You will never be able to "emulate" this delicious

>>3051671
Because I can get a nicer, cleaner look on thousands of photos. At this point, where digital resolution is almost as good as or in some cases better than film, and I can edit my photos in easier, more expressive ways within minutes of taking them, film makes sense only as a hobby that takes a back seat to digital.

Also this is bait.

>>3051680
>Because I can get a nicer, cleaner look on thousands of photos.

HAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Digital is only there for convenience. If you are a professional who needs to work fast and can't waste time on changing film and developing and scanning it I understand.

If you are a casual who just wants to take some pictures of his holiday I understand too.

But if you want to make art convenience should not be prioritized before the image.

>>3051693
All professionals work like that you faggot. They can't spend weeks in one place trying to get perfect light and other bs. Like they did 30 years ago.

>>3051696
>this type of thinking
>the exact reason the modern art world is so embarrassingly bad

>>3051671
Is that the grill from star wars?

wtf I love film now

analogue is great but couple of problems

1) Not everyone has access to a darkroom, and converting a spareroom isn't without problems - chemicals cost $$$ too
2) unless you are doing medium format then why bother with analogue? 35mm has nothing on digital, lets be frank
3) Digital processes are much more streamlined - you can go from snapping to photoshop to exporting online in minutes....you won't be doing that with analgoue

don't get me wrong - love analogue - but not everyone has the money, time or patience.

>>3051710
>35mm has nothing on digital, lets be frank

I rather have a great looking grainy film image than a boring clean high res digital one.

>>3051738

You can have both with digital

>>3051747
Digital doesn't have the same look.

>>3051749
>being this autistic

>>3051753
?

>>3051753

You're right anon. Digital can perfectly replicate film. Just like a Gibson can perfectly replicate a Les Paul.

unlike your highschool ass ive been through film, especially medium format and slide film
digital is better and you're literally a retarded nophotos kid if you think a digital camera can't replicate the look of a film scan which is limited to sRGB
bye

>>3051764
>nothin personnel, kidd

>>3051753
wut...

>>3051756
Les Paul is a model not a brand lol there's Gibson LPs and Epiphone LPs and as a guitar player you can get pretty damn close with a shitty epiphone by just having it mixed and mastered in the studio lol

>>3051778
i think a more fitting example for what anon tried to say would be a real stratocaster vs a line 6 variax.

>>3051779
>>3051778

>it's a metaphor thread

wew lads

>>3051782
t.brainlet.

>>3051764
>and you're literally a retarded nophotos kid if you think a digital camera can't replicate the look of a film scan which is limited to sRG
give us an example then kid

>>3051786

nah, it's just fun to play "spot the dabbler".

They're the ones who don't understand photography fully and have to explain themselves in a hobby or field they might grasp more completely. ;)

>>3051680
>this is what digiplebs actually believe
as a film shooter I earn more with 1 shoot than you do in 10-20 (assuming you work for much more than exposure bucks) and my clients know it takes time
>>3051696
>They can't spend weeks in one place trying to get perfect light and other bs
that's why I bring studio strobes and a great deal of modifiers.
>>3051710
those ARE the reasons for analogue
it separates the wheat from the chaff
>>3051756
I see what you did there

>>3051671

>take digital image
>slap vsco filter on
>9,999/10,000 people can't tell the difference from film

>>3051671
But OP-san, nothing in that picture is characteristic of film.

>>3051890
true ... it has typical Canon shitty flesh tones
really the whole shot is shit
it may have been scanned on a shit flatbed and raped in curves with a big fat digital dick motorboating those analogue A cups, and spooging all over those viscerally supple, puffy lips and crushing those blacks and reds with that lusciously tight S shape in curves.

>>3051889
>develop film
>scan film
>post on FB at 1200px for least ammount of their builtin conversion
>5 likes

>>3051671
>comes to suck off films dick
>posts an image with nasty ass skin tones, colour blocking and blown highlights.

How do you even do that on film?

>>3051904
flatbead or $100 neg scanner

Nikon CoolScan 4-5000 or 8-9000 ED, Imacon, for best results, or proper DSLR scanning for good film results.

With scanning, what DSLRs lack in colour depth, they can make up in resolution when it comes to 35mm. MF can be done with stitching but my experiments have been less than great with SLR scan stitching because a 10th of an millimeter in alignment can throw off the grain rendering in the stitch.
For that reason the glass holder is the only way to scan MF with the coolscan series

>>3051906
>colour depth
>coolscan 9000 - 16 bit (reported)
>modern dslr - 25 bit (measured)

There is no replacement for dslr scans atm, if you're careful enough they obliterate drum scans.

>>3051671
Why isn't it focused properly?

>>3051902
I posted some 6x9 velvia just 24 minutes ago, 3 likes already.

>use sigma foveon
>all the restraint of film and plus some
>film btfo
now what hipster?

>>3051931
I really like foveon but it still has that unpleasant digital look.

Films so good that it went from the main way of taking photos for 100 years to completely dropped by the worlds population and now sold in one shitty store per city.

Sure sounds like amazing stuff, how could i not want to buy a product like that...

>>3051969
Let's look at hollywood

>beginning - 2002
>film is the best

>2002 - 2015
>digital makes sfx easier

>2015 - now
>sorry kodak, pliz gibbe film again.

>>3051969
>Normies always go for the most convenient option with the least amount of hassle and risk/reward
>Digital option arrives, does exactly that
>"Hurr nobody uses film anymore, dropped"

As long as I can buy and dev it I don't care what the rest of the world's population does. To me it just looks better and I enjoy the process more.

Also
>sold in one shitty store per city
As if there's no other place to find and buy film in bulk, like the internet

>>3051969
>Sure sounds like amazing stuff, how could i not want to buy a product like that...

Most people are cheap and lazy and visually illiterate. Business just want to reduce costs and time and make money. Of course they will all move to a more convenient and cheap format.

File: DSC06048 - DSC06055.jpg (389KB, 1080x743px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1080x743px

>>3051931
I sold my 28mm Merrill with the rest of my digital cams. No ragrets.
>how can digital compare??

>>3051680

>At this point, where digital resolution is almost as good as or in some cases better than film

Lol what year are you living in?

I defy any of you to find photos shot with film that are sharper and/or of better quality than what today's high-end sensors can produce.

>>3051974
why not owning both?

Both have their pros and cons.

Film is fun, Digital is practical. That pretty much sums it up.

>>3052370

Digital excels at sharpness and high iso but can't compare in color unless it's some foveon shit or the like. And you can shoot medium format for a couple hundred rather than thousands.

>>3052390
you just cant process a file and havent shot a fuji

>>3052410

>processing
>good colors

pick one, brosef

>>3052410

>fuji colors
>good

top kek
>https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/

>>3052420
>petapixel
you still cant afford that 50mm 1.2 huh anon

>>3052417

>there's no way to process a RAW file in such a way that the colors are "good"

lol

What is dynamic range?

File: IMG_20170406_070552.jpg (274KB, 890x704px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 890x704px

>>3052370
Pic related
Shot on film nearly a century ago, and kodak & fuji are still making new emulsions

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:04:06 07:05:52
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	890
Image Height	704
Image Height	704
Image Width	890

>>3052589

>70 years ago
>nearly a century!

Lol.

>>3052589
Point taken, but this is large format and extracted from possibly the best collection of photos ever taken (the DoD commission). I have so many of these saved...

File: Jaguar_Scala_Entwicklung.jpg (2MB, 5000x3356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x3356px

>>3052370
Adox would like a word with you, 35mm film.

>>3052589

You can't be serious.

>>3052589
Blurry as fuck. Take your trolling somewhere else.

File: SHORPY-05606u.jpg (856KB, 1500x1877px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 1500x1877px

>>3053027
>>3053239
You think digital can look this good?
Any softness you see is down to the digitalisation, theres several hundred MP equivalent resolution in the originals.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2045
Image Height	2559
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:22 09:53:48
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1877

>>3053244
>You think digital can look this good?

Digital is a blank slate! You can edit it any way you want! You can make it look as good as film and better! It all comes down to your skill!

(yet somehow no one seems to posses that magic skill)

>>3053268
>You can edit it any way you want
Well, no.

digital has less colour depth and less dynamic range, it can't invent data that's out of range.

This is like the whole argument as to why film is better...

>browse flickr group for a $10000 digital camera/lens combo
>all the photos look bland

>browse flickr group for a <$1000 film camera/lens combo
>images have nice colors and a nice feel to them

>>3053276
>a nice feel to them
>implying

confirmation bias

>>3053278
More like truth bias.

>anon shitting up the board again

>I want digital to look like film
this mindset hinders the progress of digital photography; both media have their uses and upsides and one isn't inherently better than the other

>>3053289
>and one isn't inherently better than the other

Film looks better. Digital is more convenient. Decide for yourself what matters more to you.

>>3053244
This I will agree is a way better photo. Though I'm not so sure digital can not achieve the same given good initial lighting and later post production.

>>3053010
>ISO 20

>pays $$$ for analogue equipment
>spends even more $$$ on film with every picture
>worry about everything whenever you have to change film
>end up either looking like an oldfag or a pretentious hipster with a 30mm setup
>finish taking shots. Somucheffort.exe
Then here's where I'm a little fucked with
>SCAN A FILM ONTO DIGITAL SO COMPLETELY RUINING THAT SWEET OL' FILM LOOK.
>OR TAKING IT WITH A DSLR TO PUT ONTO A COMPUTER AND RUIN.
>fucking film fags get a rabel

>>3054720
Lol, look at the guy that doesn't understand at all.

>>3054720
See >>3053291. It's okay if you don't like shooting film, but being this much of a butthurt faggot over it is very autistic

>>3054724
>>3054727
Reeeeeeee develop autism. I know all

>>3054734
Lol, you don't need to understand everything to know the basics of film and digital imaging.

You don't need to go full retard when someone criticises your intelligence either, learn to learn bruh.

>>3054720
>SO COMPLETELY RUINING THAT SWEET OL' FILM LOOK

But scanning doesn't ruin the film look.

Kek, love to see film faggots in complete denial.

>>3054777
What denial?

>>3054755
Proven that it does

>>3054978
By who?

Where? The film images online are mostly scanned and they look great.

>>3054661

That's because it certainly can.

>>3055053
Then why does no one do it?

>>3055053
>correct lighting gives your digital camera a wider gamut and larger dynamic range.

Let me guess, you didn't study physics,maths, electronics, it, computing or logic at school.

>>3055163
This is all it is. The photo is using a type of lighting not used often in modern photos, that's all.

Recently beggining to want to transition to film.

Digidudes, you do realize film is limitless detail right? Theres a reason hollywood uses film over digital in high production movies.

>>3055836
Actually they rarely do anymore.

>>3055836
>limitless detail
why they look all soft and blurry?

>>3055908

Only because it's more expensive, you moron

>>3054978
Yeah, development/printing process matters. You'll never get an Eggleston print with inkjet. That's a fact of life. But you going on about digital isn't going to bring those processes back. The real thing costs more than most people can afford, but halfway there is better than never trying.

Take a look at film size, then at cmos size. Then you'll start to understand. Then learn about light intensity and logarithmic power functions.

>>3055920
>Only because it's more expensive
In other words - it's just not worth it.