The thing is now everyone and their family can afford to have good quality pictures and take them themself. Back in the old days photography was for rich toffs with Jaguar cars.
What I think is funny is how oil paintings where the way to capture something, then the first camera came around, yet painters saw their art as superior. (easier and faster to use film than paint). Now digital is around and the film thinks it is superior (digital is easier and faster then film). In the end you make art with what you have in a process you enjoy. Which is better, well what do you enjoy, computers or darkrooms?
All of you saying that digital is shit shows how much professionalism and knowledge you have. I'm an engineer and unlike idiot photographers smart people (such as engineers for example) do not reject something completely - they evaluate whether the method is fit for the task. For many tasks digital suffices. The same reason 8 bits are enough to represent a digital image in a computer and only rarely would you use 10 or 12 bits - it suffices. Also digital is inexpensive and fits hobbyists.
i started photography in digital and i like it but i agree that film have a better feeling of image right now i am shooting 90% Meidum format film for my personal work because of the quality of the image and the artistic feeling that i get from it and for client i shoot digital because of is advantage to give work to the client quickly
but film in my opinion is better
you can watch on my channel i aded a video of a screen flow of a scann from one of my negativ scanned a 3200 DPI from a imacon
Digital + Photoshop > Film : Everyone always goes for that film look because it came first. If digital was created first, everyone would want to achieve that digital look.
DSLRs are great but I think a decent film compact still pwns digital compacts' asses, for one thing the sensor is about 20x small than a piece of film and off that only about half the sensor is sensitive to light.
These days I shoot only digital as there are several benefits, although I like the image I can achieve with film. CMOS and CCD chips have cons that film doesn't. Film is time and cost intensive, and can be sensitive to handle pre-process. I have not yet seen a system of shooting that is universally ideal. If I had the budget for it I would choose film. Thanks for this presentation.
This isn't a video about Film vs. Digital, it's a video where an older gentleman talks about why he prefers film and quotes absolute nonsense statistics. When ALL things are equal, digital beats film every. single. time. Why? Because grain particles are binary and, oddly enough, pixels are analog. Time and time again people will say film out resolves digital without actually knowing anything about the science. Google: 'Clumps and Chumps' for more information.
I found an old 230-AF film camera and thought I would give film a try so I did some research as I am doing now and all I can see is religious grade hostility on both sides. I mean fucking hell, there cameras!! Its not what you use but how you use it and the person behind the camera.
Both film and digital suck at the consumer grade. Now...at the professional grade... It all depends on what your taste is. I like digital, but film is also equally fun. I like the look that people get when I show them pictures from an old 35mm Canon Rebel which is BETTER than their gimmicky little 10 MP Sony cybershot. Megapixels are irrelevant by the way. Just thought u might like to know.
Wow. The ignorance. The close-mindedness. To say that movies shot digitally aren't movies or that pictures taken digitally aren't pictures.... Really, people? Pull your head out of your ass.
stevevox1's comment is a bit aggressive, but I think it was mostly direct towards the people who do photography in an "artistic" way using digital cameras and think they're cool, or even who have a job in this domain.
I understand the feeling, but obviously digital is great for the people who just want holidays pictures and stuff and who can get them to their computer without having to process film and then having to scan it, losing quality (unless they're putting a lot of money into this).
I don't think it matters at all. I use Digital most of the time and I shoot film as well. I shoot a lot of street with my digital camera and freelance jobs with it as well. I just think it's become more convenient for me, plus I like to use photoshop. After all it's all about the idea. The camera is just the tool.
now n days niggas think if you got a digital camera youre a photographer..lmao their fake tho, cuz a real photographer can produce an amazing picture with an old skool 35 mm film camera..hell even a pin hole camera!! then they go on photoshop and edit for hours..smh :( and im a photography student, so i know what im saying! now n days is technology producing art, not real passion
gee mr. photography..if ur gonna try to show us the difference between film and digital...at least give us a HD cam, w/ a tripod to best view them...not some cheap skake shyt
I dont like digital. I am not a pro and have no interest in being one. For some reason the photos i took with old cheap 35mm plastic camera takes better photos than the new digital cameras i use. When i say better, i mean it has a more spiritual/emotional look to it. Digital is also a distraction. I cant help but fiddle around looking at photos on the LCD after i take a shot and forget to enjoy the view and the outdoors
I hate digital but it pays the bills, I shoot 35mm digital but for real photography I shoot 5x4 ( 4x5 for american viewers ) . digital is shit as far as Im concerned and its created millions of cowboy so called photographers that know fuck all about photography. not one of the so called photographers I work along side would know where to start with my 5x4's or even know how to process film
@halo3guyy Not at all, I use both formats professionally and am telling you film is better than digital, digital has its plus's but film has a much greater exposure latitude and resolution
@halo3guyy I would sooner use film for quality, dont believe the hype cause thats what it is, your happy with digital thats fine, Im not and wouldnt consider getting a digital 5x4 back, I can take photographs on 25iso film that you could never beat resolution or exposure latitude, for PR/press work I use my EOS 10D on raw and it doesnt come remotely near film but customers want quick cheap pix so thats what they get, customers requiring more who pay for quality I use 5x4, what do you do ?
piece of advice for the future before you insult others' intelligence. Especially from a guy with the username of "halo". lmao. also the creationist was a useless analogy.
@stevevox1 I shoot on film, too, and it's so much more rewarding than digital. If people like using their DSLRs, then that's fine with me, and I understand their use in sports and some photojournalism, but I feel if you're taking the time to shoot artistic shots or doing things on your free time: Invest in a film camera, it really is worth it for the experience.
@stevevox1 I know but these days are all about "simplicity" if someone wants to share photos from their trip to Hawaii its very simple to post it on facebook or picasa.
I love film but digital is for those assholes who think megapixels is how good a camera is.
@stevevox1 now n days niggas think if you got a digital camera youre a photographer..lmao their fake tho, cuz a real photographer can produce an amazing picture with an old skool 35 mm film camera..hell even a pin hole camera!! then they go on photoshop and edit for hours..smh :( and im a photography student, so i know what im saying! now n days is technology producing art, not real passion.... thats cool keep doing ur thing! in college we studied film and worked in the darkroom! last semester
@stevevox1 & ishouldplayzelda There is no need to be bitter that competition is catching up with you. All you do is talk crap and u don't support your statements.
There is no competition. Each media has it's strong points.
But he is right. Digital has become a quick fix solution for many.
When I started out, I had to learn everything. Many people today, let the camera do the work, and try to fix it's mistakes in PS.
BTW. Digital still has a long way to go. The ISO 20 B/W film I use, has a resolution equivalent to more than 500 megapixels. And that's still only 35mm. larger formats go much higher.
@stevevox1 It doesn't matter if *you* don't like film. What the crowd thinks matters, and obviously most of them don't care about digital/film, let alone seeing the difference.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
WOW! this guy is a professor and he doesn't even understand how foreshortening works in photography.
The compression of the perspective (foreshortening) in the image ONLY changes if you change the position of the cameras lens to the subject. The longer focal length does not squash the perspective, it just crops the photo.
@ishouldplayzelda film has its own flaws, aswell as digital. altho... I JUST GOT A CANON AL-1 and wow it feels freaking awesome to shoot with it... I feel so proud with that 20 dollar camera in my hands! alot more prouder than I did with the eos 7D or anything else!
I agree with you that large format film still has an advantage over digital as I have spent many years working with medium and large format negatives and transparencies. As someone who has worked in a commercial lab with both film and digital the main advantage of speed given to digital is lost on the post production side when you go to a large print(40x50and up).
there is the Adox 20 asa film,you can shoot it at 12 or 6 asa (pulling) than develop it with adox developer, and the pic it gives you its like 500 megapixel digital photo,will they ever make a 500 mp camera?and what if you use medium or large format film? give me a brake digital is sax
I'm really struggling with the digital question. Despite an EOS 5D, 'L' series glass, tripod and cable release I still can't get sharpness and impact anywhere near film. People who know how to use Provia can out-do my 12 megapixel RAW files no matter what I do in Capture One or Photoshop. So I'm wondering if I should abandon 35mm digital and pursue medium format film. Unfair size comparison I know but I'm a bit lost at the moment. Can't find an answer, hence viewing things like this.
I agree, it can be hard to make a choice - I really think that what I lean towards is this - medium, large or 35mm for my 'art', and digital for photojournalism... they are two different things... I s'pose it just depends on what you want to do.. but really - you can accomplish anything with any format - it's all in the intention. Really. Make the stuff work FOR you.
Time out, Mr. Walker. This is a negative emulsion comparison. Your new film stock is higher contrast? OK, so compensate for it by pull processing down 1/2 or 1 stop, like folks have done for the last 100+ years. As for digital, of course it has more limited contrast characteristics - it comes with the territory. Night shooting is not its ideal application.
Digital versus analog? Digital's quick and cheap with a great mid-tone, analog is tweak-able with better tails. Po-tah-to, po-tay-to.
I'm sure if I bought a digital back Leaf Aptus 22 for my old 500CM with 25,000 dollars, it would be much cheaper then buying rolls of film lol...... yeah.... right.
Experience tells me that almost all of my negatives are perfect every time, but I'm a bit more careful then most.
Never mind the fact you aren't making anything worth looking at! Never mind the fact you can never make a decent print from it! Which you can't from 8mm or 16mm motion picture frames either. Your ignoring how short digital falls when compared to medium format and large format film. why? because your both too stupid to actually understand the technical details of it all. Which is why your both living in your mothers basement.
I also shoot stop motion animation, I made an 11 minute short film and shot the first 4 minutes on chemical film... the cost was insane! Plus some of my frames got ruined because the film would stretch slightly from winding the film causing red and green streaks to appear in the last frame of a roll, with no way to know about it while I was shooting. When I switched to digital, it was like a 'get out of jail free' card. Film is going extinct and that's fine by me, I won't miss it.
Film served us well for many many years but, digital just has too many advantages over it. Whatever might be better about film right now will quickly be equaled and even surpassed by digital photography. I am a person who is more than empathetic about sticking with traditional art forms and am bothered greatly by technology taking the place of human talent. (no fan of digital animation here!) but film is a TOOL that's time has come and gone. It's way to expensive for the average user.
My father in law is a retired pro photographer and for the last few years of his career, he switched over to digital photography because of the prohibitive cost of film. After he retired he needed to unload a bunch of darkroom equipment an most of it went into the trash because he couldn't GIVE it away for FREE on ebay, nobody wanted it. Digital is the superior medium already and it will only keep getting better and cheaper. It's time to carve the tombstone, Film is DEAD. Ashes to ashes...
What I meant was digital has a fraction of the exposure latitude compared to negative film.Most digital cameras have a 4-1 level,neg 12-1.I was involved in many productions shot on digital both standard and High def and we needed powerful HMIs which are the most costly lights and place sails overhead to knock down the top light caused by the sun.Had it been shot on film a bounce board may have been enough.
35mm filmstock is obviously more in cost to start.However digital movies require more crew
and more lights for fill because digital is very contrasty.For example on my last shoot shot on a DVC-Pro HD.THe camera The Harddrives The Mac laptop and 2 data flow Wranglers were an extra $1500 per day.Then there was Blow up to 35mm as most cinemas are still 35mm.That alone is 200,000-500,000 Depending on length.Time spent correcting footageis many times longer in the digital shoot gear dates quickly
Save your breath. Digital people won't understand the technical things you speak of. People don't go to digital for the technology, they go to digital because it does more for them, and they never could wrap their head around the technical details of photography.
so? broadcast requires no quality! Just look at the ntsc standard. Never twice the same color. For fine art however, film is far cheaper. A decent still camera would be a Mamiya 645DZ, or one of the new hassleblad digitals. The mamiya body cost $10,000, the hassey is $32,000 just for the back.
Film expensive? Since when? Never mind that a quality digital camera starts at $10,000, and go up to about $40,000, this for just the body! Sorry, but your little $600 canon is just garbage. I can best that camera with a $100 film camera. $4 a roll for film, and about 20 cents per roll for processing. Its going to take alot ofphotos to catch that digitals cost.
I shoot b/w film and do selective handcolouring with oil paint. I also do digital only for Candids, and colour portraits. I do colour digital not because it is better, but because it is more convenient. Digital still cannot challenge prints on fiber based papers. I love them!
latitude,and color.You only need a camera and enlarger.With digital you need massive amount of hardware and software.Digital stuff is also outdated quickly.So film is also cheaper and more future proof.
I like film. And I like the Dark room experience. Digital makes everything easier, because you can make every error go away in a second (on photoshop). Plus a lot of wannabe photographers think that a lot of their digital work is art (as well as film). I like both, but the film experience is great (B&W more than Color). A lot of people wont be able to learn how film is processed because a lot of dark rooms are being shut down and the schools get a digital lab.
The thing is now everyone and their family can afford to have good quality pictures and take them themself. Back in the old days photography was for rich toffs with Jaguar cars.
SuperMangn 2 months ago
What I think is funny is how oil paintings where the way to capture something, then the first camera came around, yet painters saw their art as superior. (easier and faster to use film than paint). Now digital is around and the film thinks it is superior (digital is easier and faster then film). In the end you make art with what you have in a process you enjoy. Which is better, well what do you enjoy, computers or darkrooms?
LostFoxeh 3 months ago 4
All of you saying that digital is shit shows how much professionalism and knowledge you have. I'm an engineer and unlike idiot photographers smart people (such as engineers for example) do not reject something completely - they evaluate whether the method is fit for the task. For many tasks digital suffices. The same reason 8 bits are enough to represent a digital image in a computer and only rarely would you use 10 or 12 bits - it suffices. Also digital is inexpensive and fits hobbyists.
kotapaka 4 months ago
@kotapaka which one has better image quality?
gawdesanket 4 months ago
Film, especially slide film = rich vibrant colorful textured beautiful images.
Digital = dull lifeless dead smooth sterile ugly images.
Post processing can impove digital colors but still nowhere near as good as slide film. Slide film = no post processing needed.
Digital sucks. In my humble opinion.
ssimon64 6 months ago 3
i started photography in digital and i like it but i agree that film have a better feeling of image right now i am shooting 90% Meidum format film for my personal work because of the quality of the image and the artistic feeling that i get from it and for client i shoot digital because of is advantage to give work to the client quickly
but film in my opinion is better
you can watch on my channel i aded a video of a screen flow of a scann from one of my negativ scanned a 3200 DPI from a imacon
rephixphoto 6 months ago
Digital + Photoshop > Film : Everyone always goes for that film look because it came first. If digital was created first, everyone would want to achieve that digital look.
SaypheZonE 6 months ago
DSLRs are great but I think a decent film compact still pwns digital compacts' asses, for one thing the sensor is about 20x small than a piece of film and off that only about half the sensor is sensitive to light.
ajuk1 7 months ago
Take e look to this online FILM PHOTOGRAPHY MAGAZINE: lenegatif(dot) com
They feature film photography maybe you are interested.
colourArt 7 months ago
people look horrible on digital cameras, don't ask me why it just happens
boredperson81 7 months ago 2
These days I shoot only digital as there are several benefits, although I like the image I can achieve with film. CMOS and CCD chips have cons that film doesn't. Film is time and cost intensive, and can be sensitive to handle pre-process. I have not yet seen a system of shooting that is universally ideal. If I had the budget for it I would choose film. Thanks for this presentation.
pmaddison 7 months ago
This isn't a video about Film vs. Digital, it's a video where an older gentleman talks about why he prefers film and quotes absolute nonsense statistics. When ALL things are equal, digital beats film every. single. time. Why? Because grain particles are binary and, oddly enough, pixels are analog. Time and time again people will say film out resolves digital without actually knowing anything about the science. Google: 'Clumps and Chumps' for more information.
viper1000tt 7 months ago
I found an old 230-AF film camera and thought I would give film a try so I did some research as I am doing now and all I can see is religious grade hostility on both sides. I mean fucking hell, there cameras!! Its not what you use but how you use it and the person behind the camera.
DemonAMVs 8 months ago
Both film and digital suck at the consumer grade. Now...at the professional grade... It all depends on what your taste is. I like digital, but film is also equally fun. I like the look that people get when I show them pictures from an old 35mm Canon Rebel which is BETTER than their gimmicky little 10 MP Sony cybershot. Megapixels are irrelevant by the way. Just thought u might like to know.
HedgehogStudios1 9 months ago
Wow. The ignorance. The close-mindedness. To say that movies shot digitally aren't movies or that pictures taken digitally aren't pictures.... Really, people? Pull your head out of your ass.
dtwhitney 10 months ago
@dtwhitney Truth! The horror! AHHHHH!!! *Run Away*
:)
thedarkone2134 9 months ago
Apples & Oranges. They both have pros & cons.
terryyy1944 1 year ago 4
stevevox1's comment is a bit aggressive, but I think it was mostly direct towards the people who do photography in an "artistic" way using digital cameras and think they're cool, or even who have a job in this domain.
I understand the feeling, but obviously digital is great for the people who just want holidays pictures and stuff and who can get them to their computer without having to process film and then having to scan it, losing quality (unless they're putting a lot of money into this).
CaptainChirac 1 year ago
You guys are all pompous idiots. Both film and digital suck. You are not a true photographer unless you use wet plates!!
fl494 1 year ago 8
I don't think it matters at all. I use Digital most of the time and I shoot film as well. I shoot a lot of street with my digital camera and freelance jobs with it as well. I just think it's become more convenient for me, plus I like to use photoshop. After all it's all about the idea. The camera is just the tool.
dwayneb9584 1 year ago 2
film all the way.
imflyinn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
now n days niggas think if you got a digital camera youre a photographer..lmao their fake tho, cuz a real photographer can produce an amazing picture with an old skool 35 mm film camera..hell even a pin hole camera!! then they go on photoshop and edit for hours..smh :( and im a photography student, so i know what im saying! now n days is technology producing art, not real passion
90loneeagle 1 year ago
Digital cameras are great beacouse its very easy touse them but film cameras produce better quality pictures.
Echofromsomewere1 1 year ago 2
You should put jpegs on flicker very hard to see in this video. Digital will get better but it needs time to catch up.
ngvgnDOTcom 1 year ago
6 GB FTW!
ghostoferkrussell 1 year ago
A good photographer can take a good picture with any medium film or digital.
stee1face 1 year ago
gee mr. photography..if ur gonna try to show us the difference between film and digital...at least give us a HD cam, w/ a tripod to best view them...not some cheap skake shyt
ChrisMiran 1 year ago
@ChrisMiran It's photography not videography... fair point though.
djbones666 1 year ago
I dont like digital. I am not a pro and have no interest in being one. For some reason the photos i took with old cheap 35mm plastic camera takes better photos than the new digital cameras i use. When i say better, i mean it has a more spiritual/emotional look to it. Digital is also a distraction. I cant help but fiddle around looking at photos on the LCD after i take a shot and forget to enjoy the view and the outdoors
sonofthedestroyer 1 year ago
This guys a photographer?
Wouldn't he have used a tripod
This video suffers from CAMERA SHAKE!
aceey2 2 years ago
I hate digital but it pays the bills, I shoot 35mm digital but for real photography I shoot 5x4 ( 4x5 for american viewers ) . digital is shit as far as Im concerned and its created millions of cowboy so called photographers that know fuck all about photography. not one of the so called photographers I work along side would know where to start with my 5x4's or even know how to process film
stevevox1 2 years ago 28
digital is shit? sounds like u are the 1 stuck in the past.
u sound like a creationist who wont exept evolution.
halo3guyy 2 years ago
@halo3guyy Not at all, I use both formats professionally and am telling you film is better than digital, digital has its plus's but film has a much greater exposure latitude and resolution
stevevox1 2 years ago 4
Even higher resolution than a H3DII-50?
halo3guyy 2 years ago
@halo3guyy I would sooner use film for quality, dont believe the hype cause thats what it is, your happy with digital thats fine, Im not and wouldnt consider getting a digital 5x4 back, I can take photographs on 25iso film that you could never beat resolution or exposure latitude, for PR/press work I use my EOS 10D on raw and it doesnt come remotely near film but customers want quick cheap pix so thats what they get, customers requiring more who pay for quality I use 5x4, what do you do ?
stevevox1 2 years ago 3
he can probably spell "accept", however.
ImNotThere100 2 years ago
@ImNotThere100 Fuck who realy cares I dont, ooooo big deal im the biggest fucken looser in the world because im not the best speller!
halo3guyy 2 years ago
piece of advice for the future before you insult others' intelligence. Especially from a guy with the username of "halo". lmao. also the creationist was a useless analogy.
Kiwinites 2 years ago
i agree
bigspagetti 2 years ago
@stevevox1 I shoot on film, too, and it's so much more rewarding than digital. If people like using their DSLRs, then that's fine with me, and I understand their use in sports and some photojournalism, but I feel if you're taking the time to shoot artistic shots or doing things on your free time: Invest in a film camera, it really is worth it for the experience.
dreDREb13 1 year ago
@stevevox1 I know but these days are all about "simplicity" if someone wants to share photos from their trip to Hawaii its very simple to post it on facebook or picasa.
I love film but digital is for those assholes who think megapixels is how good a camera is.
candywrapp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevevox1 now n days niggas think if you got a digital camera youre a photographer..lmao their fake tho, cuz a real photographer can produce an amazing picture with an old skool 35 mm film camera..hell even a pin hole camera!! then they go on photoshop and edit for hours..smh :( and im a photography student, so i know what im saying! now n days is technology producing art, not real passion.... thats cool keep doing ur thing! in college we studied film and worked in the darkroom! last semester
90loneeagle 1 year ago
@stevevox1 & ishouldplayzelda There is no need to be bitter that competition is catching up with you. All you do is talk crap and u don't support your statements.
MagrinhaSkinny 1 year ago
@MagrinhaSkinny
There is no competition. Each media has it's strong points.
But he is right. Digital has become a quick fix solution for many.
When I started out, I had to learn everything. Many people today, let the camera do the work, and try to fix it's mistakes in PS.
BTW. Digital still has a long way to go. The ISO 20 B/W film I use, has a resolution equivalent to more than 500 megapixels. And that's still only 35mm. larger formats go much higher.
Show me the DSLR that can do that.
qwiksquirrel 1 year ago
@qwiksquirrel - "The ISO 20 B/W film I use, has a resolution equivalent to more than 500 megapixels." - This is absolute GARBAGE.
viper1000tt 7 months ago
@stevevox1 hater....
d1me55 1 year ago
@stevevox1 It doesn't matter if *you* don't like film. What the crowd thinks matters, and obviously most of them don't care about digital/film, let alone seeing the difference.
WolvesOfEurope 1 month ago
You cant film something like this.
rainerfilm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WOW! this guy is a professor and he doesn't even understand how foreshortening works in photography.
The compression of the perspective (foreshortening) in the image ONLY changes if you change the position of the cameras lens to the subject. The longer focal length does not squash the perspective, it just crops the photo.
djacobox372 2 years ago
i really fucking hate digital photography. film ftw
ishouldplayzelda 2 years ago 47
@ishouldplayzelda film has its own flaws, aswell as digital. altho... I JUST GOT A CANON AL-1 and wow it feels freaking awesome to shoot with it... I feel so proud with that 20 dollar camera in my hands! alot more prouder than I did with the eos 7D or anything else!
JaksProductions 1 year ago
@ishouldplayzelda Try creating hdr images with ur film piece of shit, go back to the dark ages where you belong.
halo3guyy 1 year ago
@halo3guyy you do realize hdr started with film right?....
subiebui 1 year ago
@ishouldplayzelda yeah, the film photography it's the REAL photography, and it will be always most nicer than the fucking digital.
davidtheguitarman 1 year ago
Do the students not use the darkroom to start out with there anymore?
ajuk1 2 years ago
I agree with you that large format film still has an advantage over digital as I have spent many years working with medium and large format negatives and transparencies. As someone who has worked in a commercial lab with both film and digital the main advantage of speed given to digital is lost on the post production side when you go to a large print(40x50and up).
stonerbob2486 2 years ago
there is the Adox 20 asa film,you can shoot it at 12 or 6 asa (pulling) than develop it with adox developer, and the pic it gives you its like 500 megapixel digital photo,will they ever make a 500 mp camera?and what if you use medium or large format film? give me a brake digital is sax
kiparisia 2 years ago
A 500MP digital image sensor would have FAR too much noise!
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
let me assure you that Socrates was an arrogant man ;)
1MinDLesS1 2 years ago
I'm really struggling with the digital question. Despite an EOS 5D, 'L' series glass, tripod and cable release I still can't get sharpness and impact anywhere near film. People who know how to use Provia can out-do my 12 megapixel RAW files no matter what I do in Capture One or Photoshop. So I'm wondering if I should abandon 35mm digital and pursue medium format film. Unfair size comparison I know but I'm a bit lost at the moment. Can't find an answer, hence viewing things like this.
localhost123 2 years ago
I agree, it can be hard to make a choice - I really think that what I lean towards is this - medium, large or 35mm for my 'art', and digital for photojournalism... they are two different things... I s'pose it just depends on what you want to do.. but really - you can accomplish anything with any format - it's all in the intention. Really. Make the stuff work FOR you.
Gaz0175 2 years ago
Time out, Mr. Walker. This is a negative emulsion comparison. Your new film stock is higher contrast? OK, so compensate for it by pull processing down 1/2 or 1 stop, like folks have done for the last 100+ years. As for digital, of course it has more limited contrast characteristics - it comes with the territory. Night shooting is not its ideal application.
Digital versus analog? Digital's quick and cheap with a great mid-tone, analog is tweak-able with better tails. Po-tah-to, po-tay-to.
audadvnc 2 years ago
good tip for newbies that about back it up on several HD
morfo1010 2 years ago
Because, even 50 feet of 35 movie film is alot of film.
jrwel14 2 years ago
It doesn't cost an arm and a leg. How much do you think a DSLR cost?
jrwel14 2 years ago
*yawn* I don't see any proof otherwise here. All you can do is insult me personally, rather than offer any proof otherwise.
I wouldn't blanket digital folks if it wasn't so easy. Easy because they all make it so damn obvious.
Polybun 3 years ago
I'm sure if I bought a digital back Leaf Aptus 22 for my old 500CM with 25,000 dollars, it would be much cheaper then buying rolls of film lol...... yeah.... right.
Experience tells me that almost all of my negatives are perfect every time, but I'm a bit more careful then most.
shane6003PQ 3 years ago
Never mind the fact you aren't making anything worth looking at! Never mind the fact you can never make a decent print from it! Which you can't from 8mm or 16mm motion picture frames either. Your ignoring how short digital falls when compared to medium format and large format film. why? because your both too stupid to actually understand the technical details of it all. Which is why your both living in your mothers basement.
Polybun 3 years ago
More than film can scan? Are you fucking high? Its very easy to get 20mp out of 6x6 frame.
if you note, this video has nothing to do with animation, so, your comments really don't mean allot.
Polybun 3 years ago
I also shoot stop motion animation, I made an 11 minute short film and shot the first 4 minutes on chemical film... the cost was insane! Plus some of my frames got ruined because the film would stretch slightly from winding the film causing red and green streaks to appear in the last frame of a roll, with no way to know about it while I was shooting. When I switched to digital, it was like a 'get out of jail free' card. Film is going extinct and that's fine by me, I won't miss it.
animatorIsomer 3 years ago
Film served us well for many many years but, digital just has too many advantages over it. Whatever might be better about film right now will quickly be equaled and even surpassed by digital photography. I am a person who is more than empathetic about sticking with traditional art forms and am bothered greatly by technology taking the place of human talent. (no fan of digital animation here!) but film is a TOOL that's time has come and gone. It's way to expensive for the average user.
animatorIsomer 3 years ago
My father in law is a retired pro photographer and for the last few years of his career, he switched over to digital photography because of the prohibitive cost of film. After he retired he needed to unload a bunch of darkroom equipment an most of it went into the trash because he couldn't GIVE it away for FREE on ebay, nobody wanted it. Digital is the superior medium already and it will only keep getting better and cheaper. It's time to carve the tombstone, Film is DEAD. Ashes to ashes...
animatorIsomer 3 years ago
Film is dead, just like you creativity and imagination.
Polybun 3 years ago
What I meant was digital has a fraction of the exposure latitude compared to negative film.Most digital cameras have a 4-1 level,neg 12-1.I was involved in many productions shot on digital both standard and High def and we needed powerful HMIs which are the most costly lights and place sails overhead to knock down the top light caused by the sun.Had it been shot on film a bounce board may have been enough.
reticulan5 3 years ago
35mm filmstock is obviously more in cost to start.However digital movies require more crew
and more lights for fill because digital is very contrasty.For example on my last shoot shot on a DVC-Pro HD.THe camera The Harddrives The Mac laptop and 2 data flow Wranglers were an extra $1500 per day.Then there was Blow up to 35mm as most cinemas are still 35mm.That alone is 200,000-500,000 Depending on length.Time spent correcting footageis many times longer in the digital shoot gear dates quickly
reticulan5 3 years ago
Save your breath. Digital people won't understand the technical things you speak of. People don't go to digital for the technology, they go to digital because it does more for them, and they never could wrap their head around the technical details of photography.
Polybun 3 years ago
so? broadcast requires no quality! Just look at the ntsc standard. Never twice the same color. For fine art however, film is far cheaper. A decent still camera would be a Mamiya 645DZ, or one of the new hassleblad digitals. The mamiya body cost $10,000, the hassey is $32,000 just for the back.
Polybun 3 years ago
Film expensive? Since when? Never mind that a quality digital camera starts at $10,000, and go up to about $40,000, this for just the body! Sorry, but your little $600 canon is just garbage. I can best that camera with a $100 film camera. $4 a roll for film, and about 20 cents per roll for processing. Its going to take alot ofphotos to catch that digitals cost.
Polybun 3 years ago
I shoot b/w film and do selective handcolouring with oil paint. I also do digital only for Candids, and colour portraits. I do colour digital not because it is better, but because it is more convenient. Digital still cannot challenge prints on fiber based papers. I love them!
photographyisfun 3 years ago
Film is far superior with resolution,exposure
latitude,and color.You only need a camera and enlarger.With digital you need massive amount of hardware and software.Digital stuff is also outdated quickly.So film is also cheaper and more future proof.
reticulan5 3 years ago
I like film. And I like the Dark room experience. Digital makes everything easier, because you can make every error go away in a second (on photoshop). Plus a lot of wannabe photographers think that a lot of their digital work is art (as well as film). I like both, but the film experience is great (B&W more than Color). A lot of people wont be able to learn how film is processed because a lot of dark rooms are being shut down and the schools get a digital lab.
Darknight1989 3 years ago