I've been shooting and developing film for almost 10 years now. In the last year I have also built a darkroom and started making prints. Printing is what makes shooting film worth it. I'm just not...
I've been shooting and developing film for almost 10 years now. In the last year I have also built a darkroom and started making prints.
Printing is what makes shooting film worth it. I'm just not really interested in scanning negatives personally anymore. The darkroom is a magical place and I feel that it adds more uniqueness to the final product than just scanning in the negatives, even when the print itself ends up scanned in. It takes so much effort to get a good print and it's truly a labor of love. There is something special about the ritual behind the process that I just find grounding and relaxing. It's one of my greatest stress relievers.
I don't think either film or digital is better or worse, they are just different.
I was tempted to ping you when I posted this, since I figured you might have something interesting to say about the video. So I'm glad you saw it and commented. :)
I was tempted to ping you when I posted this, since I figured you might have something interesting to say about the video. So I'm glad you saw it and commented. :)
Love SmarterEveryDay, and it's cool to see a hometown business featured on a big channel like this. I know a couple of the folks who work at Indie so it's cool to see them getting this kind of...
Love SmarterEveryDay, and it's cool to see a hometown business featured on a big channel like this. I know a couple of the folks who work at Indie so it's cool to see them getting this kind of attention. I'm not 100% convinced of claims of superiority of film over digital, but I know there are a lot of photographers who swear by it and it's certainly not something I know enough about to have much of an informed opinion. I do know that these guys do good work, though.
I think digital is now strictly superior because you can (in theory) simulate any film from the sensor data. That said it's not necessarily easy to do in practice. What you need to do is take...
I think digital is now strictly superior because you can (in theory) simulate any film from the sensor data. That said it's not necessarily easy to do in practice. What you need to do is take picture of reference colors with a given film so you can measure the mapping from a color in reality to the color on the developed film, then you apply that mapping to you sensor data to get the same colors & tones. For example Fujifilm has some good film simulation in their digital camera, or people in the open source community are also exploring that kind of stuff. You can also simulate quite realistic grain.
Anyway I think the appeal of film is rather the process (it makes you take your time, and having to wait for the result is also fun). In a way it's also simpler than digital because it applies a complete "style" to your photo (like a photoshop preset), while if you do raw digital development there's like 1000 decisions you can make and it can become very technical, some people are into that but others not so much. Sometimes being more constrained is good for creativity.
Yeah, what's interesting to me is that those explainations (The process is fun, waiting to see your results are appealing, you don't have to make that many decisions to get a style) sound like...
Yeah, what's interesting to me is that those explainations (The process is fun, waiting to see your results are appealing, you don't have to make that many decisions to get a style) sound like things that would mostly be appealing to a hobby photographer, but I know that this lab in particular get a TON of orders from professional photographers (lots of artists, wedding, event photographers) which makes less sense to me. I would think that especially for an event photographer you would want to make sure you could get as many shots as possible and you can apply the style in the editing/color correction part of the process. But again, I know very little about photography at that level so maybe I'm wrong about that.
Large events often employ multiple professionals, so there's at least one digital photographer (and maybe also a filmmaker) to guarantee everything is registered, and some guy with a film camera...
Large events often employ multiple professionals, so there's at least one digital photographer (and maybe also a filmmaker) to guarantee everything is registered, and some guy with a film camera for the cool "hipster" vintage shots.
Yeah that's probably the case, from what I've read it seems event photographers want the top of line systems with very good autofocus, low light performance and high productivity (lots of pictures...
Yeah that's probably the case, from what I've read it seems event photographers want the top of line systems with very good autofocus, low light performance and high productivity (lots of pictures to take & edit). I guess having a film camera on the side to get a few shots here and there is also an option.
I'm a film major. I worked with actual film as a director, editor, camera assistant, and had experience in the laboratory as well. I have no prejudice against digital whatsoever. Unless you have a...
I'm a film major. I worked with actual film as a director, editor, camera assistant, and had experience in the laboratory as well. I have no prejudice against digital whatsoever. Unless you have a big budget (for our standards at least) shooting with actual film is a huge pain in the ass. That said, the results can be beautiful and rather unique, and I can tell the difference still. Not always, for sure, but I definitely wouldn't say this is just about the process.
I would say that film can still beat digital in the cost vs. quality realm. I did a project a few years ago that I had to buy a camera for, and 120mm format film was the best option hands down. At...
I would say that film can still beat digital in the cost vs. quality realm. I did a project a few years ago that I had to buy a camera for, and 120mm format film was the best option hands down. At the time, the cost of a pro-level new (or used) digital camera body with good optics was far more than the cost of a good used film camera. We purchased a Mamiya RZ67 with a tremendously sharp stock lens and opted for Ilford Delta 100 BW film. We had excellent results within a constrained budget through this, even factoring in the cost of film and development/scanning. We wanted something of archival quality that we could print to a reasonably large size (16x20inches or larger) with no loss in quality on a budget and we got it with film.
It's true that the cameras themselves can be very cheap (got a $50 one vs $1500 digital body), so if you don't shoot tons of film it might be worth it.
It's true that the cameras themselves can be very cheap (got a $50 one vs $1500 digital body), so if you don't shoot tons of film it might be worth it.
As just some guy, this sounds a lot to me like the love for other analog media, particularly LPs. Philosophically, it feels as if there is emotion in the continuous, as opposed to discrete,...
As just some guy, this sounds a lot to me like the love for other analog media, particularly LPs.
Philosophically, it feels as if there is emotion in the continuous, as opposed to discrete, imperfections inherent in analog media. Organic processes, like the ones in our eyes, are continuous phenomena. Digital representations can simulate that effect, but never completely recreate it. Or is it all in our minds and the meaning we apply?
I have not read it, but I am given to understand some of these ideas are explored with greater detail and intelligence in simulation and sinulacra.
I think it's rather the process/experience that create a kind of placebo effect (touching things, feeling weight, etc feels good). I bet if you do blind experiments you can easily fool people...
I think it's rather the process/experience that create a kind of placebo effect (touching things, feeling weight, etc feels good). I bet if you do blind experiments you can easily fool people (e.g. play a LP in front of them but the sound comes from a phone).
I've been shooting and developing film for almost 10 years now. In the last year I have also built a darkroom and started making prints.
Printing is what makes shooting film worth it. I'm just not really interested in scanning negatives personally anymore. The darkroom is a magical place and I feel that it adds more uniqueness to the final product than just scanning in the negatives, even when the print itself ends up scanned in. It takes so much effort to get a good print and it's truly a labor of love. There is something special about the ritual behind the process that I just find grounding and relaxing. It's one of my greatest stress relievers.
I don't think either film or digital is better or worse, they are just different.
I was tempted to ping you when I posted this, since I figured you might have something interesting to say about the video. So I'm glad you saw it and commented. :)
Love SmarterEveryDay, and it's cool to see a hometown business featured on a big channel like this. I know a couple of the folks who work at Indie so it's cool to see them getting this kind of attention. I'm not 100% convinced of claims of superiority of film over digital, but I know there are a lot of photographers who swear by it and it's certainly not something I know enough about to have much of an informed opinion. I do know that these guys do good work, though.
I think digital is now strictly superior because you can (in theory) simulate any film from the sensor data. That said it's not necessarily easy to do in practice. What you need to do is take picture of reference colors with a given film so you can measure the mapping from a color in reality to the color on the developed film, then you apply that mapping to you sensor data to get the same colors & tones. For example Fujifilm has some good film simulation in their digital camera, or people in the open source community are also exploring that kind of stuff. You can also simulate quite realistic grain.
Anyway I think the appeal of film is rather the process (it makes you take your time, and having to wait for the result is also fun). In a way it's also simpler than digital because it applies a complete "style" to your photo (like a photoshop preset), while if you do raw digital development there's like 1000 decisions you can make and it can become very technical, some people are into that but others not so much. Sometimes being more constrained is good for creativity.
Yeah, what's interesting to me is that those explainations (The process is fun, waiting to see your results are appealing, you don't have to make that many decisions to get a style) sound like things that would mostly be appealing to a hobby photographer, but I know that this lab in particular get a TON of orders from professional photographers (lots of artists, wedding, event photographers) which makes less sense to me. I would think that especially for an event photographer you would want to make sure you could get as many shots as possible and you can apply the style in the editing/color correction part of the process. But again, I know very little about photography at that level so maybe I'm wrong about that.
Large events often employ multiple professionals, so there's at least one digital photographer (and maybe also a filmmaker) to guarantee everything is registered, and some guy with a film camera for the cool "hipster" vintage shots.
Yeah that's probably the case, from what I've read it seems event photographers want the top of line systems with very good autofocus, low light performance and high productivity (lots of pictures to take & edit). I guess having a film camera on the side to get a few shots here and there is also an option.
I'm a film major. I worked with actual film as a director, editor, camera assistant, and had experience in the laboratory as well. I have no prejudice against digital whatsoever. Unless you have a big budget (for our standards at least) shooting with actual film is a huge pain in the ass. That said, the results can be beautiful and rather unique, and I can tell the difference still. Not always, for sure, but I definitely wouldn't say this is just about the process.
I would say that film can still beat digital in the cost vs. quality realm. I did a project a few years ago that I had to buy a camera for, and 120mm format film was the best option hands down. At the time, the cost of a pro-level new (or used) digital camera body with good optics was far more than the cost of a good used film camera. We purchased a Mamiya RZ67 with a tremendously sharp stock lens and opted for Ilford Delta 100 BW film. We had excellent results within a constrained budget through this, even factoring in the cost of film and development/scanning. We wanted something of archival quality that we could print to a reasonably large size (16x20inches or larger) with no loss in quality on a budget and we got it with film.
It's true that the cameras themselves can be very cheap (got a $50 one vs $1500 digital body), so if you don't shoot tons of film it might be worth it.
As just some guy, this sounds a lot to me like the love for other analog media, particularly LPs.
Philosophically, it feels as if there is emotion in the continuous, as opposed to discrete, imperfections inherent in analog media. Organic processes, like the ones in our eyes, are continuous phenomena. Digital representations can simulate that effect, but never completely recreate it. Or is it all in our minds and the meaning we apply?
I have not read it, but I am given to understand some of these ideas are explored with greater detail and intelligence in simulation and sinulacra.
I think it's rather the process/experience that create a kind of placebo effect (touching things, feeling weight, etc feels good). I bet if you do blind experiments you can easily fool people (e.g. play a LP in front of them but the sound comes from a phone).