Film grain for digital photographs

why not shoot with film cameras if you want that look? I'll never understand why there's people shooting digital but wanting that film look. I mean you can do it with masking & shit but unless you really do it properly it looks like fake shit most of the times.

File: ydbpty3.jpg (580KB, 1908x1188px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1908x1188px

>>2927109
alien skin

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:31 00:00:46
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1908
Image Height	1188
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Just shoot film

DUDE APPZ LMAO

>>2927115
Film is less flexible and more expensive. Plus since it may not be around forever it would be better to get used to digital.

>>2927165
>Film is less flexible

???

>>2927165
Dude it's rolled up in a little canister.
>flexible

Fujifilm Xpro2. Acros sim has its own grain characteristic exclusive to it, and all film simulations have access to a grain setting that looks a treat.

>>2927168
You can't change the film sensitivity on the go.
You don't see the results right away.
You need to fill up the roll and develop it before you can see the images. Or you might run out of film.
You need to scan them and without an expensive high-end scanner you won't get the full resolution and dynamic range.

>>2927187
>You can't change the film sensitivity on the go.
???

i have never needed that. if you know what you are doing, you know exactly what iso you will be using.

>You don't see the results right away.

why would you ever need that if you are not a 1st day photo newbie?

>You need to fill up the roll and develop it before you can see the images.
>before you can see the images.

why would you ever need that if you are not a 1st day photo newbie?

>You need to scan them and without an expensive high-end scanner you won't get the full resolution and dynamic range.

but thats a lie.

>>2927190
>i have never needed that. if you know what you are doing, you know exactly what iso you will be using.
Lol, delusional

>>2927198
lol, mad.

>>2927200
Why would I be mad about your delusions that hamper your output?
They're not mine.

>>2927202
>delusions that hamper your output

my output is doing pretty fucking good thank you. fixed iso has never been a problem.

maybe you dont get photography at all?

>>2927207
Show me your output, then. I bet you take less than 36 photos a week. None very good.

>maybe you dont get photography at all?
Maybe the lad that thinks a fixed iso isn't a weakness overestimates how much he gets

>>2927209

Different guy here. I shoot both film and digital. You're right in the sense that you can't go to any film speed at a moments notice, but iso isn't the only aspect to exposure. As long as you know generally what setting you'll be shooting in and you buy the proper film to accommodate, you'll be fine.

Once you get the hang of it, you can start setting the speed under or over a stop than the box says.

Digital is definitely more convenient, but film isn't crippling at all.

Keep shooting.

>>2927220
>but film isn't crippling at all.
Show me some film that develops well at iso 12800 then, because that's what APS-C cameras are doing cleanly these days (and APS-C is half the size of a 35mm frame...)

File: Hope-for-a-new-life-593x340.jpg (48KB, 593x340px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 593x340px

>>2927224

what do you mean by cleanly?

>>2927231
APS-C Fuji, not full frame Canon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv5R7iN76_U

>>2927255
I shoot Fuji myself from time to time . All shots processed in cam and also those shown in the video are underexposed and the 'grain' looks nothing like film grain.

>>2927280
>the 'grain' looks nothing like film grain.
probably because its been resized and fucked into a youtube video you dense nugget

You shoot an xe1 or something, not an xpro2. very different sensors.

>>2927281
Salty

>>2927281
>>2927280
Here's a link for the pics themselves: http://tavphotography.com/fuji-x-pro2-iso-12800/

File: Grane.png (880KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1000x667px

>>2927109 Grane? PS.

>>2927187
>>2927190
>>2927198
>>2927207
>>2927209
>>2927220
>Not having multiple backs for a MF camera

It's really easy, you just select what films you like best and swap them once the situation asks for a different film.

If I knew something that was good I'd use it, but I've found just shooting film is the easiest and best way to get that look.

Tri-x pushed to 1600 =
F16@1/1000sec in direct sunlight.
F2@1/40 at night indoors.

I've never needed to go beyond these limits. And I'm a full time snapper

>>2927109
For black and white it's pretty easy you just shoot high ISO and play with the black and whites till it looks good. I haven't been able to tell the difference unless someone fucks it up which usually means making it look really artificial by fucking with the blacks too much.

Color is a lot harder. Film grain with black and white shoes character for a lot of people but with color it's not as much. Probably just go with a filter.

>>2927109

Would you say a man dressed as a woman is a woman? You wouldn't, right?

Then stop thinking a filter over digital pictures will make them film like and "just like the real thing!", they will never be.

>>2927711
Depends on the attractiveness, just like with visual literacy
you'd probably bang a fat fish over a 10/10 tranny, and that makes you nasty

>>2927712

Put your trip on, 10/10 tranny.

File: 0005_5_03_2016_crop.jpg (342KB, 860x616px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 860x616px

film or digital?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	860
Image Height	616
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:18 18:04:31
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	860
Image Height	616

>>2927789
digital

>>2927165
>Plus since it may not be around forever it would be better to get used to digital.
Since it may not be around forever, you should have a go at it while you still can.

>>2928067
Since your gay older brother with HIV may not be around forever, you should have a go at him while you still can too.

>>2927109

shoot film you inbred retard.

>>2929367
But I prefer digital for these reasons >>2927187

>>2929734

>>2927190