[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/p/ - Photography

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)00:54 UTC+1 No.2365621 Report

>that feel when born too late

>missed the glorious era of film
>when almost all photographs were taken with film
>all kinds of unique cameras and formats that had full support
>lots of different films all processed everywhere quickly for a good price


>now almost everyone uses digital
>digital pictures everywhere, barely any professionals use film
>digital looks sterile and flat
>no one but a few people seem to notice that so support for film is small
>some cameras are irreparable and some formats have no support anymore
>only a small number of films is around anymore
>getting anything developed but print film is expensive and takes long

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
isi 07/18/14(Fri)00:55 UTC+1 No.2365623 Report

So learn to dev yourself, you baby-backed bitchboy.

>digital looks sterile and flat
Post matters.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)00:56 UTC+1 No.2365624 Report

>>2365621
>that feel when born 1 year late for gen-x
>that feel when learned on film in the 90s
>that feel when most of the good emulsions are gone.
FUCK
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:12 UTC+1 No.2365636 Report

>>2365624
>that feel when no kodachrome
>that feel when no provia 400x
>that feel when no astia
>that feel when no kodak slide film anymore
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:13 UTC+1 No.2365638 Report

>>2365621
god, shut up
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:29 UTC+1 No.2365648 Report

>born in early 90s
>dawn of the digital age
>end of analog era
>experienced pretty much all media formats from VHS, floppies, and cassettes, to disks and digital.
>first camera was a 4MP Casio.

Now i want to go dig and find that shitty old casio
>>
XDDDDDDDDD 07/18/14(Fri)01:32 UTC+1 No.2365652 Report

>>2365621
>digital looks sterile and flat

yeah okay

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2013:08:11 14:42:49
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length28.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width5616
Image Height3744
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:39 UTC+1 No.2365654 Report

>>2365652
>f3.5
>out of focus
>blocked shadows
>terrible composition, terrible lighting
>5616x3744
da fuq are you trying to prove with this photo?
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:39 UTC+1 No.2365655 Report

>>2365652
lol
Clearly you uploaded the wrong file, right?
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:43 UTC+1 No.2365656 Report

>tfw first camera was a film SLR back in 2007
>only bought run of the mill Kodak Gold film, didn't know that different films had different characteristics
>switched to digital in late 2007
>forgot about film for a while
>tfw i could have shot kodachrome, but missed my chance
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:54 UTC+1 No.2365662 Report

>>2365621
The average digital photo taken today looks many times better than the average photo taken on film 20 years ago.

Now is the golden era, not then. Now you can take as many photos as you want, see them instantly, and process them however you want. No physical space requirements, no chemicals, no wait times, no recurring costs, and very negligible "number of shot" constraints.

If you feel that your digital files are flat and sterile, it's because you're not processing your images properly.

Yes, there may have been more systems and manufacturers in the 60s, but every single system out right now beats the ever-loving shit out of the stuff coming out back then. If you can't take a great image with any camera made in the last 10 years, it's not the technology's fault, it's yours.

is film nice, and in some cases wonderful? Absolutely, but to say that photos are lower quality now for using digital is 100% false.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)01:57 UTC+1 No.2365664 Report

>>2365654
>none of your complaints are about it being flat and/or sterile
You've proven what he was trying to prove
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:05 UTC+1 No.2365666 Report

>>2365662
>If you feel that your digital files are flat and sterile, it's because you're not processing your images properly.

I keep reading that yet even digital photographs processed by professionals still have that digital look.

>Yes, there may have been more systems and manufacturers in the 60s, but every single system out right now beats the ever-loving shit out of the stuff coming out back then.

Beats in what? Back then there was a lot more variety. Not everyone cares for performance alone.

>If you can't take a great image with any camera made in the last 10 years, it's not the technology's fault, it's yours.

I look at great digital images and almost always I think how they could be improved if they were taken on film. Especially color wise I haven't been impressed by a digital photograph in a long time.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:08 UTC+1 No.2365667 Report

>film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1000
Image Height964
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2014:02:03 13:21:09
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width375
Image Height375
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:08 UTC+1 No.2365668 Report

>>2365664
It is totally flat and sterile. Look at it yourself. But the photo would be just as shit if taken on film.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:18 UTC+1 No.2365672 Report

>>2365664
that's because it so obviously is
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:18 UTC+1 No.2365675 Report

>doing film photography only to scan them into a computer for a digital representation

If you're doing that, stop shooting film and just go digital already.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:25 UTC+1 No.2365678 Report

>>2365666
>I keep reading that yet even digital photographs processed by professionals still have that digital look.
Meanwhile I've seen lots of people mistaking Fuji shots for film.
Hmm.

You don't have artistic vision is the problem, OP. You need film because it's not flat, because it already has a baked-in color profile that you must work with. you want instant-gratification disguised as artistic endeavor (rather ironically, given the instant gratification comments about digital) because you don't know how to make your flat photos pop.
>>
killing time 07/18/14(Fri)02:31 UTC+1 No.2365682 Report

>>2365666
>I keep reading that yet even digital photographs processed by professionals still have that digital look.

That's because the film look is merely generated by people running up against the limit of the chemicals. Why would you want to reproduce that?

>Beats in what? Back then there was a lot more variety. Not everyone cares for performance alone.

There wasn't really. Handful of worthwhile manufacturers and various attempts to copy them. And even if there was its not as if you could afford many of them. Its only with the rise of digitial that worthwhile film cameras have become cheap.

>I look at great digital images and almost always I think how they could be improved if they were taken on film. Especially color wise I haven't been impressed by a digital photograph in a long time.

So you don't pay attention to NASA's various space programs. Fine.

Thing is you merely adopted film. I was born in it's era, molded by it. I didn’t see digital until I was already a man.

You like the colours because they are different. Not because they are better. You think the film era is good because the barriers were higher and we've had longer to select the good stuff.

Chose any film. Chose any canon FD camera. Put it up against whatever canon are calling their latest rebel. See which gets better results.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:38 UTC+1 No.2365685 Report

>>2365682
>Thing is you merely adopted film. I was born in it's era, molded by it. I didn’t see digital until I was already a man.
I loled
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)02:41 UTC+1 No.2365686 Report

>>2365678
>Meanwhile I've seen lots of people mistaking Fuji shots for film.

Must be trolls or blind people.

>You don't have artistic vision is the problem, OP. You need film because it's not flat, because it already has a baked-in color profile that you must work with. you want instant-gratification disguised as artistic endeavor (rather ironically, given the instant gratification comments about digital) because you don't know how to make your flat photos pop.

I am not even talking about my own photographs. Like I said even professionals cant get rid of the digital look. And now digital photographs are everywhere and make looking at photographs generally less pleasant.

>>2365682
>That's because the film look is merely generated by people running up against the limit of the chemicals. Why would you want to reproduce that?

What are you talking about?

>>2365682
>There wasn't really.

There were cameras like the xpan which would never be made nowadays.

>You think the film era is good because the barriers were higher and we've had longer to select the good stuff.

If I look at digital and film photographs on flickr the film photographs always look more pleasant and these are made by amateurs.

>Chose any film. Chose any canon FD camera. Put it up against whatever canon are calling their latest rebel. See which gets better results.

The first obviously. Is this even a question?
>>
isi 07/18/14(Fri)02:47 UTC+1 No.2365691 Report

>>2365686
>There were cameras like the xpan which would never be made nowadays.
Because there's little to no modern need for them. Unless you're shooting panoramas that feature a hell of a lot of movement, you're better off and have more control over it by just stitching.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)04:24 UTC+1 No.2365746 Report

>tfw camera breaks
>tfw too poor to afford repair/buy a new one

Please kill me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)04:27 UTC+1 No.2365748 Report

I still use a Rolleiflex and a Kowa 6 from time to time. film is more rewarding than digital, from development to scanning
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)04:55 UTC+1 No.2365760 Report

>>2365746
Wait for free gear thread that pops up once a while. Then you just have to pay for shipping, which could be next to nothing.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)04:59 UTC+1 No.2365769 Report

>>2365746
Go to goodwill. Get a camera for the price of Wendy's lunch.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:07 UTC+1 No.2365777 Report

>>2365769
I've been to every charity/thrift store in town. Nothing. There's a camera store that sells shitty cameras for a minimum of $100. They're all screw mounts though and all of my lenses are bayonets. And the negatives are due on Monday or processing.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:08 UTC+1 No.2365778 Report

>>2365623

you cant "post" a digishit to look velvia or kodachrome, you JUST CANT

also, everything looks lightroomesque these days. clarity and shit
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:09 UTC+1 No.2365781 Report

>>2365777
Jesus where do you live?
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:11 UTC+1 No.2365785 Report

>>2365778
The goal is not to make digital look like velvia or kodachrome. It's merely to make it look good. Which is entirely possible, and happens regularly. Just shut up.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:16 UTC+1 No.2365789 Report

>>2365781
On an island on the bottom of Australia.

Basically, as the convicts put it, "Hell on Earth".
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:18 UTC+1 No.2365794 Report

>>2365789
Shit. Pinhole it is.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:20 UTC+1 No.2365796 Report

>>2365785

if they looked 5% like velvia or kodachrome it would be good, and it would be a good start for something better

digital needs DECADES to catch up film quality ..if one or two faggots cant see whats wrong with digital in terms of color rendition its their fault. theres a huge bunch of people that swear that "mcdonalds" food is just like real food, you cant take these people seriously

now this, "some" digishits can look passable on the screen but what when they get printed?
youre just a babby talking bullshit
>>
K 07/18/14(Fri)05:32 UTC+1 No.2365819 Report

>>2365652
This doesn't help your point at all.

Digital SOOC does look sterile and flat, as it needs post to reach the 'artistic vision'. With film this artistic vision can be reached without digital post, and by the merit of the film stock and filters used, and especially in the case of BW creative choices can be made in the development stage too (not accounting for darkroom techniques like DnB).

Different medium = different process. But digital will never have the organic look of film, that much is for certain.
>>
isi 07/18/14(Fri)05:35 UTC+1 No.2365823 Report

>>2365819
>but digital will never have the organic look of film, that much is for certain
Don't be so certain.

http://www.fujirumors.com/updated-organic-sensor-patent/

It's habbening. One day. Probably. Hopefully.
Maybe.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:38 UTC+1 No.2365826 Report

>shoot film
>everything I do is instantly better than these digital babbys
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)05:45 UTC+1 No.2365837 Report

How much did film processing cost back in the day compared to now? At the place I usually go to it's around $12 to get a roll developed with standard prints.
>>
K 07/18/14(Fri)05:48 UTC+1 No.2365843 Report

>>2365789
Dude surely you have Vinnies and Salvos there? I got this stuff for $30 (overpaid) at my local Vinnies (it was stowed in a cabinet near the counter, out of view):
>Asahi Pentax S1a, shutter in perfect condition
>Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 good condition
>Tokina 28mm f/2.8 good condition
>135mm f/2.5(?) cant remember brand, shit condition, unusable
>135mm f/3.5 barely usable condition.

The only hiccup with the body is the shutter count doesn't reset properly, but other than that it's perfectly usable. Always go to the front counter and ask if there's a place they keep 'old film cameras', as they often have SLRs in a locked cabinet away from the P&S ones. Just go hunting every now and then and you'll find something. Either that or you can buy a cheap ass body to fit your lenses from eBay/KEH/Gumtree which you should be able to get for ~$10-30
>>
K 07/18/14(Fri)05:50 UTC+1 No.2365845 Report

>>2365823
For the amount of films they're discontinuing, this had better be a fucking miracle to make up for it.
>>
isi 07/18/14(Fri)05:55 UTC+1 No.2365851 Report

>>2365845
Last I read they don't expect it to be finished until like 2016, but yeah...if the technology turns out, its probably a milestone for digital.

I do trust they'll make good with it, though. The X cameras already look more "film-y" than anything else digital due to their grainy noise patterns. Organic X-trans could be mindblowing.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)06:24 UTC+1 No.2365888 Report

Man, fuck y'all. Most of /p/'s shit is gonna suck regardless if it was shot on film or digital.
>>
K 07/18/14(Fri)06:32 UTC+1 No.2365891 Report

>>2365888
I think you can extend this sentiment to most photographic communities - the only difference is that /p/ occasionally recognises its shittiness.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)10:38 UTC+1 No.2366038 Report

Wow, you're all a bunch of fucking faggots. Depends on the photographer and post. Those two alone. Everything else can be achieved if these two are good. I challenge you to be able to even pick out whether each photo is film or digital from a whole batch. You'd probably get 50%, just from guessing.
Idiots.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)16:23 UTC+1 No.2366153 Report

>>2365636
>>that feel when no astia
This one bloody hurts. Now there's not a single slide film left that can reproduce good skin tones. Provia is probably the closest but it has an irritating blue cast.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)16:34 UTC+1 No.2366172 Report

>>2365819

Let me guess, you think vinyl sounds better than CDs, too?
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)16:44 UTC+1 No.2366184 Report

>>2366172
>implying it doesn't
sure is pleb in here
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)16:47 UTC+1 No.2366187 Report

>>2366153
lrn2filter faggot
seriously, never, ever shoot Provia without an 81a filter.
>>
Anonymous 07/18/14(Fri)23:20 UTC+1 No.2366399 Report

>>2365778
>VSCO
>bontular bronloyitzer
>?????
>Velviachrome
>>
Anonymous 07/19/14(Sat)00:08 UTC+1 No.2366433 Report

professionals photographers don't use film because it's shit.
/thread
>>
Anonymous 07/19/14(Sat)02:33 UTC+1 No.2366502 Report

>>2366433
wut
>>
Anonymous 07/19/14(Sat)02:44 UTC+1 No.2366510 Report

>>2365823
what does ''organic'' mean in terms of a digital sensor? I don't quite understand. surely they're not putting light-sensitive crystals in it or something wierd.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.