The film photography revival - So wrong on so many levels

MORE REVIVALS (ALL SO WRONG)...

CHAPTERS

0:00 Introduction
0:24 Film photography
0:47 LEVEL 1 - Old people
2:07 LEVEL 2 - Grain
4:25 LEVEL 3 - Look
7:19 LEVEL 4 - Film speed (ASA)
9:31 LEVEL 5 - Processing
10:57 LEVEL 6 - The viewfinder
12:37 LEVEL 7 - 36 shots
14:22 LEVEL 8 - Winding on
15:23 LEVEL 9 - Dust
16:40 LEVEL 9.75 - Dynamic range
17:09 LEVEL 10 - You're going digital anyway
18:44 Summary

CREDITS

Vinyl record - Willem van de Poll, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Cassette tape - 町田瑞樹, CC BY-SA 4.0

Analogue tape - Kaethe17, CC BY-SA 4.0

Steinberg Cubit - Original ad

Chemicals - The Joker, DC Comics

Film poster - 'Back From The Dead' 1957

Old people road sign - Fry1989 eh?, CC BY-SA 3.0

Record sleeve - 'Smile a While' by Brainstorm (1972)

Kombucha - Mgarten at the English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

Wood grain - Anonimski, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Film grain - Robert James Wallace, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Loch Ness Monster - Robert Kenneth Wilson

UFO - George Stock [4], Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

35mm film - Evan-Amos, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Fiordland - Krzysztof Golik, CC BY-SA 4.0

Fingal's Cave - Luk~commonswiki, CC BY-SA 4.0

Avatar Hallelujah Mountain - John Philip, CC BY-SA 2.0

Zion Canyon - Diliff, CC BY-SA 3.0

Ur Leica - Leica, CC BY-SA 2.0 DE

Hasselblad - I, Diser55, CC BY-SA 3.0

Magazine cover - Playboy (1971)

Linhof camera - Rama, CC BY-SA 2.0

Loch Ness Centre 'Nessie' - StaraBlazkova at Czech Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

Mona Lisa (Prado) - Museo del Prado, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Aktikompositsioon 19 (partially redacted) - Jaan Künnap, CC BY-SA 4.0

Voigtlander Heliar lens - Dllu, CC BY-SA 4.0

Characteristic curve - Sergej Qkowlew, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Kodachrome - Dnalor 01, CC BY-SA 3.0

Godowsky and Mannes - Source unknown

ANSI logo - American National Standards Institute, successor to the American Standards Association

Kodak Tri-X - Earnest B, CC BY-SA 4.0

Delegates - International Standardization Congress 1955 (Google doesn't seem to know whether this has anything to do with ISO)

Modern digital camera - Sony Alpha A6600

'The Hare and the Tortoise' - Arthur Rackham, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Push processing - Damiano from Sevilla, España, CC BY-SA 2.0

Developing tank - Ashley Pomeroy, CC BY-SA 4.0

Enlarger - Rickjpelleg, CC BY-SA 3.0

Processing lab: Gratispool

Viewfinder - Franz van Duns, CC BY-SA 4.0

Nikon F - Minya S, CC BY-SA 4.0

Twin-lens reflex - Sally Ann Freedman photographed by Ray Wallman CC SA-BY 2.5

Kodak Brownie 44A - PMRMaeyaert, CC BY-SA 4.0 (This is the two-aperture model, not the three-aperture version mentioned in the video)

Zorki 4 - Dmitry Makeev, CC BY-SA 4.0

SD card - PantheraLeo1359531, CC BY 4.0

Lever wind - Shane Lin, CC BY 2.0

Motor drive - 日本語: 写真好き少年, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

"Giant leap for mankind" - Space Force

Neil Young - Mark Estabrook, Attribution, via Wikimedia Commons

'The Grain of Dust' - Ogden Pictures Corporation / Crest Pictures Corporation, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Platform Nine and Three Quarters - User:Matthias Süßen, CC BY-SA 3.0

Cuts of beef - GameKeeper at English Wikipedia, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Film poster - 'Scanners' (1981)

Scanner - Epson Perfection V850

[bongani_a]

Film photography helped me with dopamine detox and in turn is changing my life. The delayed results made me more intentional with photography (something that is spreading to other parts of my life). I shoot digital for convenience, but for creative reasons, I choose film exclusively and nothing (and no one) will ever change that (except Kodak with the price hikes hahaha). So, try both, find what works for you !!!

[greggreaves]

All excellent points. However, none of them take away from the joy of shooting (and processing) film. Why drive a stick shift? Why paint? Why cast clay onto a wheel when I can get a perfectly fine bowl at the dollar store? I don't take pictures to sell or pay my bills. For me, getting up in the morning, and catching the first light - walking half the day to shoot 15 exposures on my 645 - coming home in the afternoon - developing the roll before dinner and hanging it - then scanning (yes, with my digital camera) at the end of the day and maybe posting a few shots to instagram is, for me... a day well spent.

[joshhenderson]

Nothing will ever beat looking at reversal film on a light table

[raphajptube]

It is pretty simple.. if you are a real photographer, or have any respect for the craft, you would never go on a rant on any form of photographic expression.
I grew up during the transition period. Photography was hijacked by computer "nerds".. not photographers. This Video is an offspring of that phenomenon.. just 10 year too late.
There are so many ways of photographic expression. Find one that makes you happy and enjoy photography!!!

[homerhorowitz]

Pretty sure I just figured out my very own version of hell: it would be a guy in front of a green screened, fake living room, trying to convince me that analog is dead and art is a pass/fail subject.

[agylub]

Wrong. I have perfect Kodachromes, colour and B&W negs from 1974. I have family B & W prints from 1900. But I have dead hard drives, CF cards, SD cards and various other digital media which are either dead or there is no hardware to support it. Consider that

[apitsios]

photography is an art and you cannot approach art issues in terms of practicality, let alone not being a photographer yourself.

[j.k]

Ur points are based on the fact that we shoot film to get the max reproduction output. Which is wrong. We Shoot film cuz it’s less than digital, it’s more artistic, it’s different.

No one shoots 35mm to compare it with digital or anything else.

This video is useless honestly. I never commented like this before but I just couldn’t ignore it now. It’s like talking about painting.

[enriquekahn]

I learned on film myself and moved on to digital as soon as it was truly practical. I talk to younger people who are trying out film sometimes and their reasons seem to be

1- Film offers a unique look even when you've digitized it afterwards

Hard to argue with this. This seems to parallel a lot of the thinking around audio analogue gear in that if you want something that mimics something that's decades old you'll probably get better results using the period-correct equipment and processes than using modern processes and messing with them in post. It's an artistic choice and it's fine but it's not my choice.

2- With film you have to really think about composition etc. for each individual shot instead of shooting 60 times and hoping one of them comes out how you want it

I kinda get it, it's fine to talk about just forcing yourself to do the same with digital but it's certainly a different feel when every shot you take is costing you money

3- They like the old gear for its own sake and enjoy using it

I 100% get this. A lot of old photo (and audio) gear has a really nice feel to it. There's no reason why modern gear shouldn't be just as pleasant to use but too many manufacturers seem to have the attitude that as long as a feature is *technically* in the camera their job is done, even if nobody will ever actually use it because it's buried in a menu that's in a menu that's in another menu ad infinitum.

[mike]

This whole issue of 'film vs digital' has been done to death! One is not intrinsically 'better' than the other. It's a pointless argument. I shoot with my cellphone for convenience (and that's probably the strongest argument for digital), but it's analog all the way when I want a mounted and framed fibre based b&w print for my wall.

[Bonsees]

Daddy chill. Yes, digital photography is technically practical, I don’t think anyone shooting film nowadays still believe that film is more practical or technically “superior” to digital. But by this argument, nobody should be painting landscapes using oil paints either because you can just take a photo and photoshop the heck out of it to look like a painting after. There’s a fundamental difference in the process and the philosophy of shooting either film or digital and I think it’s up to the person to decide which one is better for them. They’re both art forms, and either form deserves their place ❤️

But sure, I’ll put down my kombucha now 😕

[simseeye]

I'm sorry but YOU are so wrong on so many levels...
1) I've never, ever, heard anyone refer to analog photography as "chemical photography". Not that it matters, really, but it sets the tonality for the rest of the video.
2) Not everyone who's into film photography is a bearded hipster. That's such a cliché that it's not even funny anymore.
3) You don't like film grain. It's fine. To each his own. Personally, I don't like photoshopped images, fake skin, fake sunrays, fake sunsets, unrealistic colors, and cold, surgical digital images. And grain does not necessarily affect image quality or sharpness. I have sharp images that were taken on HP5 pushed to 3200. Sharpness is mostly related to the quality of your lens and an adequate shutter speed setting.
4) The look of B&W film is also highly affected by push process, choice of developper, temperature of the developper etc.. And yes, with digital, you can choose the look you want, but most people either don't (and rely on presets) or go for the "wow" factor (see the trends of over processing, over saturation, over HDR, etc...). And you also have a wide variety of film looks available (and you had even more before people decided that film was dead) : from simple Portra to vivid Velvia to Aerochrome...
5) The one thing where digital has a clear advantage is speed. On that, I agree.
6) Not being able to see the picture right away is actually cool : you're in the moment, you're not chimping and losing the perfect moment, and you keep the great sense of expectation. And when you develop a roll you started months ago, you rediscover pictures you had forgotten you even had taken, and it's a lot of fun.
7) There are tons of viewfinders, clear and bright in analog. There are waist level VF. There are rangefinders (so no blackout). I imagine you know all this, but you don't mention it. And selfies ? Sorry but they're way overrated.
8) Yes, 36 shots. Or less. It's enough. From years of using both film and digital, I can assure you that I don't get more keepers in digital than I do in analog, because I put more thoughts behind every film frame, because I don't think "I'll fix it in post", because I'm more in the moment (as mentioned above). And I don't get 10 identical frames taken on high fps... Sure, I won't get that split second moment between 2 frames that I would have had with a high fps digital camera, but I'm sorry, 20 fps (common on the latest digital cameras), that's not photography anymore, it's videography.
9) Winding on and rewinding is FUN !
10) You don't fight against with your digital cameras ? Only one speck of dust ? Seriously ? Sure, if you never change lenses or use a mirrorless...
11) One other point I'll give you : people do tend to scan their negatives rather than printing them. Why ? Because of our fast paced world, where everything is convenient and where people don't want to put in time and effort. That has influenced even analog shooters. And it's a shame, because a darkroom print really is a fun process that lends beautiful results.

[EddyTheChump]

Art is not just a technological enterprise. Ask yourself this question, why did painting not die when photography emerged? The answer is allegorical for why people continue to use film in a digital world.

[TheOnyxMage]

No clue if you'll read this but i'll explain my view.
-I was born in the 90s, film remind me of my childhood.
-i originally got interested when i found my grand-father's camera, i only had the intention of putting one roll through it originally.
-I fell in love with the colors. it basically helped me define my style.
-I love taking my time adjusting physical knobs instead having to dig in menus and such.
-having a limited amount of frames pushes me to search for the perfect composition.
-I develop my film and scan it and catalog it myself. its meditating and i love it when i forgot what i shot and it turns out amazing.

honestly, i'll go back to digital in time. but right now i'm enjoying the imperfections and the physicality of film.
Hope it helped, cheers!

[DFermain]

It's all in the negative. Magic that digital can never replicate. The physical capture of light in time.

[robiulahmed]

Well, some people will never understand! Us film photographers enjoy the process. We prefer cameras that can be many decades old with the quality of engineering ensuring it lasts. We also prefer how it looks - something digital hasn’t been able to recreate. Furthermore, when you compare digital medium format to film medium format, it’s literally like comparing super 35 to IMAX.

[ripemangosmdm]

Crystal clear, oh dear! No thanks. The fully digital process from camera to image to computer to file and editing to printing on a printer....and the only experience of being part of a non digital experience being holding the camera and walking about in the world or setting up a studio shoot...not fulfilling to me, personally. Just the process and the unknown and the feel of older gear and the repairable nature and less and less plastic parts (depending) is what pulls me in and keeps me nestled. I see why people shoot digital, don't think either is better for the over all of photographers, but for me, it's film. Feels proper, works how I want it to, helps me learn, keeps me working at it, and gives me variance and not just a sharp image. Also, the mid way point of this video where you explain the process and make it sound like it takes 100 yrs. Ha! I go out each day, shoot a roll or 2 or 3 and head home, heat chems, while that's happening, I load my tanks, then I develop, hang to dry, scan if I want, and then head to the darkroom where that process also takes no time at all to start making prints of images I feel worth printing. It's not for everyone, but it's not exhausting, it's exciting, it's like making a delicious meal, an old family recipe! Magnifico!

[gabelobato]

If grain gives a “false veil of authenticity” then the crispy, flawless sheen of digital is the absolute lack thereof.

[pancholini]

I understand your point and I shoot both digital and film. I do digital for efficiency and client work, I get it, its quicker and you can reach more people much faster, I have clients from all over the world. However, nothing compares to grabbing a film camera, with just a couple of lenses and take a trip, a hike or just a walk in the city. That sensation of holding an old camera, aiming and making your brain work 10x more before shooting, and once you shot, move on with your life, not knowing if you got the shot right. Not even knowing how it will look once developed. And then, going to the lab to get your photos developed and printed professionally. That feeling when you get your photos back is compared to the feeling when you were a kid waking up on Christmas day waiting hoping to get all the gifts you asked to santa claus. Film photography makes you a better photographer and makes you appreciate photography and the craft itself much more. Digital photography has devalued photography because people don't feel like they're getting something tangible and they think anyone can just click a shutter button with a high end camera and be a great photographer.

[SpaceZombie]

Much like how musicians often own many guitars, you use different tools for different reasons. One not being objectively 'better' or 'worse' than the other. It all depends on the context and what you're trying to achieve. There's good reasons to want imperfections to occur in order to amplify a certain emotion or aesthetic.