The film shot is better because your highlights aren't blown all over the place that it is in the digital and you can't recover that

Having a high end sports car does not make you a NASCAR winner. You have to know how to use it. But if you do know how to use it, film can give you winning image with a superior edge than digital.

“Time is money “ that’s why I watch this video on 2x speed.

This video is straight fire!!! Style over substance is such a large issue these days, this reminds me to always focus on the story I want to tell, rather than the aesthetic or allure of the visuals! Thank you for this!

Only halfway thru the video but I gotta say, your humor is 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 Thanks for making me laugh today 😂😂

Film is about the process I'd say.

Funny how film shooters these days only shoot colour and send it to a lab for development. Film is much, MUCH MORE then that. Film is developing it yourself (the creative process only works properly for B&W, I know. For colour, you're just removing fidelity when you deviate from the standard process). It's expanding or contracting the tonality curve. It's choosing a film for it's spectral sensitivity and adjusting it even more through colour filters. It's about knowing what you want with such certainty that you plan for the result with the choice of every component of the process: the film, the chemistry, the agitation technique, and so on. Colour film shooters are not film shooters. They are just hipsters wasting money on really expensive Instagram filters and have no opinion on what film shooting is about. And i know he ended up saying shooting film is worth for a host of other reasons, but please... Do yourself a favour and shoot B&W and develop it yourself. Then you'll understand what shooting film is really about.

It's good that you are trying to break the mold the "youtuber filmmakers" estabilished, and it's nice to raise awareness about good composition and everything, but how about you don't fall into the same trap like everyone else: filming yourself in a room with your face dead center in the frame. I hate this style. It's like a TV news presenter trying to be your friend, but it doesn't really work that way, and 99% of the full frontal facial content can be replaced with other visual content about the things you are actually talking about.

Sigh...ONCE AGAIN...We have an "influencer" missing the point about shooting film in the first place. Allow me to retort: 1. "The medium IS the message." Choosing the medium whether its digital or film has to be in sync with the subject and subtext youre are trying to achieve. 2.) This is still part of the now obsolete "film v. digital" debate. First of all when you scan physical negatives they become digital images but the digital file still retains the master negative's film structure. 3.) This is the part that's ALWAYS overlooked and while digital is technically superior, digital is egregiously inferior in the archiving department. All digital storage media will decay, corrupt, or become obsolete within 100 years. Meanwhile film, which is already over 100 years old and passed multiple stress test since the 19th century, you will have physical copies of your negatives will last if stored properly and they will also be STILL be equivalent to 4K (35mm) and 8K (Medium Format) assuming youre not using the same film scanner you used back in 2008. Ill end this with a quote from Steven Spielberg, "digital photography is SCIENCE. Film photography is a CHEMICAL MIRACLE."

As a maximalist that needs every inch of my space filled with functional stuff and has an allergy to white space, I like hearing the perspective of why people get into minimalism.

should note with the darkroom scenes that the red safety light is only good for black and white work, please dont use a safety light for colour related prints and development

Hello - good video and discussion! I went to art school and studied photography and spent many friggen hours in the dark room working on images and after two years I said never again; it takes a lot of time to develop the film and then print the image just the way you want it. Digital is so much better in regards to time. One final comment on this is that the film image did get digitized in the end so does that make it a digital image too?

Very nice video, totally agree. ❤

Just subscribed. 😊 thank you for the beautiful tips in filmmaking.. I'm on a learning process. 😊

yeah the film looks way better

Such an interesting topic. What I feel digital has done now, is allow more licence with film as how we regard the format has changed. The actual physical product is now more a part of the experience than it was when film was standard, so whether it's better or not is almost irrelevant - it now has its own academic environment

Tremendo vídeo. Gracias.

You can take picture of a platinum coated turd with a turbocharger on it like a ford... after the picture is taken... it's still a turd! Gives of a very vintage look yes... but it's still a picture of a turd. Nothing magical. You got to bring visual elements around and make it special. Film though is NOT an expensive Instagram filter, Film was before Instagram and they took from the expensive things we have and made it their own so LOL

Try an actual drum scan and your jaw might drop :-)

I found this video during my frustration of modern minimalism in UI design, and desperately looking for other ways or inspiration for designing digital interfaces. The b-roll footage is healing my soul.

"Film doesn't make an image special" Sure no wonder. My film camera does have a reliable auto exposure mode. Too bad no Ansel Adams/Saul Leiter/Michael Kenna/<insert your favourite photographer> here.. :D

Wow, so great, thanks for sharing. You're so talented.

"FILM IS JUST LIKE A REALLY EXPENSIVE INSTAGRAM FILTER" Ouch. I think for some people that shoot film it goes beyond the end result.

I took a lot of pictures with my dads digital camera and I was proud of them but in the end it was the camera that did all the work with autofocus, managing shutter speed and aperture...it was fun and I got a lot of appreciation for photography but film made me aware of what I was doing and not just pressing a button, its a learning curve yes but I fell in love with photography because of film. This was a great video and you presented information with clarity and humour and for that I subscribed! PS: Nice shoe cam!

NO WAY

I do find the concept of talking about how good films 'colour' is to be a little wild considering that we are A) digitally scanning and B) using some software to invert. I think there's NO shot that the colour of the final digital scan after going through the colour science of the digital camera sensor or the scanning machine sensor, and after going through negative lab pro's colour science; in any way resembles the colour of the analogue image itself. I guess that would be a good piece of content. Make analogue prints from film and compare them to digital scans and digital prints.

In regard to short form content, as an editor, cutting to the beat is something i've had to practice getting out of. So instead of finding my music first, nowadays many times I create the edit FIRST, then i'll add the audio/sound design SECOND. I'll make some minor adjustments to the cut and audio if need be, but this method keeps me from feeling so tied down to the song choice(s). It also allows me to feel more free in how i want to approach each video from a sound design standpoint. I'll still cut to the beat from time to time because clients (corporate ones, specifically lol) love it, but when it comes to my own work, it's a different story

And of course, most of these guys have incomprehensible accents and use headache-inducing transitions.

Good speech Jesse. NLP totally works on Apple silicon though. I‘m also hoping he’ll make a standalone version since Lightroom is the only Adobe software I cannot replace for that reason.

imo, it’s the experience which makes it more fun.

A cropped sensor picture compared to medium format film. There's already an advantage with film.

I will file this entire video under "No shit Sherlock".

It’s all subjective. Film doesn’t make an image special for you. Thanks for the video.

This should be obvious to every photographer out there. Film is film, digital is digital, daguerreotypes are daguerreotypes… none is better than any other. I find amusing the current trend of “film is better” and people romanticising and fetishising film, and hilarious that the vast majority just scan the film and have never seen a darkroom in their lives. Since the very invention of photography there has been one or another current of X is better than Y, and always with no exception, history proved those people wrong.

Capture one rocks

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Can I get my film enlarger back? Thanks.

Man, from taking pictures with both, took me shooting 4 rolls of film and developing them to have the same thought, everybody on the internet seems to glorify film as the ultimate photographic tool and just forget that Film is basically a preset to 36 frames. It's like people forget the best tool is not the tool, but the concepts, the content, and the vision itself. Really happy you made this video! First one i see from you aswell, subscribed.

Not sure how good of a case you made for film v digital... I was expecting an A/B test "gotcha" type thing where no one could tell which is which. In your example, yes... the film is the much better shot, color, contrast, sharpness, et al. So ya, I guess I'm just as confused how much time and money I spend on this film thing than I was before. But you sort of answered my question... you made me question it. And I might be kinda done with it. If film isn't a hobby at this point... a hobby you REALLY enjoy. I'm not sure if there really is a point to film.

We only shoot 4k in two scenarios: 1. Interviews with one camera (crop/zoom in post to fake 3cams) or 2. Extreme wide angle shots we can punch in on later. Most of our broadcast and online deliverables are at 720p. Prolly 2 projects this last year required 1080

Man, I don't know... You said you wouldn't let us down... I should have stopped watching after you said you preferred that soullessly overexposed digital image, but your storytelling hooked me in, and I was expecting sarcasm or something worthy by the end... I agree that the composition was better on the digital image, but everything else was off. Then you show us the film picture, and I'm melting how good it is. Then you start your editing and turn it into another soulless, but this time underexposed and contrastless image. I'm thoroughly disappointed.

Analog circlejerk brought me here 👀

great humor !!!!!!!!!!

It's all preference I'll always pick film for my personal photography anything else I'll use my phone or my alpha

Im going to be honest- I wholeheartedly prefer the film photo

i think film generally looks better than digital, especially unedited, but not enough to single-handedly make a photo good.

I think the thing about film is it makes me slow down. There is something about waiting on the action and framing you want. In turn I think that makes me better at shooting on digital. Also I have that canon rangefinder you have on your foot.

We have negatives & prints from 150 years ago. Try reading a 5 1/4" floppy from 30 years ago. That's what makes film special - archival longevity. Digital is virtual; film is tangible. It's much more likely to last well into the next century than virtual images that exist only in the digital ether.

Yes it does because the negative proves that what was captured was real.

glad to see Jim hopper sharing his photography with us! 😂

L take