Except he did not leave the digital camera behind - there is Sony with a big zoom over his shoulder.
That said, I can see that the compartmentalisation of film for photography, and digital solely for video, would help with pre-visualisation in each medium.
Not sure what to think of this guy. It is kind of fun to watch him bounce around all the formats. That is somewhat identifiable. Learning about a new piece of gear or way of shooting, is the addiction.
rsolti13 wrote:
Wow….22 rolls - at least $500 in film cost between film, developing, etc. At least
I used to carry 150-175 rolls of 36-count 135 film for a trip. Cost was always more in the digital era though, due to the high cost of cameras, memory cards, computer systems, storage, etc.
EB-1 wrote:
I used to carry 150-175 rolls of 36-count 135 film for a trip. Cost was always more in the digital era though, due to the high cost of cameras, memory cards, computer systems, storage, etc.
EBH
I don’t agree that cost is way more in the digital era. Processing and printing 175 rolls of film was not cheap…especially if one takes into account inflation from the 70’s to present day. If image storage is expensive that means you are taking a lot of images…how expensive would it be to take the same amount of images with film?
FrozenInTime wrote:
Except he did not leave the digital camera behind - there is Sony with a big zoom over his shoulder.
That said, I can see that the compartmentalisation of film for photography, and digital solely for video, would help with pre-visualisation in each medium.
Yeah I noticed that too. I was going to call it out in the comments but didn’t want to get into a pi$$ing contest with his fan base.
It was a fun video but would have been far more sincere if there was no video at all, just a written essay with his film photos.
EB-1 wrote:
I used to carry 150-175 rolls of 36-count 135 film for a trip. Cost was always more in the digital era though, due to the high cost of cameras, memory cards, computer systems, storage, etc.
EBH
I’m a film superfan but to carry three+ bricks of 50 rolls on a trip?
Nope.
As for the rest, memory cards are cheap. Everyone has a computer system anyway, as well as storage - whether you shoot film/digital or neither. High cost of cameras? A Nikon F3 was $1000 in 1989! Digital cameras now are as cheap or expensive as film cameras were back then.
The only time film is cheaper than digital is if you found an old film camera and only shoot a few rolls a year - and would do the equivalent amount on digital.
Desmolicious wrote:
It was a fun video but would have been far more sincere if there was no video at all, just a written essay with his film photos.
Or just shoot video on the iPhone, which would have been perfectly fine for Youtube.
I did a film-only trip last year. Shot about 4 rolls of 35mm in a week if I recall correctly. And that's also about the maximum I'd be willing to scan and convert in one batch. As much as I love film, I don't love scanning and converting
Desmolicious wrote:
I’m a film superfan but to carry three+ bricks of 50 rolls on a trip?
Nope.
As for the rest, memory cards are cheap. Everyone has a computer system anyway, as well as storage - whether you shoot film/digital or neither. High cost of cameras? A Nikon F3 was $1000 in 1989! Digital cameras now are as cheap or expensive as film cameras were back then.
The only time film is cheaper than digital is if you found an old film camera and only shoot a few rolls a year - and would do the equivalent amount on digital.
That's what many of us did 25-30+ years ago. Some serious photographers brought 200 rolls or more. 40 years ago or so you could put much of it is the checked luggage as they did not x-ray it strongly until the 80s. After Lockerbie photo travel was tougher.
I did not keep rolls of film in the boxes or even the film cannisters. I would put 20-25 bare rolls in each quart/liter ziplock bag and keep reusing about 30 film cannisters (Fuji was clear) to save space. I don't miss those film days.
The 1Ds series bodies were in the $7000-8000 range in the early-mid 2000s. Sure, you could buy cheaper cameras with lower IQ, but it's not like the 2010s or 2020s where you could get good IQ at more reasonable prices.
rsolti13 wrote:
Wow….22 rolls - at least $500 in film cost between film, developing, etc. At least
That could buy an extremely large SSD or CFe card or multiples of smaller ones like 256.
And you can reuse them!
That said--I have 5+ rolls of 100" old film stock 5222 and some Tri-X and various Ilford films and about 200 rolls of unused film in the freezer, but somehow I cannot get myself out to use my M6's or Hasselblad 503CW/SWC/SWC 903, not mention my O Serie and Barnack 1931 1 C. I even have chemicals at the ready, but no love.
fjablo wrote:
Or just shoot video on the iPhone, which would have been perfectly fine for Youtube.
The hypocrisy continues; he just posted an instagram story for Leica about using a iPhone and LUX App/grip, on the same just film trip to London!
"This trip was almost entirely analog - two film bodies, 22 rolls, and that slow, patient way of seeing that film brings.
But when a moment showed up fast, I reached for my phone - and made it feel like a camera again with the Leica LUX Grip and App."
FrozenInTime wrote:
The hypocrisy continues; he just posted an instagram story for Leica about using a iPhone and LUX App/grip, on the same just film trip to London!
"This trip was almost entirely analog - two film bodies, 22 rolls, and that slow, patient way of seeing that film brings.
But when a moment showed up fast, I reached for my phone - and made it feel like a camera again with the Leica LUX Grip and App."
FrozenInTime wrote:
"This trip was almost entirely analog - two film bodies, 22 rolls, and that slow, patient way of seeing that film brings.
But when a moment showed up fast, I reached for my phone - and made it feel like a camera again with the Leica LUX Grip and App."
Paid influencers will say whatever's needed for the paycheck.
