Why do so many of us, including myself, love film so much? The

I do it because it makes me seem cool.

>>2933525
Coming from another poor fag,
I didn't pick up photography until I was 18, back in 2014, my first camera was a canon ML, great film camera.
Film photography was appealing to me because; I bought a camera for 5 bucks at goodwill, I bought a 2 dollar film roll, and I paid 5 dollars on film dev and scan.
For 12 dollars I was given high quality pictures, with no need for post processing because of the color values that film stocks have.
That's what was appealing to me, that I didn't need a 500$ camera to take nice photos.
After about 6 months I moved to digital because I realized film would be more expensive in the long run, and I prefer shooting raw.
I think the big appeal to people who aren't financially limited to film, is that they don't hold total control over it. They can meter, they can expose however they want, but ultimately they don't know what the final image looks like, some find that appealing, I don't.
I think maybe it's a "suffering for you art" or hard work kind of mentality to it.
Currently selling all of my film stuff, I have no desire to keep anything but a few legacy lenses.

the first time i watched into a 6x6 waist level finder i was entirely blown away. it was like taking a peek into another dimension.

i giggled like a retard when i saw my first medium format slides in the light table.

everything film related feels like eating chicken soup on a rainy night.

>>2933548

You just made me want to shoot more digital.

I love shooting film, It's a way to control my shooting and stop be from snapshitting too hard.

The workflow holds me back, I have folders of unscanned negs that I've processed. I should start getting my film processed by a lab probably so they could scan it but the results are poor.

Why do I still shoot film even when I know the workflow post-development is the worst part?
The cameras, There's something about a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring that's special, and once you hit 120+ you're locked in.

>>2933525
I like film cameras, but not film. If I could have an FM3a that was just digital, I wouldn't think about touching film anymore.

Also realize that there are a few of us that truly enjoy the workflow. There are alot of challenges to getting things right. Endless hours of experimentation, tinkering, mixing noxious chemicals. Putting your own unique movements into agitating your tank of film hoping for some certain better result in density or grain characteristics. Cursing at the early results of your inverted c41 scans, but then being prouder than a mother with a newborn baby when things start to get sorted out. Sorry, but I wouldn't trade this for any amout of digicam. It has fuck all to do with being a poorfag. My investment in film is likely beyond what most digisnapshitters have invested. But it is what I enjoy. If I had to earn a living taking pictures, I'm sure my story would be different. But I don't.

I live in Scotland and work full time, if I shoot a roll on my lunch break I have something productive to do in the evening while it's pitch black and pissing down with rain outside (developing and scanning)

ITT, OP likes film despite everything else telling him that he shouldn't. Unable to make up his own damn mind, he posts on /p/ not realizing that this'll only invoke the predictable shitstorm of smaller, equally predictable shitstorms.

Developing two rolls at a time takes like 30 minutes, which is nothing compared to five or six hours spent shooting them. Scanning them takes 20 minutes apiece, which is about two cups of tea while I watch stupid shit offa Youtube. After two years of doing this, I've determined that the workflow is _just fine_.

>>2933525
> Why do so many of us, including myself, love film so much?
Probably because you've been using crap digital cameras?

I'm done with film since digital cameras can shoot fast bursts and have decent if not better DR, and cheap home printers became able to print basically perfect prints - b&w (with actual black pigments, not that blueish thing) or colour.

A while before that, it was a consideration what I used, but for cost reasons it was often digital even when not all of this was possible.

>>2933775
> 30 + 2*20 minutes for 64 shots
The whole process plus archival takes like 3 minutes with digital (depending on your machine's performance & software involved) and can be automated to happen when you plug in your camera or storage cards.

That's a huge difference. Obviously subject to whether photography is something to keep yourself busy (in which case it doesn't matter if you enjoy the -to me mind-numbingly boring- task of developing and archiving film), or if you also want efficiency for some or another reason.

I enjoy the cameras (MF waistlevels ftw) and I love the slowed down process.

The shitty process after getting the film developed is why I have 100+ rolls unscanned. I don't care though, the enjoyment of shooting film is everything before that. Ill slowly scan, rainy days or the odd time I just want to chill out and drink a beer or glass of wine while watching a show. The end product (ie a scanned image) isn't the goal for me. Its nice knowing I can scan any time I want (barring a disaster destroying all my negs/slides) but its not of utmost importance to me.

>>2933794
You sound like one of those guys who, having heard that it takes 10,000 pictures to git gud, resolves to only ever shoot motor drive.

>>2933525
I love shooting film, and the more technically challenging it is the more I like it. That's why I've moved from babby tier hand-holding auto cameras to M42 SLRs with uncoupled metering if any. I also whip out a Nettar or a Zorki on occasion. Digital photography just doesn't do it for me, it's what I do when I need casual stuff or photos for some project, but digital shooting itself is devoid of any pleasure and feels like a mechanical exercise.

And then comes the post-processing. Scanning film makes me want to kill myself, dust-clearing with clone stamping even more so. I wish one day to have the space to build a small darkroom with an enlarger in and I can abandon digitizing for good. I don't publish photos anywhere anymore either way, because there's no point in showing them to other people who are detached from the context.

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 2.25.22 PM.png (78KB, 827x370px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 827x370px

Hey guys

Do any of you have experience scanning negs yourself?

I've just found one of these for sale for quite cheap but I just wanted to know if it's any good or what I should be looking for when it comes to cheaper scanners.

Much appreciated

>>2933823
If you can't afford a Plustek dedicated or don't have the equipment to rig up a DSLR scanner, then flat tops are as good as it gets. Still better than paying for lab scans.

>>2933525
>The workflow is absolute garbage
The reason I love film is the workflow.

It forces me to slow down, to think about what I'm doing, and to objectively evaluate what I'm doing. When it costs money every time you click that shutter, you won't just be out spraying every single shitty flower you find.

>>2933811
You sound like you make a lot of completely random and unrelated personal attacks when someone points out simple flaws.

A work flow that takes an order of magnitude times two longer is just not efficient.

Also, I'm way above 10k shots... I must be gud, eh?

>>2933797
>>2933823
If you have 35mm primarily, just MILC or DSLR scan, possibly shooting AE bracketing series.

It's the only way you're going to get good "scans" quickly. With a flatbed or dedicated photo scanner it will take like 1.5 minutes to scan somewhere near archival quality. DSLR/MILC scans are closer to 20 seconds per shot or so if you can batch process the shots.

>>2933828
Plustek are horrible.

Scan at 7200 dpi for almost 4 minutes (that's without iSRD, do it with it and it takes twice as long) to get only ~3250 dpi effective. along with very inflated file sizes.
Scan at less resolution, and it's worse and still really quite slow.

>>2933835
>>2933828

Thanks guys.

I've googled how to set up DSLR scanning. I currently have a Canon 350D with a 1.8 50mm and kit 18-55mm. Is this good enough? Apparently you need a macro lens. It seems like a huge set up too.

>>2933843
A macro lens makes it possible to capture near what's the maximum for your sensor, and work with a bit more ease.

But you know, just try with your current lenses and an achromat close-up filter lens (suggesting a +3 or +5 Marumi) or extension tubes ($5 or so from China). It's not going to be as slow or bad as a Plustek - the resolution / sharpness may not be perfect, but you still get better DR on a halfway acceptable camera.

> It seems like a huge set up too.
Not terribly huge.

You can set it up like this:
Image frame or glass plate placed on some boxes or wood blocks or whatever as "legs" for this "table". Light with diffuser under it. Camera on your tripod over it (optionally using a macro slider for easier adjustment - cheap option again is Chinese).

When you put the negative on that light table, press it down with another, smaller image frame - maybe one made form plastic.

And then use a WLAN, IR or cabled remote shutter trigger to shoot. Because a cheap tripod macro setup won't be vibration stable.

If that's too big, build a horizontal cardboard box / tube setup. Or substitute the glass table setup with an actually compact LED light table as is used for drawing or such photography.

>>2933854
>>2933851
Thanks so much man. I really appreciate it.

I'll look into potentially building a set up like this.

I don't have a tripod, or a flash or a diffuser but I'm sure there are ways around that.

It makes me think more and focus.

>>2933835
I already MILC scan. Still dislike the digital workflow, even if scanning is infinitely better than using a flatbed.

>>2933855
> I don't have a tripod
You could screw the macro rail to a stick or something.

But actually, this is probably an expense you don't want to avoid. Should be worth finding a tripod.

You'll probably want one with an invertible center column and sufficient leg height, or one with a vertical center column or vertical slider on top (in both cases, the camera will still be mounted on a head pointing downward).

> a flash or a diffuser
Perhaps get a Godox or Yongnuo LED panel or portable flash?

But they're optional. You can also use a bulb (preferably high CRI CFL (China again has these for $5-12 a piece) or LED (like some good Nichia or Cree chip).
Despite having the wrong light pattern as a bulb when undiffused, one-two diffusers above it and maybe white "walls" around the "legs" of the table should make it work okay.

>>2933794
Hilarious.

I'm sorry that photography has become such a chore to you. Could I not make a personal attack and ask you how long it takes you to process 72 raw files?

>>2933525
I quite enjoy the work flow as well as the materiality of the process. As opposed to a digital photo that only becomes a physical object once, if ever, it is printed, an analogue photo physically changes the the silver in the film during it's exposure, the chemistry brings that image out, and then the process is repeated in making the paper print.

just set up my darkroom again, just gotta fix a few light leaks and its ready to go
>>2933918

>>2933923
> I'm sorry that developing and archiving film has become such a chore to you.
FTFY. Boring and expensive tasks + inefficient as fuck.

> Could I not make a personal attack and ask you how long it takes you to process 72 raw files?
Around 3 minutes, subject to which software and computer you use exactly.

But it's a decent estimate for when these files are copied and auto-fixes on par with what you get from a scan have been applied.

lmao @ the losers complaining about "omg film such a chore". congrats, you cucks managed to turn a pleasant hobby into a nightmare because of your stupidity. filing good photos is never a chore, get better so filing your shots wont feel like an useless task.

I have fun developing it, makes for some pretty comfy weekends, especially in winter

>>2933939
I don't file my "useless" film photos, only keepers. Just beacause I enjoy the images doesn't mean I enjoy they process to get it on a computer.

It is like doing laundry; walking around in clean, nice, fresh, ironed clothes feels great, but it doesn't mean you have to actually enjoy the act of cleaning and ironing that shit. At best, it's a neutral chore; a neccessary hurdle to bypass so you can enjoy what you really like.

>>2933525
Because some of us aren't willing to exchange quality for convenience

>>2933563
the first time and every time following, I shoot digital it feels like an unfulfilling one night stand a toothy BJ, and sloppy sex while her cat watches. Which I end in the bathroom masturbating into a wad of Kleenex, just so I can finally go to sleep.

Shooting film is like a long complicated relationship that alternates between long latenight drunken talks on the phone, great sex, warm cuddles, and passionate fights followed by periods of not talking with each other.

shooting film is like having a comfy weekend when you invited all your friends and mom calls everyone to dinner and the table is full of delicious hot dogs and sizzling soda cups and she also brought the battletoads cartridge from blockbuster. and its christmas.

shooting digital is like drinking the hot dog water. alone.

>>2933530
>and I paid 5 dollars on film dev and scan

Where do people get their film developed this cheap?

>>2933573
>fm3a
>sees picture, brings camera to eye
>presses shutter button, it's locked tight
>forgot to point wind lever at eye first
>picture gone
EVRITIEM

Print making is super fun. It feels like magic.

>>2934049
I pay $2.23 for processing a roll of C41. At the pro lab it's $2.67 for C41, $2.97 for B/W, and $7.13 for E6. A little expensive there, but they use Fuji chemistry and a 6-bath process.

>>2934161

Where do you leave?

Also, tell me what do you guys pay for a dev and a scan. State where you live.

In Paris, it's 11€ the development and standard scan.

>>2934200
Where do you live*

>>2934202
Peru. I have my own scanner, so only pay for film processing.

File: 7539329226_5aa8f961ae_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1437px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1437px

i don't shoot enough and i do it mainly on digital, i went like once or 2 in a darkroom but hell i liked it.
also i don't post things online too much so i'd prefer to print more.
also pic related, low IQ my ass

I got a Pentax K1000 with a 28 and a 50 takumar for about 250$. I really dont see how a full frame setup with lenses as sharp as that could get any cheaper. The film doesn't cost much if you buy it in bulk 100', it's still an investment though

File: image.jpg (342KB, 1080x730px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1080x730px

I like to bring my cameras everywhere and hack and modify them for interesting setups. With a film camera I'm less worried about it getting stolen or waterlogged or dropped. Currently shooting with cheap autofocus film compacts at the moment. Pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:22 19:36:20
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>2934464
Also pic related.

>>2933525
i only keep my film slr around to impress college qts
i haven't actually developed film in ages and if i developed any of it i'm 100% sure it would all be shit

>>2933525

It's nothing more than hobby masturbation. There's no reason to shoot with film because it makes everything harder, and the look of film can be recreated if you really want things to have LESS DETAIL, because that's all film gives you.

For all you film users, get over yourselves and focus on the end product, the fucking photograph, rather than jagging off to the "mystery" of film. It's not mystery, it's inaccurate and irritating.

File: AA006-2 (Custom).jpg (198KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1000x666px

>>2933525 (OP)
>Why do so many of us, including myself, love film so much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_masochism_disorder

I stayed with it for a while due to being computer/technology illiterate and the (almost) retard proof latitude. Highlights look like ass on digital. I did eventually go digital because film is too expensive and slow.

Personally wouldn't go back to film unless I could hire someone to just develop and scan all day. Went 100% digital last summer, but only got through scanning all my shit around february. This is with a Pakon 135 too, and those are about as fast as scanners get.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:04:27 23:33:43

>>2934482

see this? thats a digifag being bitter at people being happy. mad because he cant get such joy from his plastic toys, trapped in the gearfagging circle because he knows his cameras are devalued the moment he buys them. sad!

>>2934482
>LESS DETAIL
Is it "What is large format?"

>>2933816

You know Photoshop has healing brush that is much faster to use for dust cleaning than clone stamp.

>>2934482
You know, I COULD get a super fast, efficient double clutch gearbox version of my car too.

But that feeling of a perfect heel-toe shift or perfect upshift on my 6-speed just makes me happy. Same goes for film. Nobody here is arguing the most efficient or economical method of photography is film. In terms of quality, 35mm has definitely been surpassed by digital (inb4 butthurt film fags post how that's not true negating the fact massive $$$ needs to be spent on the digitizing end to counter that claim). It's still enjoyable to some, for reasons I guess you can't understand or simply refuse to understand. That's cool man, I'll keep having fun doing the things that make me happy. You do the same <3 and let's simultaneously enjoy life on this lovely little Rock.

>>2934716
The analogy would be better if double clutch gearboxes also were the cheaper option in under a year of use, made your commute 20 times faster with less accidents, and didn't require any particular parking space or garage but could park anywhere where there is any space at all, and you always found it easily even in the biggest parking lots when your daughter parked it in your absence...

Shooting Film is to divide the true photographer and those who buys expensive gears and shoot snapshit.. too busy with muh bokeh, muh mega pixels and sharpness without thinking about contrast and the latitude of the picture. Im going back to film now because digital showed me the darkside of photography which is the shilling of camera companies who only want to play each other off rather than focusing on making cameras.

I rather go about taking photos on MF or LF that produces quality resolution than going about with megapixels and come back uploading the photos feeling great because i got the shot but then lost the hype because it feels too easy. I mean shooting with Medium or Large format come with preparations like location scouting and looking at where the sun set.. so you can get the perfect photo with 1 sheet at a time. Then when you develop it you need to have that formula you had experimented for so long that you finally found the perfect combination. Develop that perfect shot with your perfect combo.. Scan it with a good scanner or develop it on photo paper and feel proud of your work because that negative will live forever until your great grand children will find it and they will scan the photos and enjoy your legacy you have left behind

File: _RIM0005.jpg (220KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1000x750px

>>2934482
Less Detail you say?

both of these cameras cost me less than an entry level DSLR and produce results that digital can't approach for under $30,000.

A lot of film people will talks about large transparencies, which are beautiful, but so is a 4x5 sheet of fuji 160NS shot 2/3 over.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH
Camera Model	GXR MOUNT A12
Camera Software	GXR Firmware
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:27 10:38:26
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

File: ROLLEI 1000PX.jpg (253KB, 1000x1436px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x1436px

because its fun.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:17 15:49:28
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1436
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2933525
>The workflow is absolute garbage
For most people, workflow IS the appeal. If you just want pictures with specific slightly off tonality, there's film imitation in digital fujis and similar stuff. And it's not like you NEED to mess around with chemicals, film labs still exist.

>most of us have to digitize it (adding yet another hit to IQ)
Unless you're digitizing it with a potato that can't handle the density range, the hit isn't that big. And if you're shooting non LF film for technical quality, you're doing it wrong anyway.

>Low light is very mediocre, approaching m43 levels of quality.
For color photography, 35mm film is WAY worse than m43, anything pushed past 1600 is skittles factory. And that's not even taking IS into account. But why would you want film without grain?

>Myself, it's a poorfag element combined with my love of old shit and struggling. Struggling to develop it, struggling to nail it the first time because there is no chimping. Also the lo fi aesthetic too.
Poorfaggotry is no longer an argument given the ever increasing running costs of film and the low price of older digicams. It's all about the feeling and aesthetic - don't try to justify it on any objective terms, that'll only end in disappointment.

>>2933854
>Light with diffuser under it.

Better yet, an iPad showing a white screen.
100% uniform backlight and the pixels become invisible when you put it just barely out of focus.

>>2934756
> feel proud of your work because that negative will live forever until your great grand children will find it and they will scan the photos and enjoy your legacy you have left behind

I hope that's sarcasm because how are you even fitting through doorways with that hubris.

99% of the time, your great-grandchildren will be more interested in blurry family snapshits and those test shots of your backyard that you didn't throw away than in your carefully scouted lansdcape shot. There will be more impressive and technically superior landscape shots, but no better pictures of their grandparents.

>>2934838
>99% of the time

prove it.

File: SC987001.jpg (375KB, 1500x952px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1500x952px

>>2934846
I digitize and restore old film. Thought-out, artistic shots are almost never ordered to be fixed up/enlarged unlike family portraits.
You are free to believe me or not, but no one will care about your artsy stuff 50 years from now unless you die an already famous photographer or hit one in a million chance with something getting memetic attention.

>>2934859
>DUDE MY ANECDOTE LMAO

not a proof.

>>2934827
I just picked up a Huion L4S light pad and I'm loving it. It's a fraction of the cost of an iPad and doesn't have pixels. Lay film directly on pad or use a holder. At 1:1 I'm running 1/5 sec, f8, iso100 doing color negative.

Sample: >>2933589

>>2935028
I've likewise got an XP-Pen A4S pad, and it kicks ass. However, I'm shooting at 1/30s, f/8, 100ISO on a D610 at 1:1.

No samples because my tripod setup is all sortsa fucky, and because I need some kind of a solution for moving my negative carrier (from a flatbed scanner) to the next frame cleanly and quickly.