/p/ - Photography » Thread #3092040

[58 / 12 / ?]

30KiB, 500x500, b4c1f299b97ab73881ff188e2b6474cf.jpg

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 14:23:35 No.3092040 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3092043 >>3092065 >>3092068 >>3092069 >>3092074 >>3092082 >>3092085 >>3092757

Why won't film die?
It's useless and mostly shot by hipsters and insecure photographers who feel superior because "I shoot film and I'm better than any digicucks out there".

>still falling for the film meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 14:29:06 No.3092043 Report

Quoted By: >>3092044

>>3092040
>Why won't film die?
Superior image quality

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 14:30:51 No.3092044 Report

Quoted By: >>3092053 >>3092536 >>3092630 >>3092723

>>3092043
Keep dreaming pal.
A full frame like a D810 easily beats medium format film. Not to mention with the arrival of the Fujifilm GFX.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO images.duckduckgo.com.jpg, 107KiB, 500x360

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 14:32:07 No.3092046 Report

Quoted By:

Superior black & white prints

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 14:39:56 No.3092050 Report

Quoted By:

I am glad it's still around, when I want something to look like film you can't beat film. Still use digital primarily though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 383KiB, 2000x1335

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 14:43:43 No.3092053 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092044
>pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:05:52 No.3092061 Report

Quoted By:

I've never shot film but I can see the appeal. Although inconvenient when compared to digital, there's something satisfying about knowing one can create a photo purely using analogue techniques. There's a beauty to that and the results justify the effort imo.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1493705263901.jpg, 516KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:16:01 No.3092065 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092040
Digicucks still this butthurt? Didn't know it was this easy lol

>pic not related

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:17:28 No.3092066 Report

Quoted By: >>3092070 >>3092675

as some one who grew up on slides, fuck film. I'll take digital any day and with the a7 we finally have the form factor of a small slr back. no more changing rolls in your bag, no more carrying multiple bodies just to use different iso, shooting film is the equivalent of riding around on a horse instead of driving a car

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:20:53 No.3092068 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092040
>hipster shooting digital in attached photo
Terrible terrible bait

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:21:52 No.3092069 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092040
well I can't speak for others but I am a Hipster

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1987.jpg, 25KiB, 351x354

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:26:17 No.3092070 Report

Quoted By: >>3092821

>>3092066
>People like things I don't
I shot film in the 90's and shoot digital now. No one is forcing you to shoot film, buy it, look at it or respect it. So what is your issue?

saged

saged Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:39:37 No.3092074 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092040
Lazy as fuck bait, here's your (you)

Now kill yourself cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:54:37 No.3092080 Report

Quoted By: >>3092247 >>3092258

Film won't seem to die even for people who don't shoot any film at all. Tons and tons and tons of people say they want a "film look" to their photos shot with a digital camera.

To hell with that. Embrace digital. Embrace the possibilities it offers. If you want to add filters to you photos go beyond the idea of simply emulating the look of film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:56:05 No.3092082 Report

Quoted By:

baity bait bait

>>3092040
here's your (You)

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1495281352608.jpg, 50KiB, 625x626

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Fri 09 Jun 2017 15:57:30 No.3092084 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 16:02:14 No.3092085 Report

Quoted By: >>3092098

>>3092040
Try getting a result out of digital that looks as good as a darkroom print from a 4x5 negative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 16:31:29 No.3092098 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092085
Spoken by someone who haven't shot a 4x5 at all

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO delta 100 rodianl 1+50 12 4adj.jpg, 479KiB, 2197x2790

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 20:33:13 No.3092196 Report

Quoted By: >>3092255

People forget that film isn't just about the final image but about the process. You make different images when you shoot film cause you have to work in a certain way. You will end up with pictures that you would never have been able to get via a digital camera because the way you work is different.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 20:44:56 No.3092198 Report

Quoted By:

film can render skies, water and skin as they are. digital still cant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 20:47:37 No.3092199 Report

Quoted By: >>3092211 >>3092237

digicuckholds will never know the satisfaction of taking film out of the tank and seeing that the shots came out pretty fucking great. its like christmas everytime. theres nothing christmas about unloading 2500 snapshits to lightroom from your SD card.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 21:03:41 No.3092211 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092199
that's true - i feel sorry for anyone who has never felt the joy of watching an image appear on the paper in the developing tray. the smell of dektol in the morning. and the delicious grain of Tri-X.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 21:40:30 No.3092237 Report

Quoted By: >>3092254

>>3092199
when you fuck up a roll it is heart wrenching to the point you question your motives

there is no superior medium. it is just as bad as gearfaggery as they are all simply tools to achieve the end result.

would you say watercolour is superior to acrylic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 21:57:12 No.3092247 Report

Quoted By: >>3092258

>>3092080
>Tons and tons and tons of people say they want a "film look" to their photos shot with a digital camera.
And if they're paying, they're gonna get it. Suckers. It's so damn easy to just throw a filter on a set that might otherwise take you hours to get right. If they want to pay for inferior quality, based on what they think film is supposed to look like, then fuck yeah. Hipster Wedding Photography is the best meme ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:02:45 No.3092254 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092237
i would say watercolor and acrylic are superior to digital painting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:02:58 No.3092255 Report

Quoted By: >>3092256 >>3092298

>>3092196
>You will end up with pictures that you would never have been able to get via a digital camera
You can get basically any film type of image with a digital camera. There are rather comprehensive software simulations of film's little quirks and drawbacks...

You will just generally not opt to go for the same looks when you have all the choices from a digital workflow..

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:04:59 No.3092256 Report

Quoted By: >>3092272

>>3092255
>You can get basically any film type of image with a digital camera
post a pic where this happens.

>inb4 anon vanishes forever

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:06:10 No.3092258 Report

Quoted By: >>3092264 >>3092495

>>3092080
Digital is about freedom, right? The ability to take a raw image and make it look however you want, without being locked into the look a film stock provides, right? So why the fuck do you care how people want to make their photos look? Not everything has to be Ken Rockwell.

>>3092247
I mean, if you throw one preset on a set without making sure that preset works for the subject matter and making individual adjustments to each photo to make sure they look A+, that's on you, not your clients.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:11:58 No.3092261 Report

Quoted By: >>3092541

chris "4U" nolan and quentin "thecuck" tarantino made a deal with kodak so they continue to make film for 100 more years, so, film stays.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:14:35 No.3092264 Report

Quoted By: >>3092266 >>3092268

>>3092258
>I mean, if you throw one preset on a set without making sure that preset works for the subject matter and making individual adjustments to each photo to make sure they look A+, that's on you, not your clients.
You don't get it, do you? That's the beauty of it. People don't want perfectly (recreated) rendered film. If it looks slightly off than that's perfectly a-ok. That's what they want and that' what they get.

Also, if you're not shooting to get almost perfect shots right out of the cam, then you're doing it wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:17:24 No.3092266 Report

Quoted By: >>3092274

>>3092264
>Also, if you're not shooting to get almost perfect shots right out of the cam, then you're doing it wrong.
no need for such poor bait in this perfectly civil thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:18:40 No.3092268 Report

Quoted By: >>3092274

>>3092264
You sound like one of those "I hate post-processing" dadtographers. Or someone who hates their work.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO such_bw_wow.jpg, 406KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:23:48 No.3092272 Report

Quoted By: >>3092273

>>3092256
There's an internet worth of film simulation images.

Unless you know the purported respective type of film very well, you can't even be sure they weren't secretly shooting digital to keep things cheaper, heh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:24:58 No.3092273 Report

Quoted By: >>3092286

>>3092272
clearly digital, and a flat, ugly BW conversion, too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:25:25 No.3092274 Report

Quoted By: >>3092279

>>3092266
Not baiting friendo.

>>3092268
Or like someone who likes making easy money off of dumb people.

Seriously, though, why would you spent time and effort on something people don't want?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:32:15 No.3092279 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092274
People don't want beautiful images of their wedding or whatever?

But hey, its your career, not mine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bw.jpg, 357KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:40:03 No.3092286 Report

Quoted By: >>3092287

>>3092273
Well, if you're simulating film, you're not trying to look good. You're trying to look like film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO costanza.jpg, 331KiB, 5000x5000

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:47:58 No.3092287 Report

Quoted By: >>3092291

>>3092286
>you can't do both
>I've never used film

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bw2.jpg, 323KiB, 1000x654

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 22:54:47 No.3092291 Report

Quoted By: >>3092294

>>3092287
The only thing I never used is MF film.

Maybe that'd be useful for something, but scanning it well is pretty much too work intensive or too costly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 23:04:41 No.3092294 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092291
>>3092291
Flat contrast, underexposed, water spots, scratches and dust in the scan. git gud

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 23:07:08 No.3092295 Report

Quoted By: >>3092541

I like film because of the physicality of it and how it makes me value each shot more. With a huge part of my life existing as nothing but ones and zeroes, it feels nice to have my pictures outside of the digital medium.

I'm quite young (23), so I guess I've always taken digital for granted. My father and his brother are both long-time photographers and they just can't be arsed with shooting film anymore; to them digital makes their lives considerably easier (unless they want the resolution medium or large format offers, which the fiddle with now and then).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 23:13:46 No.3092298 Report

Quoted By: >>3092304 >>3092541

>>3092255
I'm not talking about the look of a picture, I'm talking about the picture itself. When you use film, you are forced to work in a more organic way. Quite simply, you can't see the picture you've just taken until the film is developed. Because of this and other things, you end up with images that you would not have seen/taken/made were you using a digital camera.

Of course, the reverse is also true. Digital allows you to make images that you probably wouldn't have made if using a film camera. I don't see why people have a problem with this. Both mediums are good, and I hope they exist side by side forever.

Anyway, I understand now why /p/ stands for faggots, I'm going back to /b/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jun 2017 23:27:44 No.3092304 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092298
So you could keep your finger off the review button and you'd get the same images, but then also have more options.

I really don't see any particular photographic value in film.
Seems to me like it's mostly there because of people seeking a community and dealing with film is about as good a reason as any to form one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 04:43:53 No.3092495 Report

Quoted By: >>3092497

>>3092258
>So why the fuck do you care how people want to make their photos look?
I care from the selfish point of view of having to look at them. I'm ready for some new stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 04:46:31 No.3092497 Report

Quoted By: >>3092845

>>3092495
I hear you - you want EVERY image to be on FIRE

>amirite?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 05:47:06 No.3092536 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092044

>Fujifilm GFX
>changing anything.

It isn't any better than an a7rii.

Worse if you consider its usability and lens selection.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 05:57:49 No.3092541 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092261
thank you based film autists.

>be QT
>hype the fuck out of Hateful 8 film runs
>mfw two or three of the films burn\tear because film.

>>3092295
same age here - I just love how you do things in film, it's something that's just neat about it. Dodging and burning feels more interesting IRL than photoshop.

The only thing i hate about it is just like resource usage. if i fuck up a print or picture i've wasted a lot more than i did on digital (didn't fuck up paper, lower my bulb's life span, waste my time, etc.,)

>>3092298
I don't know if organic is the word i'd use - i always say i feel careful... Like i'm okay if i fuck up a shot because i can take 60 more for some godforsaken reason.

Personally i want to do more challenges - like just do only 36 exposure shoots to un-train my brain from digital fucketry

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Sat 10 Jun 2017 06:31:30 No.3092555 Report

Quoted By:

I like film because I like recording exactly what I see through the viewfinder - without having to sacrifice shadows or highlights. Also never having to worry about battery running out and not being able to take a photo. Or making very long exposures.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20170608_185752_140.jpg, 1MiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 11:20:43 No.3092625 Report

Quoted By:

>2017
>people still discussing film vs digital

Go back to 2006, losers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 11:25:00 No.3092630 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092044
>still falling for the megapixel meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 12:50:13 No.3092656 Report

Quoted By:

I like the crafty bits of shooting film, and how the camera isn't just another fucking computer. Also, wet prints are glorious.

Also also, dat cheap medium format borkeh, gets dem bitches wet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 14:24:06 No.3092675 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092066
Don't forget that you see what you did within a fraction of a second instead of discovering that you fucked up days later when you can't redo the shot anymore

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 16:39:33 No.3092723 Report

Quoted By: >>3092728

>>3092044
and a 4x5 will shit all over any digital format realistically available.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 16:47:36 No.3092728 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092723
Please tell me you don't think 4x5 is medium format.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 17:44:56 No.3092757 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092040
Why won't weekend fishing trips with the bros die? It's useless when there's much easier ways to get fish these days.

>still complaining about how other people have fun

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 19:31:51 No.3092821 Report

Quoted By: >>3092843

>>3092070
my "issue" is fuck film, I see it completely as a shittier and more expensive alternative. You might as well shoot exclusively with polaroids

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 20:15:22 No.3092843 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092821

>shittier
what is color
>more expensive
depends how you judge. Per frame, sure. For the life of a body, debatable. Certainly isn't true for medium format

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jun 2017 20:28:56 No.3092845 Report

Quoted By:

>>3092497
Stop making stupid posts.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches