Taking photos on film and scanning them therafter is like writing texts on a typewriter, scanning the paper sheets and applying OCR on it. Film does not look better. You can create any look you want with the digital files, so why not use the best available input source? And this is the raw file from a digital camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Camera Model KODAK DX3600 DIGITAL CAMERA Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 230 dpi Vertical Resolution 230 dpi Exposure Time 1/45 sec F-Number f/3.4 Exposure Program Normal Program Lens Aperture f/3.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 2.18 m Metering Mode Average Light Source Unknown Flash Flash Focal Length 5.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200 Exposure Index 140
I like medium format and cannot afford a medium format digital camera. Also I like the operation of film cameras more, in general. I can't stand thumb wheels and menu buttons.
>>2803020
ouch, stung by the stinger again
>>2803020
Because it's fun to shoot film and develop it. That's the only reason why i do it.
>>2803020
>Film does not look better.
Wrong. Film is the benchmark. Only in very low light conditions can digital look better. But even then film has more soul. I use mainly digital but I do so out of financial reasons and convenience.
>You can create any look you want with the digital files, so why not use the best available input source?
People keep saying that yet I have to see someone consistently being able to imitate film with digital.
I find digital to look a bit too sterile and clean at times.
>Film does not look better. You can create any look you want with the digital files
Not without stacking exposures.
>>2803076
>even then film has more soul
That's a nice bit of hyperbole right there. Since we're yet to confirm the existence of a soul in humans.
>>2803076
>People keep saying that yet I have to see someone consistently being able to imitate film with digital.
Post an image taken on film, and a digital raw from a non Canon sensor, exposed correctly for the attempt, taken at the same subject, same time, same light, etc. and I'll do it for you right now.
>>2803080
>I find digital to look a bit too sterile and clean at times.
Then you aren't doing what you need to do in post. Digital is supposed to be sterile, so you have as much room as possible to make the edits you want. You can go from clean to gritty, you can't go from gritty to clean.
> writing texts on a typewriter, scanning the paper sheets
This is actually a reasonable thing to do if you want something to look like an authentic typewritten document. Faking it digitally would probably be more difficult and less effective.
> and applying OCR on it
this part is full retard and not analagous to what anyone does with scanned film.
>>2803086
>purposefully trying to add fake grain to your HDR stacked exposure while changing levels, curves and colours per channel to reach an end result of what a shot may have looked like on film.
>not just shooting the frame and being done.
PEE PEE fags are pretty much the worst in the world, even gearfags aren't as bad.
>>2803085
You got a couple of hours to days to wait, buddy?
>>2803093
I didn't buy a digital camera in order to emulate Portra. I got it to shoot everything on the same sensor, knowing I can get whatever look I want. I can shoot clean, I can shoot dirty, I can shoot high contrast or low. I can shoot bright light, or low light. I can shoot hipster, I can shoot architecture, I can shoot headshots, I can shoot homeless. I can do anything. One of those things is emulating your film.
>>2803095
Absolutely. I'll be here whenever you decide to deliver.
Raw file, don't blow the channels.
>>2803020
I don't have enough for a full frame dslr and my whole setup with a 28mm lens cost me 30 dollars
I like shooting a lot of wide angle stuff so in the meantime I'll just practice while I save up for an a7sII
>>2803106
why don't you just buy a wide angle lens?
>>2803117
But 28mm is wide angle
>>2803020
lol, nice sour grapes OP
>>2803121
well yeah but it seems like you want to shoot digital but don't have enough money for a FF DSLR or Mirrorless. But you can just shoot a wide angle lens (equivalent to 28mm even) on a crop body meanwhile?
I bet you complain about people that listen to vinyl or work on old cars
>>2803126
>>2803117
>that moment that you realise that wider than 28mm on APS-C is not as cheap as just shooting on film
To even get to 24mm, you need a 15 or 16mm lens. Once you start going wider to 18 or 21mm the prices ramp up.
About the only cheap way to do it is with cheap asian MF lenses.
Or you can just buy a film SLR and a 24mm f2.8 for £40-60.
If I wasn't already invested in my current camera system, I'd probably pick up a Sony A7.
>>2803126
I was eyeing up a couple of combinations that weren't FF but I'm still not sure from what I've seen canon seems to have the best lineup in terms of wa zooms or primes but I'd probably want to use a sony camera since I used an a6000 and I really liked it
In the meantime I don't mind shooting cheap film until I decide
>>2803121
28mm is normal on APS-C. they make a bunch of 18, 16, 14, and 12mm lenses for wide angle crop.
>>2803137
I never said I shot 28mm on aps-c
>>2803020
oh look, it's /p/'s worst trip making a rare appearance!
>>2803106
Your whole setup doesn't include film, development, scanning, chemicals, or shipping. apparently you don't actually take photos?
>>2803147
I get scans from the camera shop for five bucks a roll
It's about 10 bucks for a roll of film when it's all said and done. I never said that it doesn't cost more in the long run but at least I can just go out and take photos now
Oh boy another thread asking to justify film...
Have you ever printed out your own pictures?
Have you ever mounted them onto your wall / given them to friends/family?
Do you actually give a shit about taking a good photo, worrying about not fucking up an exposure?
If you have said yes to any of these, then those are the reasons why I generally shoot film.
When you plough through a million snapshit, they stay on your computer and you don't give a shit about them anymore. With a roll of negs, you are aching to get to the print room, touch them up and blow them up to the intended size.
With this comes a requirement for a lot of skill and finesse, something that software doesn't have - unless you consider moving a slider a "skill".
Film photography forces you to give a shit - and that's the key point here. It takes simple concepts of optics/physics/chemistry/aesthetics, and merges them into something beautiful in physical form.
Digital is about mass shooting a fuckload of garbage, then sexing it up in LR, and sharing it on Instacrap or Fecesbook so your friends can click like.
>>2803076
>film has more soul meme
the aesthetic of film is somewhat subjective. I rarely shoot 35mm anymore because even smaller digital sensors produce a technically cleaner, more maliable image. (I still like to shoot MF though because of the huge negatives.)
I will say that there is something special about developing with chemicals and seeing the same peice of film that was in the camera at the time of shooting come out with an image.
it's especially rewarding shooting slides. looking at them on a light table is almost magical.
>>2803080
>Since we're yet to confirm the existence of a soul in humans.
*rotates autism hat*
>this entire thread
>all these people unironically defending film
It's almost like you faggots enjoy a medium based on its own merits, without needing to constantly compare and size it up to other, related mediums lmao. It's like you're all pretending someone might actually pursue a hobby for what it is, without constant need for external validation by means of weighting it up against other things that share some common ground, you absolute autists.
Appropriately this is the banner that loaded for me for this thread and your rookie mistake is actually engaging in this pointless shit-flinging - unless you used the chance to reaffirm your penchant for analogue photography, but who for, yourselves? Filthy film attentionwhores.
>>2803162
But tripfag, someone is wrong on the internet
>>2803151
>Have you ever printed out your own pictures?
Yes, that's why I shoot digital, so I don't need a whole darkroom to print
>Have you ever mounted them onto your wall / given them to friends/family?
Yeah, they love it.
>Do you actually give a shit about taking a good photo, worrying about not fucking up an exposure?
Yeah, which is why I don't need the "you can fuck up exposure by 2 stops and it'll still look okay" thing of film. Digital is great for printing and presentation if you know how to shoot it and process it. I'm glad we agree.
> then those are the reasons why I generally shoot film.
Oh, wait... what?
>When you plough through a million snapshit, they stay on your computer and you don't give a shit about them anymore.
If the only thing stopping you from shooting a million photos is the inconvenience of it, the issue is with you, not with the medium. I made $12,000 with photography last year on the side of my day job, and I only took 8000 photos all year.
>Digital is about mass shooting a fuckload of garbage, then sexing it up in LR, and sharing it on Instacrap or Fecesbook so your friends can click like.
Oh, it took me until your last line to realize that you were trolling. Sorry. Still posting since I put in the time.
>>2803151
>Film photography forces you to give a shit - and that's the key point here.
So your point is that without your medium forcing you to take certain steps you wouldn't care about your photos?
I shoot some film and I've never understood this justification. Why does having more photos in a memory card than a film roll, and the fact that processing is less tedious and expensive, mean that I will take less care with my photos?
You guys realize when film was the only option photographers would burn through multiple rolls on one composition right? It was just as careless. The whole "every shot counts on film" mantra is shit. Every shot can count on digital too, you just lack discipline.
>>2803170
>wow, look at all those people wanting to improve and choosing the medium that helps them achieve/learn the very thing you said they lack
haha what a bunch of retards, right?
>>2803020
So what do you suggest I do? Mail all my friends the prints? Should I waste extra time making prints for every portfolio I send to potential employers?
>>2803185
But you can learn the exact same thing on digital unless your exact goal is to learn darkroom.
There's nothing about digital that forces you to not think about your photos or to take 10 pictures every minute. It's a bad reason to shoot film, and anyone with enough experience to be developing and wet printing themselves should not need a cheap truck to force them to pay attention.
>>2803162
>and your rookie mistake
>rookie
>>2803185
You can shoot digital on full manual mode in JPEG with a small memory card. Being forced to shoot slowly doesn't teach you to shoot slowly all the time much in the same way that forcing a teenager to go to bed at 10pm every night doesn't teach them to go to bed early once they go to college. It's not self control, it's an inconvenience in the system.
>>2803185
You don't learn to drive slowly and carefully by driving a 17 year old Geo Metro before getting your Ferrari. All you do is get pissed at how slow the Metro is, and then drive your Ferrari fast like you would have anyways.
The single best method to teach self control is to have someone shoot their first event on digital. They'll be nervous about missing things, take 2500 photos, then come home and realize they have to then go through all 2000 photos and the clients want processed results by noon tomorrow. Fuck.
That shit will never happen again.
>>2803213
That sounds like a really good way to teach someone nothing and needlessly frustrate them
You have shitty advice and your car analogy is shitty
>>2803220
>needlessly frustrate them
That's where the learning comes in. "I had better be more selective, I don't want to have to sift through all this shit again. Man, this is a great lesson I learned"
>your car analogy is shitty
Oh yeah good point.
>>2803020
Great thread :^)
I like film for the variety of delicious cameras I get to use and for the massive street cred it gives me.
Don't worry though, I DSLR scan, so I still get high quality images.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:07:30 01:59:39 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/9.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1194 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2803221
>digiplebs learning from their mistakes
HAHA. Good joke m8
>>2803020
The text is recorded either way, why do you give a shit how it's done?
>>2803085
But then what's the point? That's like saying that you can paint like Picasso but only if someone gives you a Picasso painting to copy.
Obviously purely theoretically, if film images are displayed online, then a digital image can be made to look like film. But film behaves in a non-linear fashion. You can edit a digital image pixel by pixel to win the argument but that's hardly practical.
>>2803293
The point of matching a film image directly is, I could post a photo that I edit to look like a certain film, and any number of assholes can (and will) show up and be like "NUH UH! RETARD! Because that blue wouldn't be like that!" but if there's a negative to match it to, then it's undeniable.
> But film behaves in a non-linear fashion.
Correct, but Digital's linear capture, mixed with the freedom in editing, means that a digital file can match that non-linear reproduction.
>pixel by pixel
It's possible, yes, but surely not necessary. Curves, levels, hue/sat changes, luminosity masks, saturation masks, and grain will be plenty.
I shoot film because not a single digital camera functions the way I've come to like from my manual SLR's.
Give me a DSLR that has only ISO, Shutter speed, and split prism focusing, with the aperture on the lens. No AF, no chimping screen, no bullshit thumb wheel controls, nothing else.
I'll buy and use that camera.
>>2803341
Nikon Df
>>2803341
I honestly want you got get some kind of terrible cancer. I don't care if it kills you or not, but I really want you to suffer.
You're literally a terrible human.
>>2803222
>Don't worry though, I DSLR scan, so I still get high quality images.
>posts a grainy underexposed image
>>2803341
I kind of agree with you.
It could just be a well pulled off piece of satire.
I'd be happy if Sony stepped up to Fuji's ergonomics/controls. Let us go back to proper aperture rings too. There's nothing stopping it from happening but the manufacturers.
I have no problems with a screen or controls though.
>>2803379
:^)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:11:15 23:05:28 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 533 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2803527
what the shite. is this digitally colored trix?
doesnt look bad at all...
>>2803020
Who gives a shit, just shoot what you like. I dont find shooting digital fun. Shooting film on the other hand is extremely amusing and gives me a shitload of satisfaciton. Why the fuck would I need to justify my hobby to anyone? It gives me joy, the end.
>>2803341
>split prism focusing
100% this, holy fuck. I can't express how much I agree.
1. Given that this post is aimed at hobbyists, as most people here are, the choice between Digital and Film is completely irrelevant and personal. The things you do in the dark room can be done in your computer, maybe even simulate the grain, but there is still an edge of uniqueness of prints and the work that goes for making said print to add to the personal value of the work. The end goal is also noticeable since it's probably for a friend or a family member to celebrate with you and start conversations at most.
2. If this was addressed at an art driven group, it'd be initially shrugged off because no one cares how you reach your final image. If you are making images that can only be made in the dark room, whether it's because you bleached the image or scratched the negative, you usually have a reason attached to it so in the end the medium is just a medium. This argument is the same as drawing on paper or on your computer, and the end product usually has this in mind in the case of art production.
Great memes though guys, I hope this one ends soon.
>>2803362
Yeah, exept no. Manual focusing is still a pain in the ass on this.
Why are the masters of their craft arguing over the tools they use?
"hey neymar, your shoes suck!"
>>2803165
>I only took 8000 photos all year.
>only 8000
>only
>8000
>in a year
>ONLY
>>2803341
>Give me a DSLR that has only ISO, Shutter speed, and split prism focusing, with the aperture on the lens. No AF, no chimping screen, no bullshit thumb wheel controls, nothing else.
>I'll buy and use that camera.
It exists but you're not going to buy it because you can't afford it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Leica Camera AG Camera Model LEICA M (Typ 240) Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2014:09:22 12:29:13 Exposure Time 1/180 sec F-Number f/19.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/19.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 180.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation High Sharpness Hard Unique Image ID 00000000000000000000000000781522
>>2803539
Am I the only person that hates having a split prism and microprisms and stuff shitting up the viewfinder? On my F3 I have a Type B screen and it's great, all matte with a small spot in the center which has a slightly different texture for easier focusing. It makes the viewfinder almost perfectly clean and unobstructed. You don't really need the focusing aids with a good focusing screen and fast lenses anyway.
>>2803020
I'm new to photography. I've never used a dslr, and I've only shot 3 rolls of film so far. Pic related is from my third roll (I know I still have a long way to go). I'm also a musician, and I record music in digital and analog tape. I have the same feeling with film as I do with tape. It's noticeably warmer, and no amount of manipulation in the digital realm can 100% replicate the warmth of tape/film.
Pic related is fujifilm xtra 800 iso bought at walmart, in a Minolta srt 101 with a Vivitar 28mm 1:2.8 lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3089 Image Height 2048
>>2803714
unmarked high contrast screens ftw
>>2803085
Why non canon sensor?
>>2803366
With this much vitriol and angst, you must be a Hillary supporter.
>>2803753
I feel bad using the advance lever for a grip on my SLR. I feel like it's going to damage it somehow even though my thumb will probably fall off first. It just feels wrong.
You guys are so fucking autistic about this, I don't get it. I went to college for photography in the early '00s, when it was still nothing but shooting and developing film all fucking day long, so it's not like I'm some "digipleb" who learned on a DSLR, but I shoot pretty much everything on digital these days. I enjoy mechanical cameras as much as the next guy, and there's something nice about actually using my obsolete developing and printing skills once in a while, but fuck if I'm going to do it for anything that matters.
Film cameras are basically free these days, and good DSLRs/mirrorless are cheap. Why not just own both, and shoot whichever one makes sense at the time, instead of obsessing over one format and shitslinging at anybody who uses the other one?
>>2803711
I actually have a pretty bad feeling about this thing. I fucked around with an M240 the other day and was appalled, it's ridiculously thick and heavy and the RF patch is tiny and dim as hell. I expected better out of Leica.
>>2803034
>Because it's fun to shoot film and develop it
This.
Plus, I have all my photo's in archives, so if my laptop dies, I've still got them. And, before you start, no I really can't be arsed to "backup" my files to a fucking "cloud" (whateverthehell that is).
Plus...and this is very important...you can't review film. So it's important to get it right. So you do. Whenever I've used digital, i quickly find myself becoming lazy, with an "oh, well, I can just shoot it again and again" mentality. Then you spend all your time at a computer sorting out flaws and crap you should have noticed when you took the shot.
Film makes you slow down and pay more attention.
>>2805713
>Plus, I have all my photo's in archives, so if my laptop dies, I've still got them. And, before you start, no I really can't be arsed to "backup" my files to a fucking "cloud" (whateverthehell that is).
incredibly inane whenever someone presents this as a reason. you could probably fit several thousand duplicate backup sd cards in the volume of one negative binder.
>>2803708
Not him, but assuming he's telling the truth, $12,000 taking only 8000 photos (along with what is probably some hobby shooting too) is pretty impressive.
>>2805713
>Plus, I have all my photo's in archives, so if my laptop dies, I've still got them.
I plug in one single 2TB drive once a week, and my whole system automatically backs up. OS, files, photos, everything. Automatically. This is a dumb reason.
>>2805713
>Whenever I've used digital, i quickly find myself becoming lazy, with an "oh, well, I can just shoot it again and again" mentality. Then you spend all your time at a computer sorting out flaws and crap you should have noticed when you took the shot.
So the issue is with you, not with the format... nothing is forcing you to be lazy. if you are shooting digital correctly, you're being just as (if not more) careful, planning to process the image later.
>>2805723
It's not about the space it takes up, retard. It's about being able to actually hold the fucking image in your hand, and not rely on complex electronic equipment to preserve the information in the image. It's the same reason I buy LP's when I can, rather than download MP3's. It's the same reason I'm a fan of live music. It's the same reason I still buy books instead of a fucking kindle. I wouldn't expect a millenial to understand this, because now-tech is just "the way things are"
It's about ownership of the thing instead of the idea of the thing.
>>2805733
aaaaaaaaand if your laptop dies, your 2TB drive is useless. Besides, I've had drives fail on me. I lost 300 movies and several entire TV series this way, carefully gathered over years.
Maybe I should have 2 drives, eh?
I'd rather hold the neg up to the light, desu. But then, I'm old, so you can just call me a neanderthal fart instead.
>>2805734
Human nature, chummy. We are by default lazy fucks. And some tech encourages that. Digital is ok for some things, just not all things.
It was originally invented so journo's and reporters could get copy on the editors desk quickly.
I shot film for years. I had good procedure. When I switched to DSLR's it started to slip. When I'm shooting, I like to concentrate entirely on what I'm shooting. Even a distraction as mundane as "am I paying enough attention because I'm holding a DSLR" is too much distraction.
>>2805949
>aaaaaaaaand if your laptop dies, your 2TB drive is useless.
Until I get it fixed or replace in two days later and then everything I've ever done is right back where I need it...? Do you think that people throw away backups when the computer they're tied to breaks? You realize that's exactly the best reason to back up, right?
Also, with your cloud complaint, I have 1TB of dropbox storage that automatically pulls anything loaded to my photo folder and sends it up. I set it up one time a year ago, and I haven't ever even looked at it again. I can access every photo I've taken from any internet connection on the planet.
>Human nature, chummy. We are by default lazy fucks.
Most of us aren't. Don't project your lack of self control onto everyone else. Many many people have no trouble taking one photo per intent, but I won't even advocate for that. Many film shooters post photos that aren't timed well, with blinks, or weird expressions, because they only take one or two photos and can't review them. The ability to deal with that problem is one of the main advantages of digital.
>When I switched to DSLR's it started to slip.
Because of you, and only you. A DSLR doesn't give of some pheromone that makes you sloppy. And from your own admission, you're not thinking more, you're thinking less. Apparently the only thing keeping you in good practice is the physical inability to shoot as much as you would otherwise, so obviously when you're shooting film, you're constantly thinking "I only have 36 shots, better save 'em" and when you don't have that restraint anymore, you think less. YOU. Nothing to do with the medium. And if Nikon came out with a film camera that could take 2000 photos without changing the roll, you'd have the same problem, for the same reason.
>>2803020
While you complain about the workflow of film, a lot of photographers go through post to try and make a digital image look like film anyways. Just shoot film to get that look. Film was already perfect and now magazines, youtube channels, shit/p/osters are all trying to replicate the look film already gave us.
>>2805959
What are you, my dad on the internet?
I don't like dealing with this modern shit. Simple, really. Keeping up with the latest internet shit is boring to me. I don't have instagram, or flicker, or lightroom, or any of that shit, and I don't want it either. What part of "I like taking photo's and then developing them" is difficult for you?
If you like digital, and think it's all round god tier, then good for you. Just stop selling people on your idea of a perfect wold. I know I'm not brilliant, but guess what (that's right, you got it in one).
I fucking hate people who think their view trumps everyone else's. I replied to this thread because the Op was being an autistic asshat. Now I've got a wannabe college professor on my case.
You're not going to miraculously make me into Carter Bresson with your words of wisdom. I've been shooting for over 30 years. I like the way I work, and I'm not changing it for anyone else.
You go shoot your way, and stop telling me my way is shit. OK?
>>2805949
>I wouldn't expect a millenial to understand this,
>"kids these days"
Yeah, no. Fuck off.
>>2806161
>What part of "I like taking photo's and then developing them" is difficult for you?
No part of that is difficult. That's wonderful, and enjoy yourself.
The issue comes from telling other people that they're wrong, or stupid, or somehow worse for not making the same decisions you have made. Digital is objectively better for photography. Film is subjectively better for having fun, for certain people. Your subjective opinion doesn't override the objective truth.
Also, throwing back to:
>Besides, I've had drives fail on me. I lost 300 movies and several entire TV series this way, carefully gathered over years.
Maybe I should have 2 drives, eh?
That is literally what a backup is. Do you know what backup means? Having two drives. So if one fails, you still have all your data...
>things that will last through history:
>
>
>
Stop your arguing, kids. Film handles highlights better. Digital handles shadows better. 35mm is, bar one type of film, lower res than digital, but can resolve little dots of colour/lightness better than digital due to the way digital sensors are built. Medium format film /can/ tank digital medium format IF you process it right. Large format dwarves ALL digital sensors. Digital is more expensive in the short term and, if you're a pathetic gear whore, long term too. Film is less expensive short term but unless you actually work for it, more expensive in the long term, and requires more equipment that needs maintenance.
You folks whining about film's "cleanliness problems" need to learn to handle and maintain equipment properly, and follow instructions without being ADHD children.
Film can be stored for INCREDIBLY long periods of time IF stored in the right conditions, and handled properly. The same can be said of digital but digital files are considerably less stable due to various problems that archivists talk about: I recommend
>Jackson, J., 2002. Digital Longevity: the lifespan of digital files.
>Waters, D.; Garrett, J., 1996. Preserving Digital Information, Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information.
Practically speaking, it might be argued that film forces you to really consider your shot rather than spraying and praying. I'm inclined to agree with this, but anyone with even a modicum of self control can overcome the temptation to chimp. I find digital to be a hollow experience by and large because I feel detached from actually making the image, and find treating images as objects rather than degrees of numbers on a screen to be far more fulfilling; actually having a hand in making them. To a sports photographer, or a traditional fashion photographer this is largely irrelevant a want.
Go out and take pictures. Nothing you do matters. The images are what you read.
>>2806197
>objective truth
Lel, what an idiot.
>>2806222
Good point.
>>2806222
>Objectively better resolution
>Objectively better high ISO
>Objectively more detail
>Objectively more shots per media
>Objectively more versatile
>Objectively more advanced
>Objectively better autofocus
>Objectively faster internal operation
>Objectively more editing capability
>Objectively better convenience/speed
>Objectively flexible color and exposure
>Objectively cheaper in the long run
Which part makes him an idiot?
>>2806226
>>Objectively better resolution
someone's never used a 5x4 ;^)
>>2806229
Oh, if you're going to go that route, then why not compare digital medium format to half frame?
A 5x4 digital sensor would destroy a 5x4 negative.
>>2806234
Link to your 5x4 digital sensor?
>>2806234
A 5x4 digital sensor would cost about as much as a small house on the commercial market
You're the one who claimed that digital had an objectively better resolution :^)
either way you need to go back and read some philosophy and praxis regarding empiricism/the empirical method because your understanding of the word "objective" is hilariously lacking in both evidence, semantics, and relativity.
>>2806234
A 5x4 digital sensor would cost about as much as a small house on the commercial market
You're the one who claimed that digital had an objectively better resolution :^)
either way you need to go back and read some philosophy and praxis regarding empiricism/the empirical method because your understanding of the word "objective" is hilariously lacking in evidence, semantics, and relative practice.
>>2806235
http://www.hasselblad.com/medium-format/h5d-multi-shot
>>2806226
Needing all of this to make a good photograph :(
>>2806245
To be fair (and serious as opposed to my half-serious posts above), the expedience of digital is a major selling point and important in commercial markets.
I would merely question whether a person wants to be able to take a good photograph in the first place, or save an image made previously.
there's also: is photography, as an aesthetic practice, the art of selection of a moment or few moments of the world, or selection of a series of moments of the world initially undecided?
The way I see it it can be both, but if you want to learn to KNOW what you want to take, film at least forces to do so, /know/ the medium you're working with. You can do that with digital but it's considerably harder due to certain material distances. But if you're running a stock photography studio, or are shooting for news reports, does that really matter? Nowadays newspapers even look for phone shots taken by the public because of the look they have! All those questions of teleology and being are only as relevant as you can afford them to be (or are bothered about them)
Martin Parr, for example, is one of those "art photographers" (among other things) who sprays and prays. He fully admits it in interviews. But his is an art of selection. That said he takes a lot of moments rather than a lot of shots of the same moment. He uses digital.
Masao Yamamoto uses film because he wants to hold the print, wants a small, worn print that "feels" like a memory. Totally different practice. He also spray + prays to some degree.
Frankly, if your major sticking point for a creative medium is the technical specifications and not what you can do with it and why you do what you do, it might be worth considering whether you're really interested in making images at all, and not having extreme technical prowess or outliving yourself. I'd say that to both digi and film photogs I know.
>>2806255
>Martin Parr
>He uses digital.
K E K
E
K
ive seen people thats totally wrong, and this fucking retard.
>>2806255
Seriously, the autism hurts, please go to reddit and never come back
>>2806266
he uses film, too. but yes, he does use digital.
>http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/live/2016/mar/10/martin-parr-webchat-strange-and-familiar-barbican
>"I wasn't the quickest to change form film to digital - I did so in around 2008 when digital cameras made a huge leap forward with the introduction of the full-frame DSLR and now there's no looking back because the quality is so good. Also I cannot now say that I miss a good photo because I was changing film as now the chip will have space for 500 images."
I also had the chance to see his work in a gallery and The Rhubarb Triangle is definitely film. His more recent work seems to flip between digital and 6x7 film.
>>2806273
>Martin Parr
>he uses film, too.
wow. just wow, i cant even.
>>2806270
Sorry mate but I don't get what's autistic here other than long-ass posting
>>2806197
>The issue comes from telling other people that they're wrong, or stupid, or somehow worse for not making the same decisions you have made.
This is exactly what you asshats have been doing all along, you moron.
I. Don't. Enjoy. Fucking. Around. With. Software. And. Expensive. Boxes. With. Too. Many. Functions.
OK, you humungous faggot?
When I say I can't be assed doing something, it's not because I haven't figured out how much better it is. It's because I don't fucking want to do it!!
I'm not some grade school kid handing in a substandard wad of homework here. Photography is an art, and how the artist organizes his workflow is entirely up to the artist. There is a difference between efficient and effective.
People like you really piss me off. You think new= better every fucking time. You're just a consumer faggot. Like a gearfag, but with added "I can has big shit on my big computer nao"
Get over yourself. No-one here is interested in how much you think you know.
>>2803020
film shooters have a mental illness.
>>2806491
Digiplebs have a mental illness.
>>2806491
digiplebs do this
>gee now that i took this digital picture, how do i make it look like film?
>gee now that i took this digital video, how do i make it look like film?
>gee now that i took this digital audio recording, how do i make it sound like an analog medium?
lmao mental illness everyone
>>2806535
literally no one does that.
>>2806544
Yea. Literally no one. Right. And VSCO isn't making bank on film-like filters.
>>2806535
>Guys who buy entire tool kits are retards. All they ever use is a hammer, and never ever do anything else just buy the hammer like I did.
>>2806617
You're mistakenly believing that a lot of people don't just click randomly on presets until they find one that they like and call it a day.
Before you go "but but that's trying to make it look like film"
I'll admit that the results end up being the same; however the motivation for the majority of users isn't "make it look like film" but make it look neat. Hell, most people who use stuff like VSCO can't tell you the difference between Velvia and Tri-X.
>>2803020
that analogy would apply if the typography of the typewriter didn't exist on computers
