Post 10 photographs taken with a digital camera that have good color.

>this thread again

File: 164_Divola_1_As-Far_12_15_2010_Print1-700x295.jpg (70KB, 700x295px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x295px

this uses gigapan.

>>3044794
> Well, there's your problem.pdf

>>3044790
Define "good color."

>>3044877
Kodachrome

I see this phaggot is back.
>>3044879
Oh really that is up for debate some think Kodachrome is shit. Other think Velvia is great. It is all a matter of tastes.

>>3044793
>>3044880
Only because no one can provide any examples.

>>3044881
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

>>3044918
Less talk and more photos please. This is an imageboard after all.

File: DSCF5562.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>3044790
>10
You can have one, which is one more than this thread deserves.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePix X100
Camera Software	Capture One 9 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/750 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	33.00 mm
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3044960
what videogame is this from?

>>3044973
Kek. It is outrageously crisp.

>>3044960
Congrats. My new desktop background

File: 1450803804606.jpg (1MB, 1200x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1500px

sigma wins again

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SIGMA
Camera Model	SIGMA DP2 Merrill
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:22 17:59:31
Exposure Time	1/100 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	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	3030343134383436918F375544443632

File: Shiet.gif (19KB, 383x143px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 383x143px

>>3045015

>not cropping out that bottom left area

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>3045019

>cropping out that bottom left area

>>3045015
now this is digital done right.

File: 1490311876207.jpg (800KB, 1200x1325px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1200x1325px

>>3045025

Why wouldn't you?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SIGMA
Camera Model	SIGMA DP2 Merrill
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:22 17:59:31
Exposure Time	1/100 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	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	3030343134383436918F375544443632

>>3045008
Well that was unexpected.

>>3045027

because the photo is much better with its inclusion. it makes the scene much more real and insightful. your crop just makes it look like a gay video game render or a page out of the apartment brochure.

>>3045031

The guy working on the balcony doesn't make it look real, no. It's the unfinished construction that makes it. Gotcha.

>>3045027
There's a definite loss of impact / sense of vertiginous height.

>>3045015
GJ

>>3045033

the unfinished construction is a crack in the facade, you fucking visually illiterate pleb.

>>3044790
>good color

can you be anymore vague as fuck. also "Good Color" is subjective as fuck as well.

why dont you describe what good color is

>>3045091
>good color is vague

Digifriends looking for excuses again I see.

>>3044880
>>3045091
>i-its all relative
good lord.

>>3044794
nahhh, but it has a good story

>>3044793

Report thread and hide it.

Oh wait, /p/ has no mods.

File: 23731829262_8ed631c358_b.jpg (412KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1024x819px

>>3044790

>>3045031
No it doesn't. It makes the photographer look like a lazy fuck. its just sloppy.

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

263KB, 1024x708px

>>3045207
also this

File: 2017-03-24_06-22-28.jpg (1MB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1367px

Mr Softee

File: 2017-03-24_06-26-18.jpg (777KB, 1024x689px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1024x689px

Sunny day umbrella lady

File: 2017-03-24_06-26-38.jpg (270KB, 867x1307px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 867x1307px

Windows 10 Home Edition

File: 1477703221672.jpg (624KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 600x800px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2013:02:19 02:25:34
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	30.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3045266
What a strange looking man.

>>3045268
not bad

>>3044847
>>3044960
>>3045015
>>3045192
>>3045208
>>3045243
>>3045244
>>3045245
>>3045251
>this is what counts as good color on digital


SAD!

File: P1030013.jpg (5MB, 3980x2004px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3980x2004px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G7
Camera Software	RawTherapee 5.0-r1-gtk3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3980
Image Height	2004
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Exposure Time	8 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm

>>3045015
Does this look greenish to anyone?

>>3045350
Is this a joke?

>>3044794
time to move forward on the back of the bus, brutal

I wonder whether she jumped in front of a bus to avoid mohammed or that mohammed bumped her under it. but I guess she is one of the dead people

>>3045268
hey thats my G10 with CCD Sensor Technology™ shot ;));)

>>3045324
>not bad
i did a big print. looks gorgeous.

>>3045161
>Oh wait, /p/ has no mods.
that explains why its SO good.

>>3045204
yes it does you cuck mongoloid with zero visual literacy. shot is already sloppy. it has a faggot and stupid words and numbers, it already failed as a super pure autistic german style shot. so it works better with the unfinished shit, it adds interest, get it? of course you dont, so off urself today fag ass.

>>3045359
no, its just a digicuck being mentally ill.

>>3045207
whoa

>>3045324
Filmfags btfo.

You need to counter with some oc, mangina.

File: 132A3655 (Custom).jpg (163KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1000x667px

m a g i c c o l o r s

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:09 23:54:38
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	185.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3045207
This is very cool. Get rid of "Sprint". I know it isn't easy. I know it's not true to what was really there. Doesn't matter. Do it.

>>3045510
It'll be cool in a few years, like old Pacific Bell signs.

>>3045453
>>3045467
No.

>>3045510
shh. he knows way better than you, so stay silent with such ""advice"".

>>3045467
wtf i love ricohbro now!

>>3045192
Is this out on the rez?

>>3045351
Only in the tinted windows, otherwise no. Maybe you need to tweak your monitor.

File: deadcow copy2.jpg (675KB, 900x603px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 900x603px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D80
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	834
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:24 18:26:01
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	603
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3045351
windows are blue tinted green, the rest is a delicious pasty soft apricot hue.

>>3045597
did he melt??

>>3045510
>I know it's not true to what was really there.

>caring about this
>not making your photographs look however you want them to look like because "muh rulez"

Digital cameras capture light objectively.

And objectively, everyday reality is fucking boring as shit because there's a huge, white sheet of ambient light hanging over everything 8 hours a day.

File: Central_Pier_9.jpg (978KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 2048x1536px

>>3045912
>Digital cameras capture light objectively.

Do colored signs look like this in real life?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536

File: CjLZiFf.png (146KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 554x439px

>>3045945
If you squint.

>>3045510
its actually incredibly easy to remove it there since there's plenty of pattern to clone from

>>3045245
finally someone got that shot of the high line. looks nice, great job

File: DSC_0660.jpg (223KB, 752x500px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 752x500px

>>3045912
>>3045945
Its not objective because the camera itself is an observer, interpreting the various wavelengths of light through an adjustable aperture and shutter speed.

Also check my pic, there's decent color.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	36202
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:03 16:01:29
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6016
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	100
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO
Focus Mode	MANUAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	100
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Nikon G Series
Lens Range	18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	4295

>>3045998
>Also check my pic, there's decent color.

Are you even trying?

>>3045207
still have yet to see a recent picture that has even come close to touching this one

>>3045207

>apple
>sprint
>halal

'Murica

>>3045364
nope, alive

>>3046031

more like

>NYC

File: 3nzutrsp.png (843KB, 752x500px) Image search: [Google]

843KB, 752x500px

>>3045998
I fixed your shitty color, thank me later.

t. photoshop master

I mean, who even cares about gear and lenses and shit when you're a photoshop master and can manipulate pixels directly like a wizard.

File: wjo7ak4t.png (1MB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x819px

>>3045192
Sheit, I could do this all day.

http://go.ascii.jp/nbd

>>3046210
...

>>3046210
but thats the archaetypical digisnap with lame colors.

>b-but its subjective
loooooooool

File: March_23_PineHouse.jpg (3MB, 4976x2800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4976x2800px

Does it count if it's mildly color-tuned in gimp?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GH2
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:03:23 14:36:34
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: ywq9yljp.jpg (382KB, 1445x960px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1445x960px

>>3046210
I tried to salvage it and stuff.

Woah, such tint, such atmosphere

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:26 12:20:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1445
Image Height	960

>>3045031
>>3045081
agreed. without it the image is.. sterile

>>3045991
It was a hassle to get - handheld HDR. Walking with someone who has a camera is a drag.

>>3046039
wait for real, nice

>>3046039
looked it up, her name was aysha frade, she is dead

>>3044790
Why is this board so obsessed with that image?

>>3046949
because muh vintage film,

it is pretty boring to be honest

>>3046949
Because it has good colors. Something digital photographers don't know of.

>>3046949
Because film is a meme here.

>>3046949

This board =/= one shitposter.

I mean, collectively, this board is nothing but shitposters, but don't mistake the bored manipulations of a single person for consensus across the board. His last thread with this image was successful, so why not stir the same shit with the same stick again?

File: 5c753966050283935f178fb5f2084aa0.jpg (275KB, 1200x874px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1200x874px

>>3046975
>His last thread with this image was successful

I didn't see anyone post any digital images with good color.

If I was trolling surely it would be easy to prove me wrong?

>>3046978

It was successful by the metric that it got a ton of replies.

why don't you explain what you mean by "good" color? That would be a strong first step, because otherwise it's just a guessing game where every answer is wrong.

>>3046980
>why don't you explain what you mean by "good" color

Digital photographers everyone.

Good bait.

>>3046981

I actually shoot mostly film and agree with the basic contention that it has better color. That doesn't mean you get to be a worthless weasel troll and not define your terms. Sorry kiddo.

>>3045106
This is art.
Almost literally everything is based on taste you fucking retard

>>3046995
>i-its subjective
holy shit lol

>>3046997
>I-I-I only get a kick out of trolling
Fuck me up senpai pethatic

>>3047042
>pethatic
lmfao read a book.

>>3046978
Is this digital?

Looks suspiciously graded.

>>3047044
why do you think hes taking photos shitty photos? lmao

>>3046068
whats the point of digital anyway actually...

Photography is a gimmick now a days considering the Iphone 7 beats out anything within triple its price range

>>3047132
>taking photos shitty photos
lmfao read a book.

>>3047307
this.

>>3046223
>>>3046210 (You)
>but thats the archaetypical digisnap with lame colors.
>>b-but its subjective
>loooooooool
Found the guy on Instagram, hes nbd but doesn't edit for shit

whats wrong OP, sad you got BTFO in less than 10 posts last time?

>>3045693
Been dead for a while, cow lethers tough as shit, its why they make things out of it. Takes longer to break down/doesnt make as good eating as the cows insides so its there longer

>>3047327
>things that never happened: the post

>>3046978
your film was scanned with a scanner, are you going to tell me that scanners can capture the " better" colour of film while much more expensive cameras can't?

>>3048065
the scanner is scanning a compressed piece of finished media. digicamera is attempting to capture fucking reality by electronic means and thats why it fails.

File: IMG_0950.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I like this one.

>>3048145
the tech behind a camera and scanner are the same

File: tumblr_onfs9bqtKs1rgyxkqo1_1280.jpg (221KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1280x853px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Vertical Resolution	700 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:26 20:14:38
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	560
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3048655
little too much sharpening desu

File: autowash.gif (2MB, 164x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 164x275px

>>3048065
Please don't shatter their illusions of superiority. Film phags have to try, and feel all smug about their choice. I shot film my whole life, and shoot digital now. It is called moving forward.
>>3048145
Really?
The film scanner uses exactly the same tech to create an images as the cameras do. Also they have to go another step of blowing the image size up. Your scanned film is now digital with all the same flaws you are claiming digital cameras have. So your argument is invalid.
Also the image I posted is your argument.

>>3048754
>I shot film my whole life, and shoot digital now. It is called moving forward.

You are moving backward when it comes to the image. All digital gives you is more convenience.

>>3048765
Yeah okay youngster.

>>3048768
It's the truth. Aside from maybe some low-light scenarios film will always look better. I don't know why others can't see how lackluster digital looks most of the time.

File: Final.jpg (2MB, 4256x2128px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4256x2128px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4256
Image Height	2128

File: tex.jpg (3MB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3192x2124px

>>3048782 1

2

File: DSC_7702-Edit.jpg (2MB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3192x2124px

>>3048785

3

File: DSC_8479-Recovered.jpg (2MB, 2832x2832px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2832x2832px

>>3048787

4

File: IWCBWWW.jpg (2MB, 1943x1943px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1943x1943px

>>3048789

5

File: Monster-final.jpg (265KB, 2500x1664px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 2500x1664px

>>3048145
>>3047140
>>3048772
yup

6

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2500
Image Height	1664

File: beutifelcolour.jpg (225KB, 756x1499px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 756x1499px

>>3048782
>>3048785
>>3048787
>>3048789
>>3048791
>>3048802
So what your saying is the a warm fade over everything is great colour?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:31 07:57:59
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	756
Image Height	1499

File: Untitleds.jpg (471KB, 1664x2500px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1664x2500px

>>3048809
>>3048808
Excited to see your work!

7

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1664
Image Height	2500

File: WarmColorFade.jpg (349KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1500x1500px

>>3048816

8

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1500

>>3048816
>Excited to see your work!
>>3048819
>WarmColorFade.jpg

justassblasteddigiplebs.org

>>3047044
Hahahaha the funy thing here is that you should read a fucking book because you didn't get the reference

>>3048838
>i was only pretending!
lmfao go grab a book m8.

>>3048765
>>3048772
>>3048809

So why do you all avoid the perfectly valid question about how a scanner can apparently capture your great film color, while a camera cannot even though they use the same technology

>>3045207
under exposed garbage

>>3049028
put some effort into your shit bait you lazy faggot

>>3049026
I'm not avoiding it, I just didn't find the point worth addressing; anyone who can't work it out for themselves is too stupid to understand the explaination anyhow.
But for your edification, here goes:
>digi can capture x range of light to dark, for red green and blue, for any given exposure, and record it as 12/14/16 bit colour
>film can capture y range of light to dark, in red green and blue, also cyan if it's Superia, or simply within a certain spectrum for b&w, and records it on a scale with effectively no fixed gradations, it is infinitely nuanced within it's working range, however it is much smaller in range than y, lets call it q
>with digi, your output is a jpeg, it can show 8 bit colour. You choose how you want to stretch or compress x to plot along your jpegs 8 bit colour spectrum, but you can't fit more in than was there to begin with, and you can't fill in the gaps if you want to stretch out your original tonal range
>y is much larger than x, but q fits inside x, so we can scan film with a digital camera. Yes, film compresses your data. the cam plots q along x, and breaks up what was infinitely nuanced there into a 16 bit scale
Hey, it if fits inside, and we're breaking it up, doesn't that give us worse tonality than digital?!
>No. Digital takes a scene, and assigns each point it can see to the colour value it detects. Film takes a scene, and grows a silver crystal of the size it deems approprite for the amount of each colour it sees, and then uses that crystal to grow a dye cloud of a corresponding size and intensity for each colour. This being a physical, chemical process subjects it to a degree of variability. The clouds created at any one point are random within a certain range. This is called noise. This randomness creates beautiful organic gradations between colours and tones, as opposed to a hard break from 194, 45, 67 to 193, 45, 67, or even worse 194, 194, 194 to 193, 193, 193.

once again digisluggers are anally raped into oblivion.

eagerly waiting for the 3rd iteration of this comfy thread.

>>3049105
>when you look at a high res film scan at 300%, it looks like rainbow vomit
>but when we back away, we realise we couldn't see the forest for the trees
>film noise contributes to a higher purpose
>and when we stretch it out in editing, to acheive our desired contrast, we don't see too little butter spread over too much toast, like digital, where what was a jump from 194 to 193 becomes a jump from 195 to 192. We see the amplitude of the variation in our noise increase, but the randomisation persists, and still creates in our feeble human brains the impression of a continuous tonal gradation
OK, but forget all this smooth tones bullshit, can't I just copy the colours in photoshop?
>you can try, but probably not. What makes film great is not only the incredibly broad range of colours you can capture, but also the way colours are captured ~in relation to each other~
>your digital camera will record the same numerical value every time it sees a certain colour for a certain amount of time. The slightly different colour one pixel width away from it will always be recorded with the same slightly different number. There is no setting you can change that will change what the camera sees and writes down. You can only change what it translates that into as output. With film, literally ever single frame of every single roll would have recorded those two points with two different "values"
>you can change your film to change the way you capture light
>this means that with velvia your shadows might be purple and your greens might be eye searing
>you can saturate your greens and shift your shadows to purple if you want. But the camera didn't see that. in fact almost everything it saw in the shadows was captured in the green channel. So those two green number might not be very far apart to start with. But you want to stretch those out. So say you've taken those 100 steps and turned it into 200. But you haven't; you've now got 100 steps that are twice as large.

>>3049114
>based velveeta on the other hand can have a whole universe of infinite variation between it's shadows and its raging greens, because that's what it's meant to do. It never has to render natural skin tones, or to balance tungsten light
>~it is the right tool for the job~ not a fucking shifting spanner
>your film "emulation" is just a program that says "change colour 46 to colour 87!"
>it's doesn't even have colour 46.5, let alone colour F*cg3

File: Harry Gruyaert.jpg (82KB, 836x550px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 836x550px

Could you achieve something like this with digital? The colors are saturated without hurting your eyes like I often see it with digital.

Don't know enough about color and editing to really articulate myself.

File: 2000x2000-big1968-herzog-man-with-bandage-1968-kl.jpg (503KB, 1772x1194px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1772x1194px

>>3049134
Also the light and colors here are like an oil painting. I know the photographer of this is very skilled but I just have yet to see something like this with digital. Even in movies.

File: th127.jpg (71KB, 511x640px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 511x640px

digilarvae will never touch this kino.

>>3044881
>says the guy who will reject any sample out of hand
Flickr is fucking full of digital shots with amazing color. But you probably can't see that because you're a hipster.

>>3049163
>Flickr is fucking full of digital shots with amazing color

If that's true you should be easily able to show me 3 examples.

>>3044794
"time to move forward - Europe 2017 London crusade"

Ironic...

What a stupid fucking challenge. Anyone that posts a digital shot will just get shot down by filmfags, because colour is very subjective by nature. 'Good colour.' Fuck off.

File: 10d70v1_g.jpg (77KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 400x600px

>>3049419
>because colour is very subjective by nature

So according to you good art doesn't exist. There are no good photographs. No good paintings. No good movies. No good music. After all it's all subjective!

>>3049434

Can you quantify goodness?

>>3049163
>still can't post any examples

File: FC9ED5BD-3E3F-4246-9E4A-44262C7BA568-6368-0000054F328CCD41.png (124KB, 600x570px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 600x570px

ITT: digicucks post OC while filmfags stand on the shoulders of dead giants.

>>3048809
can you explain this technique ?

You realise that any photograph that you see on this board has been digitised, right?

Which means that its limited by the bit depth of the scanner/DSLR which processed it.

Every photograph you have ever seen on /p/ is digital.

>>3049445
good
better
best

>>3049853
>You realise that any photograph that you see on this board has been digitised, right?

Doesn't change the fact that photographs made on film have a special look.

>>3049026
>>3048065
The scanner cannot capture something that was not captured on film. There is nothing terribly unique in film what cannot be simulated (adding noise, blurring details, applying tone curve) EXCEPT metamerism and even that one can be made to obe similar if consumer base cared (it does not).

If scanner channels have too wide response (either because of CFA or because of backight type) they will mix colours (i.e. change metamerism) and that cannot be fixed without measuring tonal response for specific film+development.
>>3046985
This.
>>3048809
THIS.

>>3049958
>There is nothing terribly unique in film what cannot be simulated

Then why do film simulators rarely look like actual film but more like a parody?

>>3049974

Why don't you read the next few words too? Are you short on 4chan leisure time?

>>3048809

explain this please.