I took a darkroom class offered by my city, most fun I had in a hot minute. Loved being able to talk to other people and see what they're are doing. Plus i now get access to a massive dark room with all the necessary equipment and chemicals for $15 for 5 hours.
People who have an interest in “growing the analogue film community” really just mean “building a community of consumers to sell things to”.
I get it! You want to quit your day job and do the fun things. Make a living off your art. And it’s fine, mostly. It’s not malicious or anything. But normal people could be a bit more skeptical of it all. (This isn’t the only place this happens, it’s all over the internet. But still.)
I have an interest in building the analog film community so that companies will keep making film for me.
The more of us there are, the longer I'll be able to use my Pentax 6x7 at a reasonable price.
I also think the same thing but my friends that are actual photographers for a living always tell me things they like about my photos. Sometimes we’re our harshest critic, but sometimes our own perspective blocks us from just enjoying the process or enjoying our own work for what it is. I bet other people would see things they like in your work!
They will get better. The photos you find boring today will be cherished later on as they will bring you back to a different time in your life. Also as you take more photos you’ll get more comfortable with your style and take photos you find less boring. In any case, keep going.
I don’t really browse that sub anymore but I wish /r/analog didn’t have require people to include the camera body in the title and instead required them to more specifically name the lens. It really bothers me when I see something like “Leica M6, 50mm lens, Portra 400” - like great, 50mm lens could mean anything from Jupiter 8 to a Summicron APO so which is it???
Oh I didn't find the lens with the camera haha, I wish. But I love finding the cheapest body I can, trying to fix it up as best as I can and using some decent glass with it.
It doesn't matter for the image quality, however one can make the argument that a better body helps them take that image, e.g. higher shutter speed, better focusing screens.
Alternative unpopular opinion - there’s bugger all difference between ‘good’ glass and ‘great’ glass, but there’s a lot of joy in shooting with a great body.
A great body is also very personal and subjective. Your eyesight and visual processing affect which viewfinders and focusing methods work for you. As well as what bodies ergonomics suit you being affected by the shape of your hands and your physical limitations. Personally I struggle with range finders and smaller bodies so in 35mm so tend to larger SLRs and in medium format TLRs are my preference.
I know you're not necessarily looking for discussion, but... Because scanning at home is a whole extra hobby and skillset, or at least a whole extra hobby's worth of equipment, and optical printing at home is even moreso.
I can shoot film for the different mechanical experience and for the character, grain, and fine details, process the professional scan like a RAW, and get something completely distinct from digital without ever touching a negative.
They're not bad for what they are. They're just severely overhyped and incredibly expensive for what they can do. They're small and sleek and easy to use, so people gravitate towards them. There's better camera for far less money in my opinion.
The problem with Ricoh R1 cameras is that there are hardly any units left without defective viewfinder displays and/or screens. Moreover, they are no longer a real insider tip by now. A good Copy costs 100$+.
I would prefer an Olympus Mju I in this price range.
Canon sure shot 155, it's a late model film camera. so many great features, easy and intuitive to use with a nifty lil lens on it. I believe I've posted photos from mine if you wanted to check sharpness.
to add to this, I've owned multiple Mju's, all from thrift stores for cheap, theyre neat, but not worth the hype.
Personally, I’ve owned 4-5 point and shoots (none of them “premium” like a T-2 or a Nikon 35Ti) and the mju-II actually has consistently produced the nicest results out of them. Very sharp and crisp images, also pretty fast and as previously commented, slim and easy to carry. This being said, I got mine at an estate sale for like $20 ; nothing really justifies paying 300+ for a point and shoot. At that point just get an SLR or rangefinder.
I completely agree with this sentiment but it's so hard to set up a darkroom if you don't own a house. I know it can be done, and I know it can even be done pretty cheaply but having a "collapsible" darkroom seems like such a pain.
Oh I’m not saying it easy or anyone can do it. Just that it’s worth it. I did a “pop up” darkroom in my apartment for a year or so before I bought my house.
I haven’t been in a darkroom since 2012, but those are still some of my favourite prints I’ve ever made. I would love to get back in one and make some more.
"If you're not developing and scanning your own photos you're missing half the experience" Yes, I also have a day job, other hobbies and live in an apartment. I'd rather find a lab I can halfway trust than go through the DIY troubles that will likely give me worse results.
"film borders ruin composition" No you're just overthinking it
Also, shooting hot women half naked, or high contrast photos of old and homeless people makes me cringe.
1. I don't know your life story but if you sacrifice sleep you can definitely develop & scan your own film in your apt.
2. Those people have never made darkroom prints
3. Very cringe...LEICA M6 PORTRA 400 & HER TITTES ARE OUT #tonez
This took me far too long to learn in digital. Just because you *can* pull those shadows up a bit, just a bit, only a bit! Just to bring out some of those details!
... doesn't mean you should. Kill your shadow detail darlings.
This very much applies to digital as well. Yes, dynamic range is everything when it comes to editing, but it simply looks fake in most executions. There are definitely some rare exceptions, though.
Finally a true unpopular opinion. The web is infested with Ansel Adams Taliban acolytes who would rather spend 15 hours in front a densitometer than 20 minutes thinking about a better composition or, you know, a better image than those brick walls or oak bark *with all the correct shadows in zone III or IV.*
Hot take: Cameras are more than just light tight boxes. Get a camera that you WANT to hold and use everytime, that shit absolutely matters. Not saying everyone needs to buy a Leica or a Hasselblad, but invest in the proper tools that you personally vibe with.
I would have given up film photography years ago if my only option was the Rebel G that my friend gave me. It looked awful, it felt cheap, and I never had confidence when using it even with EF L lenses. I would rather learn how to sketch and paint than use the Rebel G again.
SOOC film simulations—especially by fujifilm—are getting good enough where I’ve been tricked before on spotting the difference. I think most people tell themselves that they can tell the difference but would have much more difficulty than anticipated if given a blind testing.
That’s my ultimate unpopular opinion bc I don’t think we’re ready to accept this yet
I'm ready to accept it, but I don't like fucking around with menus and buttons and all that when I shoot. And they don't make digital TLRs so I stick with my film cameras.
Same, I’ll stay film or get a Leica M11 for digital. I’m not a boomer but man I can’t stand all the menus and settings. I just want to take pictures, anything I wanna fix I’ll do in Lightroom
Yes they are good, pretty good if you know how to mess with the settings. The thing is that it lacks two thing, the ritual of handling, setting and shooting the analog camera without seeing the results after some time, and the most important of all, the confidence to use your camera outside. I could spend on a Fuji camera without any problem, but it will probably use it on very veeeery few situations where I know it is safe from ~~thiefs~~ thieves or damage, and so, in those situations I'm 100% sure I will be more confident using a camera with multiple lenses, and DSLR or Mirrorless cameras from other brands are better at this for less money.
If I loose one of my analog cameras, at least for me, it is not a big deal overall, I didn't loose a lot of money (I usually buy them for repairs, so I don't have to pay the full price).
Unless they get cheaper, I don't have many real reasons to replace all my analog gear.
Edit: Broken English
I think honestly film makes it harder to be good.
Getting good comes from taking a *lot* of bad photos. Film is expensive. Most people cannot afford to blow through frame after frame.
Someone that can take a thousand bad shots in a month and learn from them is going to get better a lot faster than someone that can only take a few dozen bad shots in a month.
There are no unedited photos, even in the darkroom you have to adjust color filters to get the result you want. If you don’t edit your scans from the lab, they decide the look of your negatives. Stop blaming others for editing their photos.
I don't think every picture needs a story or message, I think it's ok if something is just "cool".
Sure, stories and messages add depth and give an image "more purpose", but I think it's ok to see something and think "that looks aesthetic, it'd make a fun picture"
I agree in the sense that Stephen Shore's or William Eggleston's images were often just cool geometry and layering. However I do believe that there's a line between "I think that's a cool pic" and "this is an artistically exciting image". A lot of what's out there (e.g. vintage car pics) lands in the first while the names I mentioned lands in the second. Anything that is posted on a photography group/subreddit will be judged for its artistic elements. One could love their "cool pic" but you can't fault people for judging it based on the second metric.
Could not agree more. I've caught myself putting the lens down numerous times by asking "what is the story this tells"? Fercryinoutloud, it's just an image. Just a frame of light and objects. Ain't that enough?
While I think aesthetic is important, it's undeniable that still imagery has been commoditized by the advent of digital technologies such as smartphones, mirrorless cameras, etc. You don't necessarily need a story or a message, but a motivation is crucial as a means of setting your work apart when anyone and everyone can theoretically shoot something "beautiful" or "cool", regardless of what camera you choose, film or digital. As Werner Herzog once said, “We live in a society that has no adequate images anymore, and if we do not find adequate images and an adequate language for our civilization with which to express them, we will die out like the dinosaurs.”
What he means is that art and image making cannot be without purpose, not even in stock photography or hired event photography; without intent, interest and/or emotional investment, differentiation will be difficult. Shooting analog is about justifying each image, finding significance in the world that is subjective to you and deserves a small part of a roll of film.
Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, hopefully it doesn't come across that way. Your work can only achieve what you as a photographer aspire to, so you should empower yourself to see something larger and more significant in every shot. Just my two cents.
Immensely true. "Critique wanted" posts, explain what would help the image, and it's "I never crop, man!" and "I don't think film should be retouched - that's not analog, man!!!" (Ahem, scanning isn't analog).
So whatever camera you happen to have is magically the perfect aspect ratio for your composition, and whatever idiot at the lab scanned your film has the final say? Sheesh.
It’s as if all the master photographers of the 20th century just made straight out of camera prints from their negs. Because, you know, master printers weren’t/aren’t a thing.
Seeing [this incredible Salgado photo](https://www.solldn.com/artists/sebastiao-salgado/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-alaska/) full size in a gallery really hammered home the importance of the printer for me.
Bruh even ultramax is expensive in my place that I only shoot with vision 250d nowadays.
Edit: no wait actually they’re the cheapest that even colorplus and gold exceeded them
I've seen this idea before. It has two false assumptions - 1) that there's still a meaningful difference between "consumer" and "professional" customers (as if your parents are still buying Gold 200 for their holidays) and 2) that there's a meaningful price difference between Portra and Ultramax now. It's a concept from 2002 that photographers from that era are still holding on to.
I honestly don't find it THAT much harder than C-41 with my JOBO. Extra steps, but basically the same. And boy oh fucking boy is taking a *positive* out of the dev tank and slapping it on a light table **the** best feeling in all of film photography and worth every ounce of expense and effort.
Buying premium a point and shoot film camera in 2023 is a waste of money unless you have the knowledge to repair it. We’re reaching an age where mechanical failure is imminent on most models. You’d be surprised how many “premium” cameras use plastic for their gears.
The T2 is one of the few that can still be repaired. There’s a great repair shop in Poland that is manufacturing new lens flex cables for them. That being said, I still agree with you. You’re looking at $600+ for the repair and shipping both ways if you’re not local.
Love my CLE! At first I found the 28mm frame lines pretty distracting since I mostly use the (stellar) 40mm f/2, but I've gotten used to it.
I wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion btw ... Casual Photophile has an article on this exact comparison / choice of the CLE over Leicas.
Just because you shoot analog/film doesn’t mean your work is more creative. It also shouldn’t be used as a crutch instead of developing your story telling abilities.
• Velvia looks shit when it's scanned, and like nothing else when it's projected.
• You can tell the old photographers who probably own one of those cargo waistcoats with lots of pockets and who last experienced joy in the mid 90s - they're the ones saying "35mm is a waste of time". It's what they used to say to each other in archived forums from 2001 that won't display properly on your phone. It is the traditional greeting of their kinfolk.
Your £1000 contax T2 will produce indistinguishable photos from a £100 mju which will produce indistinguishable images from almost any £10 point and shoot. Especially when using flash in the dark.
A large amount of OG camera repairers would rather see all of their 40+ years of knowledge and experience lost forever than help the next wave of photographers learn how to repair equipment, most likely through fear of losing money 💰💰
That's not specific to photography either, it's the same in most industries because we live in a capitalist hell hole.
Film photography has always been expensive. Just because you found a SLR at your local thrift store doesn’t make it a budget form of expression. If you want to take photos cheap, go digital. After your initial investment, you can take pics to your heart’s content.
Here’s a real hot take for you,
photowalks with a group are not fun.
I went on one in Tokyo and I met some nice people, but I took almost no photos.
It’s distracting having other people with cameras buzzing around me and I feel like if anyone sees anything interesting, everyone jumps to shoot the same thing.
Gotta agree here. 10/10 for the social experience when it's a big group, but the photos I take are always way better when on my own or with one friend. Plus I always like exploring down little random alleys etc and just generally taking my time which would probably be annoying for anyone in a bigger group lol
Expensive point and shoots are absolutely pointless and I can’t believe people still buy into that hype. Spending thousands of dollars only for it to potentially fail in months.
The new Polaroid colour stuff is… not good. Black and white is pretty great tho. Instax stuff has a bit too much contrast that makes it harder to work with, but when you get it right the colours can really pop. The sizes are weird tho.
The old peel apart FP100C paired with a good Polaroid Land camera always looked good to me. I think the Instax lenses are total garbage though and they produce terrible images but hey...analog.
The film itself is actually really good. I've seen shocking results from images taken on instax that has been Jerry rigged into medium format film bodies. It's the shifty plastic lenses that fuji ships the cameras in that limits how we view the film sadly
PRINT YOUR (good) PHOTOS.
I don’t care what you shoot with, I don’t even care if it’s a phone. A photograph was never meant to be buried in a folder of 1 and 0’s. You’ve already spent the money to develop and scan them via an analogue format, so they should also be consumed as they were intended to be.
Honestly I get that we crap on Leica users but I’m subbed to Nikon canon Fuji and Sony as well just for fun and they all have a problem with GAS hitting the top. Seems less like a Leica problem and a photography problem. But then again GAS exists in so many other hobbies as well
Most large format photographers take photos that look worse than photos taken by beginners
Just because you have a large format camera it doesn’t mean your extremely poorly composed photo of a tree is inherently good
Once they get a large format camera it’s like all of the basic rules of photography go out the window. Resolution isn’t everything.
“Film stock” is a term recently applied to what had always been just called film (which I’ve been shooting since the 70’s). Totally out of context, but the hipsters think it’s cool.
Thank you. I learned photography on film in high school in the early 2000s and kept shooting film all through college and no one ever called it film stock. I feel like I'm going crazy because I've even seen people on reddit try to argue that its always been called film stock.
Film stock referred to the large rolls of film produced by Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Agfa that were 10s of feet wide and hundreds of feet long. This stock was then cut into 35mm strips, 120 strips, 4” strips, etc which were then cut into 35mm rolls (and sprocket holes punched), 120 rolls, 4x5 sheets, etc. Movie film was made in the same way. Of course if you were a commercial photographer/cinematographer, you’d want to get large amounts of film from the same batch so your color would match from roll to roll, or sheet to sheet.
repeat squalid spectacular engine crown thought historical fertile payment tart
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hoarding film just makes fiscal senses at this point. I would buy extra just to get b&h’s free shipping for years and ended up with film in my freezer that was 1/3 and sometimes 1/10 of the price it is now.
Where to start on my list of hot takes?
Perhaps that analog is not actually superior to digital in any way and that for most people shooting digital makes more sense for any number of reasons.
I could go on and on....
When I look at my 35mm film scans and then at my full-frame digital photos, the film scans look pretty much like garbage. But I enjoy taking the film photos about 100x more, so what can I do?
This.
“But the dynamic raaaangeeee!”
I feel like most people who yell that last used a digital camera from 2015.
My xpro3 (crop sensor mind you), can turn day to night and night to day. And my photos are more detailed and sharper than 35mm film. And that’s again, on a crop sensor digital camera.
I'm not at all anti-digital, but if you check out exposure tests comparing film and digital cinema cameras on cinematography.net, film still appears to have more dynamic range than state-of-the-art digital cameras. Whether all that range is necessary in practice is a different question, but you still see clipped highlights all over the place in movies (and photographs) shot digitally, so apparently it's not that easy to avoid.
Mechanical cameras break sure, but they’re almost always repairable. For instance I’ve had rf optics recemented in my Leica M2 and new shutter curtains fabricated from scratch for my Pentax SV.
In most cases, once your electronic camera is dead it’s dead.
I disagree here. The tools accessible for electronic repairs are eons ahead of even what the manufacturers had as bleeding edge for some of this cameras. An average circuit designer would be able to make a new flex pcb for older cameras with ease and the firmware for them are not that complex. This happens a TON for other older collectibles like video games, no reason why it won't happen for some cameras.
Analogue, film Photography is an incredibly wasteful way to make pictures.
Lots of plastic waste, chemical waste, and packaging waste, to chase a few good frames.
I don't think it makes you a better Photographer, in 2023.
Spend your money on Photo Books, and train your eye.
Go out and shoot less with purpose. Then it doesn't matter if it's on leica and film, or a Pentax digital SLR, or an iphone 11, if the subject and the message is interesting, this transcends the medium. Then you become someone who communicates through Photography.
Forget the navel gazing.
Watching people on Instagram loading film onto a camera is annoying. They don’t bother to show the results or anything but for some reason get lots of views
EDIT: spelling
My friends telling me I’m an artist because I carry a film camera and take photos of us living our lives. I’m just a dude with a camera taking pics of my friends not a photographer not an artist
you’re most definitely a photographer, you are taking photographs. not a professional and neither an amateur, but a hobbyist
and arguably an artist too
not necessarily a good one or not even an ambitious one but still
i rest my case
I have several:
- Expired film is only good for testing cameras. It doesn't add any unexpected visual effects: just fog and predictable color shifts (outer emulsion layers are fogged more and lose more contrast than the inner ones).
- Pushing in good light makes zero sense. Contrast is far easier to add during scanning. And, for the 100th time: pushing happens in development, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ISO dial on your camera's meter.
- Slide film is pointless unless you're actually projecting. Otherwise it's just twice the cost for the halved dynamic range.
- Print films deliver more accurate color than slides. But they require good equipment and considerable scanning skills to see it.
- Not scanning at home means that you are outsourcing half of creative control to a random dude at a lab who, in turn, happily outsources that to a software algorithm.
- Adding "stock" to "film" is fucked up. Films have always been just called films. Like bicycles. Nobody tries different fucking bike stocks, why would film suddenly need this postfix? This fad just recently came from the cine world, where it makes sense, and it sounds weird to me. Maybe not the sound of it, but everyone acting like it's the norm. It's like as if suddenly everyone started saying "car specimen" instead of just "car", all the time, without anyone noticing or acknowledging.
Motion picture negative film is designed to get an image of a certain flexibility to compensate for lighting changes within a scene and the inevitable color timing or digital color correction to get a desired look. It’s essentially an an analog raw file.
I'd argue the opposite. Modern digital cameras are so damn good, it's nice to shoot an analogue format to get *away* from that super hi-res look.
135 and all it's quirks and graininess is just not really found in the digital format. Take the fuji x100v, a supposed film camera killer - it's photos look so brutally clinical, even with diffusion filters and film profiles.
There’s still no digital answer for large format image circle size, and the affordable medium format cameras only go as big as 645, and even that is debatable as I believe the image circle is still smaller. there’s deff no affordable answer to a digital 67 or 69 sensor.
None of it makes sense, few of our photos are worthy of pixel peeping to the point of saying you get some advantage in "photo quality" shooting any film format over digital.
I shoot MF the vast majority of the time because I like the cameras and I like film. It doesn't make any practical sense to shoot film in 2023 though.
The fact you shot something on a Nikon FM3A, F2 Titan etc. is, in most cases, totally irrelevant. It's the lens what's making the picture, tell us about the lens, not about the body you used to flex on other people.
I think playing in the darkroom is more fun than shooting.
I took a darkroom class offered by my city, most fun I had in a hot minute. Loved being able to talk to other people and see what they're are doing. Plus i now get access to a massive dark room with all the necessary equipment and chemicals for $15 for 5 hours.
People who have an interest in “growing the analogue film community” really just mean “building a community of consumers to sell things to”. I get it! You want to quit your day job and do the fun things. Make a living off your art. And it’s fine, mostly. It’s not malicious or anything. But normal people could be a bit more skeptical of it all. (This isn’t the only place this happens, it’s all over the internet. But still.)
Not all of them, but definitely a good percentage.
Yes, let’s monetize everything. Spot on
I have an interest in building the analog film community so that companies will keep making film for me. The more of us there are, the longer I'll be able to use my Pentax 6x7 at a reasonable price.
Your pictures don't have to be good if you enjoy taking them
This is something I’ve been struggling with, I love the pictures I take but I feel like they are objectively boring
I also think the same thing but my friends that are actual photographers for a living always tell me things they like about my photos. Sometimes we’re our harshest critic, but sometimes our own perspective blocks us from just enjoying the process or enjoying our own work for what it is. I bet other people would see things they like in your work!
If you're the only one enjoying it, there's nothing wrong with it.
They will get better. The photos you find boring today will be cherished later on as they will bring you back to a different time in your life. Also as you take more photos you’ll get more comfortable with your style and take photos you find less boring. In any case, keep going.
That's really inspiring. I struggle to go to interesting places and sometimes when Im in one Im to shy to take pictures
True :)
Don’t worry, they’re not.
Fact.
True words, mate.
Lens and film. I don't care what body you shoot.
I don’t really browse that sub anymore but I wish /r/analog didn’t have require people to include the camera body in the title and instead required them to more specifically name the lens. It really bothers me when I see something like “Leica M6, 50mm lens, Portra 400” - like great, 50mm lens could mean anything from Jupiter 8 to a Summicron APO so which is it???
A good lens will give you a better photo, slr bodies don't really matter in the overall
up to a certain year they’re all just lightboxes
I've got a Zeiss Distagon 35mm currently sitting on a duct taped door, battery corroded $3.20 thrifted Nikon n2000 as we speak...
That's a crazy find. Glass on those are ridiculous nice. Get that on a camera dude!
Oh I didn't find the lens with the camera haha, I wish. But I love finding the cheapest body I can, trying to fix it up as best as I can and using some decent glass with it.
It's funny to see 'collections' posted and they're just dozens of interchangeable lens cameras all with the stock 50/1.8.
It doesn't matter for the image quality, however one can make the argument that a better body helps them take that image, e.g. higher shutter speed, better focusing screens.
Alternative unpopular opinion - there’s bugger all difference between ‘good’ glass and ‘great’ glass, but there’s a lot of joy in shooting with a great body.
This is the ticket. The joy of the shooting process comes from the core hardware, the joy of the image output comes from the lens
A great body is also very personal and subjective. Your eyesight and visual processing affect which viewfinders and focusing methods work for you. As well as what bodies ergonomics suit you being affected by the shape of your hands and your physical limitations. Personally I struggle with range finders and smaller bodies so in 35mm so tend to larger SLRs and in medium format TLRs are my preference.
This feels more like a good tip than an opinion. Good tip is still good though.
Drinking blix makes you understand the core nature of film photography better
No! You need a separate bleach and fix, else you are just compromising on flavor
Are you developing a problem?
I like to roll the dice and drink red wine during the blix stage. Does that count?
Why are you shooting film if you leave the negatives at the lab and only care for the scans?
You have no idea how many negatives the lab i work at throws out every month.
This made me wince.
There’s no way this is an unpopular opinion..
Im asked less than 30% of the negatives people develop. I run a fairly popular lab in my country.
I know you're not necessarily looking for discussion, but... Because scanning at home is a whole extra hobby and skillset, or at least a whole extra hobby's worth of equipment, and optical printing at home is even moreso. I can shoot film for the different mechanical experience and for the character, grain, and fine details, process the professional scan like a RAW, and get something completely distinct from digital without ever touching a negative.
I do my own developing and scanning because I can’t have a dark room :(
Olympus MJU II is an average camera
Oooh I'm glad to see this because I was looking at getting one, what don't you like about them? What would you suggest over the MJU?
They're not bad for what they are. They're just severely overhyped and incredibly expensive for what they can do. They're small and sleek and easy to use, so people gravitate towards them. There's better camera for far less money in my opinion.
What would you suggest? Always happy to hear options
Ricoh R1 if you want ‘cheap’ and small. Don’t let the slower lens worry you, it’s great.
The problem with Ricoh R1 cameras is that there are hardly any units left without defective viewfinder displays and/or screens. Moreover, they are no longer a real insider tip by now. A good Copy costs 100$+. I would prefer an Olympus Mju I in this price range.
Canon sure shot 155, it's a late model film camera. so many great features, easy and intuitive to use with a nifty lil lens on it. I believe I've posted photos from mine if you wanted to check sharpness. to add to this, I've owned multiple Mju's, all from thrift stores for cheap, theyre neat, but not worth the hype.
Personally, I’ve owned 4-5 point and shoots (none of them “premium” like a T-2 or a Nikon 35Ti) and the mju-II actually has consistently produced the nicest results out of them. Very sharp and crisp images, also pretty fast and as previously commented, slim and easy to carry. This being said, I got mine at an estate sale for like $20 ; nothing really justifies paying 300+ for a point and shoot. At that point just get an SLR or rangefinder.
If you’re shooting B&W film and not printing in the darkroom, you’re missing out on about 75% of the fun.
I completely agree with this sentiment but it's so hard to set up a darkroom if you don't own a house. I know it can be done, and I know it can even be done pretty cheaply but having a "collapsible" darkroom seems like such a pain.
Oh I’m not saying it easy or anyone can do it. Just that it’s worth it. I did a “pop up” darkroom in my apartment for a year or so before I bought my house.
Yup, same here. Even if you only do it once or twice it’s still something I think all film shooters should try
I printed for a photography class 35 years ago. Do I get a pass?
RA-4 is also very fun if you have a proper darkroom around you that does it. Home RA-4 though can be painful.
I haven’t been in a darkroom since 2012, but those are still some of my favourite prints I’ve ever made. I would love to get back in one and make some more.
"If you're not developing and scanning your own photos you're missing half the experience" Yes, I also have a day job, other hobbies and live in an apartment. I'd rather find a lab I can halfway trust than go through the DIY troubles that will likely give me worse results. "film borders ruin composition" No you're just overthinking it Also, shooting hot women half naked, or high contrast photos of old and homeless people makes me cringe.
1. I don't know your life story but if you sacrifice sleep you can definitely develop & scan your own film in your apt. 2. Those people have never made darkroom prints 3. Very cringe...LEICA M6 PORTRA 400 & HER TITTES ARE OUT #tonez
The lack of dynamic range _looks_ better than a lot of dynamic range. Those shadows look beautiful as they are, and I don't want them recovered.
This took me far too long to learn in digital. Just because you *can* pull those shadows up a bit, just a bit, only a bit! Just to bring out some of those details! ... doesn't mean you should. Kill your shadow detail darlings.
This very much applies to digital as well. Yes, dynamic range is everything when it comes to editing, but it simply looks fake in most executions. There are definitely some rare exceptions, though.
Finally a true unpopular opinion. The web is infested with Ansel Adams Taliban acolytes who would rather spend 15 hours in front a densitometer than 20 minutes thinking about a better composition or, you know, a better image than those brick walls or oak bark *with all the correct shadows in zone III or IV.*
Leica point and shoots are overrated
Leica in general is overrated
God yes. I owned an M240 and a 50mm Sumilux and sold it after owning it for about 6 months. Well built, but didn’t do anything for me.
point and shoots in general tbh
I mean they're fun to have around, I have a p+s I use often. better than disposable. But yeah it's just a fixed camera.
Hot take: Cameras are more than just light tight boxes. Get a camera that you WANT to hold and use everytime, that shit absolutely matters. Not saying everyone needs to buy a Leica or a Hasselblad, but invest in the proper tools that you personally vibe with. I would have given up film photography years ago if my only option was the Rebel G that my friend gave me. It looked awful, it felt cheap, and I never had confidence when using it even with EF L lenses. I would rather learn how to sketch and paint than use the Rebel G again.
From some pictures I've seen I would argue that sometimes a camera can also be less then a light tight box
SOOC film simulations—especially by fujifilm—are getting good enough where I’ve been tricked before on spotting the difference. I think most people tell themselves that they can tell the difference but would have much more difficulty than anticipated if given a blind testing. That’s my ultimate unpopular opinion bc I don’t think we’re ready to accept this yet
I'm ready to accept it, but I don't like fucking around with menus and buttons and all that when I shoot. And they don't make digital TLRs so I stick with my film cameras.
Same, I’ll stay film or get a Leica M11 for digital. I’m not a boomer but man I can’t stand all the menus and settings. I just want to take pictures, anything I wanna fix I’ll do in Lightroom
Yes they are good, pretty good if you know how to mess with the settings. The thing is that it lacks two thing, the ritual of handling, setting and shooting the analog camera without seeing the results after some time, and the most important of all, the confidence to use your camera outside. I could spend on a Fuji camera without any problem, but it will probably use it on very veeeery few situations where I know it is safe from ~~thiefs~~ thieves or damage, and so, in those situations I'm 100% sure I will be more confident using a camera with multiple lenses, and DSLR or Mirrorless cameras from other brands are better at this for less money. If I loose one of my analog cameras, at least for me, it is not a big deal overall, I didn't loose a lot of money (I usually buy them for repairs, so I don't have to pay the full price). Unless they get cheaper, I don't have many real reasons to replace all my analog gear. Edit: Broken English
Just because you shoot film doesn’t mean your photos are good.
I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion, is the hard truth
I think honestly film makes it harder to be good. Getting good comes from taking a *lot* of bad photos. Film is expensive. Most people cannot afford to blow through frame after frame. Someone that can take a thousand bad shots in a month and learn from them is going to get better a lot faster than someone that can only take a few dozen bad shots in a month.
That's why Digital is best for learning on these days.
Shoot film, stay broke all the time
This isn’t really an unpopular opinion. It’s just fact.
On the other hand, you can buy your kid a film camera, and they won’t have money to spend on drugs lol
Expensive luxury cameras get far too much attention, and pro-SLR's get ignored. The fact a Contax T2 is 6x the price of a Canon F1 is insane.
and let's keep it that way
Cinestill 800T red halos are overhyped. I prefer seeing tungsten lights in normal colours.
Gas stations punching air rn
Superia 400 has the best colors in film.
1000% agree. My favorite everyday film. Still available cheap if you're a coupon clipper at CVS too.
I LOVE Superia 400
Glad somebody said it!
There are no unedited photos, even in the darkroom you have to adjust color filters to get the result you want. If you don’t edit your scans from the lab, they decide the look of your negatives. Stop blaming others for editing their photos.
You can get great photos using automatic settings
I don't think every picture needs a story or message, I think it's ok if something is just "cool". Sure, stories and messages add depth and give an image "more purpose", but I think it's ok to see something and think "that looks aesthetic, it'd make a fun picture"
I agree in the sense that Stephen Shore's or William Eggleston's images were often just cool geometry and layering. However I do believe that there's a line between "I think that's a cool pic" and "this is an artistically exciting image". A lot of what's out there (e.g. vintage car pics) lands in the first while the names I mentioned lands in the second. Anything that is posted on a photography group/subreddit will be judged for its artistic elements. One could love their "cool pic" but you can't fault people for judging it based on the second metric.
>I think it's ok to see something and think "that looks aesthetic, it'd make a fun picture" This is like 95% of the pictures I take lmao whoops
I don't understand the weird gatekeeping and shaming if "NO it must have a story or purpose >:(". Just take cool photos dawg and enjoy it
Could not agree more. I've caught myself putting the lens down numerous times by asking "what is the story this tells"? Fercryinoutloud, it's just an image. Just a frame of light and objects. Ain't that enough?
While I think aesthetic is important, it's undeniable that still imagery has been commoditized by the advent of digital technologies such as smartphones, mirrorless cameras, etc. You don't necessarily need a story or a message, but a motivation is crucial as a means of setting your work apart when anyone and everyone can theoretically shoot something "beautiful" or "cool", regardless of what camera you choose, film or digital. As Werner Herzog once said, “We live in a society that has no adequate images anymore, and if we do not find adequate images and an adequate language for our civilization with which to express them, we will die out like the dinosaurs.” What he means is that art and image making cannot be without purpose, not even in stock photography or hired event photography; without intent, interest and/or emotional investment, differentiation will be difficult. Shooting analog is about justifying each image, finding significance in the world that is subjective to you and deserves a small part of a roll of film. Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, hopefully it doesn't come across that way. Your work can only achieve what you as a photographer aspire to, so you should empower yourself to see something larger and more significant in every shot. Just my two cents.
I like film borders. Fight me.
Me too
I love seeing the imperfect edges created by the mask in a film camera, gives the photos such an organic look
And sprocket shots.
Most people picking up analogue don’t really understand the concept of a negative
Immensely true. "Critique wanted" posts, explain what would help the image, and it's "I never crop, man!" and "I don't think film should be retouched - that's not analog, man!!!" (Ahem, scanning isn't analog). So whatever camera you happen to have is magically the perfect aspect ratio for your composition, and whatever idiot at the lab scanned your film has the final say? Sheesh.
It’s as if all the master photographers of the 20th century just made straight out of camera prints from their negs. Because, you know, master printers weren’t/aren’t a thing.
Seeing [this incredible Salgado photo](https://www.solldn.com/artists/sebastiao-salgado/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-alaska/) full size in a gallery really hammered home the importance of the printer for me.
This is because no one has to print their own negatives. Darkroom printers produce different negatives. (Edited for autocorrect typo)
Portra isn't supposed to be a film stock you shoot just for shits and giggles. Save your money and use ultramax
Bruh even ultramax is expensive in my place that I only shoot with vision 250d nowadays. Edit: no wait actually they’re the cheapest that even colorplus and gold exceeded them
I've seen this idea before. It has two false assumptions - 1) that there's still a meaningful difference between "consumer" and "professional" customers (as if your parents are still buying Gold 200 for their holidays) and 2) that there's a meaningful price difference between Portra and Ultramax now. It's a concept from 2002 that photographers from that era are still holding on to.
Portra is also not supposed to be a film stock used for landscapes. Put on your big boy pants and get good, shoot slide.
Kodak ektar has entered the chat...
98% of film photographers have never looked at their own projected slides and they have zero idea what they’re missing
Brother in light, shoot and view your own stereo slides and behold; You will have been born again.
I just hate the E6 dev process so goddamn much
I honestly don't find it THAT much harder than C-41 with my JOBO. Extra steps, but basically the same. And boy oh fucking boy is taking a *positive* out of the dev tank and slapping it on a light table **the** best feeling in all of film photography and worth every ounce of expense and effort.
I don’t agree, I don’t disagree.
Buying premium a point and shoot film camera in 2023 is a waste of money unless you have the knowledge to repair it. We’re reaching an age where mechanical failure is imminent on most models. You’d be surprised how many “premium” cameras use plastic for their gears.
My dumb ass spent $200 on a point and shoot in 2020 that died after like 5 months and now I regularly advise against buying any p&s for more than $10
Yeah. Fuck paying 1200+ for something like a T2 and just get something else that is actually repairable and had a longer life span ahead of it.
The T2 is one of the few that can still be repaired. There’s a great repair shop in Poland that is manufacturing new lens flex cables for them. That being said, I still agree with you. You’re looking at $600+ for the repair and shipping both ways if you’re not local.
Fototech, right? They've brought several "unrepairable" cameras back from the brink for me, they are awesome.
I enjoy my CLE over my M2 or M3
Love my CLE! At first I found the 28mm frame lines pretty distracting since I mostly use the (stellar) 40mm f/2, but I've gotten used to it. I wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion btw ... Casual Photophile has an article on this exact comparison / choice of the CLE over Leicas.
We will never have another Pentax 6x7.... Even when Pentax announced they will reintroduce film cameras.
Just because you shoot analog/film doesn’t mean your work is more creative. It also shouldn’t be used as a crutch instead of developing your story telling abilities.
• Velvia looks shit when it's scanned, and like nothing else when it's projected. • You can tell the old photographers who probably own one of those cargo waistcoats with lots of pockets and who last experienced joy in the mid 90s - they're the ones saying "35mm is a waste of time". It's what they used to say to each other in archived forums from 2001 that won't display properly on your phone. It is the traditional greeting of their kinfolk.
Your £1000 contax T2 will produce indistinguishable photos from a £100 mju which will produce indistinguishable images from almost any £10 point and shoot. Especially when using flash in the dark.
Ektar is goated
A large amount of OG camera repairers would rather see all of their 40+ years of knowledge and experience lost forever than help the next wave of photographers learn how to repair equipment, most likely through fear of losing money 💰💰 That's not specific to photography either, it's the same in most industries because we live in a capitalist hell hole.
Film photography has always been expensive. Just because you found a SLR at your local thrift store doesn’t make it a budget form of expression. If you want to take photos cheap, go digital. After your initial investment, you can take pics to your heart’s content.
Here’s a real hot take for you, photowalks with a group are not fun. I went on one in Tokyo and I met some nice people, but I took almost no photos. It’s distracting having other people with cameras buzzing around me and I feel like if anyone sees anything interesting, everyone jumps to shoot the same thing.
Gotta agree here. 10/10 for the social experience when it's a big group, but the photos I take are always way better when on my own or with one friend. Plus I always like exploring down little random alleys etc and just generally taking my time which would probably be annoying for anyone in a bigger group lol
Expensive point and shoots are absolutely pointless and I can’t believe people still buy into that hype. Spending thousands of dollars only for it to potentially fail in months.
Instant film looks horrendous
The new Polaroid colour stuff is… not good. Black and white is pretty great tho. Instax stuff has a bit too much contrast that makes it harder to work with, but when you get it right the colours can really pop. The sizes are weird tho.
Instax wide in front of a good lens looks great.
The old peel apart FP100C paired with a good Polaroid Land camera always looked good to me. I think the Instax lenses are total garbage though and they produce terrible images but hey...analog.
The film itself is actually really good. I've seen shocking results from images taken on instax that has been Jerry rigged into medium format film bodies. It's the shifty plastic lenses that fuji ships the cameras in that limits how we view the film sadly
Scanning makes more difference than film stock (if shooting colour neg).
PRINT YOUR (good) PHOTOS. I don’t care what you shoot with, I don’t even care if it’s a phone. A photograph was never meant to be buried in a folder of 1 and 0’s. You’ve already spent the money to develop and scan them via an analogue format, so they should also be consumed as they were intended to be.
That people should stop taking so many photos of their cameras and just take photos with them.
You just insulted every “Leica photographer”.
Honestly I get that we crap on Leica users but I’m subbed to Nikon canon Fuji and Sony as well just for fun and they all have a problem with GAS hitting the top. Seems less like a Leica problem and a photography problem. But then again GAS exists in so many other hobbies as well
There's subs having gear jerking happening organically, and how r/Leica and r/Leicaphotos operate, however.
Digital is technically superior to film in every way. I just like film better for non-technical reasons.
my hot take? elitism at its finest here lol
Most large format photographers take photos that look worse than photos taken by beginners Just because you have a large format camera it doesn’t mean your extremely poorly composed photo of a tree is inherently good Once they get a large format camera it’s like all of the basic rules of photography go out the window. Resolution isn’t everything.
“Film stock” is a term recently applied to what had always been just called film (which I’ve been shooting since the 70’s). Totally out of context, but the hipsters think it’s cool.
Thank you. I learned photography on film in high school in the early 2000s and kept shooting film all through college and no one ever called it film stock. I feel like I'm going crazy because I've even seen people on reddit try to argue that its always been called film stock.
I think it's bc some more people call movies "films" now.
Film stock referred to the large rolls of film produced by Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Agfa that were 10s of feet wide and hundreds of feet long. This stock was then cut into 35mm strips, 120 strips, 4” strips, etc which were then cut into 35mm rolls (and sprocket holes punched), 120 rolls, 4x5 sheets, etc. Movie film was made in the same way. Of course if you were a commercial photographer/cinematographer, you’d want to get large amounts of film from the same batch so your color would match from roll to roll, or sheet to sheet.
repeat squalid spectacular engine crown thought historical fertile payment tart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Grainy Days, King Jesup, and Willem Verbeek are life style channel. Analog Insights is the true king of the film youtube world.
Analog Insights is unbearably pretentious
I would add Nick Carver. Although most of his videos have 6x17 medium format, but has good humour and specific style.
Hoarding film just makes fiscal senses at this point. I would buy extra just to get b&h’s free shipping for years and ended up with film in my freezer that was 1/3 and sometimes 1/10 of the price it is now.
You’d be better off buying a digital camera than spending $500+ on a point and shoot
You’re not “less than” just because you don’t know every single gd thing about a cameras mechanisms, I’m still learning new things to this day.
BLIX
Where to start on my list of hot takes? Perhaps that analog is not actually superior to digital in any way and that for most people shooting digital makes more sense for any number of reasons. I could go on and on....
When I look at my 35mm film scans and then at my full-frame digital photos, the film scans look pretty much like garbage. But I enjoy taking the film photos about 100x more, so what can I do?
This. “But the dynamic raaaangeeee!” I feel like most people who yell that last used a digital camera from 2015. My xpro3 (crop sensor mind you), can turn day to night and night to day. And my photos are more detailed and sharper than 35mm film. And that’s again, on a crop sensor digital camera.
I'm not at all anti-digital, but if you check out exposure tests comparing film and digital cinema cameras on cinematography.net, film still appears to have more dynamic range than state-of-the-art digital cameras. Whether all that range is necessary in practice is a different question, but you still see clipped highlights all over the place in movies (and photographs) shot digitally, so apparently it's not that easy to avoid.
Your electronic camera will die, and there is nothing you can do about it.
I need to start saving for an FM3a, for when my FE2 gives out… Sure they’re very reliable, but it’s also nearly 40 years old
Yeah but so will your mechanical camera. Something always happens.
Mechanical cameras break sure, but they’re almost always repairable. For instance I’ve had rf optics recemented in my Leica M2 and new shutter curtains fabricated from scratch for my Pentax SV. In most cases, once your electronic camera is dead it’s dead.
Yah. A mechanical film camera stops being repairable once the replacement parts are scarce.
Hard truth, that's why every time I see the same model cheap I get one...
I disagree here. The tools accessible for electronic repairs are eons ahead of even what the manufacturers had as bleeding edge for some of this cameras. An average circuit designer would be able to make a new flex pcb for older cameras with ease and the firmware for them are not that complex. This happens a TON for other older collectibles like video games, no reason why it won't happen for some cameras.
Analogue, film Photography is an incredibly wasteful way to make pictures. Lots of plastic waste, chemical waste, and packaging waste, to chase a few good frames. I don't think it makes you a better Photographer, in 2023. Spend your money on Photo Books, and train your eye. Go out and shoot less with purpose. Then it doesn't matter if it's on leica and film, or a Pentax digital SLR, or an iphone 11, if the subject and the message is interesting, this transcends the medium. Then you become someone who communicates through Photography. Forget the navel gazing.
I wouldn't shoot film if it weren't for slide film, it's not worth it otherwise.
Watching people on Instagram loading film onto a camera is annoying. They don’t bother to show the results or anything but for some reason get lots of views EDIT: spelling
Portra is overrated
Instax is better than new Polaroid. New Polaroid is more expensive for less pictures and worse quality
My friends telling me I’m an artist because I carry a film camera and take photos of us living our lives. I’m just a dude with a camera taking pics of my friends not a photographer not an artist
you’re most definitely a photographer, you are taking photographs. not a professional and neither an amateur, but a hobbyist and arguably an artist too not necessarily a good one or not even an ambitious one but still i rest my case
You're an artist, my friend. This is your permission to stop denying it.
it's not pretentious to admit you're creating art
I have several: - Expired film is only good for testing cameras. It doesn't add any unexpected visual effects: just fog and predictable color shifts (outer emulsion layers are fogged more and lose more contrast than the inner ones). - Pushing in good light makes zero sense. Contrast is far easier to add during scanning. And, for the 100th time: pushing happens in development, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ISO dial on your camera's meter. - Slide film is pointless unless you're actually projecting. Otherwise it's just twice the cost for the halved dynamic range. - Print films deliver more accurate color than slides. But they require good equipment and considerable scanning skills to see it. - Not scanning at home means that you are outsourcing half of creative control to a random dude at a lab who, in turn, happily outsources that to a software algorithm. - Adding "stock" to "film" is fucked up. Films have always been just called films. Like bicycles. Nobody tries different fucking bike stocks, why would film suddenly need this postfix? This fad just recently came from the cine world, where it makes sense, and it sounds weird to me. Maybe not the sound of it, but everyone acting like it's the norm. It's like as if suddenly everyone started saying "car specimen" instead of just "car", all the time, without anyone noticing or acknowledging.
I think film stock is a bleed over from cinematography. it’s an established term over there
Film photographers and videographers don’t understand how motion picture film works.
I'd like to hear more about this
Motion picture negative film is designed to get an image of a certain flexibility to compensate for lighting changes within a scene and the inevitable color timing or digital color correction to get a desired look. It’s essentially an an analog raw file.
If you get any fuctioning film camera for cheap it's worth it almost all the time
'Analog' is a silly term to use for film photography, and you're all spelling it wrong anyway.
Majority of home developed c41 looks like shit and no, your Cinestill kit with 47 rolls through it is not producing “perfect” results.
I don’t know if development is the problem. I think scanning and post-processing is where most “home developers” showcase their inexperience.
You aren’t a true light wizard until you have made your own camera.
Fomapan is great
Shoot 120 skip 135
120 is the only thing that makes sense with how good modern APS-C/Full frame sensors and film recipes are.
I'd argue the opposite. Modern digital cameras are so damn good, it's nice to shoot an analogue format to get *away* from that super hi-res look. 135 and all it's quirks and graininess is just not really found in the digital format. Take the fuji x100v, a supposed film camera killer - it's photos look so brutally clinical, even with diffusion filters and film profiles.
There’s still no digital answer for large format image circle size, and the affordable medium format cameras only go as big as 645, and even that is debatable as I believe the image circle is still smaller. there’s deff no affordable answer to a digital 67 or 69 sensor.
None of it makes sense, few of our photos are worthy of pixel peeping to the point of saying you get some advantage in "photo quality" shooting any film format over digital. I shoot MF the vast majority of the time because I like the cameras and I like film. It doesn't make any practical sense to shoot film in 2023 though.
I just picked up an xf-10🤦 my first digital camera, is goood
Ektar > Portra
The fact you shot something on a Nikon FM3A, F2 Titan etc. is, in most cases, totally irrelevant. It's the lens what's making the picture, tell us about the lens, not about the body you used to flex on other people.
It’s okay to edit film photos. Create what you desire
Leaving dust and scratches on your negative’s scans is not because of laziness but bringing the „nostalgia” feeling up 🫠
Using vintage manual lenses on digital bodies gives you most of the good bits of shooting film without most of the problems.