Anyone else feeling sad over the loss of film not only as a photographer but also as someone who looks at photographs?
I feel it made the world look more sterile. Photographs in magazines, on the internet, movies... almost all digital nowadays. Artists may be able to make digital look really good with editing but most people don't bother. With film they still made pleasing images that I might enjoy looking at. Film photographs have a painting like quality to me. They make an emotional impression on me because of the light and shadows and colors and tones. Digital only makes an impression on me because of the content in an image. Film shows while digital describes. These are my feelings.
Anyone can relate?
>>2729708
It's nostalgia. Nothing more.
>>2729709
Is that a meme because that made me laugh
>>2729708
The thing that gets me with film is that you're closer to your images.
Try enlarging, correcting and printing a roll of 36 exposures. It takes for ever and requires a lot of skill and effort. But the prints are ones you immediately hold and can hang up, the satisfaction is incredible.
With digital you make some awesome photos, throw them into some folder on your PC, and never look at them again. Or worse yet, just throw them up on social media to get a handful of likes and that's that.
The problem with film is your typical pleb that sees a printed picture doesn't appreciate it at all. None of the time and effort to create it is seen, it's just down to what's shown on the image.
>>2729713
It's not a meme, it's the truth.
The look of film has a nostalgic effect, which is why digital can copy it and achieve the same result.
>>2729713
Implying memes are funny
>>2729708
I grew up with film and witnessed the entire transition to digital.
Your entire post is a load of gibberish, mate, to be blunt. If you're not a troll (the absurdity of the content seems too exaggerated for any sane person) you must have some serious underlying reason to go around saying/thinking things like that.
Aside from technical differences there is absolutely no difference in the end result an end user gets, colour balance, contrast and sharpness are all metaphorical (or literal, in some cases) sliders the photographer can tweak to alter the resulting image.
In one of the endless digi vs anal threads an anon posted a set of his shots, some digital, some analog, asking others to tell which were which. It's like re-labelling cheap and expensive wines.
Bull.
Faeces.
>>2729718
Just because you're describing your process doesn't mean that is THE process.
You can shoot a roll of film, send it to Walgreens for dev, get your negs and some little prints, come home, and throw it in a drawer, and then pick up a digial camera, shoot with care and love, take your photos home, load them to your drive, spend hours processing and working them, and then print them out on gorgeous paper, and hold them in your hand.
You're worshiping the format, when all that really matters is the content.
Also there is something magical about holding a large format slide.
What you think you're seeing is probably entirely placebo.
Not OP, but I somewhat agree that photographs in general probably got a little less nice to look at. I'm mainly talking about pictures made by people who don't consider themselves photographers or hobbyists, who just want to take a quick picture for the memories.
Simple color negatives have the advantage of having a very large dynamic range, and most of the time having pleasing, balanced colors. Even cheap stuff like Kodak Gold or Superia or something looks pretty good, straight from the camera.
Meanwhile JPEGs straight from most digital cameras (including smartphones) don't look as nice, with blown skies and crushed blacks, and weird colors. Don't get me wrong, with just a little bit of editing you can still make any digital picture look pleasing (and I don't mean slapping on some VSCO filter to make it look somewhat like film), but most people aren't interested in editing. They simply don't care.
If I just look at family albums or the pictures my grandfather took with his vitomatic there's a huge difference with the JPEGs of a modern point and shoot. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it.
printed digital is garbage. you cant deny this.
>>2729819
disposable camera prints are garbage. you cant deny this.
ergo film = total shit
Cool logic bro, what digital printed where on what, hm? Just 'cos your local walgreens did a shit job printing your shit snapshits doesn't set the standard for the entire industry/everyone else. go suck a dick or something productive, straight cis man
I use both film and digital but I can't say that I've ever taken a good photo with my dslr - it's just too easy and makes me not care about the image.
With film I'm usually much more aware of composition, lightning etc because I know that I only have a limited number of pictures to take.
>>2729823
Maybe it's just a cognitive bias of assigning more value and worth to something (an image) that took more time, focus and effort to produce, REGARDLESS of its actual quality or value, over images achieved with less effort and thus, less focus?
As in, film pic isnt better cos you took your time but you think it better because of the time taken, you look for its pros and gloss over shortcommings as unavoidable and unforseeable because of the medium's more challenging and non-instant nature.
>>2729823
>I can't say that I've ever taken a good photo with my dslr - it's just too easy and makes me not care about the image
That's a problem with you, not with digital.
>>2729823
As mentioned above, that is your problem. A very stupid one, really. I'd rather take a two dozen shots to make sure the picture I want is captured on my digital rather than take one or two pictures and just be satisfied with what I get because I'm concerned about limitations of finite number of shots, and therefore costs. The whole 'DSLR is too le easy', is incredibly stupid and weak argument, and I can't believe it gets parroted around here; its giving me a negative impression of people who use film.
>>2730188
There is no getting through to these people.
>Oh no my dslr image didn't come out perfectly DIGITAL A SHIT!
>My film photo didn't come out perfect! That's just part of it's charm and FEEL that digital can't replicate lol
>>2730209
>I can tell that these 3 anons are 3 talentless anons from the recent photo threads
Wow, are you batman? Because those are some excellent detective skills!
>>2729823
>it's just too easy and makes me not care about the image.
If the only thing you think making your photos good is how difficult it is to make them, you're not making good photos in any circumstances.
>I can't build a good house because this hammer just works too well I can't care about it.
The problem is you, not the equipment, and blaming digital cameras for your inability to discipline yourself is immature and ridiculous.
>>2730251
i am the batman.
I use both wet plates and film but I can't say that I've ever taken a good photo with my SLR - it's just too easy and makes me not care about the image.
With wet plates I'm usually much more aware of composition, lightning etc because I know that I only have a limited number of wet plates and developer.
Let's compare water colour vs Photoshop painting next
>>2730261
kek
>>2730176
I never said the problem was the dslr
>>2730252
>you're not making good photos in any circumstances
nice projecting. Also never said that the only thing that makes a good photo is how hard it is to take.
>>2730188
>I'd rather take a two dozen shots
I guess that's the main difference. I never take more than 2 shots of the same scene, mainly because I'm lazy and don't want to spend time choosing between a dozen identical images the one with a slightly better framing
>>2729837
I agree
Anyway, my original post wasn't an attempt at saying which format is better, just what works for me
>>2730291
>I never said the problem was the dslr
>>I can't say that I've ever taken a good photo with my dslr - it's just too easy and makes me not care about the image
That's literally exactly what you are saying there.
>Film is better
>Because DSLR is too easy
>>2730313
your reading comprehension is poor — the problem is that I don't care about the image
I used to think that way but then I just realized I could just shoot digital like I would shoot film by being less lazy and lulled in by the comforts of automation
>>2730261
>a_weapon_to_surpass_metal_gear.cr2
>>2730316
Fill your memory card with junk leaving yourself enough room for 30 or so shots.
I think I just cured you of your snapshits problem.
>>2730320
>yfw shooting .tiff on a late 90ies IR-dedicated Camedia with a SmartMedia 128Mb card, literally constrained to a couple of shots.
>>2729719
>This is what digilolfags believe
>>2730320
>snapshits
woah careful with that projecting, bro
If you compare same formats with same lenses, etc, I don't think there's a noticable difference (after appropriate processing). I do think there is some difference between then and now, but it's with lenses, not film. Modern lenses are a hell of a lot better for a number of things, but their rendering tends to be very different.
it's something that happens with everything else desu, if you make it easier to take photos it's harder to make them as good as with something that takes more effort
moreover film wasn't made with fidelity as the most important aspect, whereas digital is first and foremost about fidelity which to the untrained practitioner is almost useless
>>2730364
lmao how the fuck did i write desu
>>2729708
>These are my feelings.
IKTF. I have all of the feelings you describe.
>Artists may be able to make digital look really good with editing
Only a small fraction of "good" post processed photos is as good as image captured with film.
Digital cannot yet replace film because of spectral response specifics.
>>2729726
>Aside from technical differences there is absolutely no difference in the end result an end user gets, colour balance, contrast and sharpness are all metaphorical ... sliders the photographer can tweak to alter the resulting image
Lol@u. Whether you find the actual difference an "absolutely no" or not is your own deal.
Of course it is possible to paint the lack of colour separation which digital cameras lack manually in Photoshop - after one gets many samples for analysis they may reproduce any colour scheme for one image. WIll they do it for many images? Of course not, because it is not an automated process. VSCO is the thing which is automated but still does not make quality of colour of digital photos to match the ones of film.
>>2730316
>the problem is that I don't care about the image
Because in your own words "it's too easy" you are literally blaming the DSLR for your inability to take a good photo or care about the photos taken with it.
If you actually took the time to take a photo then it would be different. Instead you blame the DSLR for your lack of self control.
>>2730316
>the problem is that I don't care about the image
/p/
>>2730413
ok.
>>2729708
Film isn't dead you fucking idiot. Buy more. Use it. Support it.
>tfw over 1000' of bulk-load TMX in the fridge
>tfw over 1000 sheets of 4x5 / 8x10 in the fridge
Film isn't dead for me for at least 10 years.
>>2730435
/thread
