Digital is fucking shit and it isn't going to get better.

File: iq180-mamiya7-adoxcms20.jpg (229KB, 1036x992px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1036x992px

>>3096091
>Who gives a fuck about resolution
>le digital has better resolution than film meme
can we please stop perpetuing that awful and plain wrong myth too?

look at pic related, right is film, looks as good as it would look rendering a whole image. film is noble and beautiful, even a tiny crop of film still retains all its properties. i mean, if were to you pick a speck of gold from a gold bar, would it be a lesser sample of it? nope, it would be just the same, but a smaller sample.

now look at left, look at that literal piece of shit. looks hilariously close to a 2005 cellphone photo. digital inspected up close looks like a fucking turd, its as if the big sensor was made from a bunch of pre 2010 cellphone sensors put together. a small sample of digital always looks corrupted and raped by anti alias/averaging/noise reduction, no matter how good or state of the art is the digital camera, when closely inspected -aka printed- it just falls apart. thats why fine art still is done in film. because at any size, film still looks good.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:07:14 12:40:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1036
Image Height	992

>>3096091
>i can't take good photographs so i compensate by taking grainy film shots with shitty hard lighting because then people will think they look artsy
>lemme strawman why people like digital purely because of lel gigapickles
>>3096126
although fuck Kenny "the Rock" G and Lanier and gearfags in general

File: FILM SEASON DIGITAL SEASON.png (339KB, 658x370px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 658x370px

>>3096091
Film and digital are great in their own ways. You're the type of person who turns others off from film photography. Film already has enough on its plate when dealing with the pee-soaking millennial Lomosexuals.
Film and digital should be mediums that are better left in separate realms of photography. Both film and digital offer their own respective characteristics that entice each individual. Don't listen to the gearfaggots too much and just go with whatever type of photographic medium you enjoy (as long as you aren't a lomosexual)

>>3096209
daffy is a filmbro, you just know.

There is no such thing as """"""digital photography""""""". Digital cameras are just toys taking glorified cellphone pictures on Chinese silicon wafers.

>>3096126
>Sensor size: 54 x 40 mm

>>3096091
(you)

>>3096324
(You)

>>3096340
No (you)

>>3096091
>STOP LIKING WAT I DONT LIEK
also if you were to post some of your breathtaking beautiful moving emotional and physically tangible film shots, i bet they'd be hot garbage

your magical film pics are scanned with a scanner that uses the same technology as a DSLR, but apparently that cheap ass scanner is capable of catching that awesome color of your film. sure buddy, keep on dreaming

>>3096352
now thats truly retarded.

>>3096352
>not looking at the negatives and mentally processing them with your mental imaging scanner
fucking plebs

>>3096352
Well its easier for a digital scanner/camera to capture the image as it is represented in the negative. Under a light source a film negative does not exhibit the same dynamic range as the original scene, so it essentially acts as a low contrast proxy to the digital image.

Digital is fine, but film requiring you to have a rough idea of what do you want beforehand and only giving you one, maybe two chances not to fuck it up is what makes it special. There's nothing I despise more than going around with somebody else with a DSLR and watching them stand in the same place for half an hour aimlessly taking dozens of shots and pixel-peeping every single one of them until they get an "okay" one.

>>3096352
>this is what americans truly believe

>>3096477
>I shoot film because it makes me feel better about myself.

Who has the pic of the kid and quotes from his site bio?
>"you wouldn't expect me to shoot film but i do"
>"i have been shooting film since i was 4"
>"you wouldn't expect a photographer to develop his own photos but i do"

File: ilford-3200-natural-light.jpg (2MB, 1595x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1595x2000px

>>3096469
read some Ansel Adams
Getting an image on a negative is 1/4 of what photography is about.
The real art happens in the darkroom

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	David DeFino
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: IMG_0453.jpg (343KB, 1800x1201px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1800x1201px

>Shooting digital

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1201
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3096541
Yes Ansel Adams has good commentary on the process, but whether you scan or print the negative the idea that I mentioned is similar. The negative exhibits less dynamic range than the final image on paper or on the screen and it's up to the photographer to use the huge amount of data in the negative to create a meaningful image.

I shoot/scan mostly color negative which has become impractical to print, tried it a few times and it was not the best experience so I stuck with scanning digitally. When I digitally edit my negatives there seems to be a lot more meaningful information since the scan starts off at a very low global contrast and I can then bring the contrast back as needed. I also use a D810 (for scanning and for photographing) which has great pushing/pulling ability but the images always start out with too much contrast.

I love film but the problem is that to get most of it you need a very expensive scanner and to get everything out of it you need to get an expensive drum scan. With digital you get every imagine in full resolution with full dynamic range for free.