A initially learned photography as a kid shooting black & white then developing the photos in a dark room, that was a magical time and sparked my interest in photography. As I got older I dabbled in digital photography but wasn't until my kids were born that i really started to get an active interest back in it all.
I have 50 year old chromes and movie film that are beautiful. I wonder how all my ones and zeros will fare in 50 years, or even 10 years. Software and hardware obsolescence and corruption are a threat.
You don't have to upgrade a digital camera just because technology advances. Most of your points come down to subjective judgements about the experience rather than image quality.
It's bizarre to say film is better than digital. Film requires the purchase of expensive materials, including the film itself, developing materials, a dark room and paper. It's time consuming and hit and miss, even if you are a good photographer. Even with all this, you can only shoot B & W. Colour is much more complex, expensive and hit and miss. Digital pics can be composed, taken and deleted as you go along. You can shoot the same subject a hundred times if you wish, just to keep 1 pic. Digital pics can be improved both in camera and on your computer. Film can be fun, but to ever suggest that it is a better technology than digital is madness. It's daft to say that film pics look better than digital. Film, being a chemical product, can provide unwanted and hit and miss results. Print manipulation is difficult and only open to B & W. If you take 36 pics, 1 or 2 will be useless, yet you still pay. You look at them and see how something better could have been taken. It's fashionable to say old tech is better…when, in reality, most professional photographers dumped film when sensors jumped about 4mp. Still, if you're not convinced..take a digital and a film camera out for a day and see which one gives you the best pics….and the best service.
@1:52 Yeah, most Asians have a remarkably "anxious" disposition it seems… it's more rare to find really laid-back and chill ones. Esp. with the females LOL… They're cute, though.
In developing countries like my India, the film photography has died out in the past three decades due to the rising costs of daylight negative films, shutting down of processing laboratories due to rising costs of chemistry and due to a single fact that a 36 exposure 35mm daylight film gave normally full success to expert photographers who could even take out 38-40 frames by special film loading techniques in their manual SLRs but gave out only 20-30 good images to the amateur photographer to whom the cost per shot increased substantially with each failed exposure. Digital images stored in millions on 8GB Micro cards that can be reimaged with computer programs like the Adobe Photoshop.
It seems to me that you are comparing not just film to digital, but the Leica M film experience to the SLR digital experience. If it must be an X vs Y discussion, I think it would be interesting to compare the total experience of say, a Nikon F6 vs D850 or a Leica M7 vs M10, or a Mamiya 7II to a Hasselblad X1D, evaluating whether the price difference is justified, and for what kind of photography.
Everybody who advocates film over digital are young, much younger than me. There seems to be some romantic attraction to shooting with film as if offers something that digital cannot. But ask anyone older than 50 yo who had no choice than to use film. None will go back. Eric said: "Making peace in your soul" when shooting with film. I have far more experienced with film and will state for the record that it is a PITA: there is no peace. Does anyone believe a film camera will last longer than a digital one? Please! And finally, Eric would have you believe film creates better images. NFW! With my digital camera, I can play with a shot and blow through 30 shots before I capture the perfect image. Try this with film.
Plenty of haters out there. Some people just don’t want to hear anything that goes against what they believe. I think his comments are well thought out. Anyway, if you think you can do better, upload away!
Your opinion is based on how something feels but not on factual results, you base your judgement on lifestyle that you feel more nostalgic when you shoot with film. But when I shoot for a living, film is nonsensical and useless, it's like carrying a walkman around when you can play music easily on your iphone.
I Agree… digital photos are "dirt cheap" and so they have this "not important" feel to them. whereas with film, you need to take the whole process more seriously.
I like film cameras because a lot of mine are mechanical and don't rely on unreliable batteries that wear out or get too cold and the camera doesn't work. I can also use them on the airplane while electronics have to be off.
Eric…come on Bro. You were the cat who extolled the use of the smartphone for street photography and the VSCO presets. What's going on? Oh, I see…you gotta put in the 14 minute shameless plug for your film notes book.
This "film vs digital" rant I see online is very tiring. It's not the medium, it's the photographer who makes the photo come alive. I've seen pieces of art created with toy cameras and low-end digital gear; whilst I see pieces of crap from high-end digital gear, Leicas and view cameras. And all this "waxing zen" over film photography is rather absurd. BTW, I shoot with both: 60% digital/40% film (usually instant).
People, shoot what YOU love; not what some internet "guru" tells you. If you love film, fine. If you love digital fine. It doesn't matter in the end.
Yes ! Good Job Eric ! One thing that I would ad is a well done SIlver Halide print should communicate the 4th dimension of things. Digital imaging is one thing Photography is another. Digital imaging will show what was there. Photography will show that and what else it there…..
I was educated in the late eighties in art school, everything B&W, loved it… I still have my analog cameras like the F2, F3, Canon A1, AE1, Leica m 3,… Now I prefer the small digital fuji camera's like the X10, 30… X100. Always developed my own film, printed on afga paper with that beautiful brown-red tint. The fact is that you have to think before you shoot. And you feel the connection with Kertesz, Brassai, Bresson, Klein,Atget, Waller-Evans….
As a photographer for over 30 years I can honestly say that digital has given me a fantastic boost to my output. I think those photographers who worked with glass plate negatives made similar statements about them being better than film when celluloid became the fashion. I'm not saying that there isn't something magical about film because clearly there is. But it isn't perfection that makes this a fact but its imperfection. Silver halide crystals are unique and no two negatives will be the same – unlike digital pixels. It's why digital black and white photographers like me spend hours trying to duplicate the look of film in the electronic dark room. However, to say one is better than the other is wrong. Both have their own identity and it is up to the photographer to bring out the best in both. Believe me, I have put my thumb through ten times as many 35 mm slides than I have ever deleted digital files. The answer is to work with both and to embrace both. We photographers have never been so blessed for choice as we are now. http://keithtowers.zenfolio.com/
It's a myth that digital photography is cheaper than film (medium format is expensive). Film cameras last years and years, film and processing to disk is cheap!
I have 50 year old chromes and movie film that are beautiful. I wonder how all my ones and zeros will fare in 50 years, or even 10 years. Software and hardware obsolescence and corruption are a threat.
120 films are good.
You don't have to upgrade a digital camera just because technology advances. Most of your points come down to subjective judgements about the experience rather than image quality.
Eric Kim! The little commie who can't take good photos, yet is a popular photographer! Laugh out loud
Good presentation. I shoot both and shoot mostly digital because it is so much easier. You are right, every digital photo I look at Icompare to film.
It's bizarre to say film is better than digital. Film requires the purchase of expensive materials, including the film itself, developing materials, a dark room and paper. It's time consuming and hit and miss, even if you are a good photographer. Even with all this, you can only shoot B & W. Colour is much more complex, expensive and hit and miss. Digital pics can be composed, taken and deleted as you go along. You can shoot the same subject a hundred times if you wish, just to keep 1 pic. Digital pics can be improved both in camera and on your computer. Film can be fun, but to ever suggest that it is a better technology than digital is madness. It's daft to say that film pics look better than digital. Film, being a chemical product, can provide unwanted and hit and miss results. Print manipulation is difficult and only open to B & W. If you take 36 pics, 1 or 2 will be useless, yet you still pay. You look at them and see how something better could have been taken. It's fashionable to say old tech is better…when, in reality, most professional photographers dumped film when sensors jumped about 4mp. Still, if you're not convinced..take a digital and a film camera out for a day and see which one gives you the best pics….and the best service.
better？really？
Film is not better, just different. Check out these shots. http://jktoth.com/blog/2018/08/22/analog-heart-in-a-digital-world/
Talks about financial problems. Holds up a Leica 😅
Leica makes a digital with no chimp screen.
It's a damn opinion jeeze guys!!!
I shoot a Minolta, Minoltina P semi-auto zone focus using B&W Untrafine Extreme 100…. pure joy😎👍
Also, got one of your Film Notes booklets.
@1:52 Yeah, most Asians have a remarkably "anxious" disposition it seems… it's more rare to find really laid-back and chill ones. Esp. with the females LOL… They're cute, though.
Film photography is like butt secks. It's fun and exciting at first, but ends up kind of shitty.
In developing countries like my India, the film photography has died out in the past three decades due to the rising costs of daylight negative films, shutting down of processing laboratories due to rising costs of chemistry and due to a single fact that a 36 exposure 35mm daylight film gave normally full success to expert photographers who could even take out 38-40 frames by special film loading techniques in their manual SLRs but gave out only 20-30 good images to the amateur photographer to whom the cost per shot increased substantially with each failed exposure. Digital images stored in millions on 8GB Micro cards that can be reimaged with computer programs like the Adobe Photoshop.
The printers, the inks, the calibration, the papers, all cost a bundle.
Why aren't you using a motion picture film camera to shoot these digital videos proclaiming how superior film is?
It seems to me that you are comparing not just film to digital, but the Leica M film experience to the SLR digital experience. If it must be an X vs Y discussion, I think it would be interesting to compare the total experience of say, a Nikon F6 vs D850 or a Leica M7 vs M10, or a Mamiya 7II to a Hasselblad X1D, evaluating whether the price difference is justified, and for what kind of photography.
Everybody who advocates film over digital are young, much younger than me. There seems to be some romantic attraction to shooting with film as if offers something that digital cannot. But ask anyone older than 50 yo who had no choice than to use film. None will go back. Eric said: "Making peace in your soul" when shooting with film. I have far more experienced with film and will state for the record that it is a PITA: there is no peace. Does anyone believe a film camera will last longer than a digital one? Please! And finally, Eric would have you believe film creates better images. NFW! With my digital camera, I can play with a shot and blow through 30 shots before I capture the perfect image. Try this with film.
I want one of those notebooks!!!
The thumbnail…
Plenty of haters out there. Some people just don’t want to hear anything that goes against what they believe. I think his comments are well thought out. Anyway, if you think you can do better, upload away!
Your opinion is based on how something feels but not on factual results, you base your judgement on lifestyle that you feel more nostalgic when you shoot with film. But when I shoot for a living, film is nonsensical and useless, it's like carrying a walkman around when you can play music easily on your iphone.
Film has been done. I don’t see the point in going backwards.
I Agree… digital photos are "dirt cheap" and so they have this "not important" feel to them. whereas with film, you need to take the whole process more seriously.
nice. deep
Would love to buy one, but just importing it to Denmark cost me 30 dollars :-/
I like film cameras because a lot of mine are mechanical and don't rely on unreliable batteries that wear out or get too cold and the camera doesn't work. I can also use them on the airplane while electronics have to be off.
Eric…come on Bro. You were the cat who extolled the use of the smartphone for street photography and the VSCO presets. What's going on? Oh, I see…you gotta put in the 14 minute shameless plug for your film notes book.
This "film vs digital" rant I see online is very tiring. It's not the medium, it's the photographer who makes the photo come alive. I've seen pieces of art created with toy cameras and low-end digital gear; whilst I see pieces of crap from high-end digital gear, Leicas and view cameras. And all this "waxing zen" over film photography is rather absurd. BTW, I shoot with both: 60% digital/40% film (usually instant).
People, shoot what YOU love; not what some internet "guru" tells you. If you love film, fine. If you love digital fine. It doesn't matter in the end.
Come on dude . just say it . the only reason your shooting film is so you can be taken serious amongst other street photographers
Yes ! Good Job Eric ! One thing that I would ad is a well done SIlver Halide print should communicate the 4th dimension of things. Digital imaging is one thing Photography is another. Digital imaging will show what was there. Photography will show that and what else it there…..
Bayor pattern sensor that records light in a linear way will always be inferior just based on that fact.
why? because you're a hobbyist.
I was educated in the late eighties in art school, everything B&W, loved it… I still have my analog cameras like the F2, F3, Canon A1, AE1, Leica m 3,…
Now I prefer the small digital fuji camera's like the X10, 30…
X100.
Always developed my own film, printed on afga paper with that beautiful brown-red tint.
The fact is that you have to think before you shoot. And you feel the connection with Kertesz, Brassai, Bresson, Klein,Atget, Waller-Evans….
If we have an EMP attack, all those digital photos stored on people's hard drives will be lost.
As a photographer for over 30 years I can honestly say that digital has given me a fantastic boost to my output. I think those photographers who worked with glass plate negatives made similar statements about them being better than film when celluloid became the fashion. I'm not saying that there isn't something magical about film because clearly there is. But it isn't perfection that makes this a fact but its imperfection. Silver halide crystals are unique and no two negatives will be the same – unlike digital pixels. It's why digital black and white photographers like me spend hours trying to duplicate the look of film in the electronic dark room. However, to say one is better than the other is wrong. Both have their own identity and it is up to the photographer to bring out the best in both. Believe me, I have put my thumb through ten times as many 35 mm slides than I have ever deleted digital files. The answer is to work with both and to embrace both. We photographers have never been so blessed for choice as we are now.
http://keithtowers.zenfolio.com/
ricegum?
It's a myth that digital photography is cheaper than film (medium format is expensive). Film cameras last years and years, film and processing to disk is cheap!
you dont need that little book
I always presume leica users are pretentious…he seems ok 😌