Why is film so nice?

>>3092201
>Why is film so nice?
Because it reminds you of the good old days.

Nostalgia is an industry

>>3092201
Because the moment is burned into the physical matter of the film. It becomes more tangible than digital.

>>3092331
did you know that you can print a digital image?

>>3092357
What goes around comes around.

Expending something physical to get an image will give you something that looks aesthetically G E O R G E O U S or terrifying. The emotion is bursting at the seams.

Or you can take thousands of digital photos without sparing a dime and feel cold and lifeless when you look at them.

That's kinda the reason I don't go to movies anymore (especially superhero ones) because the laziness of using digital cameras ruins the feeling of realness, clarity, color, etc that only film can capture.

>>3092357
film is meant to be printed, nobody gives a shit about digital prints

>>3092379
>film is meant to be printed, nobody gives a shit about digital prints
outside the flim fag community nobody gives a shit whether it is flim or digital

>>3092388
The only thing people care about is: is this shit on FIRE????

>>3092388
>outside the photo fag community nobody gives a shit whether it is flim or digital

ftfy

>>3092624
I find flim fags are considerably more childishly obsessive about their medium than most digital fags. God help us if Sony ever make a flim camera though.

>>3092201
because in digital cameras light fixed by sensor which is basically millins of micro transducers of light with rggb filters. they have limited amount of perceptible spectr and limited amout of info they can store digitally.

film not. its not digital by physical carrier which have basically unlimited amount of carriable information for color and light. so film would always supreme to digital in unobtainable magnitude

>>3092691
actually looking forward to seeing how many idiots fall for this. why do you go to this length to shitpost in an unproductive useless spam thread though anon, I cannot fathom. so much effort to produce literal shit.

>>3092701
>so much effort to produce literal shit.
yeah, reminded me of your diy developer thread.

>>3092701
because it basically truth. this is how light color and physics works. you could learn it in school. also if you would understand at least something at photography, doing it for years instead of spamming on boards amusing your ego and getting upvotes/(you)s you would not agree, but basically know same. whick you luck on your way for getting experience in photography

>>3092201
>start photography 5 years ago
>go online to read about it
>film is amazing, has a billion stops of dynamic range and a trillion megapixels per scan
>buy 35mm film cameras and shoot
>scan
>realize they are basically on par with modern APS-C (from 5 years ago), also get destroyed in high ISO's and are terrible at shadow recovery even thought they have great highlights
>realize all the memes about film dynamic range and resolution only apply if you have good equipment, good scanner and of course good technique, and shoot MF or LF. 35mm need not apply

>>3092717
sounds like a lousy photog.

>>3092378
>film is literally magic because i'm a hipster

File: unknown (4).png (158KB, 600x257px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 600x257px

>>3092717
>realize all the memes about film dynamic range and resolution only apply if you have good equipment, good scanner and of course good technique,

>>3092717
>35mm need not apply
Well, no shit. 35mm was only ever used for convenience's sake and was never considered that good for IQ.

>>3092772
>>3092722
>>3092719
The good technique bit is obvious and not what gets me. What gets me is there are people online spewing bullshit about their 100 megapixel 35mm scans of tri x or film having "unlimited dynamic range"

I didn't buy 35mm thinking it would be that mind blowing. I actually love developing and wet printing black and white film. But I had to learn the hard way that 35mm film is simply not as technically good as modern full frame digital. Their "equivalance" is a lie. Especially at higher ISOs.

>>3092780
>Their "equivalance" is a lie. Especially at higher ISOs.
Nobody lied to you, you just fell for the meme. Not a single person has ever said "film is great for high ISO!" or "you can recover shadow detail from film!"

Film is basically the opposite of digital in that respect: Great at low ISO, lots of DR into the highlights but not the shadows (-3 stops but anywhere from +8 to +15 stops).
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/

>>3092788

It's poetic irony that digital is really good at the stuff that doesn't matter or mirror how we see.

>>3092788
>>3092791
>what is slide film?

>>3092811

wut

>>3092812
Oh Jesus.

Y'all are in a thread arguing about shit like dynamic range and how film has good x but digital has good y and such and don't know how slide film differs from negative film in its strengths and weaknesses?

>>3092788
But people say that film has great dynamic range, and this would imply fantastic shadow recovery. If people aren't willing to say this outright and instead just brag about "dynamic range", it's probably because they are film fetishists/elitists who don't want to list any of the potential downsides of using it.

>nobody lied to you, you just fell for the meme
Saying that full frame is "35mm equivalent" sure as fuck implies that the two are going to have similar performance.

>>3092791
>digital is really good at the stuff that doesn't matter
Yes, shooting in low light with less noisy images. Completely useless. Being able to recover shadow detail? How absurd! It's not like you can't just do the opposite of film and expose for highlights, then recover shadows in post. Oh wait....

>>3092201
still waiting on people to post examples of good looking film photos

>>3092847
>>>/flickr/

>>3092848
still waitin'

>>3092331
OP couldn't have shared this image if it wasn't digital.

Film is more exclusive than digital. In general, most people cannot see the image.

But it's not more real, more tangible, more long-lived. The best of digital images will live on for a long time, and maybe only the digitized analog images will survive in the long run.

All I see in film today is the low information density high-cost medium of the past. We can get a glimpse into the past with it, but today it doesn't even feel particularly right to still use it.

>>3092816

>he boosts his shadows

Okay for free is just a lot more convenient than very good for $$$
Tri-X is what, six bucks a roll? jesus

>>3092201
It looks good.

>>3092816
It looks alright, but not as nice.

>>3092201
Same reason analog tape and tubes sounds better than digital or solid states. It looks natural and has this weird clarity that digital has. I love digital stuff too. It depends how you are using it.

File: Velvia50_016.jpg (559KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1000x667px

Anyone who tries to say film is technically better in anyway to digital is D U M B

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
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	2017:06:11 15:07:09
Exposure Time	1.6 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-6.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Day White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: Film2(pp_w640_h435).jpg (293KB, 640x435px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 640x435px

>>3092201
I'm still a photo novice but the feeling i get is that film is closer to the way we ordinarily see the world. i get a better idea of touch and taste (and even smell and sound) from a film than a digital shot, and everything feels more holistic

from what i understand, digital cameras translate (continuous) visual information into (discontinuous) binary information. kind of like trying to construct a circle out of horizontal and vertical lines. theoretically it will never be a perfect circle but if you get the lines small enough it becomes difficult to notice

i used to prefer film but i think digital is better suited to today/this century. humans are transitioning into machines

>>3092201
Because larger formats are irreplaceable. No replacement for displacement.

Because film has such an intense and specific look. Look at slide film and the way it crushes blacks, or the soft handling of highlights by colour negative or bw. It's all so wonderful until you realize that you're broke and can't afford anything including film, literally the only people making decent mf cameras are Ukrainians using leftover posts from the communist days, you can't scan it for shit, and the Rothschild backed nigger apocalypse is going to make it all moot anyways

>>3093031
i really, really hate niggers. i want to take my medium format cameras, loads of film sheets, a couple of scissors and a bag of paracetamol, and go into the mountains and end my days taking contemplative pictures of rocks and waterfalls.

>>3092712
kek

>>3092847
>>3092852
Here's your (you)

>>3093039
>>3093031
>/p/ol/

I agree with you though

>>3092815
It cannot be overstated how shit most /p/osters are here. It's hard to make an estimate but I'd reckon ca. 5-10% here know what they're doing and the rest just shitposts without any decent knowledge at all

All you digital fags think you're smart and logical but that's not true
If you shoot commercial or if you're a busy photojournalist, digital is better
But you fags have to know that the logic doesn't aply every time and every situation
So stop being a faggot and shoot whatever is better for you

File: 1480543689693.jpg (475KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1024x1024px

>>3092847
>>3092852
They won't post them because this thread was meant for nothing other than providing a circlejerk of esoteric nonsense. Nothing new is being said here at all. "Film is more real because I can pick it up and hold it" or "the colors and tones are better". These are (hopefully) not statements intended to be taken seriously, they're just the musings of some people's feelings about film vs digital photography.

Here's an image shot on film that I particularly like. Note that the colors here have more to do with the time of day it was shot and being color balanced to reflect that. Also note that it has a lot of detail form the foreground to background but this is due to camera movements, which are unique to large format view cameras or specific lenses on smaller formats, not film as a whole. In other words, I like this shot because of the scene and the way it was shot, not because the photographer used film to do it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Photographer	Alex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5534
Image Height	5677
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:30 08:52:20
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	1024

>>3093748
3digital4me

>>3093748

Motherfucking Alex

Let's play Devil's Advocate. This kind of shot was obviously exposed for several minutes and it appears he used reciprocity failure to his advantage. Could this have been done on digital and got the same outcome without stacking?

>>3093763
yes but not cheaply if you still want movements

File: Blade Runner.jpg (2MB, 2100x3186px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x3186px

>>3092847
Are you kidding me? Just look at some photographs done by the masters. Or watch any movie made before 2000.

Maybe it's a personal thing. Maybe it's some kind of bias that creates a visual illusion that makes me think film looks better than digital. But for me movies shot on film look A LOT better than movies shot on digital. Even if the cinematographer is good. And as far as I know digital cinema cameras have the state of the art technology. I know these terms sound like esoteric bullshit but film feels more organic, personal, emotional. With digital something is off. Something is missing.

>>3092201
>But people say that film has great dynamic range, and this would imply fantastic shadow recovery.
Are you an idiot? Dynamic range doesn't mean highlight or shadow recovery, it means the captureable range between the lowest to highest point. That can mean digital's shadow recovery, or negative film's highlight handling.

>Saying that full frame is "35mm equivalent" sure as fuck implies that the two are going to have similar performance.
It really doesn't. Nobody is trying to imply that, merely that your autism causes you to infer things that just aren't there.
>It's not like you can't just do the opposite of film and expose for highlights, then recover shadows in post. Oh wait....
So? A different medium requires you to do things differently, what's the big deal?

>>3093779

this. Seriously, a lot of romantic comedies from the 90s look better than a lot of "picturesque" films from the 00s-10s. Film shimmers, is sharp and also flattering by default, unless you go way back to like 70s film stocks and even then. Digi looks like smooth snot unless it's built from the bottom up a la Hugo, Drive, etc.

>>3093786
>nobody implied that

Then they should stop using words like "equivalent" if they don't know what they mean. Hurr durr 2=3 guys, except not really, why can't you understand me you fucking autist lmao

>>3093825
Full frame and 35mm equivalent refers to them being the same physical image size and thus lenses of a given focal length having the same field of view between 35mm and full frame, thus they produce equivalent images. They won't produce equivalent images if you view them at 200% in Photoshop, but thats not the point and if thats all you are looking at for two images from different cameras and different media to be considered equivalent then the autism is on you

>>3093825
>>3093854
Also, since like a typical autist you try to reduce this to numbers, i.e. Hurr durr 2=3, what we are really talking about is more along the lines of 2.9978=3. Stop being such a sperg and just take photos instead of spending all night jerking off infront of your screen while looking at the corners of your 24MP digital photos with +100 shadows and -100 highlights.

Outside of pixel peeping and dynamic range having 12 shots per roll and not being able to see each one after you take it fundamentallly changes the way you take photos by making you care more about each one, resulting in a perceived higher quality since more things are accounted for before taking the shot

>>3093854
They don't produce "equivalent" images if the qualities of the mediums are different. They produce equal fields of view. The word equivalent implies identical format not just identical FOV because 35mm film is a format, not a field of view.

File: 1329354316626.jpg (14KB, 317x309px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 317x309px

>>3093866
>The word equivalent implies identical format

No it doesn't, stop making up arbitrary definitions of words just to argue your point. Semantically speaking, the word "equivalent" actually implies an a priori DIFFERENCE or separation between the two things that are being compared in the first place (after all, if there was not a preexisting fundamental distinction between these things, what purpose would comparing them serve?) The word "equivalent" emphasizes a particular aspect or attribute of the things being compared as the basis for a provisional judgment of relative likeness and/or similarity. In other words, the word "equivalent" isolates one or more properties as a limited dimension wherein two or more things that are otherwise different can be said to possess a significant degree of sameness, resemblance, likeness, etc. In short, the word equivalent implies the existence of a quantifiable constant within qualitatively different things. Thus, it applies uniquely to things like FOV, rather than "format," which is far too vague a word to mean anything on its own anyway.

>>3093825
>>3093854
>>3093857
>>3093866
>>3093870
t. retard.

only m43/ff fools like to argue about le equivalence meme. go away.

>>3093888
Except this fool is trying to argue for the non-equivalence between 35mm film and full frame digital

>>3093890
its a non issue. there is no equivalence at all between digital and film, they are different media. but film is better, of course.

>>3092701
Nice tripcode skurwysynu.

>>3092717
>>3092780
And yet even 35mm still somehow looks infinitely better than digital. You can compare the specs on paper and say shit about film because this or that measures higher for digital, but you're forgetting that a film frame is much greater than the sum of its parts, it's a tangible physical object. That's something that digital isn't and will never be because it will always only be a sum of flawed number crunching algorithms.

Remember, it's digital that always chases the "film look". No photog in the world ever tries to imitate the "digital look". The only reason we have ridiculous 35+ megapickles resolutions in 35mm digital that exceed the actual optical resolution of the lenses and the drive to get that 0.01 higher Dynamic Range rating than the competition is to have the RAW files with enough latitude to be able to knead them into something that looks like it came from a film frame.

Digital works in some applications, it's great we can take "usable" photos at ridiculously high ISO now, it's great sports photogs don't burn through a whole roll of film after two action bursts, but the utilitarian usefulness is where it ends. A digital file with 0s and 1s representing the image of the captured scene is what it is. A photograph on film is actually a photograph.

Also

>are terrible at shadow recovery even thought they have great highlights
Spoken like a true negative pleb.

>all the memes about film dynamic range and resolution only apply if you have good scanner
Please tell me you got disillusioned after scanning your films on a flatbed so I can laugh at you some more.

>>3093920
>even 35mm
even half frame can kick digitals ass any day. tonality is still there, and grain is godly.

File: ehe.jpg (327KB, 1000x681px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1000x681px

>>3093909
Wiem, dzięki ;]

>>3093923
Not the same anon, but when I was just starting out my faith in film was sorely tested by the shitty minilab scans I got from my local drug store. It was only later when I entered college and gained access to a dedicated film scanner that I was truly enlightened as to film's indisputable superiority.

>>3092712
Philistine cunts like you need to be eradicated

>>3093920
>using a high end scanner to scan in $5 rolls of film just to have images that equal a modern APS-C camera in terms of technical quality
Yeah nah m8. And if you're scanning film rather than printing it you're missing half the point of all your aforementioned esoteric garbage about muh organics and muh physical objects.

>film looks infinitely better
Subjective. "Muh feels" is not a solid argument worth any serious discourse.

>it's a tangible object
Like I said: esoteric nonsense. Nothing more. Not all of us are unimpressed by what modern technology provides the world and can even see something in that where others do not.

>digital that always chases the film look
Not everyone does this. Chasing good light, composition and subject matter has always been infinitely more important to me and many others than chasing a certain "look", unless that "look" has anything to do with the things I just listed. I really don't give two shits about the nature of the grain or that it exists in a physical form if I think the image itself should've been deleted off the memory card of a digital camera. Note that I'm talking strictly about my own images, I'm not actively judging anyone else's.

>>3092201
It isn't.

>>3093984
>>using a high end scanner to scan in $5 rolls of film
>Yeah nah m8.
You only have yourself to blame then. Also one, we already established that film is superior to APS-C. Two, film price doesn't matter, most of my B&W materials cost $1 or less per roll because I cut from bulk, and for $5 you can get a roll of pro-level slide if you get a good deal. And three, dedicated 35mm scanners are medium-tier, you can talk about high-end once you move to wet-scanning on drum scanners. But almost all flatbeds aren't even low-tier, they're objectively shit. It's like watching a 4K movie on a portable 6" CRT, or some other cool analogy.

>And if you're scanning film rather than printing it you're missing half the point
Agreed that film should be printed on paper in a darkroom, however in this age if you want to publish on web and even in 99% of printed media then you need to digitize at some stage. Ideally from an analog print that already has all the post-processing on it, but even a scan straight from film (on a proper film scanner) is still superior to digital any time.

>"Muh feels" is not a solid argument worth any serious discourse.
Being blind is seriously worth having your eyes checked though.

>esoteric nonsense
Buzzwords.

>Not all of us are unimpressed by what modern technology provides
I guess you missed the paragraph where I said that digital has its applications as well.

>Chasing good light, composition and subject matter has always been infinitely more important to me and many others than chasing a certain "look", unless that "look" has anything to do with the things I just listed.
But "the look" is inseparably tied with the photo as a whole (and absolutely directly related to the plasticity of how the light is rendered). This is the main problem with you digifags, you masturbate over the specs and numbers and all so much that you become blind to the bigger picture that is the resulting photograph.