Why can't digital into color like this? Why is it often

because the people who designed the emulsions are better than most people at editing raws

also because that image has godlike light in the perfect direction against nice appealing objects

>>3065092
Well shouldn't there be digital photographers able to find the right lighting and have good editing skills?

>>3065095
There are but this is all irrelevant to you since this is just a bait thread anyway

>>3065101
>There are

But where can I find them?

>>3065108
Better start going to galleries, or googling

>>3065113
Could you post some?

>>3065121
see
>>3065113

>>3065121
>>3065108
www.divola.com
click on 2010s > Gigapans > subject observations, that first image, thats good color, plus good luck trying to do that with film

>>3065129
Stop shilling your snapshit blog

>>3065129
>www.divola.com
all the subsequent images - typical shit tier digicolour.
way to btfo yourself with your own fucking example.
8x10 does this crap as a one-shot, btw

>>3065161
>John Divola
>Snapshit blog
lololololololololololololol

>>3065083
Even for the nth time still worthless shit and hipster/10. I hope someday someone puts comparable quality shots in your face, perhaps until you'll start to puke too.
I hate this shot profoundly! Also your perception has to be really hindered or you are blinded by nostalgia! If your camera were digital, I'm sure you'd be annoying us with your brand and gear talk. Fuck off!

>>3065129
These honestly just look like snapshits to me. Nice composition but that's it. Am I missing something?

can someone please tell me who took this anyways, not the first time I've seen a thread like this either lol

digislugs already roasted and rustled. good thread.

>say colors "like this"
>don't specify what you are looking for
>when people post examples, dismiss them as wrong
>wait for thread two die
>wait two weeks
>post again
>???
>autism

this thread again? even with the same OP picture.

kys film shills.

>>3065665
>>3068113
>>3068115
yet here you all are, still taking the bait and replying

stupid fucking retards

>>3068118
y-you too

>>3068113
>>when people post examples

I don't see any.

>>3067099
OP's picture is an Eggleston.

Egglestons photography is basically godly, and I'd have to agree digital colouring is shit, after fucking with levels then you may get some good colour but nothing that stands up to colour film !

File: DSC01214.jpg (139KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x667px

>>3065083
how is this one i took ?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2017:05:03 00:04:48
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Brightness	10.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3068360
Nothing special.

>>3065083
the fact that it's possible to display it on a screen is proof that digital can into colour like that

>bump
>bump
is this the sound of a meme on life support?

File: IMG_3448.jpg (2MB, 2716x1830px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2716x1830px

Here's a pic of some sheep I took with Superia 400.
I took some similar raws with my girlfriends digital Nikon and couldn't come close with Lightroom no matter how hard I tried

I'm with OP to be honest. Digital is more convenient and cheaper but I never find the results as appealing

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2716
Image Height	1830
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3070272
It's the sound of desperation for someone to explain this phenomenon.

>>3068360
Colors are way to washed out

Also why does school bus font vary from certain regions

>>3070307
>bump

File: IMG_1087.jpg (186KB, 1200x646px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1200x646px

>>3070307
You're the only that can explain your own aesthetic preferences.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	270 dpi
Vertical Resolution	270 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	646
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_1092.jpg (1MB, 3600x2395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2395px

>>3070375

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Photographer	Master Sgt. William Greer
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1356
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4256
Image Height	2832
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2011:05:11 14:13:46
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3600
Image Height	2395
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3070259
Not really... It's the fact that it was scanned using a sensor, the exact same technology in digital cameras, that proves it.

Computational photography, on the other hand, can also be displayed on a monitor, but can do things that violates laws of physics, so that alone is not enough.

>>3070274
How much colour correction does pic related have?

>>3073606
None on my end, that's the scan I got directly from the lab
Whether the lab's scanner applied any correction or not I don't know

File: 15995239_815013465314570_1396665429107527875_o.jpg (193KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1365x2048px

Okay.

Film is biased based on the colors and how chemicals reproduce them, and over 50+ years of experience and brilliant minds trying every combination under the sun, the output was the pinnacle of how one can translate an image onto a physical medium.

However, digital cameras have pixels, which in essence, like recording audio on a CD versus vinyl, may not have the type of "bit detail" as a vinyl would (think cameras with lower megapixels; you get the entire song as a whole but you may not have many nuances only the most expert would search for), but this detail is completely marred by the fact that you convert energy (light or sound) into a physical medium.

Digital sensors however, are much better suited at understanding the energy impulses that a photon or light wavelength can leave, and basically can store this as it's raw info.

From years of seeing edited images and films, photos of real life unedited and taken digitally, tend to look flatter and way less "smooth" / appealing because you aren't seeing the colorations that the translation to a physical medium, provides, and the numerous years we've had to cater for it, much like 120 gram vinyl or exotic cartridges and turntables.

However. One can argue that while you can take a very high megapixel photo, edit it and emulate grain, and have it transferred to the physical through newer digital to film methods, a digital shooter can produce a film shot indistinguishable from the characteristics of film, while to do it the other way is almost impossible without sourcing the finest films and flawless darkroom technique, not to mention scans and all the work it takes.

>>3073614
Forgot to say:

Film is like adding the pops and crackles to the song; for some, that's the truest experience, dynamic and "colored" off the vinyl, while those of us who grew up in digital see film looks as "old" simply because we immediately spot (or hear) the differences between coloration and purity.

This is NOT however to say film is worse. Need dumb ass high resolution shots? Rolly. Want the experience of taking your time and not relying on a delete button? Film. Archiving photos and you don't trust how hard drives and solid states both degrade data faster than a properly preserved glass plate or film stock?

All else, go to digital because well, are you doing this to enjoy the experience, like a vintage vinyl, or approaching this as a modern HQ MP3?

>>3073614
I'm clearly not fooled into thinking your picture is shot with film. Neither have you an understanding of the energy impulse that a photon can leave to make a picture. You suck.

>>3073645
>Implying ultimately, DSLR's do not convert the raw intensity, frequency, and impulse of said photons and energy into electronic signals versus an imprint on a physical medium

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/HOW.HTM

You're not fooled because I wasn't trying to, and implying any photo here can actually fool you without looking purposely fuzzy and punchy to imply film.

If I suck, then you definitely blow. See how that works?

>>3073612
ah ok. looks great

>>3073616

Fool frame digi is 320kpbs at best mang