>uses 400 speed film >in the day >outside fucking

>>3130063
what's wrong with it?
do you always blur the background like some cringy "art" photographers?

Good luck shooting 135mm+ focals of moving subjects on Pan F, OP

File: l9oaKFr.png (391KB, 540x404px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 540x404px

>>3130063
this troll thread is bad
you should feel bad

>yfw you need 400 speed film in the day outside where I live
Enjoy your shots at 1/60 though.

File: artsy street photography.jpg (39KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x400px

>>3130063
real togs use delta 3200 pushed 3 stops

>plan on being outside all day
>only bring 200
>be outside most of the day
>go to grocery store
>see a shot
>oh well
>go back outside
>go to a friends house
>see a shot
>oh well
>go back outside
>dusk is beginning
>some nice light, see another shot
>oh well

>>3130455
That's your fault for not having multiple cameras on you. I usually have at least 3.

100 slide for landscapes
400 EDC film
1600 that night rife

>>3130457
It's not my fault because I mostly use 400 for casual stuff.

>>3130063

I shot 1600 film on a sunny, summer day last week.


My camera couldn't shoot a shutterspeed fast enough.

>shooting at park with friend
>He has a d500 with 35 1.8 (always felt he didn't deserve to have such camera)
>I have d3400 with 18-55 kit

>He shoots flower at 100 iso, 1/1500, f1.8
>Says it's too dark
>So he changes iso to like 3200, 1/4000, f8

The flower want moving fast enough to use anything above 1/60 but it was too bright so 1/300 did the trick.

I got the shot with is 100 1/300 55mm f5.6. Is my friend retarded. He had been using dslrs for 2 years before he had d300 with 18-130 or some shut and now d500. Why are good things water on people that aren't capable?

>>3130481
this post gave me cancer in the humanism

b-but i love shooting superia x-tra 400
i can shoot in broad daylight on 1/2000 f/2.0

>>3130063
>not pushing it to 1600
You kill yourself.

>>3130063
From what I remember we only ever used ISO 400 film back in the day. (before shooting film became some hipster thing)

>uses 3200
>can shoot anything, anywhere, anytime

>>3130563
>and looks like you did it on sandpaper instead of film

Negative film is so forgiving that you can over expose a couple stops and have issuable images. I usually shoot 400iso at 200 anyways. And can always adjust if needed.

>>3130565
Enjoy your perfect picture you never took because you were too busy asking yourself what was the best settings in that situation to avoid grain that nobody but autists notice when they see a good image.

>not wanting maximum DOF
>still stuck on the shallow DOF babbysfirstcamera phase

400 speed for everyday carry all the way. Helps considering my MF camera's lens is F4

I use 1600 hp5 as EDC film.

I use my 55mm macro lens to get f32 and use it in daylight or my +2 stops green filter.

>>3130443
You can push Tri-X to 12800. Idk about 25600 though, never read about anyone doing it either but I wouldn't be surprised id it was possible.

>>3130479
Are you surprised?

File: FilmScan (42).jpg (280KB, 1000x680px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1000x680px

>>3130063

Here is a Natura 1600 snapshit in broad daylight on a sunny 40 C day.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3130455
>le film is better
>cant even take the shots you want
This is why digital is better unless youre making some art project

>>3132128
>not treating your entire boy of work as an art project
how absolutely plebeian

>>3130066
this.

>>3131214
Woh

>>3130455
Grocery store should've been ~1/30th @ f2

Disk should've been AT LEAST 1/60th @ f2

Taken into account color ng exposure latitude and both situations would've been fine. You just don't understand your medium yet.

>>3130063
ur dumb

File: Untitled.jpg (317KB, 710x917px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 710x917px

>>3131214
I do all of my editing with the hue slider too!

>>3132128
where in that post did i imply film was better?

>still using film

>>3130443
whats a tog?

>>3130063
troll post/10 kys

>>3130063
maybe it's overcast

>>3133313
a cringy and retarded way of saying photographer.

>>3133338
this

>>3133338
nah m8 should be tog = photograph and togger = photographer

>>3133254

Actually a straight scan. Hue slider was untouched.

>>3133530
i thought a togger was a big ol pupper