Why do some of us prefer film over digital ?

>>3032354
Try to get good colors using digital. It cannot be done.

>Tfw digicucks never learn

I think it's all about the realness, the physical work done for a physical product. It's sort of hard to put into words, kind of like how some people prefer vinyl.

Also film has a great longevity, unlike digital, you're more likely to eventually lose your files due to any number of reasons.

Not to mention the look of film.

File: 1488493859831.gif (1MB, 194x228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 194x228px

>>3032355
>t. can't use the basics of lightroom

>>3032354
>Why do some of us prefer digital?
>because some of us aren't faggots.

I think film just looks better

>>3032354
It does

I just purchased a Minolta SRT-200 with a 45mm and 80-200mm lens for $40.00

Was it a good find?

also if Im shooting outside stick with Fujifilm 400?

>>3032354
this image is biased.

>higher aperture in right pic
>slightly overexposed in right pic

im not a film knob but i like both formats although i wish film were cheaper

>>3032360
>>t. can't use the basics of lightroom

you mean applying vsco presets?

t. lightroomcuck

Why the FUCK do faggots like you INSIST on shooting film. You're such a fucking disgusting hipster. Get with the fucking times you piece of shit hippy.

Shoot digital and if you really feel the fucking need to make your photos look even worse then you can make them look like shitty 19th century technology.

I wish film and people that still use it would die. You're wasting my air.

i shoot film because its a mature technology. as simple as that.

i wont bother with digital yet, because its still experimental and still looks like shit, and maybe in the next decade i will purchase a digilol camera, when they are able to produce images worth shit and have sensors that arent tiny as fuck.

using digital nowadays is like being a porno whore in the 70s and getting one of those cheap boobjobs that looked super terrible, because the technology wasnt fully developed yet. not a single one of those looked good, but, of course, they were "in" with the times.

>>3032357
>it's hard to put into words
here's one: nostalgia

Show me something shot on film that can't be done on a digital.

Go ahead, filmfags, I'm waiting.

>>3032354

I shoot both. Different tools for different jobs. The experience of shooting film is significantly better, and the outcome lends itself to certain styles or jobs, but digital is faster, and at least in the 35mm equivalent world better IQ in terms of raw performance and flexibility.

Like, I'd never shoot a pro corporate job on film unless maybe it was studio head-shots on medium format. But I think a lot of intimate work, like weddings or lifestyle shoots, can be done quite well on film.

Different tools for different jobs.

I know Im going to get bashed but

>Saw a minolta SRT-101 with a 58mm 1.7 lens and a 135mm lens for $140
>gonna take chances and wait till last day of estate sale to purchase for $70
>thought to Minolta SRT 200 was better cause im a fucking noob
>purchased it 45mm lens, and a 80-200mm lens for $41.00 on ebay
>F stop to 2.0

should I have just saved my money that i have to buy on film, battery, scanner, dark room DIY shit and bought a good 35mm lens for my canon T3 or am I going the good route starting to develop my own film

I feel like I didnt make a good purchase and kind of regret and it after realized i had to buy all this other stuff and im overwhelmed with the idea of photography now. Please tell me I did something right.

>>3032354
I am not an artist or a professional photographer and so i do this all purely for enjoyment. Shooting film is fun.

>>3032354
because they were born too late for film.
seriously, all the old fags had move on, digital is just better and convenient.

File: wut.jpg (64KB, 327x495px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 327x495px

>>3032354
wut

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	660
Image Height	495
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	2017:03:02 23:46:51
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	327
Image Height	495

>>3032504
wut what my digifriend?

They're sour grape poorfags.

>>3032475
>tiny sensors
That's because you can't buy a decent camera you poor fag

>>3032379
>was it a good find
If you plan to use it, then sure. That's a decent retail price for what is a decent camera. If you were looking to flip it though, then probably not because I don't think it would go for much more than that on eBay unless that's one expensive 45mm lens.

The expense of film photography is in the film, development and scanning. The camera bodies are usually relatively cheap. At flea markets you can generally find working film SLRs for $10-20, at least in the US. Almost all by the major brands (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus) are going to do everything you need. That SRT-200 can produce great images at any ISO, but I'd shoot on cheap film until you figure out if the meter works, or better yet, just get a light meter. 400 ISO film is general purpose film that can be used in a number of environments and light levels. If you're shooting mostly in daylight though, there's no need to limit yourself to that speed and even less to stick solely to Fuji.

Just experiment, anon.

>>3032357
>Also film has a great longevity, unlike digital, you're more likely to eventually lose your files due to any number of reasons.

Only if you are a full on retard.

Film exists in one place, and can easily be destroyed in hurricanes, earthquakes, flood, a broken pipe, etc.

Digital files are able to be backed up and stored in multiple places.

File: cadillac_c.jpg (80KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x600px

>>3032482

File: _IMG5756_pexp.jpg (893KB, 1200x807px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 1200x807px

cuz it's fun.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: _IMG5761_pexp.jpg (1MB, 1200x955px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x955px

>>3032542
>digicucks be like..

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3032482
Large format.

>>3032482
>Molecular resolution

>>3032482
>another digicunt who can't seem to comprehend that some of us shoot solely for fun
Not everyone cares about performance, you pixelpeeping gearfag

>>3032565
why are you shitposting here instead of out taking photos, if you're only in it for the fun?

File: 14786898174526.png (10KB, 280x336px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 280x336px

>>3032567

>>3032357
goodbye tripfag.

Film in 2017... I guess self delusion is comfy

>>3032572
Got a dank 4x5 or 8x10 back for me senpai?
>>3032546
>>3032482
This.

>>3032354
I like the colors, I like the idea of it being fully analog and the fact that I don't need any batteries to take pictures. Also buying and shooting different films is exciting. It's just fun.

>>3032569
>y-you AUTIST
stay mad (but if you really want to express it, your best option is digital)

>>3032584
>it's another "mad autie projects his anger onto those who enjoy different things" episode

It's just a different process and different results. Personally I like to sit down and edit photos over and over again differently depending on how I feel so shooting film is a nice way to let go of doing that every once in a while

>>3032355
post an example of good colors using film

oh wait you can't

>>3032354
LOL
O
L

it's not even clear which one of OP's pictures is digital and which film.

Answer this here, and we'll have a whole new debate: can you even tell the difference?

I think this highly valuable and useful thread needs more replies.

>Why do people still use huge, big, heavy expensive traditional pianos that only make a single preset sound per key when digital state of the art keyboards that replicate/simulate/sample the best pianos in existence, can have limitless presets, customizability, can be hooked up to any amp/sound system you want, all while being the fraction of the size and weight, exist?

Checkmate pianists. gg no re

>>3032605
>it's not even clear which one of OP's pictures is digital and which film.

It's pretty clear because of the way the highlights and skin tones are rendered that right is digital. To be fair it's not a good comparison because it looks like the right one was taken with a phone camera.

>>3032354
there is also the factor that subjects reacts differently when knowing they're being photographed on film, like some sort of respect for the photographic process..

or how they react to the camera.. ive shot friends that becomes this weird stiff contrived mess when pointing a big digital camera at them, but when taking a snap using an olympus mju, they don't bother breaking out of the situation just because of some tiny snapshit camera, yeilding way more dynamic expressions.

>>3032355
>good colors using digital
>cannot be done
that's like eating a very bad omelette, trying to make one and making another bad one, and deducing nothing good tasting can be made using eggs

File: B002876-R3-26-11.jpg (2MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1818x1228px

I'm only a novice photographer but I'll offer my two cents of why I'm sticking to film for now:

with a digital camera you can take a hundred thoughtless pictures of the first thing you see and delete 99. film's cost per shot forces you to consider your choices more carefully. I like eggleston's approach: one shot per subject, then move on without worrying about whether you 'got the shot'. gotta make them count.

I get a childish thrill out of racking up shots on a roll without knowing what's in store. finally seeing the developed shots feels like christmas. it's a lot of fun to see them, having forgotten most of what you shot, and saying to yourself 'idiot! what was I thinking?' and maybe once or twice 'damn, I'm good'

I also like that there's no fucking around with settings, worrying about raw vs jpeg, etc. the controls on my camera are limited to shutter speed/aperture/focus, the rest is up to me. no distracting LCD screen means less missed opportunities and less chance of accidentally walking into traffic or falling off a cliff

I also enjoy the authentic 'thunk' of my pentacks shutter that turns heads and frightens birds out of trees while welcoming light onto the frame

>>3032608
>right one was taken with a phone camera.
like 99,9% of digital photos, right?

>>3032666
have you seen how people react when youre shooting them with a TLR? pretty sure no TLR shooter has been yelled at while streeting, quite the contrary.

>>3032604

But muh 4x5, muh 8x10.

Stupid fucking hipsters shitting up the place with their garbage tier photos.

>>3032667
>digicuck always will tell you there is this elusive "good color digipic" somewhere, it truly exists, but will never show it

lol, so predictable.

I have never shot film myself, although my girlfriend does

it just seems more of a thrill and I, personally, like how it looks more, however I shoot digital because I am a jew when it comes to saving money

>>3032531
you must be kidding, you can achieve these colors in post with digital
>>3032546
while this is true, film medium format has no advantage over digital medium format unless you want 6mm equivalent rectilinear wide angle lenses
if you want more resolution get a phase one with a 100mp digital back
if you wanted to get a resolution higher than that of an a7r2 you'd need a hell of a good lens, a very good scanner and at least 4x5 film, and all of that isn't likely to cost you less than an a7r2 and a good lens
if you want less depth of field you can simply get a lens with a larger aperture nowadays (where are all the f1.2 or f0.95 large format lenses?) and push the ISO up, a modern good quality sensor will have very little noise even at ISO 800
or you can use the brenizer method...
>>3032549
you need a number of silver halides to get the equivalent of a pixel on a digital sensor, and the resolution of film is inversely proportional to its sensibility, while with a modern good camera you can get the almost same 42mp resolution at 3200 ISO
>>3032565
>why is film better than digital?
>it's more fun to shoot, for some reason I won't bother to explain

File: 24822550422_52662edc1b_b.jpg (385KB, 1024x838px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1024x838px

>>3032687
without looking at the exif info, try and tell me

>>3032691
>or you can use the brenizer method...
when you thought digiworms couldnt get gayer...

File: 25551572073_cca50f5cb0_b.jpg (263KB, 1024x708px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1024x708px

>>3032693
which one of these is a sooc jpeg from a compact camera, which one is a post processed raw from a 400D + original nifty fifty, and which one is a post processed raw from a 5Dmk3 + 70-200 f2.8 L

>>3032693
tell you what. and why are you posting such a terrible snapshit?

File: 24262947306_41f5be3834_b.jpg (180KB, 1024x670px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x670px

>>3032695
meanwhile tell me what it is that you feel is unacceptable about the colors in each of these pictures, and why it couldn't be changed by doing something different in post

>>3032360
>lightroom
>adobe slavecuck

>>3032694
>there's this possibility
>let's not use it tho, because it would be cheating and btw you can't do this with film

>>3032693
>>3032695
>>3032698
you dont get to judge the merits of a given media with such terrible samples. wont even bother to open them. no wonder youre a gearfag, you talent void, lol.

>>3032705
given these are terrible it should be easy for you to point out exactly why and how they suck
do take your time

>>3032711
no. theres a reason i hide RPT threads the moment they come up. why would i want to watch bad photos on purpose?

>>3032716
>why would i want to watch bad photos on purpose?
so you can easily show me and everyone else here why you're right in arguing colors in digital pics suck
yet while you stated that repeatedly, you are making excuses instead of backing up your argument
I posted pictures where in my opinions the colors are good, as you asked previously, and you just said these suck
still not why and/or how they suck tho

>>3032698
70-200
>>3032693
Compact
>>3032695
Nifty fifty

>>3032691
>you must be kidding, you can achieve these colors in post with digital

Then how come no digital photographer seems to bother to?

>>3032723
>where in my opinions the colors are good

Haha oh wow

V S C O

File: fujiSuperia_DL_018.jpg (1MB, 1495x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1495x1494px

>>3032482
shot this with a 2$ film camera
>fuji mini wide
expired cheap film
now....why would i pay for an apsc canon
that requires photoshop editings to get a decent image like this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3002
Image Height	4484
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:14 03:21:43
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1495
Image Height	1494

>>3032354
I'm still new to photography but which is which? Both look really nice. Obviously left has bokeh and the girl only in focus so maybe that's the digital.

>>3032733
Nope.

>>3032736
>left has bokeh and in focus must be digital
nope...left one is film...right one is digicuck aperatus

>>3032742
hmm nice

>>3032729
now for the rest of the question... ?
>>3032730
if they wanted these exact colors they'd shoot film
it's my firm opinion that they want other, different things
>>3032731
you are still making excuses, like "haha oh wow [these suck I'm not even gonna bother saying why these suck]" instead of backing up your argument
at this point I take it you just can't

>>3032354
i love the fact that the girl gives the leica a warm smile. but gives the snapshit machine cellphone a flat casual look, because shes conditioned (by her own acts) to think cellphones are casual selfie garbage, and film to be special.

dslrs are frowned upon on street because they are linked to paparazzi creeps and press, both worm jobs.

take note digimaggots.

>>3032746
>it's my firm opinion that they want other, different things
HEY GUYZ GET THIS FILM PACK OF FILM COLORS LOOK AT THEM VINTAGE TONES EVERYONE WANTS THOSE TONES RIGHT YEAH GET THE S L U G FILM PACK PRESETS!

>>3032747
who says that it's a leica ?
maybe it's a masterrace contax rts3 or g2 with a agfa vista film

>>3032748
come on, not everyone uses VSCO and aims at getting instagram followers when taking and editing pictures

>>3032749
>who says that it's a leica ?
the guy that wrote the article. leica m7.

>>3032591
thanks for following my instructions
do you also bark on command?

>>3032524
I plan on using it, I dont plan on flipping it.

isnt there a light meter in the camera?

What is good film for daylight and whats good film for low light

>>3032691
>(where are all the f1.2 or f0.95 large format lenses?)

You exposed yourself, dumbass

File: AA0D3798B-0480-41B0-B9F7-8CB4D3D4FC77-2634-000002E7B640507A_tmp.jpg (388KB, 1204x844px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1204x844px

>>3032354
I like portra's tone curve and digital's rendering.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.15.144832640
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	Unknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
White Point Chromaticity	0
Exposure Time	0 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	0
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Unknown
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Unknown
Image Width	1204
Image Height	844
Exposure Index	0

ccd

>>3032886
what about ccd ? it's not like everyone is saying
> film alike
well atleast more than cmos actually lol

In the first picture she looks like she wants to kidnap you and torture you while laughing

thanks guys, you helped me see the truth

I'm going to pack up my film gear this weekend and sell it so I can put down a deposit on a sony a7

>>3032526
Excatly.

OP - Do you think that photo of JLaw's vagina being stretched out with two fingers is going to disappear from human record anytime soon?

>>3032734
>fuji mini wide
Where do you get a camera for that price? and the expired film?

File: 1920px-BEACH_AT_DESTIN,_ON_THE_GULF_OF_MEXICO_-_NARA_-_548280[1].jpg (99KB, 1920x1297px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1920x1297px

I just can't make a digital photo look like this without it looking like it was contrived to look like this.

>>3032354
Accidentally stumbled into this board from /r9k/ and would like to say that I like the one on the left better. It just has more character.

>>3032354

lol holy FUCK the left looks instantly professional despite being a "snapshit" style photo, now I understand that gear matters more than "talent"

>>3033053

longer focal lengths tend to do that. ;)

File: 1488501907800b.jpg (57KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 660x495px

>>3032354
hmm

keep in mind I'm not a pro and I'm working with a jpeg

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: 1482394605182.jpg (182KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x1024px

>>3033089

Digital is technically better in every way. Anyone who argues against this is an idiot or will use some extreme, contrived example to counter it that nobody would ever be using irl. It's cheaper, easier, more flexible, has better resolution, and way more capabilities.

I shoot film because I enjoy using the gear more and find the longterm idea of physical negatives/slides intriguing. That's it. I know my 35mm shots aren't technically up to par with what modern digital cameras can offer. I don't give a damn though. More information ≠ better.

>>3032604
youre clearly new to photography

>>3033092
You sir have summed up my feeling for the format

>>3033092
What about medium format film cameras? Surely it is cheaper to go with film for that if you are just a hobbyist.

>>3033096
>format
???

>>3032354
because people are different and have different tastes and maybe some people prefer one format over the other

File: 130556120_0c1c3fd2a3_o.jpg (139KB, 1413x962px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1413x962px

Will there ever be nostalgia for the early DSLR look?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	714
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2006:04:17 22:26:47
Exposure Time	1/750 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	240.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1413
Image Height	962

>>3033096
That's all it really comes down to my man.

>>3033098
He meant 'film format'

>>3033097
I mean, I guess. Film + dev cost catch up pretty quickly though. Add in scanning costs (which in general are insane) or the cost of buying a worthwhile scanner ($150 minimum) and after 30 rolls (self developed and only 360 pictures on 6x6) you're probably already at $350+ plus the initial cost of the camera.

>>3033108
>GUYZ STAY AWAY FROM FILM OMG EXPENSIVE STUFF!!! LIKE $50 E V E R Y MONTH!! :O
sometimes i wonder if im chatting with literal hobos here.

>>3033108
That's still a far cry from the cost of a digital medium format camera.

>>3033089
I think you added too much grain on the second one. Also you could've faked the bokeh at the background (if you used photoshop).
I think you got the colors right though.
>>3033108
That might be true, but digital medium format cameras are still quite expensive and at least for that format film is still cheaper.

>>3033110
That's not what I'm saying. Im saying digital is the cheaper way to go. I spend $150/mo on shooting film just fine.

>>3033112
But a digital mf camera isn't the same as a film one. A modern 35mm digital camera will match medium format film resolution. You should compare large format film to medium format digital. Not medium format to medium format.

>>3033116
>A modern 35mm digital camera will match medium format film resolution.
Not according to this article
https://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

>>3033113
I'm using gimp. I'm not sure how to fake bokeh yet, it's something I'll have to study.

I really should move on to photoshop...

>>3032355
derp what is white balance

File: th.jpg (370KB, 1200x649px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1200x649px

Surely I can't be the only one who watches new movies and finds that they don't look as good as they used to? I mean sure film alone doesn't make your movie look good you need good lighting, color and composition but none of the new movies filmed with digital cameras have impressed me like older movies. With film even cheesy action and comedy movies that didn't put in too much effort into cinematography tend to look nice while digital looks harsh without some really good editing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3033180
I think even though you pointed it out, movies simply aren't made like they used to. A lot of the time people are focused on how a movie looks and funnel tons of money into effects or scenes rather than the content they produce. Other than that in a market where just about everything has been done, something significant has to come out to be to seem good.

>>3033124
>Need a drum scanner

That's the problem. Sure some WILL match it, but now you need a freaking drumscanner (or shell out $$ for drum scans). Not applicable to the vast majority of people.

>>3032857
there is, but old light meters can be wonky and the battery for it might not exist anymore.

Most films work during day fine. Few work well at night without a tripod. It's just ISO. Same as any digital camera.

Higher ISO is more light sensitive, lower ISO is less. You want more sensitive film in low light and the highest ISO 35mm film that is easily available and affordable is ilford delta 3200. For color, I'd just go with Superia 800 or Portra 800 (if you can find it)

People like film more because the color isn't accurate. It creates an otherworldly vibe. Show me a film photo with proper color

>>3033197
Why get a scanner involved at all? When you do that it ceases to be film photography.

>>3033208
Anon...

>>3032986
it was in the flea market lol
expired film...just looked in online selling sites

>>3032565
This. The tactility of a film camera is just so much more pleasing than pushing buttons and sorting through menus on a digicam. There's nothing more satisfying for a few hours' snapshitting

>tfw turning the advance lever
>digifriends don't know that feel

File: rd1-08.jpg (112KB, 600x281px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x281px

>>3033955
>digifriends don't know that feel

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1DS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:02 15:30:07
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	281
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3033955
>There's nothing more satisfying for a few hours' snapshitting

Actually having immediate, usable, quality, photos is immensely more satisfying than using a film camera

>>3034006
>over a $1000 used on ebay
>6.1 megapixels

>>3034007
If you're not doing any post processing what are you doing?

>>3034011
Usable as in you can immediately use them for what you want. Whether that be processing or otherwise

>>3034012
ah I gotcha, I like shooting film because I feel like I own the photo when I'm done, but obviously digital is faster and better for fast pace things like journalism and video

>>3032542
>>3032545
Missing Focus, and having poorly exposed pictures is superbadass dude. Gotta love film XD

>>3034021
That all depends on the person taking the photo, and the camera used, its not the camera (unless its some shitty soviet camera with a lemon for a lens) or in this case the medium, It's the photographer.

is this what /p/ autism looks like

File: s-l1600.jpg (288KB, 1507x1446px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1507x1446px

Purchased this set a while back for 30 dollarydoos altogther
did i do good ?

>>3034006
A notable exception

>>3034007
In terms of convenience digital definitely wins, hands down. But if I'm going out of my way to take some photos, convenience isn't my main priority. To each their own

>>3034255
Yes

>>3034021
the camera i took those with had a totally destroyed focus screen.. it looks like someone tried to clean it with some type of solvent and it melted.

it's a miracle those shots are even close to being focused on anything at all :)

>>3034298
>menelta
wew, cucked hard, lad
Good flash though.

File: x.jpg (399KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1000x666px

>>3032357

>Also film has a great longevity, unlike digital

Mfw

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	What a retard!
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4998
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:06 08:23:14
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1-3.jpg (499KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1000x667px

>>3032475

Sorry, I take it back. THIS is the most retarded thing I have read today.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Just kill yourself.
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3034505
Eh for my first camera I think Its a decent purchase, shot a few rolls of film and need to develop them to see how they come out

>>3034617
don't listen to any idiot that talks shit about Minolta's.. they are excellent camera's and are mostly far under-priced for what they are.

>>3034518
Well negatives and black and white prints last at least a hundred years while digital photos are subject to hard drives dying and any number of factors with regards to clouds and off site tape backup, but how many digital photographers have tape backup systems let alone ever print their photos if any at all. Plus say your online service goes out of business.

>>3034838
a fire or flood will wipe out the prints or negs, at least with digital it's easy to backup to many locations.

this is pretty tangential to the topic of photography though, unless we were archivists or similar

File: 1486312306057.jpg (407KB, 869x873px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 869x873px

>>3034838

My photos are backed up in three locations. On two seperate HDDs in my PC, to the Cloud (OneDrive), and monthly backups on a separate HDD stored off site.

The chances of all of that going at one point are considerably lower than your negatives getting fucked by a fire.

>>3034298
i nv u.
sweet baby richardson thats a good set.

>>3032354
Film cameras look cooler and I like the surprise of seeing how my shots came out.

Also a physical photo is better than a digital picture on a screen.

>>3032884
i like the film grain and blur on the left more

plus look at her hair
10/10 would bust a nut on it

>>3034255
No, /p/ is actually pretty tame.

>>3035242
welcome newfriend

No amount of post processing can EVER replicate the film look.

>>3035287
Indeed. Sensor carries a single subject, while every single tiny grain of film carries it's own story.

>>3034505
>menelta


someone said this in another thread a few days ago

what is this stupid meme

Im still not understanding why its a shit camera

>>3035513
I honestly have no idea why some people on this board talk shit about Minolta. Leica and Sony both clearly thought they had something of value..

File: jeopardy-lol.png (168KB, 493x341px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 493x341px

is dynamic range?

>>3035768

Digital has about as much as dynamic range as negative film though.

>>3035770
you are literally talking out of your ass though.

>>3035768
yes. you can see the light falloff in the arm. film gives you a beautiful tonal gradient, digital gives you a huge bowl full of shit.

>>3035772

I'm not. Digital has a fuckton more information in the shadows than film does. I don't know of many print films that have 14 stops of dynamic range.

>>3035779
A N S E L
D
A
M
S

>>3035794

Probably would have shot digital.

>>3035801
>when cornered, the digislug will show full retardness, in order of not being skinned alive in an argument
such CUTE creatures.

>>3035802

Keep trying to make "digislug" happen, kiddo.

's'not gonna happen.

Anyway, I've had lots of convincing arguments so far. Let's see.. someone said i was talking out of my ass, then someone shouted ansel adam's name at me, and now you said that i'm a retarded lazy digital shooter.

So, hey. I win? All you guys had to do was show me a print film with 14 stops dynamic range.

>>3032691
>>3032565
>why is film better than digital?
>it's more fun to shoot, for some reason I won't bother to explain

i don't understand why you like something and i'm angry about it grrr!! Dx

>>3032357
>they physical work put into a physical product

I think this argument is pretty shitty.

I built my own PC for photo editing using my own time, hands and money.

I also put lots of time and care into, you know, actually shooting.

Someone else had to put in valuable resources to create the hardware and software for that to happen. Does anybody really understand what goes into creating a n individual PC component, an OS or something like Photoshop? I don't like the argument you and others engine because it so blindly takes available technology for granted.

>>3036895
>engine

That was supposed to say invoke*

>>3036895
I dont think its about the effort, more about that we as a society move towards more and more technological dependency and thats why some people might like art moving into another direction. Something old and authentic then new and innovative.

>>3036899
Photography has always been based in technology. The very first daggeurotypes were considered massive scientific and technological breakthroughs. We wouldn't have photography without the labor and effort expended on developing good lenses, film stocks, chemicals etc

>>3032675
>with a digital camera you can take a hundred thoughtless pictures of the first thing you see and delete 99. film's cost per shot forces you to consider your choices more carefully.
>takes a snapshit of a fucking tree branch with bad focus

ok, kid.

>>3032675
>with a digital camera you can take a hundred thoughtless pictures of the first thing you see and delete 99

You can also slow the fuck down and take care. I hardly shoot that much on my digicam and only get 400 shots per card, which is way more than I've ever truly needed.

Just because you suck at being disciplined with a camera doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

>>3036895
>Does anybody really understand what goes into creating a n individual PC component, an OS or something like Photoshop?

I can explain the processes out for you

software development is far more boring than you'd think it would be

File: fuji natura 1600 (3).jpg (572KB, 663x1000px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 663x1000px

>>3033180
Whatever people will spout, film just looks way friendlier to the eye because it is closer to the original. Theres loads of great movies today too but film just looks way better, especially in motion I'd say.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:24 23:06:31
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3037000
Pretty much this. I am actually an electronics fanboy and am super into anything shiny and new and impressive but for some reason i really prefer analog photography and film. There is just something about it..and it can't ever really be replicated because of the way artists that use the medium go about shooting developing and editing. It just is not the same.

File: mypictr_252x252.jpg (17KB, 252x252px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 252x252px

>>3037000
>tfw saw Hateful 8 in 70mm

Also
>no commercials

Best cinematic experience yet

>>3032693
Compact
>>3032695
Nifty
>>3032698
5d
You make this too easy breh.

>>3032700
you know you can buy lightroom as a one-time standalone, right?

File: h8fulkermit.jpg (139KB, 1012x838px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1012x838px

>>3037076
Shame the film itself is so meh.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:11 09:09:11
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1012
Image Height	838
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3037119
Inglorious Bastards is my personal favorite.

>>3037076

The theater I went to projected it on their smallest, dirtiest screen with the brightness and the sound too low. I was not happy.

>>3037176
did you ask your money back or did you just swallow that theater cock like a little cuck?

>>3032462
You seem like the kind of guy who thinks you can develop, stop and fix by pouring all the chemicals into the same jug... I'm sorry that didn't work out for you.

File: 1409430298968.png (13KB, 711x604px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 711x604px

>>3037201
>responding to bait

>>3037202
>its not bait if its a piece of dead, necrotic shit. C41 chems + algae = some toxic gross shit

File: 1480949773486.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

Film and digital just look different. On one end you have an actual physical chemical reaction, on the other end a digitized interpretation of that. Also, the process of shooting film and digital is inherently different based on ease of operation and general meaningless of the exposure, as one can just erase it and make another. When you shoot film, unless your vegan like parents buy you unlimited 120, you really have to be conscious of what you're doing. Then by having to take your time you usually produce better images. However, i must say that digital is finally starting to catch up in terms of creating a very good imitation of the analog process. But no amount of pixel count can simulate the color depth and dynamic range of film for now. That being said I just bought a D810 that is pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty close. The Sony mirrorless is still a meme camera for blogger faggots. Spec, pixel peeping retard, gearfags, that never have any talent and really are dependent on thinking that more power will yield better results. However, I think that in 5-10 years time, digital will have matched and begun to get close to the quality of medium and even large format. Its crazy to see how much digital has progressed in the last 4 years, after being utter shit for the last 15. In summary, film and digital are different. Film is better for now, and always will have a unique quality that digifags and technology will always attempt to recreate. And maybe one day not too far from now it will be done. But honestly, photography is photography, and making a good image has to do with not just technical ability and gear, but most importantly, with your artistic talent. Which no-one here will ever have. Get fucked lads

>>3037260
>D810 that is pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty close
suuuuuuuuuuuure.

show me ONE picture taken with that camera, that features water (like a lake or sea) and doesnt look like a piece of shit.

protip: u cant, because digital cant render water.

File: 1483809373753.jpg (53KB, 777x339px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 777x339px

>>3037261
Just be quiet you fucking hobbyist. Ive been shooting film longer than you've been alive.
I mean that the d810 is nice for a dslr, and as close to acceptable as some of my small format slrs. What kind of fucking moron are you? Talking about "rendering water". Micro observations, worded like that, instantly let me know you've never taken a good photograph. Go back to flickr retard. Or better yet kys

File: 1488764141813.jpg (8KB, 240x210px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 240x210px

>>3037263

>I'm a master film photographer, but I have finally seen the digital light, if you disagree with me you're a lowly luddite

File: 1482989626010.gif (907KB, 150x113px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 150x113px

>>3037268
>photography has to do with talent not gear
>close to acceptable to some of my small formats
>5-10 years time digital will begin to get close
>technology will always attempt to recreate

Where precisely would one begin to reason this is "seeing the digital light"?
Nice bait new friend, but you're needed back at tumblr

File: 195.jpg (44KB, 680x496px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 680x496px

>>3037273

>Here's my life long love of film photography, I am an expert, but now I have seen the digital light, and you should too

>>3037108
there was also the other part of the question

File: 1486372401390.jpg (22KB, 720x534px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 720x534px

>>3032475
>mature technology
>looks like fucking ass at any ISO above 800

>>3037512
>OMG GRAIN IS SO SCARY MOOOOOOM

Translated by Bing!

>>3037518
Look my point is that there are no films that can reach quintuple digit ISO sensitives or higher. You will not see people shooting film after dark unless they have a tripod or a shit ton of lights, and this can be a pretty significant limitation depending on what you're trying to do.

>but what's so bad about grain
Nobody's saying grain is bad, but some of us like photos that aren't so grainy it's distracting. inb4 you tell me film has this magical, mystical grain property that digifags will never understand.

>>3037519
The first paragraph is falsehood and fiction. So much so that I suspect this guy is the one having Sony vs. Fuji wars by himself, experimenting with a new one-man circlejerk.

>>3037520
Where is all that ISO 12800 film then?

>>3037529
Look, do your own damn research. People do shoot film at night-time, without flash. f/1.4 - f/2, 1/30 - 1/60, ISO 1600 - 3200 = EV0 - EV4 = anything above moonlight or distant streetlights will make for a passable exposure.

>>3032567
asking the real questions

>>3032569
not a valid argument

>>3037579
It is a valid argument. You're clearly too autistic to see the retard logic of your question

>>3037553
>passable exposure
I expect more from a "mature medium" than a passable exposure.

The point of higher and higher ISOs is that you aren't forced to open up to f/1.4 and have so little in focus or shoot just on the threshold of what's acceptable for handheld sharpness vs needing a tripod.

Digital is still advancing far when it comes to low light sensitivity, nothing going on in the film world has gotten anywhere near what a full frame D-SLR can do nowadays and it never will because nobody's making the effort for that.

>>3032605
Are you for real? Sorry to destroy your Bubble but Film is left and Digital is right

>>3032730
Becuase it´s 2017 and not 1960... there are People that dont want this Vintage look. I dont want to show my Kids Black and white photos from 2017 for example only because I think it looks good

>>3037873
your kids will find the neighbors father, who has 6x7 slide strips on display and a working rolleiflex and countless darkroom enlarged photos and polaroids, way more cooler than you are. they will wish they were his sons instead of yours. your wife might even fuck him because he knows what cool is.

File: faux digital.jpg (171KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 660x495px

Now I have never ever had a camera(only the one on the celly) but this is my humble opinion regarding digital vs film.

With film you are very limited in the amount of shots you can take and your pictures aren't "neutral" so if you wanted to go for an exact look you'd be at a disadvantage.

But that also means that your shots come out with a character of their own, no color grading needed.
This character always seems to be sincere and non intrusive, always very natural(even though the colors are not true to real life).

Digital means you can take pretty much as many pictures you want. Easy to handle and easy to "develop".

Just pop it into lightroom and do your tweaks and you're off. And with your pictures being very neutral this is even easier, allegedly.
But anyone who's ever tried making a dull "neutral" digital shot look vibrant and alive will tell you its damn hard to do. The reasons are many but a big one I think is that you try to do what "nature(chemistry and physics)" do for you when you use film and it just ends up looking fake.
It's a bit like when you try to make something look old by scuffing it up and staining it with some solution; it never ends up looking quite right, not like the real thing that's aged on its own.

That is why I think film is better.

My pretentious rant is over.
Pic related is the film one vs one that i coloured in after effects.

>>3032499
more convenient, definitely not better

>>3032360
all those presets you bought still can't replicate film. your digital sensor was made 3 years ago by a korean sweatshop. film was perfected over decades by autistic japs who would commit sudoku if they couldn't perfectly replicate the color of cherry blossoms during spring. theres no contest

>>3032363
i paid 25 dollars for a canon ae1 that can outperform your $2400 dslr in literally every way. nothing personnel

>>3038113
just stepping by to state that this is a great edit.

>>3038118
0/10 if you think film colors are accurate you should stick to black and white

While I'm not a film shooter, it just looks more appealing to me. Digital feels "sterile" more often than not. Then again, that has to do with the PP work being done.

File: NSA_1557-1.jpg (5MB, 4000x6000px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4000x6000px

Remember that digital is a technology of photography in its relative infancy. It's not even 20 years old consumer-wise. Film has existed for over a century.
In 40 years assuming the world hasn't been demolished yet I don't think this film vs digital debate would still be relevant.

Do you like my dog?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Photographer	Alon Shechter
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	788
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:03 02:07:19
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Portrait
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3040277
Oh shit, I didn't resize it. Sorry dudes.

>>3040279
It's fine, at least I can see the dog this way.

>>3032354
utter shit

>>30323 what's the difference aside from higher temp in the right pic (which can be changed in 5 seconds)...
i think lens are different too cos shape of her head has different proportions

>>3032354
Highlights in both images are blown out. garbage.

File: CompareFull.jpg (134KB, 1361x681px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1361x681px

Some film vs digi from a few days ago.

Film is Acros, HC110E, Maxxum 7, 50/1.4 @ f8
Digi is a6000, LensTurbo2, MD50/1.4 @ f8

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Insane
Image-Specific Properties:

File: CompareCrop1.jpg (158KB, 1362x677px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1362x677px

>>3042215

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Insane
Image-Specific Properties:

File: CompareCrop2.jpg (173KB, 1366x678px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1366x678px

>>3042217

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Insane
Image-Specific Properties:

File: CompareCrop3.jpg (148KB, 1363x685px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1363x685px

>>3042219

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Insane
Image-Specific Properties:

File: CompareCrop4GrainAdded.jpg (182KB, 1360x683px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1360x683px

>>3042220

I have more comparison shots from the roll if there is any interest.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Insane
Image-Specific Properties:

Your crops are all mixed up, it keeps swapping between the left and right side.

>>3042261
I was trying to spice it up a bit.

>>3042215
What did you scan it with?

>>3042293
a6000-Micro-Nikkor

>>3040277
What is that on the side on your dog? Did he hurt himself? Take care of your dog

>>3042368
She had a really weird gigantic allergic reaction to something years ago, what's there in that image is a scar. We never figured out what caused it but it hasn't returned.

>>3033116
medium format digital has way smaller sensors than medium format film

File: BW1.jpg (126KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x600px

A bit unrelated, but my gf is living in S. Korea, and she sent her holiday snapshits to a professional lab, she said the photos were nothing special, but I was curious to see the results.
Holy mother of god, they were fucking gorgeous - the processing was done spot on, as if they knew the exact colour profile of the film. She uses a Minolta X-700 with a 35mm F2.8. She is knows her shit photo-wise as she has a degree in it, but she took that Fuji Superia 200 and made gold out of it.

I use the exact same film, and prints are meh, and the scans are a total abomination. I go to the place that is most convenient and that's boots - a shitty pharmacy chain, who's photolab is dead in the water. If you're not English and have no idea what I'm on about, it's basically a Walgreen's photolab. They charge me £8.50 for dogshit, and if I'm honest, it's the best in the town since there are places like Jessops that have managed to ruin my shit.

See pic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 860 IS
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.8
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	70 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	70 dpcm
Image Created	2014:10:13 22:47:11
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: BW2.jpg (47KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x449px

>>3042417
This was jessops pulling a number on me. The fucking morons actually went ahead and printed everything, and then had the gall to charge me £50 which I told them to fuck off. From that point forward, I did all my B&W dev myself with excellent results, even for a noob.

As for colour, pro lab all the way.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	XT1032
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.8
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	28 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	28 dpcm
Image Created	2014:10:13 22:35:26
Exposure Time	3/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

>>3042417

Post summa yo bitche's snips, mane.

>>3042423
I asked - and she's 9 hours ahead and at work, so gimme a day senpai.

>>3042417
>Holy mother of god, they were fucking gorgeous - the processing was done spot on, as if they knew the exact colour profile of the film.

It is like that here in Japan.

They still take film seriously.

>>3042548
One of the few things I like about Japs. Speaking of, they take the entire field of photography more seriously than any other country and I like that

>>3042557

I bought my first real camera here. They notify me of workshops and free servicing when it happens nearby. So damn cool.

The local camera shop even has a huge aisle of film for sale.

>>3042557
>they take the entire field of x more seriously than any other country
Where x = absolutely anything you care to think of.
>making soup
>cooking plain rice
>taking a shit
>gardening
>becoming an hero

>>3042628
Kek, you may be very close to the truth there. There was a television show on here once, which basically said "I'm not daying Japan is autistic, but it sure is the ideal country for an autist" and I have to say can't disagree, I love their attention to detail and perfection.

Still, their attention for photography is even more than for any other field. Except for Kodak and some small, specialty brands like Hasselblad and Schneider-Kreuznach, basically all photographic equipment is made in Japan. Of all my cameras, maybe 2 ancient point-n-shits are German (and barely usable because of those stupid Rapid cartridges), the rest is all grorious Nippon

File: monkeyfruit.jpg (10KB, 250x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x225px

youre all wrong:

the fact of the matter is digital is just scientifically more colorful than film

the problem is:
human vision evolved to see "colorful" fruit on trees. Therefore film color looks more palpable.

>>3042421
and fp4 is a super easy film to dev too

>>3035768
good lord that is me

>>3033180
>>3033194
>>3037000
It's not entirely the result of film vs. digital.

What happened is that early digital cine cameras had shit dynamic range and shit high-ISO ability, so movies had to be lit really flat. On top of that, flat lighting and color made it easier to integrate early CGI.

Modern cameras and post are more than capable of looking as good as film, but the cinematographers making movies nowdays came up during the period of shit digital and continue to make their movies look the same, and audiences are used to seeing the flat digital look, especially in places like China, which is now by far the largest movie market in the world and which has never really known good lighting or cinematography. (They never had the budget or the talent base for it in the old days, and only started getting American films in large numbers after they started looking shitty.)

>>3032499
I grew up with film and shot more of the stuff in photo school than most of /p/ put together has shot in their lives.

I still shoot film once in a while, just because it's fun. It's the only way I can afford to shoot MF, it lets me get back to basics and use the skills I went to school for and then never get to use with modern cameras, and there's still a bit of magic in watching a roll of film turn into negs and then blank paper into a print.

>prefers digitized film colors over digital colors
>implies digitized film is somehow not digital

I don't shoot digital. I have nothing against digital but I just picked up film and never bothered with digital. I actually like digital but I find all the features I never use so wasteful. All I need is shutter speed, aperture, a meter, and manual focus. Anything else just detracts from what I want. I might pick up an ancient full frame DSLR with a manual lens one day. I enjoy how my metal film cameras handle and unfortunately nothing else gives me that experience.

Also people get a kick out of not being able so see an image until it's a print in front of them. The only problem is that I don't like how some people can't spare more than a fraction of a second to an image. Digital or film people need to give at least 5 seconds to at least one image. Some people literally scan through prints as fast as they swipe images.

I always like looking at my images. That's why I can't imagine shooting for anyone but myself.

File: 50a985488bfd7f1fd90e490c5f4cc3c2.jpg (92KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 720x480px

>>3047341
>All I need is shutter speed, aperture, a meter, and manual focus.

That is why I got an a7ii.

Aperture on front dial (or lens), shutter speed on thumb dial, histogram in evf, and lots of adapted old manual focus lenses.

You can probably pick up an a7 for dirt cheap now.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X100S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:03 12:10:07
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	-1.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3047466
>You can probably pick up an a7 for dirt cheap now.
He shoots for himself, so why bother buying crap if it doesn't matter.

>>3047489
Ignore moopcos desperate attempts m8

>>3047489
>He shoots for himself,

What? So if he doesn't have an instagram/flickr/500px he might as well not take pictures?

>>3032354
the pic on the left is digital lel

>>3047547
lel no

>>3038118
CRT monitors were perfected over the course of decades as well, but it's clear that the 4k screens of today are better. You're argument is aboslutely retarded

File: 1483650860483.png (342KB, 394x394px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 394x394px

>>3038118
>commit sudoku if they couldn't perfectly replicate the color of cherry blossoms

>tfw they finally did it with Fuji Fortia SP

In Ken "Teh Rock" Rockwell's own words:
>I'm told that SP stands for SPring, and comes out for cherry blossom time, and it's really only for flower photos.

>mfw they really are that autistic

>>3032675
Holy fuck your post is riddled with, at best, false arguments.

I'm sure a brand new photographer will snap on everything both in film or digital.

An individual who takes it a bit more serious will take careful consideration of each shot. The benefit of the digital is that he can perfect the shot because he can delete AND inspect the shot right he takes it, and not worry about film cost and how much is left. Your argument strengthens digital use.

I feel like a child at xmas after I post-process an image, why is your developing your film any more valuable than transferring my file to a PC and developing it?

You have to be retarded, no one on a DSLR says, 'oh shit I cant take this pic because the menu has soooo many options'. Rawvjpeg is probably the first thing anyone does when they first get their camera.

How is the LCD distracting when its a tool to better you capability of taking a better shot? I can pull up my shot on the LCD and retake it if I Dont like. I Dont want to come home from the middle east with rolls of film to then develop to then find out my shot didn't come out the way I wanted. You're literately complaining and diminishing the fact that you have more tools at your disposal.

>walking into traffic
You deserve it if you are that spacial unaware of your surroundings

File: IMG_20161122_154452245 (1).jpg (324KB, 2323x974px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 2323x974px

I shoot only film because of their unique results with color and resolution. Like 120 film and up.
Digital is awesome too, I have both a Nikon and Canon and they're beyond convenient.
Especially for shooting video.
Using it for clients is awesome with digital.
Making a normal subject into something dreamy is where I bring out film.

>>3047613
>>I'm told that SP stands for SPring, and comes out for cherry blossom time, and it's really only for flower photos.
Ken's scriptures are a constant source of inspiration and wisdom.