Friendly reminder that film photography is a meme and anyone who still shoots film has been memed hard.
>film photography is cheap
Not when you factor in the $10/film roll and the developing costs.
>film photographers are not gear fags
Care to mention why film photographers have dozens of film slrs, rangefinders, film point and shoots and dream of owning a Leica/Contax.
>film photography teaches you to become a better photographer than using digital
With digital you can already critique whether you made a good shot or not.
>photos shot with has more value
It's still shit though. Almost all film photos I see are hipsters taking selfies of themselves in mirrors like pic related. The only people who are amazed with the colors and the "unique film look" are casuals who haven't seen a single roll of film.
>#buyfilmnotmegapickles #istillshootfilm #staybrokeshootfilm #analogisbetterthandigital
Why do film photogs scan their negatives? Why not just shoot them with digital in the first place if you are going to scan them. It defeats the purpose.
>film is cool, women love film and life is like a roll of film you should develop from the negative blah blah
If you are just in it for the looks and getting a qt gf, why not shoot a Fuji or a Nikon Df instead? With post processing techniques and apps like VSCO the "film look" can easily be replicated.
tl/dr film is a meme
>>2836104
Yeah, it's totally a meme. It's fun, though. I shoot digital for everything that actually matters, but it's nice to have a change of pace once in a while.
I will argue with one thing, though. Women, at least basic hipster girl types, really are into the whole film thing. Go take a community college photo class if you want proof.
Nice try kid.
Film still is king when it comes to IQ, iso, Dr and user friendly
>under exposed
Dark room that motherfucker.
>>2836104
Kek.
My images are unique, lasting, physical objets d' art.
Stay jelly, digiplen.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1178 Image Height 800
>>2836105
>It's fun, though.
>waiting days to see how your photo turns out and spending money to have it developed is fun
>>2836106
>Film still is king when it comes to IQ
A Nikon D810 already blows film out of the water in regards to IQ. New lenses also are better than old lenses. Wait till you see MF digital photos.
>>2836109
>Having instant gratification is necessary for everything in life
Fucking millennials...
>>2836111
Wait till you see film photos taken with digital lenses.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1192 Image Height 800
>>2836104
>Nikon Df
I agree with you except for this.
>>2836109
I shoot B&W and develop my own film. I can have finished photos same-day, and with chemicals and equipment it works out to maybe a buck a roll to process and scan.
Is it the most practical, ideal setup? No. But it's a change of pace, and it's the only practical and affordable way to shoot my Hasselblad.
>>2836104
Everything you said is correct. I still rather shoot film.
I like that film is very expensive.
I like being a gearfag but old film gear holds it's value way better than digital gear.
I like learning on film even if everything I learn I can also learn on digital.
I like how film looks even if it's not that different and can be achieved on digital.
I like having negatives, prints, and scans of my images.
I like old cameras and lenses. If I wanted to impress girls I would go to the gym and dress well.
Calling something a meme is a meme and not an argument.
I just like the minimal editing required and I like the feel of old cameras and how cheap you can get a variety of great bodies and lenses that won't be shit in 5 years time. Or picking up a film and seeing how it makes your pictures turn out. There's probably also a lot of nostalgia involved.
I wouldn't claim any of these things mean everyone should always shoot film. I have a digital camera, there are digital cameras that imitate the look and feel of film cameras quite well too.
I'll bite.
>>film photography is cheap
>Not when you factor in the $10/film roll and the developing costs.
That isn't that expensive senpai. You just have to stop being poor. My friend has the same problem.
>Start shooting film because disappointed with DSLR's
>enjoy having an aperture ring and shutter speed dial on camera
>friend is jealous of all my film pictures
>starts shooting film
>finds out about £1 film
>tell him to buy a large stock of it whenever he can
>he complains it's too expensive to shoot film
>fast forward 9 months
>he loves shooting film
>he has no film except for some stuff I gave him as a birthday gift
>doesn't process his own B/W
>still complains it's too expensive
>now he can't find his £1 film stock easily anymore and process for £2/roll
>still complains he doesn't have enough money to buy film in bulk
>>film photographers are not gear fags
>Care to mention why film photographers have dozens of film slrs, rangefinders, film point and shoots and dream of owning a Leica/Contax.
I can mention that one for myself, I have different cameras for different formats. 6x4.5, 6x6, 135 pano, 135. In the 135 I have 4 cameras, 2 SLR's (Canon/C/Y), Leica (RF) and a P&S Compact.
One's easier to carry around as the others and one of the SLR's was a gift from an old friend.
>>film photography teaches you to become a better photographer than using digital
>With digital you can already critique whether you made a good shot or not.
Nah. Digital requires you to not blow the highlights, unlike film. Digital at least has a lot more flexibility in post.
>#buyfilmnotmegapickles #istillshootfilm #staybrokeshootfilm #analogisbetterthandigital
>Why do film photogs scan their negatives? Why not just shoot them with digital in the first place if you are going to scan them. It defeats the purpose.
Nice beito desu. We live in a digital age where people share their work online too. Plus not everyone has access to a darkroom/good printing.
Film is the benchmark. Digital is just a compromise.
>>2836141
>That isn't that expensive senpai. You just have to stop being poor
>S A V A G E
>A
>V
>A
>G
>E
>>2836104
>film photographers are not gear fags
>Care to mention why film photographers have dozens of film slrs, rangefinders, film point and shoots and dream of owning a Leica/Contax.
Sure thing bb. That's because the patrician film photographer is a master of his craft, and as such keeps a variety of tools, each fitted to a particular purpose.
A digiscrub is a marketing-led casual, who buys a 99-features-in-1 consumer electronics bauble, and expects it to do everything.
The jack of all trades is the master of none.
The craftsman uses the right tool for the job.
[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 2015:10:22 15:11:09 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 1140 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 Flash Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2836141
>stop being poor
Kek
I own 2 DSLRs and a Fuji XT1. Nikon D7100 and Nikon D700 to be specific.
I have 5 lenses for my Nikon and two for my Fuji. I'm not poor and if I want it, I would get the new Nikon D500 or a Leica but I have no need for it.
What I'm saying is I'm tired of film photogs spouting to newcomers to shoot film becuase it is cheaper than buying a DSLR. The newcomers are mostly poor and would much benefit in shooting digital than buying a meme camera like a film camera.
>>2836104
Not stricly related, but did those APC sensor inserts for film SLR ever launch?
>>2836154
So buying a whole bunch of gear and pretending it all does different stuff is being a master, and only buying one thing that does everything you need and then not worrying about it anymore is being a gear fag?
Wow, no wonder I'm always so confused around here.
>>2836154
>right tool for the right job
all film slrs usually take the same types of photos a photo taken with a Nikon FM looks the same as a photo taken with a Canon A1 provided they both use the lens aperture and focal length. What matters more is film. I see filmfags who own a Nikon FM, Nikon EM, Nikon F3 which is just a sign of gearfaggotry.
A scene shot by a Nikon D700 gives a different look when it is shot by a Canon 5dmkii.
Film will die in 5 years. Fuji already increased its prices. Kodak will stop producing portra, ektar etc.
>>2836225
But Kodak is now in the black for 2016 and is pushing for more film in the West. Unless you live in not so glorious 日本
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Billy Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1400 Image Height 2100 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 960 Image Height 1440
>>2836219
>I have 5 lenses for my Nikon and two for my Fuji. I'm not poor and if I want it, I would get the new Nikon D500 or a Leica but I have no need for it.
>I'm not poor
>I have 7 lenses
>I feel the need to state I own 3 bodies and 7 lenses
>I feel the need to state I could buy a Leica if I wanted
You sure sound like you have money to spare. I'm disappointed that you don't own at least one piece of medium format gear. You should have included
>I would get the Hassy H6D-100c but I have no need for it.
>>2836225
>Film will die in 5 years. Fuji already increased its prices. Kodak will stop producing portra, ektar etc.
You're right anon. I just checked my favourite store to buy film and NOTHING is in stock! time to panic desu.
Are there any digital cameras that produce that "film style" quality?
>>2836247
Fuji has different film simulators built in, but I guess it's not remotely the same.
>>2836247
You mean bad quality? Yeah, anything from Canon more than about 7 years old.
Joking aside:
>Are there any digital cameras that produce that "film style" quality?
Which film? Most look very different, and have many different qualities.
The main issue with digital when comparing it to film is that it's too good. Too high resolution, too much color information, too neutral, and too flat.
If you want digital photos to resemble film, you have to know what you're doing and process them. Reduce color variance, reduce overall detail, adjust your curves to give a similar tone response, etc.
Shooting film is like going grocery shopping in the 40s. You go different places, for different looks. You go to the butcher's shop for your meat like you go to Velvia for your crazy saturation. You go to a bakery to get your bread like you go to Portra for your wide latitude nice skin tones, etc.
Shooting digital is like going to Whole Foods now. You can get everything you want in one place. You can get every look you want in one raw file. But much like a grocery store where you have to know how to put your ingredients together in order to get a good dish, with digital, you have to know how to process to get a good looking image.
If you're looking for straight out of the camera files that look film-ish, the closest you'll probably get is something like an XPro2, which has profiles built in that are designed to respond to light and color in a way that's similar to film. it also has very granular tone controls and even grain settings in-camera to allow you to fine-tune the look you're getting. I say XPro2 over just "fuji" in general because the settings and controls are much more nuanced in the XPro2 over even something like the X-T1.
>tfw liking something someone else doesn't like
>>2836251
>too much color information
lmaoooooooooooooooooooooo this retard.
>>2836146
real talk.
>>2836289
Yes good point. Really well expressed.
When you take a photo of a person on a portrait balanced film, you'll get very unified skin tones. Slightly red orange comes up orange. Slightly yellow orange comes up orange. Lots of different shades of the same general color. "smooth skin tones" is what people talk about.
Now take the same shot on a digital camera, and you'll see yellows, oranges, reds, even some shades of greens and blues as the light does different things with the semi translucency of skin. Too much information. Digital doesn't automatically shift the tones to one tone the way that film does.
You can look at your piece of paper and see that film is analog and therefore has infinity colors!! So clearly that's not true!
Or, you could just fucking look at it with your eyes, and see the truth right away.
>>2836298
>When you take a photo of a person on a portrait balanced film, you'll get very unified skin tones. Slightly red orange comes up orange. Slightly yellow orange comes up orange. Lots of different shades of the same general color. "smooth skin tones" is what people talk about.
You've just described exactly what tone mapping is.
>>2836298
>Now take the same shot on a digital camera, and you'll see yellows, oranges, reds, even some shades of greens and blues as the light does different things with the semi translucency of skin.
no, i look at the colors in a digital photo and it looks like shit. its that simple.
bayer interpolation producing too much info? LOL.
maybe, only maybe this is applicable to foveon, but sigma killed what made foveon unique with the newer line of cameras. so there is literally no digital camera that has "too much color information" in regards to film.
GUYS
how about
guys
GUYS
just hear me out here
GUYS
just
HOW ABOUT
YOU CAN SHOOT BOTH AND APPRECIATE THE QUIRKS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES BOTH FORMATS OFFER?
>>2836309
fuck off middle point coward.
>>2836309
You must be new here?
>>2836307
>no, i look at the colors in a digital photo and it looks like shit. its that simple.
It really isn't. The point is to decide WHY it looks like shit, and the answer is - because you haven't edited your photo correctly. And maybe you don't want to have to do that, and that's fine. But it's not the fault of the medium.
>everyone uses the troll thread as an excuse to brag about their gearfagging/hobby/passion/autism
>trolls shitpost, filmfags have a chance to talk about film stuff to someone other than themselves
>everyone is happy with all the human interaction and not a single piece of new content or original thought is produced
Film is too mainstream anyway you filthy casuals. My ferric chloride just came in the mail and I'll get an image with Poitevin's process if it's the last thing I do. God bless shitty triplet Domiplan primes for their high UVa transmittance.
>>2836104
>Not when you factor in the $10/film roll and the developing costs.
I home develop and only buy shitty 4$ films
>Care to mention why film photographers have dozens of film slrs, rangefinders, film point and shoots and dream of owning a Leica/Contax.
I own one film camera that I shoot with all the time. Also, if you can literally pick up a shitty film P&S for free, I wouldn't really call that gear fagging
>With digital you can already critique whether you made a good shot or not.
Maybe it's just me, but after I used a full manual film camera for a month during a trip, I started to much better understand light and how each setting affects without the aid of any Av or Tv modes or so
>It's still shit though. Almost all film photos I see are hipsters taking selfies of themselves in mirrors like pic related. The only people who are amazed with the colors and the "unique film look" are casuals who haven't seen a single roll of film.
now this is b8
>Why do film photogs scan their negatives? Why not just shoot them with digital in the first place if you are going to scan them. It defeats the purpose.
probably to present them on the internet I would say
>If you are just in it for the looks and getting a qt gf, why not shoot a Fuji or a Nikon Df instead? With post processing techniques and apps like VSCO the "film look" can easily be replicated.
I never heard about people shooting film to attract bitches desu
tl/dr you're an idiot
>>2836322
kurwa wtf is wrong with you.
>>2836318
oh you didnt wake up this morning planning to be schooled did you, baitman? or was this all an elaborate plan to get informed without directly asking for it?
anyways here is your protip:
protip: film needs processing to look good too, the difference with digital is, film offers you a raw piece of gold to polish, while digital offers you a piece of carbon coke or some shit ass material like that.
>>2836318
>because you haven't edited your photo correctly
Every time.
Yet for some reason I have yet to see digital images as pleasing as film being made even from photography masters or editing professionals in the motion picture industry who use some of the best digital sensors.
>>2836366
>Yet for some reason I have yet to see digital images as pleasing as film being made even from photography masters or editing professionals in the motion picture industry who use some of the best digital sensors.
there is this parallel universe where digifags edit their photos to look like film, ambrotypes and the like, make their crop sensors digishot look like LF, but we will never access it.
>>2836366
I have.
Seems like your baseless opinion is totally invalid oh man.
>>2836374
>I have.
Post examples then.
>>2836376
Because it's a completely subjective concept, and as a 4chan user defending film with this stupid of an argument, in this totally horse shit level thread, no matter what photo gets posted, from any number of fantastic artists, you'll simply reply that it's not as good as film, and since it's totally subjective, there's no way to ever prove you wrong, so you'll act like you've won, and I'll have wasted a great deal of my time, and gotten upset.
>>2836382
>Im a photoless digifag that cant back up his claims!
Every time.
>>2836382
Post them anyways. I mean what do you have to lose? You are anonymous.
>>2836389
>I'll have wasted a great deal of my time, and gotten upset.
>>2836366
I'll take this moment to renew my as-of-yet unmet challenge:
Take a photo on film.
Take the same photo, in the same light, of the same scene, at the same time, with a digital camera released in the last 5 years, exposed well with the intent to process.
Post the film photo, and the raw image, and I'll match them in 20 minutes or less.
>>2836394
LOL. no you cant.
but if i were to give you some material, id give you a night time flash shot done with a disposable. literally unmatchable in digi.
>>2836401
>Post the film photo, and the raw image, and I'll match them in 20 minutes or less.
>>2836394
Challenge accepted. I'll do it with 6x7 and a FF dslr. I'll megaupload both the TIFF of the scan and the RAW of the digital shot, and I'll post a jpeg of the film image with basic adjustments (colour correction, curves and resizing) for you to match.
>>2836413
Thanks that will be great.
Be sure to expose with intent to edit. If highlights are important in the film image, be sure they're preserved in the digital image, etc.
OP is right. that is all.
>>2836219
>go to goodwill
>buy canon ae-1 for 10 dollars
>buy four pack of fujicolor 200 at wahlgreens for 15 dollars
>get it developed for 10 dollars
It's not that expensive and if you plan your shots out and buy bulk film you can keep it quite cheap
>>2836342
>pic
kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVfp23RL7Nk
>>2836417
I'm going to choose a high dynamic range scene on purpose because I don't think that anything short of digital medium format can replicate the tonal curve of film in high dynamic range scenes. Obviously I intend not to have any blown highlights in the digital image. Hell i'll bracket it and upload a few different exposures.
>>2836424
lol you can see the vfx director frowning every time the yellow pen comes down
>>2836425
Great. Looking forward to it. I'll even try to do it without using multiple exposures, but depending on what the scene is, and what camera you're using, it might not be possible.
>>2836427
developing and scanning the film will take a few days so I'll make a thread for it when i have the images
>>2836430
I'm around for a few hours almost every week-day during morning and mid afternoon EST. Shouldn't be an issue to sync up.
>>2836431
Not the other anon. Are you just going to use the match color tool in photoshop? I hope not, it's not really going to prove you can edit your digital only pictures to look like film.
>>2836441
>Are you just going to use the match color tool in photoshop?
No, but if that's all it took, why would that be a problem? Would finding out that it's really easy make me wrong somehow?
>>2836309
Only in an ideal world would that ever happen
>>2836109
>waiting days
Gary Winogrand would wait minimum one year before developing his shots and seeing them. If you need to see your shot right after clicking the button, you should probably just give up.
>>2836466
>>2836104
I agree 35mm film is a meme
but MF and LF is still the real deal. When you shoot on a 5x5 negative with some good glass, it will blow you away
tl;dr a buddy of mine once built a 8' x 10' camera and the negatives/prints looked amazing
>>2836442
Because it would require one to shoot an identical scene on film to create a film look in digital.
>>2836478
The point is not to make every single image look exactly like it would if you had taken it on film, the point is, digital is capable of producing the exact same image if you want it, and know what you're doing in post.
>>2836481
Well you wouldn't know what you're doing in post if you use match color. It's not a technique that can replicated for new digital pictures unless as I said you shoot film at the same time.
>>2836483
>It's not a technique that can replicated for new digital pictures unless as I said you shoot film at the same time.
And yet, it would absolutely demonstrate that a file coming from a digital camera is capable of looking the same as a photo taken on film.
But don't get worked up. I'm not going to do anything as cheap as that. There will be real processing involved.
>>2836486
Of course any file can be replicated to look like another file if you can do pixel by pixel conversions. I don't know the algorithm that Photoshop uses but as an extreme example replacing every pixel in the digital image with the pixel in the film image proves nothing except that ones and zeros can be copied on a computer.
And good.
>>2836489
Well if I really wanted to be a dick, I would just open both files, copy the entire film image, and paste it on top of the digital image! Haha
But no, I'm not trying to avoid being wrong by being pedantic and ridiculous. I genuinely believe that through quality processing, a digital file can be made to look like it would have looked on film, through understanding of how film behaves, and applying the right alterations to a digital file to replicate the look and feel.
And if I'm wrong, I'll come straight out and say it, as well as post my failed results. But I've shot a lot of film, and I've been editing digital for a long time, and I know that film isn't magic, and that digital will anywhere you take it, so long as you know what you're doing.
>>2836494
You can't simulate larger sensor size, and that's the main bottleneck in digital quality.
But if this was supposed to be a comparison with any real merit or ramifications, instead of just a fun challenge for banter, we would be comparing the prints produced by a fully digital workflow on the one hand an a fully analog one on the other. I.e. a chromogenic print versus an inkjet print. (Lambda prints are more of a grey area because even though they use lasers to project a digital image they use the same dye transfer process/chemistry as in a traditional chromogenic print).
>>2836521
>You can't simulate larger sensor size, and that's the main bottleneck in digital quality.
A larger sensor isn't magic, it's just more surface area to minimize grain and add more detail. It's just more resolution, essentially. You can replicate it by getting a higher resolution sensor. The narrow depth of field can be produced with a faster lens (you don't see many f/1.2 lenses on 6x7 lenses)
And there's always stitching, but who can be bothered to deal with that.
>>2836526
Conversely, a smaller lens isn't magic. Resolving the same amount of detail information or resolution in a physically smaller space requires more precise and consistent optics and involves a smaller margin of error. It's not like lenses resolve an infinite amount of detail and it's only the resolution of the sensor that prevents us from accessing it. While in theory it's possible that optics scale linearly, they certainly don't scale linearly in terms of production costs and feasibility. (Just like sensors, in fact).
Besides, to replicate the amount of information you can get from an ideal 6x7 image you would need maybe an 80 megapixel FF sensor. I don't think any such sensor exists and even if it did, speaking from experience after around 36-40 megapixels the lenses become a big limiting factor (i.e. you have to use really good lenses and keep them in their sweet spot).
>>2836540
Modern sensors are using modern lenses (in theory) which are generally well corrected, and are designed with high resolution sensors in mind. The fact that you need a good lens to get high detail is true with digital, but it's also true with film. Not to mention, you can't be using ISO 400 film if you want to get that much detail out of film, you've got to be using ISO 25 slide film (or B&W) on a tripod.
I'll concede that no digital I've ever seen can come close to the level of detail you get with say, and 8x10 camera with a great lens, on slow film, in great light, but I'm not really sure that that's going to be much of an issue for most people. In general, the "Film look" people are trying to get is the color and the contrast and the tones, which are within reach.
Off the bat, I'll straight up say, there's nothing I do do to take the file from your 12mp aps-c camera and replicate the amount of detail that would be in a 4x5 shot. :)
>>2836547
Modern lens designs that can produce astounding amounts of detail at extreme reductions certainly exist. The problem is simply that practically no lenses with that level of quality and precision for small digital sensors have been produced. There simply hasn't been any (economic) reason to do so--the manufacturing costs are way too high and until recently sensor technology couldn't even make use of that level of detail.
I think that the most important part of the film look is the tones. I think the unique tonal quality of film is especially noticeable in two areas: the luminosity gradient between areas of light and shadow, and the modulation (of texture and detail) on flat or unbroken surfaces in the picture. These are both things that, in digital at least, seem directly correlated to the level of resolution, which is also why pictures always look better when you downsize them..
>>2836146
>muh film also magically traps emotions in photos
Fucking lol. This is some extreme level bullshit.
>>2836583
Film gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Even when it's a sharp medium or large format image without film grain. Film is like being there. Digital is like being told what it looks like.
ITT: Digicucks jealous their precious ugly junks of circuits will never amount to a simple light box and film, in both IQ, aesthetics and joy of use
I've said it once and I'll say it again
Stay mad, digicucks
>>2836394
Not you again, do you just stay on this board and argue with people who shoot film?
Your shitty digital camera will never look like film, why do you feel the need to cry about it so much, you pathetic autist
>>2836595
>>2836603
Unless you use an enlarger and photographic paper, every film photo you see has been digitised. How do you then explain the feelings?
Not trolling, I shoot both, I don't defend one or the other, just want to know why you don't lose these weird emotions when the photo is transferred to digital.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:19 22:31:59 Exposure Time 13 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2836134
>I like wasting my money
>I'm saying you're right but I refuse to admit film is a meme because I've spent too much money on it to go back
Let's break this down. There are two camps.
>I'm a pretentious emotional child with no real responsibilities, no respect for money and no desire to become a better photographer.
>I actually want to take photographs and get better at taking photographs.
>>2836604
>You're wrong but I'm too afraid you're right to rise to the challenge and back up my argument.
I really can't tell if I have some bias or something but I just can't get to like the look of digital. But at the same time I can't put my finger on it. I guess it's less in the technical but just how film ends up looking most of the time. Everything flows together like in an oil painting. But in digital it feels like every object has a sharp border. Even when you blur the image. Then film has texture while digital has this strange smoothness. Even with added grain that smoothness is visible. Again I can't put my finger on it but digital images look less 3D compared to film. Even though digital has a bigger dynamic range now the highlights just look softer on film. I mean is it really just me? When I watch some pre-digital movies sometimes the colors and the atmosphere have me in awe. I can't remember this ever happening with digital. The colors there, no matter how much you saturate them just seem to lack life.
>>2836664
>When I watch some pre-digital movies sometimes the colors and the atmosphere have me in awe. I can't remember this ever happening with digital.
But you're watching a digital version that was also no doubt remastered with a digital process.
>>2836671
most films are still shot on, you know, film. (Albeit on positive stock so there's no printing, it just gets developed then scanned)
>>2836639
>no respect for money
what the fuck.
>>2836672
And then a digital master is projected. ;)
I also wanna see a source on "moist films are still shot on, you know, film", because I bet you're wrong and are just pulling stuff out of your ass.
Here's a chart that tracks IMDB stats that says otherwise.
Whatever, bro. I was gonna write a detailed response, but instead I'm just gonna go outside and take some photos (with my film camera).
>>2836672
>most films are still shot on, you know, film
So few films are shot on "y'know, film" that when a current film is show on film, it makes the news.
You could have this argument simply replacing 'film' with 'vinyl' and 'digital' with 'mp3'.
Analogue formats have two strengths over digital;
The 'background' strength is the fact that they're a little bit crap. By this I mean, film photographs normally have a sense of warmth that is akin to the crackle of vinyl.
The main factor is the limitation. If I'm taking a picture of you, there is a massive difference between only having one roll of film and being able to take thousands of images AND review them on the spot. It's true that with digital I could take (particularly technically) an excellent photograph of you, but that's not particularly challenging or exciting.
You see people on holiday quite literally documenting every single point of interest with their digital cameras. Because there's next to no limit, there's next to no room to forget.
If digital were a sexual partner, it'd be absolutely perfect on paper. Hell, you'd be happy 90% of the time. Film would be that one time you were 16, stayed in a hotel by yourself, and ended up having sex with a woman in her late 30's, only to spend your whole life remembering how odd but enjoyable (uncanny?) that event was. The sort of event that just happens out of the blue.
tl;dr - digital good, too good.
>>2836682
I love it when people post graphs that prove their own point wrong
>>2836706
lol wut
>>2836706
Are you suggesting that you're being pedantic, and actually mean "most of the films that exist in the world were shot on film, and even though almost all films are now shot on digital, overall, they are still a minority"?
![proxy[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MQtt32i.jpg "proxy[1].jpg")
serious question, how many digital cameras can do this?
face it, film has latitude...
someday maybe, digital technology will overtake film. but not for a while
>>2836714
Are you asking how many cameras can shoot at ISO 3200? Most of them.
>>2836714
Are you asking how many cameras can help you spy and stalk random families?
>>2836718
there's something in your head called a brain... use it
>>2836722
>This insult brought to you by the 6th grade!
>>2836714
If latitude is the only thing going for film
then digital technology has already overtaken it
>>2836723
meme questions get meme replies
>>2836724
>then digital technology has already overtaken it
feel free to show me
>>2836682
>top 100
Ok, now top 20?
Films made with actual budgets by bankable directors still use film, because it is the medium of choice for anyone who has the choice.
>>2836732
>1 Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Film
>2 Jurassic World
Film
>3 Avengers: Age of Ultron
Digital
>4 Inside Out
CGI
>5 Furious 7
Mix of digital and film
>6 Minions
CGI
>7 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
Digital
>8 The Martian
Digital
>9 Cinderella
Film
>10 Spectre
Mix of Digital and Film
>11 Mission: Impossible
Mix of Digital and Film
>12 Pitch Perfect 2
Digital
>13 The Revenant
Digital
>14 Ant-Man
Digital
>15 Home
CGI
>16 Hotel Transylvania 2
CGI
>17 Fifty Shades of Grey
Digital
>18 The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water
Digital and CGI
>19 Straight Outta Compton
Digital
>20 San Andreas
Digital
>>2836762
>holy fuck new movies are garbage
Has anyone else here actually seen San Andreas? The whole film I was fighting back the urge to scream out John McEnroe-style "Oh come on!"s at the screen.
>>2836766
Exactly
Where the hell is TH8
>>2836772
The Hateful Eight is #54 on the list of Top 100 grossing movies. It's right below the terrible Fantastic Four remake.
>>2836777
Goddamn, not even in the top 50 but the revenant is in the top 15? Wew
>>2836831
Well, one is a good movie, and the other one starred Leonardo DiCaprio. What do you expect?
>>2836845
I'm just surprised that's the one he got the Oscar for
>>2836766
They shut down my favorite driving road for a month to shoot that movie. I haven't seen it yet but some of the regulars at my road have, and they said the only good thing about the whole movie was seeing our road in it.
>>2836104
>show up to a community college with a hassy around your neck
you have no idea how much pussy you get if you're not an autist
10/10 OP
>>2836975
I went to the local botanical garden with mine the other day and had a similar reaction.
I also took a CC photo class for easy credit a few years back, and there was a tangible sploosh when I pulled my D3S out, though. I was every 19 year old scene girl's favorite classmate that semester, too bad I had a GF at the time.
>>2836721
kek.
>>2836714
>shows example of great quality
>looks like shit
>digital cameras obviously superior
>>2836986
>too bad I had a GF at the time.
lol cuck
>>2836995
meh she was hotter than any of them were and probably not any more crazy.
>>2836975
>film camera gets you pussy
>sex makes you more relaxed
>allows you to take better pictures
conclusion: film makes you a better photographer
>>2836113
If I remember correctly, it was you who shot eos 30 with Sigma 30 1.4 art.
I really liked your shots and I was surprised that there was next to no vignetting from the crop lens on ff
>>2836975
>using a neckstrap with a hasselblad
>getting pussy
Pick one
>>2837075
>holding it in your hand like an awkward cuck
Pentaxfag detected
>>2836638
My photos of my family and of cool things I have photographs is not a waste of money. To the contrary, they are priceless.
I have spent less than 1500$ on gear. That would have gotten me a nice digital camera. Too bad it would be worth half as much today. That is the waste of money. My gear is worth exactly what I paid for it and cold sell it at any moment.
Again saying something is a meme means absolutely nothing and is not an argument.
If you read the OP you can clearly see all it does is dispel film myth. I absolutely agree. Film is not magic. It's just a different process. Just because something is expensive doesn't make it a waste.
>>2836762
Jurassic world was film? Didn't know that.
Imagine you're a director and the studio comes to you and asks why you are spending so much money on film when digital is cheaper. You tell them the highest grossing films were shot on film. What are they going to say?
>>2837078
k flava flav
>>2837073
Yeah, it's a bit stupid, but most of the time when I get hard vignetting with that thing it's from leaving the hood on, because I've lost the lense cap and don't particularly want the front element grinding up against things in my backpack.
I should probably take a grinder to the hood and nip out the corners, but meh.
I just really like that it's so fast (it actually meters about 1/2 a stop faster than my other 1.4 lenses) and so wide, and so sharp in the centre, and has that gentle loss of light and sharpness as it moves to the edges of the frame.
>>2837106
>why you are spending so much money on film when digital is cheaper
The difference is negligible for a movie with Jurassic World's budget.
If you, as a direct consumer, wanted to buy enough film to record 40h of Panavision footage on 35mm film, it would cost you roughly $170,000. Add more $40,000 to process and $60,000 to scan, and it's still 0.2% of the budget of Jurassic World.
>>2836225
>all film slrs
>Film will die
Shoot 4x5 or 8x10 on RC paper. Problem solved.
>>2837110
as /fa/ as a $5000 watch for much less
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 960 Image Height 720
>>2836104
A big part of photography is the process of translation of what you see into what you want the camera to see. I'm talking about per-visualization here, the process before you even take your camera to your eye. The better you are at that translation process, the better you will be. With a film camera where chimping is just not an option you will get better at thinking before shooting rather than shooting and checking the image in post. I'd still recommend digital for total beginners so they can do a decent amount of test shots so they get it into them how shutter speed, exposure and ISO work. After that, switch to film if you want to get better. Of course you can also force yourself not to chimp and use optical viewfinders only. I did that using the Canon 700D (screen flipped around) and it's awesome. Has the same effect essentially.
The process in the darkroom for black and white can teach you a lot about the properties of light and capturing light as well and it's very fun and also makes you a more careful photographer by its very nature. The more work you put into something, the dearer it is to you. With digital photography the amount of images taken per year has increased immensely, but quality images get rarer. In some situations it can be useful to limit yourself and slow yourself down (not if you're a pro wedding photographer of course, don't go home without at least 5000 pictures mirrored on two cards nowadays. HEY ANYONE HERE SHOOT WEDDING ON 8 x 10).
Film usually still works a bit better for situations where highlights would be blown and unrecoverable shooting digital. But using gradient filters and underexposing intentionally a bit can solve that quite well in most cases with digital.
And then there's the absolutely neat advantage of the different formats which produce very different looks and possibilities. I believe there are digital large format cameras as well, but they are not yet for the consumer. Hey, maybe in 20 years?
>>2837177
>falling this hard for the bait
>>2837189
I don't care if bait or not, I didn't even actually read the complete OP. I just wanted to put down my thoughts why I like film. I like that kind of thing, that's why I'm on a discussion board.
>filmcucks will never ever ever get over the fact they're deprecated and dying
>b-b-but muh nostalgia for bad IQ, bad color and bad image reproduction means f-film is good
Digishills goin hard today
>being cucked from all the technological advances of the last 20 years
>>2836146
Do people just stay on snapshit mode and never experiment with any of the basic settings?
film is pretty amazing
they managed to actually physically create a medium which consists entirely of placebo, nostalgia, and enshrining mediocrity
>>2837677
I think the only reason people like film is because people grew up with it and all their memories from childhood are in film
I don't think anyone will like it when all their childhood memories are in iphone pictures
>>2837686
so film is literally for old people, who are scientifically retarded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
>>2837677
>what are tv show dvd box sets
>what are greatest hits albums
>what are chain restaurants
>what is american 'culture'
It's just different.
That attitude that something is better or worse jumps around everywhere in these boards and beyond.
Best videogame, best music, best actor, worst anime girl. All according to taste and the meme here has always been to pretend there's some kind of superior taste in things that are just plain subjective.
There's some truth to the hipster-esque cult around film, but in the end I just see it as the difference between a light roast and dark roast coffee.
>>2837710
t. man who likes objectively bad thing
>>2836104
>tfw no qt gf who shoots film
Why even live
>>2837710
IMO it's objectively worse in 99% of situations, but it's still fun and I still shoot film occasionally.
I just like my "shik shik" windup and my "clack kathwack" shutter. Shooting my DSLR feels like firing a semiauto handgun, while my Hasselblad feels like a bolt-action rifle.
>>2839427
>first day of taking dad's old film camera for a spin
>heading to grab lunch with friends
>a qt girl on the street notices the camera and strikes up a conversation
>turns out she loves shooting film, B&W, does darkroom stuff
>about to ask her number or something
>friend's friend tag along fedora gets antsy because he's hungry
>tells the girl to piss off
>"S-sorry, I should go now, cya"
>never see her again
A-at least I still have my camera.
>>2836146
Photons do not retain their feels when they impact the harsh surface of semiconductor lattices and gets turned into an electron hole pair because there is no quantum number for feels in the electron wavefunction.
Meanwhile when photons impact photosensitive materials such as film feels are preserved in how the molecules are excited ams adopt their new conformation in the unique geometry of every single particle relative to the other.
It's true guys
>>2837712
Eh whatever man. Pleasant is subjective. I find it much more pleasant rowing through the gears in my car manually. Most people do not. I find it more pleasant shooting film, others disagree.
The desire to prove to the opposing side why your view is superior is pointless because one's opinion on the subject matters to nobody except oneself.
>>2839445
This week on That Totally Happened
>>2839441
>IMO it's objectively worse in 99% of situations
Wat. Maybe worse if you look at numbers only like a scientist and not an artist.
>>2836104
>film photography is a meme
right
> anyone who still shoots film has been memed hard
fucking p...
