Film photography has seen a resurgence, capturing the hearts of many enthusiasts with its unique charm. What's your hot take on the trend?
Coming to you from grainydays, this fun video explores hot takes on film photography shared by the community. One significant point discussed is the potential failure of Kodachrome if it were reintroduced. Despite its legendary status, the high cost and shift in preferences suggest it wouldn't thrive today. Additionally, the video touches on the underappreciation of certain film stocks, like Portra 160, versus the overuse of Portra 400. This suggests exploring different stocks to find unique characteristics that suit your style.
The video also addresses the role of companies like Lomography in keeping film alive. Their innovation and introduction of new film stocks and cameras during the early 2000s played a pivotal role in sustaining the film photography culture. Moving on, the community's thoughts on the future of photography with AI advancements are also discussed. There's a concern that AI might blur the lines between real and augmented images, necessitating the validation of photos through negatives. This brings to light the ongoing debate about authenticity in photography and the impact of technological advancements on traditional practices.
The video discusses the diversity of opinions on shooting techniques and film stocks. For instance, some argue that color negative films don't have a fixed look, as their final appearance depends on the scanning and printing process. A notable hot take is the suggestion to commit to a single camera and film stock to achieve meaningful work. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
My hot take on film is that there is no such thing as a "film look". It exists only in the imaginations of people and is not real.
Mine is that we have reached a point where there isn't anything that a film camera does that digital doesn't do better, and that film tends to just be a vessel of "hipster elitism" and "gatekeeping" these days.
Like the argument of vinyls vs digital in recorded music, film vs digital is the same never ending argument, it’s all perception and over hype, I hail from the film and vinyl record era, in my opinion digital far outperforms both of these mediums..
I've got two hot takes. The first is that there's little point to shoot medium and large format for the sake of resolution.
For achieving higher resolution compared to 35mm while remaining in film photography, yes, but not if resolution alone is your main goal.
Yes, medium and large format negatives can potentially hold a very large amount of resolution. But unless you're skilled in the process and every part of your workflow (camera, lens, scanning/darkroom setup) is both high quality, calibrated, and operated correctly, you will be better off using a recent digital camera and get the same or better results much easier.
My second hot take is that many camera reviewers overuse the term "tack sharp" and those of similar meaning when describing just about any P&S with a prime lens. If a triplet lens at intermediate apertures is "tack sharp" to you, you should raise your standards, and stop taking low quality zooms as your only reference.