Why get digital camera when you can just use your phone. Film

>>3116028
Why would you even use film? My grandpa even knows it's fucking garbage

>>3116034
Because it looks infinitely better than digital. I use my phone to snap a few shots before I take the serious picture with my film camera.

>>3116042
>Because it looks infinitely better than digital.
Fucking HILARIOUS

>>3116054
Have fun sitting on your computer for hours trying to make your bland lifeless picture look nice. Meanwhile you are making it look faker and faker by the minute lmao

>>3116057
>this is what hipsters actually believe
o i am laffin

>>3116028
you ever rape your own sister in the pusshole, brah?

>>3116034
It's fun. You like fun, don't you?

Actually this is how I'm starting to see it. I'm planning to get FF DSLR and instead of dragging it around, I'll be using my phone and snapseed for snapshits, and DSLR for when I intend to make photos, which I hope will be at least once a week (work and studies, so no time).

>>3117862
Just keep your dslr in your purse

>>3117862
Voluntary stereotypes are the worst kind

File: istock_000007894204_small1.jpg (430KB, 822x584px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 822x584px

>>3117971
> pack shit for work
> pack shit for uni
> add DSLR

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	0 dpi
Vertical Resolution	0 dpi
Image Created	2008:06:04 22:19:03
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	155.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3362
Image Height	2390
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3116028
used to think like you until i realized how much of a hassle film really is

factor in
>unreliability of film/camera
>developing
>scanning to digital which is what everyone who shoots film nowadays will most likely do 99.9%of the time

ive shot film for the past 3 years and realized that its a time consuming mess, by no means is it any more fun than
digital however I'm at the point where digital just seems like the right choice for making photos, and id rather use film for more personal endeavors of my photography, shooting the family, gf, etc...

>>3116057
don't be a purist, regardless of even shooting film, your photos are still processed and altered before you get the final result of
the photograph. thinking like a purist will hinder you completely and make all your photography shit.

File: 1499905103645.png (12KB, 246x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 246x200px

>>3119253
>thinking like a purist will make your photography shit
My man, kill yourself.

>>3116028
Why get flesh and blood GF when you can just use your hand. Lotion plus hand is best combo.

Okay granpa

File: DSC_0044.jpg (304KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1000x562px

>>3116057
Do hipster filmfags actually believe it takes hours of editing to make digital photos look good? I can literally spend 5 minutes editing a pic in Lightroom and it turns out great.
Is it just because they're all too stupid to figure out how to operate digital editors?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Photographer	TB Johnson (@tbjson)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	852
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:23 03:58:27
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3119477
also it most definitely takes longer to develop and scan film than it does to edit a raw

>>3119477
That picture looks like absolute generic dogshit

>>3119477
This is crooked and it really bothers me

>>3119253

I find I'm the opposite. With my digital photos I spend more time looking through them (as you're likely to shoot more than film) and I really hate the look of digital straight from the camera, where as with film I do no post work at all other than straighten, crop, slight levels, etc. I know a digital workflow can be pretty quick once you know how you like your photos to look. However I just like the look of film better than digital, so I'd rather not waste my time to process my digital photos when I can just get the film back and like it instantly.

>>3119477

I spend zero time editing, because my film already comes back looking perfect.

>>3119606
/thread

Digicunts will never understand why film id's superior hahahahahah

>>3119636
>>3119606
>Pretending Walgreens doesn't do any automatic correction while you're waiting on your roll of Kodak
Pro tip: these days film development is an automated process with digital meters used for corrections and adjustments.

>>3119640

Yes, it's largely automated.

Which is why I develop and process my film at a pro lab. At least that way I can work with the tech's to have my photos scanned and adjusted the way I like.

There is a local guy I started using who's doing colour darkroom prints, so I'm hoping to start making some of those.

>>3119595
>Generic
I'll take that as a compliment. The further I can get from the """"artsy"""" trash filmfags take, the better

>>3119603
It is, isn't it? I think I'm off-balance. Straight lines always look crooked to me.
Luckily, since it's digital, I can fix it with one second in my image editor.

>>3119606
>because I'm too lazy to edit so I'll just accept it as is
Ftfy

>>3116057
Well having processed film, and printed it, since probably before you were born, I can tell you doing post work on digital is way faster, and easier. Especially true if you are printing, and if you scan the film in to print you still have to digitally process the images.

>>3116028
I shoot until I'm out of rolls then I use my phone until the sun goes down. I just wish phone camera flashes were better and more responsive, because I use my flash a lot.

>>3119894
Have you ever successfully triggered a flash slave with your phone? That's my dream.

>>3119604
the reason why you like it instantly is because you can't edit your film photos right away unless you scan them which is time consuming, also
factor in that with film you generally have more of a connection to the photo due to the time and process it took to get the shot itself and picture
in-hand, whats there is there and thats that.

>>3119261
learn to take real photographs instead of snapshits and you'll understand

>>3120060
No is that even possible? Thats what I'm hoping we'll get soon with newer camera phone tech. I'd love to have somewhere i can mount a flash onto my phone or like you said, use a flash slave.