Why is /p/ so obsessed with film?
It's easier than learning how to take a good picture
It's fun and challenging. It makes you appreciate photography more.
>>2723433
>samefagging your shitty troll thread from your smartphone
shake my head family
>>2723432
because of the sweet dof and deep tones, you retard.
>>2723435
>use film ==> appreciate photography more
>walk everywhere ==> appreciate transportation more
Frankly, I appreciate transportation more by using a car and photography more by using the miraculous digital technologies that are out there.
Film might make you appreciate post-processing more, though not really, but definitely nothing else.
>>2723441
Not a good analogy since cars and film have co-existed together for over 100 years though.
>>2723437
and of course the tru colours
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2723441
Stop being salty.
I actually enjoy mounting and handling art, instead of churning out 6 billion meaningless shit pics and pigeon holing them on social media sites.
because its fun
also deep tones
also
VELVIA
EKTAR
LTRIX
VAI
IRX
A
I couldnt fit portra and rodinal in there, sadly.
I really don't like film but I love film cameras, especially MF. Having physical negatives is cool I guess.
Digital is the standard today and if you want to try something different you try film. I've only been visiting /p/ a couple of years and when I started coming here there were just a handful of film threads and the images posted were far superior to what I could produce. Now it does seem like there are a lot more film threads. There was one time I noticed the front page was almost all film related. At first I felt sad that there was so few film related stuff but now it feels like a flood. I would rather just have a few good quality film threads. My favorite threads in all of /p/ are medium format threads, they have the perfect balance of bickering and interesting posts.
It's fun to try different things. I don't really enjoy digital all that much.
I like film and would shoot film occasionally if I had the time or money.
Digital is far more convenient.
It is my honest opinion that most film-fags are just being hipsters and should concentrate on their composition.
>>2723432
film is fun
>>2723432
because digital MF is still fuck off expensive
>>2723432
don't be silly. /p/ is obsessed with gear, not format.
also film is fun
>>2723441
that is stupid, in other words, water is wet and you are a dork
It's the same reason Vinyl is making a huge comeback. People are so disillusioned with digital photography as they are with digital music, so they want something tangible and different. Advancing the film, setting the aperture on the lens, rewinding the film and viewing the negatives as they become developed is the same tactile feeling as pulling a Vinyl record out of the sleeve, looking at the album artwork and placing the needle on the record. That's my take on it anyway.
My personal feeling is that I take far better photos on film. If I go out with my digital camera I take maybe 300 photos over the course of the day. If I went out my my film camera I shoot 1 roll. With digital I'd get maybe 15 photos I liked out of 300, whereas I like all 37 from film. It's a slower process, more thought out.
At the end of the day though the format you take pictures on means jack shit. As long as you're capturing the image who gives a fuck? Do what you enjoy, it's a hobby after all
>>2723446
brisfag pls go
>>2724309
I thought this was Brisbane. Seen it before but not sure where
>>2724310
corner of vulture st e and wellington road senpai
It was already perfect
>>2723441
Terrible analogy. Is transportation your hobby? Probably not, it's probably something you do out of necessity. If photography were what kept my lights on, I would probably appreciate digital more since it allows for more work with less expense/effort for the result.
But it's not, photography is something I like to do. So, while I can walk and drive in order to experience the world around me (something I enjoy), I prefer to walk because it is slower, lets me observe more, and is intrinsically connected to the world around me.
But really film is just fun, you fucking nerd.
>>2724309
>>2724310
>>2724314
Film is an artist's medium.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2014:04:28 12:13:54 Exposure Time 0.7 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 1350 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
medium format cameras are gorgeous. canikon cancer digi cameras look all the same. i want a full aesthetic experience, im not cutting ham (ie. fashion/wedding/sports/journo).
>>2724357
holy fucking moire, was that printed on a piece of wood?
>>2724388
thats newton for you, candyass.
>>2723432
I like the look of the medium and the look of the cameras, also film rolls are like candy and ammunition, looks nice on my desk when I'm not taking pictures.
>>2724430
forgot my trip :)
>>2724380
Develop yourself, scan yourself.
If you're incompetent, then the only place left in Brisbane that I recommend is ProLab at Kelvin Grove.
They do charge Professional prices, but they do proper dip and dunk processing of all films, even 35mm colour negs.
>>2724388
>>2724393
This was one of the very first rolls I scanned at home, before I had a remote or knew that Newton's rings were a thing. Or even knew what a clone stamp or healing tool were.
>I'm much better at it now :^)
>>2723472
Then why don't you get off of the computer and go shoot more film and actually add some good content then?
>>2724432
shooting with contax g2 45mm f2 cz
pan 400 film
why are my pictures so extremly grainy ??
what are the must know about film / scanning ?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4047 Image Height 6655 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:12:11 04:06:32 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1972 Image Height 2000
>>2723433
highest of lels
filmfags thinking waiting a week develop their film to find one OK shot is better than having an 'unlimited' role and taking your time to get the right shot
>>2724645
>week
go kill yourself
yeah film might be limited in your view but your stupidy is unlimited
go ahead and jerk off to your digishit pictures, cancers like you don't know what art is.
i own the nikon d600 + lots of filmcameras though
>>2724642
Pan 400, as in Ilford Pan 400? How do you shoot it and what are you developing it in?
>>2723432
Digital is a lie
All images taken digitally are usually manipulated
Digital is the medium of pedestrians
Film is truth
Nearly impossible to fake images taken with film
Film is the canvas of photographic artists
>>2724652
>Nearly impossible to fake images taken with film
Yes comrade...impossible :^)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:04:19 18:57:27 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 730 Image Height 235
>>2724652
>Film is truth
Good point
>>2724651
ilford pan 400
aperture priority
f2 - f5,6
ilfosol 3
scanning with epson perfection v 7500
>>2724677
What are your scanner settings like? It might well just be oversharpening or overprocessed images. That film/developer combo should be fine, its the same as I use. Do the negatives look like they match the scans well? If you boost up your exposure while scanning or post processing it can make the grain more pronounced.
>>2724685
mostly either 2400 or 3000+ dpi tiff or sometimes jpg... it depends because lots of ppl are in line to use the scanners lol
yeah i forget to turn off the unmask sharp options.... so do you reccommend not to mess with the correcture while scanning but later on photoshop ?
>>2724665
some of those old soviet photos by the end had only one dude left
>>2724690
Personally I leave everything off when I scan, and then do all my adjusting in lightroom. But if you don't like the way it looks, unsharp mask would be first thing I'd turn off because it can be a bit aggressive.
Although I would say it's all personal preference, as long as you're getting images you like it's all good.
>>2724716
thank you alot anon
>>2724642
>>2724677
That neg looks mostly overexposed to me, which would increase the graininess. (Which is to say it looks correctly exposed for her coat, but the rest of the frame is way brighter than that.)
But also that developer seems like pretty strong stuff. If you want finer grain with fast films, try T-Max developer. Comes as a liquid, so it's easy to mix up as you need it.
And finally flatbed scanning isn't ideal, but shouldn't exascerbate your grain. If anything, lab scans would show it worse, they make even sharp film look grainy because of the shitty way they capture images.
But mainly if grain is an issue for you, use slower film, expose it correctly, develop it appropriately (ask an oldfag).
>>2724731
ashamed to say the picture is processed in nik software...contrasts and detail blaster....and curves... the original one had soft blacks and you'd see lots of shadow details...but kinda overexposed anyway...
i dont get this... i use aperture priority so the shutter is auto...should i lightmeter then set shutter to manual or use smaller aperture than usual ?
>>2724669
Bad news I am afraid,
Science has proven that photo to be authentic
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-photo-lee-harvey-oswald.html
>>2724649
>he doesn't use film
>he obviously doesn't know anything about art
see how pretentious, hipsterish, and stupid your argument is?
For me:
1) There's not digital equivalent to large format
2) Contact prints
3) WIth B&W 35mm I tend to work in a different way than I do with digital and get better pictures.
4) I love working in the darkroom.
>>2725143
no you stupid whore,, that's what you just said
stop putting words in my mouth... you relate film to hipsters
so go fuck yourself bitch :)
>>2724642
dump the ilford and buy some proper film
>>2725148
this
+ waist-level finders
>>2725252
tips
enjoying working with film is the only valid reason to work with film
>>2725148
there's no large format digital in terms of resolution and relative depth of field but the movements can be achieved digitally. if you aren't shooting 16x20 fuck your contact prints.
>>2727584
you can turn any camera with a prism into a waist level with the right saw!
>>2727730
>enjoying working with film is the only valid reason to work with film
>there's no large format digital in terms of resolution and relative depth of field
>>2727776
Resolution and shallow dof are entirely aesthetic so if you enjoy that shoot large format. But this is not an entirely compelling argument to people who don't share those tastes. As nothing is unequivocally better than anything else shoot film if you like shooting film as this is ultimately the only valid reason to do so.
