gold standard when evaluating the potential that film has.
The v600 is so poor in comparison I almost gave up shooting film entirely because I realized I was getting 50% of the potential of film by using it, I just couldn't afford to get lab scans done as much as I was shooting.
what's up with that Jacke Gyllenhaal framed picture in your office?
The a7sii is really clean and sharp but Overall the Medium format film looks better
You make a good vs. but! you no need a same picture. Film isnt for "digital format" photos. I dont understand people who buy film camera and make photos like they hold in their hands a digital camera. it doesnt make sense
5:35 Well, it seems that medium format film has more dynamic range that sony's sensor…
Brilliant comparison.
Scanning a analog film will give you not the real thing . Only a optical darkroom FB silverprint will show you the real quality of a medium format camera . A Mamiya 645 can do much better than the soft out of focus photo's in this video . On a black and white film like Fuji Acros a averige Mamiya lens can resolve at least 100 line pairs / mm . With a 25 ISO film it will be even more than 100 line pairs / mm . A digital sensor can do around up to 75 line pairs / mm depending on the used lens . Analog color film is not used by me for many years because the film is scanned and prints are digital …… The scan's are so bad that you can not see the difference between an Leica M and a cheap plastic fantastic AF SLR . Thats why color negative photography is a lost effort for me . I print only black and white on FB paper in my darkroom .
I have been shooting film photography for the last 26, going 27 years that we are getting into 2019. And if the general principle film how taught me; Like sniper training(Okay, terrible example 🙈) is that you have to pick your shoots and get a better understanding of what it is you are getting across with your vision. Digital on the other hand is like giving a loaded pistol to a child(more terrible examples. I apologize). Most take it for granted, knowing it is digital and you can keep on failing until you eventually get that 1 great photo out of 100+ shots 📸 that you probably took.
In the long run; Is film photography still worth it and a good medium to use? "OF COURSE!" Like the old saying goes, "Film never lies".
1. I think that ideally film should not be compared to digital but the other way around or not at all.
2. Further. How can you compare film to digital or viceversa? With what Portra? How about with Ectachrome, Kodachrome or Ilford? Is there even a corresponding thing for each one of those films that has been emulated into digital?
Film is a dead thing of the past! There is nothing more beautiful or "realistic" in the look of a photo taken with a film camera than that of a DSLR! In general, (and I am not talking specifically for this video) the colors are very flat, there is a tremendous lack of sharpness and I do not see a superiority of film relating to dynamic range…
When you use film you don't care how eyelashes sharp. Chemical way make me feel more humanistic… I look surface and tones, not details. Even sometime mistakes looks good and combinations of textures and tones looks alive. Digital is like something frozen but film feels like something timelessly frozen.
Apples, oranges and bananas.
v600 😀
It's amusing that the video-specific 12 megapixel Sony clearly outclassed the medium format film. Sure you could get a better scan that would resolve the grain more finely but I doubt it would equal the A7SII let alone a high-resolution model like the A7R series. The film highlight performance was quite good, just as I remembered it. Film has a nice look to it and I still have my Coolscan LS-5000 so maybe I'll do a project on 35mm for old time's sake.
If u are selling prints then film would be a good choice, but I feel everything else just goes for the digital.
You should have used the same lens for the 35mm film and digital. Softness on 35mm could be down to the lens used. Also, I hope all digital shots were shot at 400iso!