SUDDENLY REALISED FILM IS NICE BUT IT'S EXPENSIVE AS FUCK HOLY SHIT WHAT HAVE I BEEN WASTING MY MONEY ON
TIME TO INVEST IN HIGH QUALITY DIGITAL THAT WILL STICK WITH ME FOREVER
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D40 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 838 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:11:02 20:24:07 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 280 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2550 Image Height 3300 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Landscape Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2718412
>FOREVER
kek
Average 35mm film camera with lens
>20EUR
Roll of film
>5EUR
Chemicals to develop at home
>50EUR
Scanner
>70EUR
Costs of getting started with film:
>less than 150EUR
Average DSLR
>700EUR
Memory Card
>30EUR
Costs of getting started digital:
>less than 750 EUR
Hasselblad CM500 + film
>750 EUR
Phase One XF
> :^)
At least come up with some bait that makes a little sense
>>2718421
>only needing one roll of film
>not counting opportunity cost of the extra time developing and scanning takes
okay
>>2718431
>only needing one digital body and not having to replace your obsolete piece of shit every three years
>not counting the opportunity cost of the extra time it takes to process your digishit pleb snaps so it looks like film
>>2718431
I could buy 120 rolls of film for the money I'd had to spend going digital, that's over 4000 well thought out shots instead of gigabytes full of snapshits
>>2718421
>only need one roll
>average DSLR 700€
>memory card 30€
>implying
>>2718433
>replace your obsolete piece of shit every 3 years
definitely bait
>>2718431
>opportunity cost
I lol'd.
>>2718421
> you'll get a job shooting film
> film has any sort of benefit
>>2718448
It's not bait. 3 years is even a conservative estimate at this point, considering how quickly sony likes to fuck over its userbase.
>>2718421
>lifetime of dslr ~100,000 photos at ~700-1500 USD
>film cost for that many photos
>2000-10,000 USD
>not including development costs
ayy lmao
>>2718518
>lifetime of dslr ~100,000 photos at ~700-1500 USD
>implying that anyone uses their dslr long enough for 100,000 photos
>implying that the lifetime of a dslr isn't measured instead in how long it takes for the next model to come out
>>2718574
if you're a retarded gearfag then yes it is
but I'm sure you aren't right anon :^)
>>2718579
I'm sure everyone who upgrades ever is a retarded gearfag, then.
>>2718574
99% of people on this board are gearfags and the other 1% actually go out and shoot weather it be film or digital, digital is the way of the future however it can never replace film as a physical format
>>2718631
>it can never replace film as a physical format
no shit, digital isnt a physical format
>>2718412
>>2718518
Well I just got back from 3 weeks in Japan, and I shot around 23-ish rolls of 135 and 10-ish rolls of 120.
About $130AUD in film costs, about another hunj in developing in Japan, another $100 or so still to come.
A mix of E6, C41 and B&W.
That's full cheapskate mode as well, buying expired films for 100yen a pop, getting some for free.
Definitely missed shots due to having only 100 speed film in dark forests, etc.
But at the end of the day, having cool photos is more important to me than just having photos, or having a few hundred dollars. It's my money, I'll spend it how I like.
>>2718680
>having cool photos is more important to me than just having photos
wtf does that even mean? you couldve taken all those photos in digital just the same and you could do it with the dslr you just bought with the money spent on film
>>2718681
he means he has negatives. he captured that light in a noble format.
digital is just a meme format that "hurr card corrupted bye photos XD". he did the right choice.
Just enjoy both you fucking faggots.
>>2718421
>Buying a $700 DLSR but also being satisfied with the IQ of a $70 scaner
ok friendo
>>2718681
>dslr
sorry, not an aspie or a middle aged tourist
>>2718685
a $70 scanner will outperform a $700 dslr
also he's talking in yurobucks
>>2718681
>yfw I used an $800 lense on a $300 body and a $400 MF folder
The photos aren't the same. The photos can't be emulated in a digital format. They are grains of silver suspended in butchers' scraps, for probably longer than I'll live.
They're a product of my skill and experience and passion, not an autofocused, image stabilised, 8 stops of shadow recovery imaging service delivered by a computer.
>>2718710
lel. thats no different than saying deriving equations from first principles and designing a nuclear reactor is superior to utilizing code packages and simulation tools. do you feel superior for taking pictures? literally anyone can take a picture. my dad used to have a darkroom in the basement. now he has a digital camera. just because something is easier doesnt make it inferior. thats how things progress
>>2718716
>do you feel superior for taking pictures? literally anyone can take a picture.
No, but I feel a greater sense of ownership and connection to the photos.
It's like the built vs bought argument for cars.
It's like making a Sunday dinner for your family or shouting them to fucking Sizzler.
>>2718710
I suppose you use your legs to run to work too? Instead of using your petrol powered, high speed, advanced automobile delivered by manufacturers.
That's assuming you work, but in assuming you don't because you're still using homeless person tier equipment.
>>2718693
>a $70 scanner will outperform a $700 dslr
No it won't, that's nonsense. Even a $300 scanner really won't do negatives much justice. A $70 scanner is only good for documents.
>mfw the best way to scan a negative is by taking a picture of it with a digital camera.
>>2718720
>dat homeless-tier gear
Yep, I pay for this with the dole, and eat spam & rice and drink water to survive.
[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 30mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:08:14 15:41:34 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1084 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 Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2718783
>I know, my A7s suddenly became terrible upon the release of the A7s II.
Well, your A7s wasn't a very good camera to start, but if you want to see some real deprecation, compare the A7R to the A7r2.
"This is the same problem I have with digital photography. The potential is always remarkable. But the medium never settles. Each year there is a better camera to buy and new software to download. The user never has time to become comfortable with the tool. Consequently too much of the work is merely about the technology. The HDR and QTVR fads are good examples. Instead of focusing on the subject, users obsess over RAW conversion, Photoshop plug-ins, and on and on. For good work to develop the technology needs to become as stable and functional as a typewriter."
- Alec Soth "Toy Fatigue"
>>2718786
I have had the same digital camera, outputting photos through the same software for 9 years now. People blame technology for the flaws of the people operating it, and it's idiotic. A camera does not stop working once its replacement is released.
>>2718710
>They're a product of my skill and experience and passion, not an autofocused, image stabilised, 8 stops of shadow recovery imaging service delivered by a computer.
same
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:10 00:00:08 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 1.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1836 Image Height 1530 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID C13QSGJ02SB
>>2718786
>Each year there is a better camera to buy and new software to download. The user never has time to become comfortable with the tool.
This is because you are a well-trained consumer and an abject gear faggot.
I've been using a 5dii since it came out and my lenses are even older. They are capable of producing awesome results, still better than most of the trendy hipster shit that Sorry and their ilk chucks out like sausages out of a machine.
Decide what you want to do, select quality gear and concentrate on photography instead of faggotary. Your camera will last years
>>2718793
where's the Leica you bought?
Digital always reminds me of the late 1970's-1980's and the rise of the synthesizer. You -had all these diehard devotees who swore that their keyboard sounds just like the real thing, and how you could replace a whole orchestra with one musician, and how no one is going to need to play real instruments anymore.
And then we ended up with Manheim Steamroller.
I mean, we also ended up with electronic music eventually, and it's a wonderful thing, but it also bears little resemblance to instrument-driven music. That's a good thing, too, but right now digital is stuck in that awkward 80's phase where people are still trying to figure out the real strengths of the medium. You end up with a lot of misguided notions and trends like hdr, and vsco and instagram on the other end of the scale.
p.s. vsco is a fucking joke. shoot film if you want the filmic look.
>>2718795
Babby's first edited HTML file?
>>2718794
>This is because you are a well-trained consumer and an abject gear faggot.
He's quoting alec soth, you fucking retard.
>>2718800
alec sloth can suck a dick
>>2718786
> typewriter
Hi-tech shit, chisel the fucker in stone and colour it with the blood of the animal you ate for supper
>>2718720
>I suppose you use your legs to run to work too? Instead of using your petrol powered, high speed, advanced automobile delivered by manufacturers.
A better comparison would be older vs new car.
The older car that is less expensive to buy, still does the exact same job, will last a long time if cared for by the user vs a modern one with electronic everything and a 7 year expiry date.
Also petrol is for casuals.
What it actually comes down to here is how you want to practice your photography.
Even pre-digital, some people found more joy in the aftermath of the capturing; and the work done in the darkroom, much more than the moments leading to the pressing the shutter.
And others might not enjoy digital as much because of how impersonal it is compared to film.
>>2718790
Man this so much.
I don't know why film fags say that you need to replace your digital camera every 3 years. Probably if you're a full time pro and by that time you don't care about buying expensive gear because of your income as a pro.
I myself still use my Nikon D90 and last September I have shot a wedding using it together with my reliable 28-85 3.5-4.5 AF-D lens which was like made in the late 80s or early 90s.
Don't get me wrong that I hate using film. What I hate are film fags who spout things like shooting film is cheaper. I also shoot film from time to time and I can say it is not cheap. You also have to factor in the opportunity costs of driving to a store and having it developed. Scanning them one by one costs time as well.
>>2718785
Still dramatically better than any 35mm film camera ever released. Also, financial depreciation doesn't equate to image quality/camera quality depreciation.
>>2718790
>People blame technology for the flaws of the people operating it, and it's idiotic. A camera does not stop working once its replacement is released.
This.
Digital users buy new digital cameras before their current camera dies because there are genuine improvements in digital cameras as time goes on. The camera released today is a huge step up from the camera released three years ago.
What were the huge advancements made in film cameras between 1950 and 1970? (Pro tip: there really weren't many, so there was no reason to upgrade)
This entire discussion is ridiculous though, because it's looking at the past through rose colored glasses, looking at the future through "old man afraid of change" glasses, and a completely different ecosystem. The percentage of the population trying to make photos with an entry level DSLR today is very different than the percentage of the population trying to make photos with an SLR back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. We're also on /p/, surrounded by gear faggots who KNOW that a better camera will improve their shitty boring photos. Go out into the real world, and you'll find actual artists using the same camera for years and years and years, because they ARE happy with their photos because today's cameras are fucking incredible, if you point them at anything interesting, and wait for even half-decent light, (just like you have to do with a film camera) your photos are spectacular.
It's confirmation bias, plus a lack of experience, mixed with a defensive attitude, marinated in ignorance, with a garnish of egocentrism.
Just stop it you ridiculous fuckers.
>>2718574
Are you seriously trying to imply nobody uses their camera past 100,000 shutter actuations? News flash buddy, some people take a lot of photos and don't look at gear until something of theirs breaks.
>>2718980
I would say that 95% of photographers won't make it past 100,000 actuations before they upgrade.
The people who do get there are full time commercial photographers and folks who shoot a lot of time lapse.
>>2718982
[source not provided]
>>2718972
>What were the huge advancements made in film cameras between 1950 and 1970? (Pro tip: there really weren't many, so there was no reason to upgrade)
>>2718986
The incredibly robust used market full of perfectly functional cameras with 30,000 actuations or less is a pretty good indicator.
>>2718496
I bought one digital body once someone came out with one good enough for me. I'm still using it years and years later. I won't buy another until it breaks... if it ever does. at this rate it doesn't seem to have any performance degradation despite years of regular use. switching from film to digital leaves me with 0 regrets
>>2718729
>drink water to survive.
Pretty sure everyone does this.
>>2718786
YES THEY CAN SETTLE UNLESS THEY ARE GEARFAG RETARDS
Keep spewing your barely coherent bullshit quote's, you useful idiot
>>2718810
>impersonal
Clearly not someone who shoots and understands to utilize RAW data
>>2718988
And that relates to the number of people who use their camera into the ground because.....? You seem sure there's a correlation, but I'm not seeing it.
Maybe you've looked at sales numbers of all models of DSLRs, and then counted the number of used cameras that have been on the market since the particular camera's release dated, compared against the stated shutter count on each, compiled into some sort of spreadsheet...
Can you share your data? Or are you maybe just a faggot who saw someone he didn't like one time, and then projects that view onto everyone around him?
>>2718987
Great list of advancements, that completely negates the assertion made. Nicely done.
>>2718793
Nice leica bro
Film and digital are like an acoustic and electric guitar.
An acoustic guitar has that authentic feeling, you're producing real sound from real physical properties. There is nothing like it, just like there's nothing like seeing that beautiful picture you took come to life right in front of your eyes in the darkroom. Digital does not compare, you can't compare the feeling of seeing the file in your pictures folder and opening it in Photoshop to changing filters, calibrating your machines, and smelling like piss and vinegar for a whole day.
And then an electric guitar can do incredible things that an acoustic guitar would never ever be able to do. All those sounds, distorted, clean, patchy, smooth, echoed, delayed, blah blah. And it's not inferior to an acoustic guitar, it's just different. It has a different purpose. It's not as intimate, but it's full of so many more possibilities.
gearfags are autists, DSLRfags are autists, filmfags are autists
>>2719078
this
desu baka senpai
>>2719078
It's a lot more intimate, because you can make it whatever you want. Much like a digital image, it required you to know what you're doing, and make something yourself, rather than relying on the instrument itself to do all of the "toning" work for you.
Also:
>you're producing real sound
wat.
>>2719078
>And then an electric guitar can do incredible things that an acoustic guitar would never ever be able to do. All those sounds, distorted, clean, patchy, smooth, echoed, delayed, blah blah
i can literally put a transductor in any acoustic and run it through effects. and, hilariously enough, an effected accoustic can imitate pretty fine an electric one.
but you cant imitate an acoustic with an electric. there are pedals for that and they sound ass. they are literally VSCO for guitars.
thanks for the accurate analogy, digiplebs are finally BTFO.
>>2719082
>>you're producing real sound
>wat.
what what
>>2719082
That's right, it's a lot more intimate. However, there are things that are literally impossible to do with film that you can do with digital, and the accuracy to which you can tweak your pictures to your liking is simply far superior in Photoshop. Even a master darkroom scientist can't make micro-adjustments to make exactly the same shit as I can make on my computer.
Or arguably he can, it will take him about 500% longer than it takes me to push some sliders.
>you're producing real sound
in the sense that it's not a signal sent to a digital device that blurts out a sound after a few mathematical calculations but a pure sound, like you make a picture with film and with digital you capture data.
>>2719085
>imitate pretty fine
just like I can imitate film pretty fine with those film presets for Lightroom m8
a non-retard photographer (meaning not me) can probably make a picture that's completely indistinguishable from a film shot
the feeling is different, that's the most important thing. And even if acoustic can imitate electric, film can't imitate digital.
>>2719088
>>imitate pretty fine
>just like I can imitate film pretty fine with those film presets for Lightroom m8
i think i didnt explain me properly. not imitate, it can literally sound identical. acoustic with metal strings+transducer = electric.
effects became a thing because electrics sounded thin and unremarkable on their own. effects such as chorus flanger and phaser were made to replicate acoustic properties of pipe organs.
digital photos look unremarkable on their own, thats why people try to make them look like film.
>film can't imitate digital.
just as a normal individual has a hard time imitating a retarded one. not that theres something bad with that, though.
>>2718793
why does this xpro look different to me? I cant place it. I mean besides the leica sticker lol.
>>2719090
You make fine points but I still don't think the two are comparable. You say a digital photo is dull on its own, but surely in the darkroom you use contrast filters, and the choice of film itself also impacts the end result, so aren't you doing the same thing as editing in photoshop in a different way?
Digital also introduced an ease to photography that changed the game field. Sports and nature photography and especially cinematograpy has been completely revolutionized by digital filming (hah digital filming).
As for the guitar analogy, you have me beat. I've yet to hear an acoustic guitar perfectly imitate an electric, but then I also never heard one trying to imitate an electric at all, so I wouldn't know.
>>2719092
not even arguing the usefulness of digital in certain contexts. but where am i going: there was a time there were films that had certain properties, be it color, contrast, latitude, etc. people used them and some were fairly ok with the way they were. some others experimented with xpro, double expo, pushing, etc. all that not even counting the people that printed and then photographed the prints, the absolute madmen. then you get a wide range of tonalities from a given set of "limitations".
now digital, it give you a kind of bland negative for you to work out. and what people do with that? digital cancer (tonemapping), or, they try to imitate film. ive yet to see a truly creative or innovative use of digital for image treating.
>As for the guitar analogy, you have me beat.
dude, any guy with a steel strings acoustic has tried that. sounds pretty much identical. string material is the same, sound transduction technique is the same (a coil plus magnet), frets are metal. been doing this for years, thats how i know.
>>2719104
http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/nyc-02
I think this is a good example of how digital can have its own look when it doesent try to look like film
>>2719104
>ive yet to see a truly creative or innovative use of digital for image treating.
the 'truly creative or innovative' aspect is built-in. it's inherent. digital sensors are linear capture devices. apply a an s shaped tone curve to mimic the repsonse of the human eye, and hey presto, an image that matches REAL LIFE with far more precision than any film medium ever.
digital = neutrality by default.
neutrality = transparency
more transparency = less intermediate distortion between the capture event and the reproduction meeting your eye.
>>2718412
>HIGH QUALITY DIGITAL
>WILL STICK WITH ME FOREVER
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Paint.NET v3.36 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:04:23 16:32:16 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 200 Image Height 200
>>2719014
Haha, I actually almost never drink water.
Coffee, OJ, Beer.
I'm relying on advancements in stem cell technology to be able to grow me some replacement kidneys in a test tube by the time I'm 40...
>>2719078
>film is like an acoustic guitar
Lol no. Whenever I play an acoustic guitar I don't have to have the sound that come out of it "developed" in order for me to hear it. The main reason that film is has gone out or is slowly dying is dur to the inconvenience of having it developed. Not to mention the film costs and other expenses. Film will go down like the cassette tapes and VCRs.
>>2719104
I keep trying to reply to this post, and rage quitting, but basically, anything you can do with film, you can also do with digital.
You can "cross process" you can double expose, you can "push", etc. You can print and then capture the print, you can take photos of the photo on your screen, etc.
I'm raging again as I get to the second paragraph...
8.9/10 on the troll-o-meter, nicely done.
>>2718431
why are you using the term opportunity cost when referring to time spent doing a hobby?
>>2719260
Film is more comparable to vinyl than cassette tapes. It's more inconvenient than digital but people still love it.
>>2719091
No grip.
>>2719504
looks like some parts are repainted or something too
>>2718711
This
>>2718724
>Even a $300 scanner really won't do negatives much justice.
Horseshit. A $300 dedicated 135 scanner will extract a pretty high amount of detail.
>>2718852
>Still dramatically better than any 35mm film camera ever released.
Better how? Battery life sucks. Viewfinder sucks. Handling sucks. User interface sucks. Tones suck. Depth sucks. The photos coming out of most digicams are flat lifeless Bayer filter trash all sorted in a grid of pixels.
>>2719078
>Film and digital are like an acoustic and electric guitar.
Nope. It's like a real guitar compared to the guitar preset mode on a synthesiser.
>>2719183
They all look flat and lifeless. That's the digital look.
>>2719264
>but basically, anything you can do with film, you can also do with digital.
It's not as basic as you think. Digital double exposures don't look the same. Cross processing doesn't look the same. Hell, even blurring motion on digital doesn't look the same as film.
Try this, take a 1/4s to 1/2s exposure of a video (with motion) playing back on your LCD TV. Take the same shot with a film camera. Observe the difference.
Anyone saying digital can look like film hasn't explored with film enough.
somebody asked me if my camera takes 8mm or 16mm film yesterday.
>my camera when
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 7D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.0 (Windows) Photographer Craig Norris Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:09:10 16:22:18 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Partial Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2721437
This literally all translates to:
>I don't know how to process digital images and photoshop looks scary so I don't want to learn, and also, my photos are really boring, so they can't stand up to the increased color and detail accuracy of digital. I rely on gimmicks provided by a low fidelity medium to give my photos some semblance of aesthetic value. I'll lash out at any digital photos I see with empty vague words like "lifeless" so that I can seem to be better to people who don't know any better
>it doesn't look the same
No, it doesn't, it looks better. That's why everyone switched. Like 10 years ago.
>>2721573
I don't go to places where I see people often, but when I do someone ALWAYS asks if this is a Hasselblad.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-G900V Camera Software G900VVRU2BOG5 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:15 16:50:12 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 125 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 1.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.80 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID F16QLHF01SB
>>2721630
well is it
>>2721619
That's pretty much all assumption and lack of information about myself and my photos.
Nice shot in the dark but you totally missed.
Ps. Not everyone switched. Most who did were the plebs who needed to take 1000 shots before getting a good one by chance.
>>2718412
>4 images
Wow. Quite a film thread you guys have here. Nicely done. At least you aren't all masturbating faggots who brag about your gear without using it to produce anything at all!
>>2721630
surprised people you randomly encounter have even heard of the name "hasselblad" honestly. Most people I know wouldn't be able to name anything besides canon or nikon.
You don't invest in digital, you invest in lenses, lighting, whatever.
Digital hardware depreciates as fast as iphones. Film is just a niche.
What do they have in common? most of the shit I bought for a film body works for a digital body.
Tripod? werks.
Reflectors, umbrellas, etc.? all werk
Lenses? they all work and will continue to work (don't drop them bro).
That said, if it's a hobby, the return of your money should be seen as the joy it brings you.
I don't see film as anything more than a hobby, I'm not sure what niche professional applications there are for it.
The content, idea, abstraction isn't inherent nor exclusive to a medium (imo).
It's a nice pastime though, like reading second hand books instead of ebooks... you get the same shit, nothing changed, but I guess there's a subjective perceived quality/aesthetic to it.
>>2718796
Best film/digital analogy ever. It all makes sense now. Thank you anon, you are just ahead of us a little bit.
>>2721901
Every middle-aged and older man knows what a Hasselblad is. It's that shiny, beautiful camera that they couldn't afford when they were young. It's just that after a couple of decades they think any boxy, somewhat shiny camera is a Hasselblad.
I get asked the same question too. When I tell them no, it's a Linhof, they look at me quizzically and then shrug it off. Linhof is of course a few notches above Hasselblad really...
>>2721672
It's not a film thread, it's a bait thread. Learn the difference.
>>2721959
>Linhof is of course a few notches above Hasselblad really...
lol no. they're both premium cameras with a stellar reputation.
>>2721630
so are you gonna be the national park's in-house photog or nah?
>>2721630
hey alex
>>2721970
tbqh at the time linhof was the grail to have
