Anonymous
Quoted By:
They're ripping off all the hipsters only getting into analog photography to get laid through Instagram.
Anonymous
Who the fuck are you giving it to that's charging you $50
Anonymous
>>3243557 It's literally the price in my country. I live in Sweden. Pretty much all places are this price.
Anonymous
>>3243559 Do you have friends living in central europe, like in Germany? Development for one roll costs about 3€ here.
Anonymous
>>3243559 I don't believe you.
Maybe you include scanning prices, which are often a ripoff. Just DSLRscan or get a semi-decent film scanner.
Black and white is also super easy and cheap to dev yourself, but there are some initial costs for the gear and chemicals so if you're not sure yet you really want to shoot film, just stick to lab development.
>Wasn't analog photography supposed to be cheap? Who the heck ever told you analog was cheap btw?
It's fun, not cheap.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243552 Specifically, the gear is cheap. Developing is also cheap, if you do it yourself. Also, brick and mortar labs typically rip you off. The best labs at least around here are mail-in ones. What's actually expensive with film is scanning it.
Anonymous
>>3243552 Here in the American Midwest it's about $5-10 per roll to buy the film, depending on what I'm shooting, and just under $11 to develop a roll, giving me the negatives and a CD with scans. So I'm spending $15-20ish per roll of 35mm film. It's definitely not something to do to be cheap, I've got digital cameras too, I'm doing it because I enjoy it. I really enjoy the process more, it forces me to slow down. I can't monkey with the screen just after taking the photos, I usually don't get them back for a few weeks. I love the look of some of the film stocks: Ektar, Portra, HP5+, and some others. But I shot 27 rolls last year, so we're talking something like $400 to shoot film last year.
Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW
Quoted By:
>>3243552 >Wasn't analog photography supposed to be cheap? It was in some places even a few years ago, but since film prices went up even further and many labs shut down, it's more expensive than ever.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
It has gotten more expensive, you have to shop around and be smart. However even with these prices it's far from 50 USD here for three rolls.
Anonymous
It costs me about 2,90€/roll when i dev and scan myself
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3243767 This assumes you do not value your time.
Anonymous
>>3243770 Am I supposed to charge myself for the development of my own damn rolls or what
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3243772 No, but it's like saying "Houses are cheap! Wood and nails are only a few bucks each, just spend all of your free time putting one together."
And doesn't apply if you consider developing the shots part of the fun, but I really just like taking the pictures and then looking at the pictures afterwards; the developing film part is tedious and annoying and I don't like when my hands smell like fixer. I would pay $20 to not have to do that. I would just prefer to pay less than $20 to not have to do that, if possible.
Anonymous
>>3243742 When will this "forces you to slow down" meme ever end? Man if you're that fucking spastic that you need to be FORCED to slow down maybe you should stick to videogames or something.
Anonymous
>>3243778 It won’t end because it’s not really a meme
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3243781 >I'm infected with the meme Anonymous
>>3243812 It works for those who believe it. Don't get worked up on methods that work for others but not you. You do your stuff, they do theirs.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243812 >I’m infected with tripfaggotry Anonymous
>>3243817 I agree, I want filmfags to stop forcing their archaic format down my throat and let me enjoy my digital images.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3243817 My issue with it is more its implied corollary: that taking pictures quickly and taking several shots of the same scene to try to get it right makes you a worse photographer.
juemrami !VS2GweCb.c
Quoted By:
costco used so develop/scan for $5 overnight. RIP. idk why they fucking stopped. could have kept at least one location per county with a film devolping lab. i wouldnt mind a 20-30min commute to batch develop couple rolls of film.
giannis
Quoted By:
>>3243559 Are there any universities or photoclubs in your area?
Usually they have a darkroom which you can book and use as long as you're a member. Many times a scanner too.
Then developing and scanning will become almost free for B&W film, for colour you could send them to a lab just for dev and scan yourself, or even develop yourself too if the dev costs are too high.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243742 >I can't monkey with the photos on the screen It must be awesome when you get shots back and find out you missed focus or it got blurred somehow.
If you enjoy it more power to you, but I don't know if I could go back to not seeing a shit until I spend hours developing it. Sometimes things just happen like you bumped your tripod during an exposure without realizing it, or the shutter speed was too slow and caused blur because you were unable to bargain for faster with the film speed you selected. Not to mention you're only on your 4th shot of 36 so now you really gotta contemplate your images because you're missing half of them when you can't change ISO at all.
Anonymous
>>3243552 Dev in my shithole country costs $1.2 equiv desu. Then I scan it with my DSLR.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Do you order prints?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243552 shoulda just grabbed a dslr and popped them hoe's into lr with vsco
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243770 Never say that while posting on 4chan.
Anonymous
>>3243559 Om det finns en fotoklubb i din närhet kan det va en god idé att ta kontakt, troligtvis har dem ett mörkrum och ett gäng gubbar/tanter som gillar film. Oftast är det mellanformatsfantaster som fortfarande ids hålla på men det kan iaf bli ett billigt alternativ, med lite tur kan de också ha rebattavtal hos större fotolabb, är inte med i lokala klubben längre men de hade rabatter på förstoringar och framkallning för ett par år sen.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
https://crimson.se/produkter/filmframkallning i saw this on a forum for mail-in development. i don't know if that dev cost is per roll or per film bag thing though
if it's per roll, fucking lel @ $15cad/roll jesus christ.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243559 It costs like 11 euros to develop 3 rolls in my country.
Anonymous
old mate who runs the local vintage camera/film/film development shop uses a Pentax K-50. He loves catering to all the hipsters and talking shop about cameras and film, but in his own hobby ain't nobody got time for that.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243821 Get off a film thread then man
Anonymous
Quoted By:
du får sikta på att framkalla själv om du vill komma undan billigt. svartvitt är inte så svårt.
Anonymous
>>3243880 holy fucking shit
i have a 35mm sensor,
if i placed each frame directly on the sensor, would it work?
Anonymous
>>3247592 >if i placed each frame directly on the sensor, would it work? explain to me how you believe this would work
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3247599 In theory, It’d be like contact printing.
It would be too logistically complicated to actually do, though, since cameras are not designed to have frames of film placed on their sensors.
Anonymous
>>3247599 i touched my sensor once and the very tip of my finger was in focus
Anonymous
>>3247602 >technically incorrect ftfy
Anonymous
>>3247605 >i touched my sensor once and the resell value of my camera dropped a solid 20% Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3247607 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_print So in theory, if you placed a negative or slide directly over the sensor and shined light through it, it should basically contact-print the sensor. Not sure how well that would work given bayer interpolation, but it's not a totally insane idea.
In practice, you'd get dust from the negative all over your sensor, the shutter would get in the way, the sensor's filter stack might be too big for it to work, etc.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3247616 last time i was at best buy i was looking at some of the cameras and one of the canon mirrorless bodies didn't have a lens attached and there was a giant fucking greasy fingerprint right on the sensor lol
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243559 >>3243562 I've been living in London for a while and there is a place in Bethnal Green where you can get film developed and scanned (basic quality) for 3.50
I think it's called "eyeculture"
Anonymous
>>3243562 Everyone on /p/ was all "lol film cameras are so much cheaper!! Full frame for $50 at a thrift store!!" When I started browsing in early 2012.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3248299 People still occasionally try to drop the "Film is cheaper" argument when Film v. Digital threads pop up. That argument gets easier to demolish every year as film costs go up and digital costs go down.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3248327 It's a typical thinking loophole if anything. Netflix is "only $12 a month" but that's almost $150 a year, enough to scour Amazon for a couple dozen blu ray movies on sale and have left over cash for lunch. Similarly film is paid for by the roll and useless unless developed which also costs money.
Of course, you could argue that you should factor in the cost of a computer for digital photography, but in this day and age people are more likely to have a computer handy already than they are to have a makeshift darkroom and chemicals set aside.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243559 pfft, foreignfags. it's less than a tenner at Boots to get one roll developed.
Anonymous
Lol, $17 for dev and scan per roll. You could pay for chemicals and dev gear in like 10 rolls of that; but are you going to shoot 10 rolls?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3248646 >That's how the economics of film take slightly longer to break down Fixed that for you. Developing film at home still costs money per shot, plus the startup cost of getting the developing gear. Plus you're forgetting the cost of the film itself, which can be pricey for decent film stocks.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243770 >he says on a laotian painting forum www.chosis.com !!7G3bEhCMz+A
>>3248650 plus the social cost of being a ETFU.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
>>3243552 you're supposed to develop it yourself, friendo
USA here, bw cost me less than $1 roll to dev.
Color costs about $1.50
Initial dev equip: $50
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3248779 I wanna order the lab-box and the monobath.
Supposed to have pretty good results.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243552 wtf? did you shoot slide film?
price here in korea for developing it around 6 dollars
scanning included
or just buy the chemicals yourself and diy
would be much cheaper than 50 dollars for THREE FUCKING ROLLS
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3248761 i want big tiddy goth green peace gf
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243742 That's crazy. I buy film for ca €2,50 per roll and develop at home, so I pay less than €3 total. For colour it's slightly more, but developing (not printing) is about €3 here. I tried home developing colour but I didn't like it. Too much hassle for maybe a €1 saving
Anonymous
>>3243822 A good photographer doesn't need many shots. Also, you can just take multiple shots with film unless you're an absolute poorfag
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249053 >A good photographer doesn't need many shots. This is a myth based on the fact that good photographers know how to curate their many photos of the same subject down to just their best shot.
Google any famous film-era photographer’s name plus “contact sheet” for examples. Here’s some to start you out:
https://shop.magnumphotos.com/collections/contact-sheet-prints >Also, you can just take multiple shots with film unless you're an absolute poorfag This is true—as, again, any great photographers’ contact sheets show—but it directly contradicts the initial argument (ie, “Film is better because it makes you take fewer pictures”) and bolsters my argument (ie, “saying photographers should try to take fewer photos is a deeply flawed philosophy on multiple levels”).
Anonymous
>>3249087 You're right, for a large part, but it depends on how you define 'many'. Those contact sheets have several, maybe several tens of photos on them. That's a large difference from 'put on burst mode, spray and pray and select a scarce few coincidentally good shots from the vast cesspool of them'.
I also agree, film isn't good because it makes you take less shots, it's just something that comes with it. It has helped me, but I never shot film for that reason. I shoot it because I like it and because I'm an autist that likes fucking around with chemicals and lenses and shit in the DR
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249094 >That's a large difference from 'put on burst mode, spray and pray and select a scarce few coincidentally good shots from the vast cesspool of them'. I agree; it is very different from the straw man digital shooter idea you cooked up in your head that doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
>I shoot it because I like it and because I'm an autist that likes fucking around with chemicals and lenses and shit in the DR These are all fantastic and 100% valid reasons to shoot film, and none of them rely on implying that shooting film makes you a better photographer than someone shooting digital.
Anonymous
>>3249112 >strawman You know they exist.
Otherwise I don't think we really disagree here
Anonymous
>>3243742 I live in the American Midwest. Here are my costs.
35mm B&W: Dev myself with Rodinal and TF-5 - $100 to get started, literally cents per roll to dev after that.
35mm C-41: Dev Only at Drug Mart's 1 hour photo - $4.50
120 B&W: Dev Myself with Rodinal - Same as 35mm
120 C-41: Dev Only a Dodd Camera, takes about a week - $6
220 B&W: Dev Myself with Rodinal - Same as 35mm
220 C-41: Dev Only at Dodd Camera, takes about a week - $7
I don't shoot slide film because that is prohibitively expensive here.
I do all my own scanning with an Epson v600 for which I paid $150 in 2012.
Here's a sample of some 120 B&W, I developed myself. The film for this shot is Ilford Pan F.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249527 Oh, and here is everything I bought for the development process.
2 Reel Paterson Dev Tank - $30
R09 One Shot 500ml (Rodinal) - $12
Photographer's Formulary TF-5 Fixer 1 Liter - $14
1 Gallon Amber Glass Jug - $15
Syringe - $5
Funnel - $2
1 Liter Measuring Cup - $2
Distilled Water 1 Gallon - $1
I develop almost everything using 1/100th dilution stand development for 60 minutes with one-minute agitation at the beginning and 30 seconds agitation at 30 minutes.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249114 >You know they exist. Not really, except for shooting fast-action sports where that's an entirely legitimate technique.
But for something like landscape or portraiture or anything else like that, it's not a thing. You take a picture, make a small adjustment based on how it looks, take another picture, repeat. Maybe move to different angles or perspectives, try out different lenses, etc. No spraying and praying, but still taking a bunch of pictures.
Anonymous
>>3249551 I'll say that I definitely notice a difference when I shoot digital and film.
On digital I might have 15 of the same basic photo, none of which are particularly different. On film, I have maybe three or four shots of the same subject with each shot usually being substantially different.
I think discounting the mental difference between having 36 shots loaded and having 3000 shots loaded is really undervalued by you here. Film just makes you think more because the cost of each individual shot is more substantial so you actually do self-editing before you fire the shutter.
That said, If I'm using film and I find a subject and I need to take 15 shots to get it perfect I will but I usually don't make that decision lightly.
Anonymous
>>3249527 Hey Ohio
I love Dodd's Cleveland downtown store, tons of analog in the back.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249600 Hey, there.
Have you found any Ohio solutions for E-6? I had Dodd do one roll for me but it took a month to return and cost $17 for development. I have some Provia 400x waiting for the day when I figure out a working solution.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249562 >Film just makes you think more because the cost of each individual shot is more substantial so you actually do self-editing before you fire the shutter. My point is that that’s not necessarily a good thing.
Eg, if you take only shots that are substantially different on film, you will miss out on those instances where the difference between a good shot and a great shot is a slight variation that you don’t notice at first.
Similarly, it discourages you from taking chances because you don’t want to waste film. You’ll have this mindset of “that might look cool, but I don’t know if I want to waste film on it”, so you won’t try it. With digital, there’s no downside to giving it a shot. And even if it turns out late 99% of the time, that’s 1% of the time where it turns out cool and you’ll know next time to go straight for that 1%. And maybe one or two of the 99% crap shots are ALMOST not crap and you can see them and figure out how to make it better for next time.
Digital lets you take chances and explore in a way that is technically totally possible with film but that almost nobody actually does. That’s why I don’t think “you take fewer pictures” should be held up as an advantage for film.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3247580 Aye, but yer mate Chris is a right ol' cunt and a pleb. Don't buy from there.
Anonymous
>>3243552 Last autumn I was making photos with my compact camera at the park (I only got my first dslr last month) happy and all about being able to see the pretty mix of orange, red and yellow. One girl with analog camera was nearby and looked at me and my compact with so much disgust in her face that I felt guilty for the rest of the day.
Is it really that bad to use digital?
Anonymous
>>3249827 >Similarly, it discourages you from taking chances because you don’t want to waste film I don't see it this way. Maybe I'm missing out on one great photo in a thousand not shooting digital more but I have become a noticeably better since I've started using film because it puts more weight behind my shots. My hit rate is much better on film because I actually check my composition, exposure, etc before each shot which I think leads more often to better shots than when I shoot digital because with it you can be so careless. That carelessness comes through in the final photos in my opinion. Maybe it doesn't for you.
It's a dumb argument to have. I like film better. I like the workflow, the shooting process, and the results better than digital. Digital has it's place. I still have a digital camera and use it on occasion, but usually for video rather than stills.
Anonymous
>>3249912 I take very few photos when I'm out. Probably because shooting digital is not "free", all the space on my hard drive that gets used up brings me closer to having to buy another. But also because I'm very careful about when I shoot. So I will never buy into this idea that shooting film makes your shots stronger.
Anonymous
>>3249930 Well, people are different. It works for me and I know it works for a lot of other people too. If it doesn't work for you, That's cool but there's no reason to disbelieve us.
Anonymous
>>3249930 I do think though that shooting less causes a "scarcity effect" and makes you unable to realize what else is possible. Like the guy above said, a good shot could be tweaked to be better but you cannot count on going back to make it perfect every time. Not always possible. Which is also why I at least check my digital shots for perfect focus and such. Then if I have time I reflect on what could be changed to make it better - what I had in mind and thought was the best thing isn't always when I actually do it.
Anonymous
>>3249932 All I'm saying is you could slow down and think more with digital. There's no reason you can't or shouldn't.
Anonymous
>>3249933 I think you're speaking from a hypothetical rather than experience. You sound like you're imagining how it feels to shoot film or are basing this off of limited experience shooting film before you really get comfortable with the process.
>>3249934 I have thought this too but for whatever reason, my experiences have been different.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249886 >woman looking at someone from 4chan >facial expression conveys unbridled revulsion Hate to break it to you; your camera might not be what she was disgusted about.
Anonymous
>>3249939 Im not the most handsome guy around but Im not disgusting ugly.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
as someone who shoots fillm, i hate the "film makes you slow down and appreciate your photos" meme
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249912 >It's a dumb argument to have It’s not a dumb argument to have because people keep telling new photographers that they’ll be better photographers if they take fewer pictures, as if photography is the world’s only skill where you get better the less you practice it, and even telling photographers who take a lot of photos that they’re bad photographers just because they shoot a lot.
There are a lot of alternate explanations for why you find your hit rate improves with shooting film:
1. You just got better, as is common the longer someone spends practicing a skill. You might find your hit rate is the same or keeps increasing if you switch back to digital.
2. You might be confusing “hit rate” with “hit percentage”. If you shoot a 36-shot roll of film and get 10 good photos, and burn through 125 photos on a memory card and only get 11 good ones, you’ll be inclined to think you did a lot better with film. In fact, you took one more good shot in digital, and it really doesn’t matter how many discards you had to go through to get there.
3. You might be esteeming the film shots higher just because they’re physical artifacts, or because they have an actual monetary value behind them. I definitely find myself liking a lot of film shots I took and liking the digital version less even when there’s no appreciable difference in the image just because the film shot was harder to make. Doesn’t make it a good photo, just makes it a photo that I’m more attached to and that introduces bias in my curation.
>I like film better. I like the workflow, the shooting process, and the results better than digital. And again, any one of these—and certainly all of them together—is plenty of reason for you to shoot film. Just don’t drop “film makes you better because you take less photos” as gospel truth because it’s not.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249943 Did you notice her expression because you were staring at her? Or even trying to surreptitiously snap photos of her? Or were you shooting other things in such a way that you could’ve been mistaken for doing that?
Anonymous
>>3249935 >rather than experience That people choose to immediately equate fewer shots with better skill is not hypothetical. I could just be jaded but I think it's foolish to claim that less photos taken inherently means the ones taken are better. All that time spent stopping and thinking about your shots won't matter if your way of thinking and seeing in photography is weak. Or to put it another way: practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Does it hurt to slow down and think? No. But I'm arguing a newer photographer who has little idea what makes a phhoto good or bad in the first place shouldn't be stifling their own output so much that can't even learn from their own mistakes. It's totally possible for that newbie to spend an hour thinking of a shot that ends up being mediocre at best.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3247293 Jag har haft turen att snubben som äger den lokala fotobutiken är intresserad av filmfotografering. Genom honom har jag kunnat få bland annat framkallningsdosor, fotolampor och "annat bra att ha" som han inte har användning för längre. Dessutom rensade skolan ut sina mörkrumsgrejor när jag gick där, så jag lyckades även få en förstoringsapparat, mörkrumslampor och lite annat lull-lull gratis så mörkrummet hemma kan inte ha kostat många hundralappar!
Dock kostar det anus att framkalla färgfilm, 200 spänn för 24 bilder. Men å andra sidan kan det vara värt det då han är den enda som gör det inom 5 mil...
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249962 No, I was just trying to take photo of trees, when I noticed her and smiled a little to show that Im friendly, then got back to shooting. But I noticed that she looked at me with clear disgust, stopped trying to make hers and walked away. I was not in line for sure.
Anonymous
>>3249960 >It’s not a dumb argument to have because people keep telling new photographers that they’ll be better photographers if they take fewer pictures First I never said that is the reason you shoot film. Second that's just a mischaracterization of the real argument and you know it.
The reasons why I recommend beginners start with film are these:
-All manual film bodies force you off auto crutches and require you learn how what all the functions of the camera do.
-You learn how to identify what mistakes you made from the negatives.
-You make mistakes usually in big obvious ways that you can't easily fix without making yourself remember.
-Putting an actual cost to each individual frame also makes your mistakes more memorable and makes it more likely that you'll remember how to correct them.
-It forces you to make intentional choices for your photos to get back something useful rather than just trying everything on digital until it looks okay.
The important thing about LEARNING photography is not to make the most photos. It is to learn how to use the functions of a camera as well as composition, color, line etc to get an intentionally conceived result. Many many people that start on digital just shoot anything and everything because they have no limits placed on their shooting so they learn less during their shooting. Film forces you to be more intentional in your shooting because it is limited and unforgiving. You learn in fewer shots using film what would take you maybe 10x more to learn on digital because when people do have crutches, they tend to use them and because when you can immediately correct any mistake you make by checking the result and then spinning a dial, the correction is often forgotten and you'll make the same mistake again.
>>3249968 The above is also basically a response to you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249960 Oh, and also, The context of me saying this is a dumb argument to have was in relation to syles of shooting for photographers that have already learned their craft well enough to achieve their intentions with regularity.
It is stupid to argue about which is better for their shooting or to doubt their reasons for shooting that way because, as I stated earlier, "People are different. It works for me and i know it works for a lot of other people too. If it doesn't work for you, that's cool."
Anonymous
>>3249995 >force you off auto crutches Learning to line a needle in the center of your camera meter is not really helping and in many cases can hurt your ability to actually get a shot. Again you can just set your camera to M if that's really your goal. This might surprise you, but even film photographers bracket sometimes because they don't know how an exposure will turn out, and they don't want to go back to develop the one frame they took and realize it came out in a way that makes printing it the way they wanted impossible.
>learn from your negatives Can you not learn from a jpeg or RAW file?
>you make mistakes in big obvious ways What "big, obvious" ways are we talking about that couldn't apply to digital? People screw up on digital cameras all the time. Auto modes on digital are not always so smart. Often, they do stupid things like setting your ISO in the stratosphere even in mid day, or blowing the aperture wide open and making almost everything out of focus.
>putting an actual cost to each individual frame Time and resources are usually sunk into taking photographs, even if on digital. I for example don't get photos by sitting in my house all day. I spend a few hundred dollars a month that I wouldn't need to otherwise, on gas just driving around getting the photos I want.
>makes your mistakes more memorable My most memorable mistakes happened when I missed an opportunity or when I screwed something up when trying to capture a fleeting moment that would probably not repeat for some time, if ever. The mistake could have been camera related, but often times it actually had to do with the light itself, or the composition. The medium made no difference, but my most memorable mistakes always involved a fleeting moment that I knew would never repeat in even a very similar way.
Anonymous
>>3250021 >Learning to line a needle in the center of your camera meter is not really helping Who said get a camera with a meter? (not that I actually it's a bad idea to get one.)
>just set your camera to M if that's really your goal If there's one thing I know about humans, it's that they lack self-discipline.
>This might surprise you, but even film photographers bracket sometimes because they don't know how an exposure will turn out Obviously, this doesn't surprise me (or anyone) since I do it all the time. Nowhere in the previous statement do I say "You should only ever use one frame for every subject in every condition because you're not leet if you don't".
>Can you not learn from a jpeg When I shoot digital, I don't look at every photo I took, I skim to the one that looks best from the thumbnail and I take that one into photoshop/lightroom. I ignore the mistakes.
>What "big, obvious" ways are we talking about that couldn't apply to digital? Shooting an entire roll at the wrong ISO, forgetting to change the aperture and shutter speed between each shot. I'm talking about basic shit that a beginner needs to remember. Nothing makes you remember quicker than losing a roll due to carelessness.
>Time and resources are usually sunk into taking photographs Maybe you do this, but the average person starting out is going to go to a park and just try to take photos. Having them use a film camera is throwing them into the deep end instead of them pussyfooting around for years with auto modes.
>My most memorable mistakes happened when I missed an opportunity This is your most memorable mistake. You've bought into the "decisive moment" thing and you're scared of missing one. The goal of what I'm saying is to get you to the point where you are technically capable of capturing whatever whenever on your own without help from your camera. Learning to premeditate "decisive moments" is what made Cartier-Bresson good, it wasn't just that he shot a billion photos.
Anonymous
>>3250044 What I'm trying to say is that you can be disciplined if you have the motivation and hold high standards for yourself regardless of medium. So shoot what you want and be your own discipline.
Anonymous
>>3250063 >What I'm trying to say is that you can be disciplined if you have the motivation and hold high standards for yourself regardless of medium I never argued against that. The point I have been trying to make since the beginning is that film forces that discipline upon you if you don't have the motivation to hold yourself to high standards as many people starting out in a new hobby probably don't.
As I'll say again though (for the third time), if you find that starting with film doesn't work for you or that you can impose all those limitations on yourself using something with many many more options "People are different. It works for me and I know it works for a lot of other people too. If it doesn't work for you, that's cool but there's no reason to disbelieve us".
giannis
Quoted By:
>>3249960 >because people keep telling new photographers that they’ll be better photographers if they take fewer pictures It's not that, film is just another way to practice.
You can have lots of less disciplined practice (what usually happens with digital) or less of more disciplined practice (what happens with film).
I consider both as an equivalent way to improve and get better at what you do.
For me the special "feature" of film is that it leads much more often to a print, and this is where it's at when it comes to photography. A print is a wholly different, more pleasurable and tactile experience compared to looking at a screen.
Every single person that I showed them how to print, came back for more and more prints and incentivised them to go and shoot, try different techniques, even exhibit their prints.
Printing is not unique to film, but film almost surely leads you there sooner than later.
Aside from that, there's not much difference and no medium is gonna make you better.
Film has a lower barrier to entry (by a huge margin for larger formats) but more ongoing costs, digital has the opposite.
Anonymous
>>3250070 >I never argued against that You just said in your last post that "human beings are not disciplined" and you've been insisting that film is the most disciplined medium. Really, my problem with your assertions is that they're not backed by anything substantial. There's always been plenty of film snapshitters out there, we just don't pay as much attention to them.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250044 >Shooting an entire roll at the wrong ISO, forgetting to change the aperture and shutter speed between each shot. I'm talking about basic shit that a beginner needs to remember. This is a super weird argument. Like saying that new drivers need to start out on horseback so they learn how to deal with saddle maintenance and what to do when your horse bucks you.
With digital, if you’re shooting at the wrong iso/shutter/aperture, a quick glance at the back of the camera will tell you that.
Anonymous
>>3250084 You still just fundamentally don't understand what I'm saying somehow.
The goal of shooting film is to get you to think before you shoot. That's why you should start there because film forces you to be more careful in your shooting. That's how you get better at shooting.
>>3250097 Your fundamental mistake is assuming that I'm trying to train people to transition into digital. The real goal is to get the newbie to understand what these tools are in more than just an abstract sense. Making mistakes like this are merely an example of the type of thing that sticks in the mind of the learning photographer.
Like, seriously, did you just have a really bad experience using film when you started out or something? I really fundamentally don't understand the hostility here.
Anonymous
>>3250193 >you seem to be missing the point I'm not. I'm saying I don't agree with it.
>the goal of shooting film is to get you to think before you shoot Says who?
>film forces you to be more careful More careful is not better. More inhibited and afraid to fire the shutter because it costs money does not make you better. If you want to get good you need to discipline yourself. You need to do things like seek feedback or research and study to figure out why your photos fail. Taking less photos because you're afraid to spend money won't really do anything by itself. As I said, if doesn't make a difference to slow down and contemplate a shot if you don't even know what you're after or what really works.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250193 > Like, seriously, did you just have a really bad experience using film when you started out or something? I really fundamentally don't understand the hostility here. No. In fact, I enjoy shooting film now and again. The hostility comes from film guys implying that digital shooters are worse photographers simply because we take more pictures.
No one ever tells writers that they'll be better if they write everything on a typewriter instead of just going back and doing a second (or third or fourth) draft in their word processor.
No one ever tells musicians that they'll be better if they just really think about each note they're gonna hit instead of playing over and over again until the song is embedded in muscle memory.
No one ever tells basketball players that what they need to do is to think really hard about getting the ball in the hoop and only actually try to shoot it when the game is on the line instead of practicing over and over again.
Film is the only place where it's really common for people to say, effectively, "Take fewer pictures and it'll make you better". I know that's not what you THINK you're saying, but it's what you're saying. That's a direct corollary to "[forcing] you to be more careful in your shooting".
Anonymous
>>3250909 Once again there are two different things you're mixing here.
1: shooting film as a beginner
2: shooting film as a professional
As a beginner, the goal is not to take a ton of shots or even to visualize great shots, but to learn how a camera works, give yourself discipline, and to make technically competent photos of whatever. It doesn't matter what because in general you aren't going to take many good shots as a novice anyway. Can it be done on a digital camera? Sure. Is it done on a digital camera quickly? No. Why might a manual film camera learn you those core skills quicker? Because it requires more from the photographer (please if you're going to continue to argue with me, respond to this point)
As a professional we are assuming that you're a big boy and you know what you are doing and the workflow you like. Digital makes things easier on the photographer, but easy isn't always the best for learning. With a manual film camera you're throwing them in the deep end.
Anonymous
>>3250956 >The hostility comes from film guys implying that digital shooters are worse photographers simply because we take more pictures. This is not what you initially said. The argument was about why it is or isn't good for a beginner to start on film. This is a much more personal reason to be railing against film. Now I don't agree with the sentiment that a digital photographer is automatically worse because they take more shots, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument about a beginner because the goal is technical mastery of the medium and not, as I've stated time and time again, to take a bunch of shots. A manual film camera demands more of a photographer than a digital body, it is better to force learning and you learn in less time/shots.
>Writers This is a really terrible analogy. The process of writing has almost nothing to do with the tool used to write. It is all mental. In photography, the mastery of the tool is essential.
>Musician Also a terrible example since people don't learn music by playing songs from the beginning but by learning the scales, working on fingerings, and learning the instrument, reading music depending on the type of music. Music is an even more technically dependent art than photography. If we followed the music analogy, I would be saying something like "you should start with a box camera"
>Basketball This is just a wildly different field that is in no way analogous to photography.
>"Take fewer pictures and it'll make you better". I know that's not what you THINK you're saying, but it's what you're saying. That's a direct corollary to "[forcing] you to be more careful in your shooting". Look, man. Taking a higher number of pictures doesn't automatically make you learn more as a beginner. Learning is all about experience and you gain more experience shooting 100 rolls of film than you do shooting 3600 digital shots because a manual film camera demands more from the photographer than a modern digital camera.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251053 >give yourself discipline I think this is the crux of the disagreement.
You’re viewing “discipline” as a learning goal in and of itself, with the implication being that you’ll get better photos with more discipline.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re defining discipline as being able to get a good shot with fewer attempts, and probably also setting up your camera correctly before taking the shot instead of shooting and then adjusting.
My argument is that discipline is not a goal in and of itself and it does not give you better photos. And, in fact, discipline as defined above will lead to slower learning and worse outcomes.
1. No one has ever gone to a gallery and thought “these pictures are shit but, wow, he was so disciplined”. If the final output is one great picture, it does not matter if it’s one great picture from a roll of 36 or one great picture from a card of 64GB.
2. If you ignore discipline, digital objectively will let you learn the basics of using a camera faster. You get instant feedback. You get to see what different settings affect in the image. You can see the effect of aperture on depth of field without writing down exposure settings and getting the roll developed. You can see how iso affects noise without swapping rolls. You can explore shitter speed’s relation to motion blur without wasting money and time.
3. If you drop discipline as a goal, then you can drop the step of consciously thinking “should I take this photo?” Just take the photo. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. You haven’t wasted any time or, generally, any opportunity either way. And when you do that, a funny thing happens: that “should I take this photo” question becomes instinct. You’re not thinking of a bunch of reasons why the shot won’t work, you’re just instinctively KNOWING the shot won’t work because you’ve tried it thirty times and it never works.
Anonymous
>>3251071 >And, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re defining discipline as being able to get a good shot with fewer attempts, and probably also setting up your camera correctly before taking the shot instead of shooting and then adjusting. I am absolutely not.
The discipline I'm speaking of is self discipline to force yourself to use a manual mode as a beginner so you actually learn and become comfortable with all the functions of a camera.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251071 (Ctd)
4. One of the most important skills for a photographer to develop is curation. You need to learn to distinguish what is a good photo from what is a bad photo. That’s really all photography is, after all: being able to look at a scene and determine if it’s a good photo or not. Film and “discipline” stacks the deck against helping you in this in two ways: first, just plain old taking fewer shots means you have fewer shots to go through and practice curation. Second, you’ll esteem your film shots extra because they cost actual money and because it’s a smaller pool. I can look through 40 digital shots and not see anything good and not give a fraction of a shit. If I’d just paid five bucks for a roll of film and ten to get it souped, there’s definitely gonna be a voice in my head saying “well at least one of these MUST be good, you can’t have just wasted fifteen bucks and all that time for nothing...”
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251066 >This is not what you initially said. The argument was about why it is or isn't good for a beginner to start on film. Reminder: this was where I started in the argument:
>>3243822 It very much was what I initially said.
giannis
>>3251071 >My argument is that discipline is not a goal in and of itself and it does not give you better photos. I agree it's the end result that matter and not the hit rate, but this is where I disagree with you.
Discipline *absolutely* makes you better.
In many cases, you have just one chance to take a shot before your subject or the surroundings notices you and change their expression etc.
You have to time that shot properly, and this is where you need discipline.
You can't start shooting away or bursting away before your subject is where you want it to be, because they'll notice you and ruin the shot.
Same for when you're working just after dusk or just before dawn. The light is changing rapidly, you can't keep shooting hundreds of shots (especially since most digital shooters check all their shots on the LCD after shooting them). You need discipline to work quickly and efficiently before the light is gone.
Similar with strobes. There's recharging time, and also limited battery capacity, especially if you use modifiers and shooting close to full power. Again, you need discipline.
I'm not arguing for discipline on a philosophical, sanctimonious level. I'm arguing for discipline because many times it's the *only* way to get the shots, not "morally superior".
A good analogy would be with guns and trigger discipline. I don't think anyone is arguing that you should start spraying bullets because you need the enemy dead and the end result is what matters. Because trigger discipline is what will *actually* get the enemy shot.
>that said, professional photographers, especially the ones I've seen working with multi-strobe setups, are always disciplines, regardless of medium Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251073 >The discipline I'm speaking of is self discipline to force yourself to use a manual mode as a beginner so you actually learn and become comfortable with all the functions of a camera. Well that’s even easier to argue against.
A. Most recent film cameras have auto modes too.
B. A photo taken in manual exposure mode is not intrinsically better than a photo taken in an auto mode. Using manual mode is not a goal in and of itself either.
C. Digital’s instant feedback will let you immediately learn how to compensate when the auto mode fucks up. With film, you have to wait for the end of the roll, then development, then look at it and figure out how you fucked up. Some of these fuckups are going to be masked by the development process and film exposure latitude, making it even harder to learn. And you’ll no longer be in a situation to compare the photo with the world and see what’s causing the fuckup.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3243561 better be this cheap. i'm developing my first roll tomorrow and don't know what price to expect.
Anonymous
>>3251083 This is a classic example of someone that just isn't reading the posts other people make because they're more interested in making themselves believe their argument (which at this point they're having only with themselves) is correct.
I have addressed every single one of those points somewhere else in this thread. Step back and get your bearings before you continue to argue here.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251087 I just reread the thread and didn’t see anything that seemed to address my points. Can you point them out for me?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251079 >In many cases, you have just one chance to take a shot before your subject or the surroundings notices you and change their expression etc. And having a film camera loaded with potentially-wrong-iso film and only manual exposure will help you get that fleeting shot vs a digital camera where you’ve spent 20,000 shots getting extremely fast and comfortable using its automatic exposure modes and autofocus system?
Note that the “spray and pray” idea that a lot of film shooters have about digital shooters is a strawman. I almost never take my camera out of single shot drive mode. I do frequently double-tap my shutter when shooting people so I don’t catch them mid blink, but that’s not a think that discipline can really help with (other than just always waiting until just after a blink to take a shot, which will cost you a lot of good facial expressions)
Anonymous
>>3251122 >A. Most recent film cameras have auto modes too. >>3249995 , >>3251053 , >>3251066 I specifically state that I'm talking about manual film bodies.
>B. A photo taken in manual exposure mode is not intrinsically better than a photo taken in an auto mode. Using manual mode is not a goal in and of itself either. >>3251073 , >>3251066 , >>3251053 , >>3249995 In these, I state various things including
>use a manual mode as a beginner so you actually learn and become comfortable with all the functions of a camera >a manual film camera demands more from the photographer than a modern digital camera >The important thing about LEARNING photography is not to make the most photos. It is to learn how to use the functions of a camera as well as composition, color, line etc to get an intentionally conceived result. The point of these is not to say that manual photography is better, rather the point is that learning how to use a manual mode and all the core functions of a camera AS A BEGINNER is the most important aspect of photography because it is the key to learning how to do anything in photography.
>C. Digital’s instant feedback will let you immediately learn how to compensate when the auto mode fucks up >>3249995 >when you can immediately correct any mistake you make by checking the result and then spinning a dial, the correction is often forgotten and you'll make the same mistake again. I'll elaborate. On a digital camera where you can immediately check the result, I believe that the mistakes you make (assuming you are using the manual mode) are not individually memorable and that if you have the ability to correct them you face no realy cost for having made a mistake. I think, because you can't see the immediate result on film and can only correct them after by remembering consistently during the shooting of another roll, that this will make you learn things in a more concrete way.
LASTLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I AM TALKING ABOUT LEARNING PHOTOGRAPHERS.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251141 Okay, so it comes down to whether or not being forced into manual mode helps you learn better of faster. I posit that it does not.
It is pure conjecture that being able to quickly fix your mistakes makes you remember them less. I would respond to this with (a) no it doesn’t, and in fact you learn faster because of the instant feedback, and (b) even if it does take you ten times as many fuckups on digital to learn—which, again, I don’t think is true—you will get through those 10x as many fuckups in less time than it takes to fuck up once on film, and (c) modern cameras prevent you from making a lot of those fuckups in the first place.
Part C was my reasoning for the horse/car analogy previously. Yeah, using an all manual film camera will force you to learn manual mode. It’s not going to help you learn how to use Av mode with auto ISO and autofocus, though, so it’s not a useful way to learn if your eventual goal is to shoot on digital or even if your eventual goal is a more modern film camera.
It’s important to know manual mode. But the basics can be learned in an afternoon on digital, then you can ignore it until those rare occasions when you really need it. Structuring your whole learning experience around a mode that slows you down that you almost never *need* to use doesn’t make sense and does beginning photographers a disservice.
Anonymous
>>3251160 >But the basics can be learned in an afternoon on digital No they cannot. They can be intellectually understood but you only actually "learn" them with practice over a long period.
Learning how to use fancy modes on a digital camera can be useful, sure but I think that happens on digital more often than not is that a beginner will lean on these advanced modes without learning how to do it themselves.
A more accurate analogy than between horse and car is an analogy of car and self driving car.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251168 >but I think what happens on digital more often than not is that a beginner will lean on these advanced modes without learning how to do it themselves. So?
As we’ve already established, there’s nothing intrinsically special about a M-mode pic vs an Av or Tv mode pic. If they’re getting the shots they want in aperture priority with exposure compensation, what does it matter that they don’t have a lot of experience with M?
Not to mention that if you have a lot of aperture-priority experience or shutter-priority experience, you understand manual mode by default since they’re all connected.
The pure mechanical parts of taking a picture like focus and exposure are much easier to pick up than things like composition, framing, timing, and just plain seeing what will and won’t make a good picture, and a tight feedback loop with unlimited shots to get it right helps you improve those skills faster, too.
>A more accurate analogy than between horse and car is an analogy of car and self driving car. Exactly! And if your self-driving car always gets you where you want to be, what the hell does it matter if you don’t know how to operate a stick shift?
Your argument is like saying “well, you have to start with a manual car because getting into a few accidents will help you learn how to drive better” and I’m responding that an even better way is to just let the self-driving car handle it so you don’t get in any accidents at all.
Anonymous
>>3251206 >And if your self-driving car always gets you where you want to be, And if your self driving car always gets you where you need to be you aren't really a driver, are you?
Your main problem is that you seem threatened by the idea that someone doing something the hard way might have benefits. You definitely just want to assert that digital is better at everything and that's fun for you. Go ahead and assert away. The problem is that the same thing isn't better for everyone and film is a better learning tool for a ton of people than digital.
Anonymous
>>3251246 i don't even know why you are arguing with him. I don't think he has even posted a photo here.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251269 There are roughly 40 pictures that I took on /p/ right now. I drop my trip when I post pictures.
!!Me2iIexFVez
>>3251168 >Learning how to use fancy modes on a digital camera Found your problem.
You assume anyone needs to use the idiot modes, when in reality we just use the same modes as a film camera. The difference is that we can see if we failed immediately, aren't balking at every shot because muh development costs/effort..and missing every opportune moment that doesnt sit still for several minutes, and can correlate the fail and success with what we did several seconds prior, complete with exif data on settings, instead of trying to remember how we took a photo weeks ago.
Film is just a personal preference.
Some people are idiots, and don;t learn either way.
Digital is much easier to mount the learning curve quickly, and with directly observable cause/effect relationships... if you arent an idiot who just want to take photos and never learn why shit happens.
Anonymous
>>3251269 but it's been a really interesting debate and a lot of good points were brought up. as a person learning photography, I've gathered quite a few things to ponder on reading through this (i shoot digital)
personally, I've never seen anyone use burst shooting except pro's in certain situations. and I've even once heard a digital photog who works for a local music magazine and does a lot of live show coverage use that "spray and pray" criticism but he was referring to other pro's doing the same thing as him (low light/rapid movement/HDR photography)
personally, after about 8 months of just shooting random shit and reading online tutorials I've hired a teacher. hes insisted i stop using RAW + jpg so that I'm forced to actually review all my shots at the end of the day and also to be forced to practice using Lightroom. since then, I'd say i take about 30% less pictures, i consider framing a lot more, i try even harder to get the exposure right in the 1st shot - but after the 1st, i might make 2-3 more with slight tweaks, sometimes i already know that it's that 2nd or 3d which has the best speed/aperture combo and i could delete the other "trial shots" but i still do keep em and review them and try to see if i could correct the deficiency in Lightroom to get the equivalent of the best shot from a not so great one.
basically, i think discipline is self taught when one realizes the need for discipline. but to me, the inability to instantly review shots or to have to spend a lot of money/time to develop pictures would be extremely counter-productive for the learning process. I'd like to get gud and one day feel justified in buying a film camera, but not before my skill has improved and become embedded in my head
/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w
Quoted By:
>>3251272 There are roughly 40 posts that I made on /p/ right now. I drop my trip when shitposting.
Anonymous
>>3251272 Oh, so you're just a massive pussy who wants the notoriety of being a trip without the increased amount scrutiny on your work.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251246 Lol nobody is threatened by this at all. I shot film alongside digital in my first two years of learning. I cannot say it really made me slow down and think about my photos more than I already did. I will say that the darkroom experience was cool and imparted something unique for my photography, but the technical things Iearned there could have been learned in digital just as well. At least they were for me because I ended up doing just that.
Anonymous
imagine being so upset that some people like shooting manually and recommend that other people do so that you bitch about it for 20 posts
Anonymous
>>3251450 Imagine creating a straw man about how other people are upset because they don't agree with you
:^)
Anonymous
>>3251482 Looks like technically correct drops his trip to samefag too.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251591 No I don’t. Also, I don’t do smilies with a pointy nose like that. :-)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251591 Imagine being so paranoid and insecure about your position on a topic, that you can't imagine more than one person disagreeing with you at the same time!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251281 >Film is just a personal preference. Hey, man. I said this earlier in the thread. It was the trip that insisted that people were wrong to recommend that a beginner try film. I was just trying to explain why I think shooting film has educational value.
>>3251286 What's interesting is that you've hired a teacher and he's essentially forced you to do everything shooting film would have done but using a digital camera.
I'm glad you found a process that worked for you though.
Anonymous
