/p/ - Photography » Thread #4075361

[59 / 12 / 35]

141KiB, 1200x1078, fujifilm-velvia-50.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

iso 50 tips?

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2022 23:09:32 No.4075361 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4075385 >>4075460 >>4082127

Is there any real difference with iso 50 film?

Anything I should be aware of before shooting?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2022 23:35:53 No.4075365 Report

Quoted By: >>4075385

Use in good light.
Don't use for portraits unless you really want to emphasis your subjects zits
A tripod is you best friend

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sample velvia portrait.jpg, 199KiB, 1024x811

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 00:11:55 No.4075385 Report

Quoted By: >>4075388 >>4075389 >>4075477

>>4075361
diapositives like velvia require color correction on set if you want best results
expose for the highlights

>>4075365
velvia looks amazing for portraits when color corrected, much like kodachrome
however you need either a color meter or a very very overcast that in other for that to work

pic rel from flick
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/adampietraszewski/44724172185/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 00:25:35 No.4075388 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075385
>velvia looks amazing for portraits when color corrected
>however you need either a color meter or a very very overcast that in other for that to work

otherwise you need to leap through hoops to get something useful out of it.

It is a very specific kind of film, anon. I don't know what you plan to shoot with it but I would recommend you experiment before using it on anything important.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 00:26:10 No.4075389 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075385
I mean, the model in that pic looks like they have rosacea, which is precisely why you don't really use velvia for portraits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 02:31:54 No.4075460 Report

Quoted By: >>4075462 >>4075536

>>4075361
if you don't use low light compatible lenses then you will get extremely weird color casts

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 02:39:28 No.4075462 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075460
Fuck off, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 03:03:21 No.4075467 Report

Quoted By: >>4075825

Your images will have a magenta tint with Fuji films.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 04:48:23 No.4075477 Report

Quoted By: >>4075486 >>4075534

>>4075385
This is horrible her skin looks like meat

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 05:47:34 No.4075486 Report

Quoted By: >>4075487

>>4075477
yes... tender, supple meat...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 05:49:23 No.4075487 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075486
It’s terribad and this was the best example you could find

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 11:23:40 No.4075534 Report

Quoted By: >>4075794

>>4075477
Adjust and calibrate your monitor then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2022 11:31:01 No.4075536 Report

Quoted By: >>4082030

>>4075460
Wat

Nothing special about shooting 50 iso. It's still plenty fast enough to shoot handheld from sun up to sun down. Shoot it at 50iso first, but if you find your shadows a bit too blocked up try another roll at 40iso. I always shoot velvia 50 at 40 but YMMV.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 02:49:05 No.4075794 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075534
Yes let me adjust my monitor until velvia makes skin look good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 05:43:19 No.4075825 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075467
Typical snoy bashing Fuji because they are used to green skin tones. Fuji isn't magenta, snoy is green.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1249917577000_253101.jpg, 34KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 14:22:53 No.4075893 Report

Quoted By: >>4076697

PanF 50 might be interesting to try

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 16:36:42 No.4075917 Report

Quoted By: >>4075920 >>4075925 >>4082065

I am completely new to photography
What is the benefit of shooting film

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 16:41:38 No.4075920 Report

Quoted By: >>4075942 >>4075986 >>4075987 >>4076559

>>4075917
It looks better than digital. It's almost easy-mode for making your photos look great.
It's more fun.
It lends your images a timeless quality. Digital photos from top-of-the-line cameras in 2009 are showing their age, while film will always look both modern and vintage.

The downside is inconvenience and high cost. It's also more restrictive and demanding than digital.

cruz

cruz Fri 02 Sep 2022 16:59:06 No.4075925 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075917
pros
colors look way better with little processing
medium format is actually feasible and it does make your pics look great
portraits and landscapes benefit immensely from shooting medium format
upfront costs are lower
top notch lenses costs way less than their digital counterparts, since film deals better with varying angles of ray light
exposure is more forgiving

cons
costs add up since you pay for each frame you shoot; tho it depends on your shooting style and it's certainly cheaper than shooting digital medium format
high iso performance sucks compared to digital cameras, so if you shoot a lot of people at night or street photography it might be limiting
autofocus is not as common
you cannot recover shadows

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 19:00:46 No.4075942 Report

Quoted By: >>4075950

>>4075920
>Digital photos from top-of-the-line cameras in 2009 are showing their age

This is actually a great point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 19:35:41 No.4075950 Report

Quoted By: >>4076042

>>4075942
Thx senpapi.

I've been shooting film since the 90's and have lately been doing a little retrospective through my old photos the last few months. Something that continually freaks me out is when I look at a slide or a film print from, say, 2002 and it's so vivid and lifelike that the only way I can tell it's from 18 years ago and wasn't shot yesterday is that all the cars and technology look super old. Film today represents 150 years of technological progress, and using it creates a time machine to the past. Digital does too, but for different reasons.

Even that sunflower bathtub photo up above? The only way you can tell it was shot recently and not, say, 1994 is her circa 2018-2022 brushed-up eyebrows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 22:48:33 No.4075986 Report

Quoted By: >>4076167 >>4076214

>>4075920
>It looks better than digital. It's almost easy-mode for making your photos look great.
It can look better out of camera than a RAW file. Films are like presets, they were designed to give a "look" because back then people didn't have Photoshop, and most serious photographers with a darkroom only did B&W. RAW files are like LOG on video: neutral flat. You have to shape them into what you want. But RAW files are far more flexible.

If you like to concentrate on the shot and not the post work, film can work well if you match your film to the scene and lighting. If you like post work, RAW can produce incredible colors. You can work in difficult lighting, get home, and produce multiple "looks" from the same RAW file.

>It lends your images a timeless quality. Digital photos from top-of-the-line cameras in 2009 are showing their age,
Wrong year. By 2009 IQ was high enough that they still look excellent today.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2022 22:53:20 No.4075987 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075920
>Digital photos from top-of-the-line cameras in 2009 are showing their age
JPEGs maybe lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 05:24:14 No.4076042 Report

Quoted By: >>4076084 >>4076167 >>4076214

>>4075950
I think a big problem for digital is that there has never been a “digital look” that wasn’t a fad: 2006 started faux hdr, then aggressive teal/orange color grade, now pastels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 11:52:03 No.4076084 Report

Quoted By: >>4076160

>>4076042
>faux hdr
How to do "real" HDR?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 16:56:53 No.4076160 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076084
Is this an actual question or are you doubting that the fake hdr look was super prevalent in the mid 2000s?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 17:20:54 No.4076167 Report

Quoted By: >>4076190 >>4076214

>>4075986
holy shit are you actually explaining shit I already know to me lmfao

and yes, 2009 cameras are absolutely showing their age. They've all got that first-gen cmos look: limited dynamic range and color depth, noisy, etc. There's a reason my D300 sits in a box under my bed these days.

>>4076042
That's part of it, but even if I were to shoot raw and process minimally, they would still look slightly dated. That's just part of video/digital technology and why you can tell, almost to the exact year, when a television show was shot, while cinema shot on film 40 years ago still looks crisp and modern.

That's why I always try to shoot natural light (even for portraits) and process with a light touch. It just ages better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 18:45:58 No.4076190 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076167
>and yes, 2009 cameras are absolutely showing their age. They've all got that first-gen cmos look: limited dynamic range and color depth, noisy, etc. There's a reason my D300 sits in a box under my bed these days.
git gud moop

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 20:17:42 No.4076214 Report

Quoted By: >>4076597

>>4076167
>>>4075986
>holy shit are you actually explaining shit I already know to me lmfao
Is this moop? Because if this is moop you know shit. You need someone to explain your shoelaces every morning.

>and yes, 2009 cameras are absolutely showing their age. They've all got that first-gen cmos look: limited dynamic range
You're one of those retards who thinks DR matters for every scene, aren't you?

>and color depth, noisy, etc.
They were using 14-bit ADCs by then, and noise wasn't an issue at low ISOs even in 2003.

>There's a reason my D300 sits in a box under my bed these days.
Because you're a talentless hack?

>>>4076042
>That's part of it, but even if I were to shoot raw and process minimally, they would still look slightly dated. That's just part of video/digital technology and why you can tell, almost to the exact year, when a television show was shot, while cinema shot on film 40 years ago still looks crisp and modern.
You couldn't tell a 2003 DSLR from a 2022 mirrorless in a double blind test if that test excluded high ISOs and sun-in-frame landscapes.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Chirchik_River_in_Khodzhikent.jpg, 265KiB, 1280x960

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2022 21:15:58 No.4076232 Report

Quoted By: >>4076281 >>4076597

Here's a great pic made with a 2007 DSLR. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chirchik_River_in_Khodzhikent.jpg

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2022 00:27:39 No.4076281 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076232
hmm the edges around the plants look a bit off, def looks like older digital camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2022 23:02:55 No.4076559 Report

Quoted By: >>4076597

>>4075920
>Digital photos from top-of-the-line cameras in 2009 are showing their age

No they aren't lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 02:06:01 No.4076597 Report

Quoted By: >>4076601 >>4076610 >>4076617

>>4076214
>You couldn't tell a 2003 DSLR from a 2022 mirrorless in a double blind test if that test excluded high ISOs and sun-in-frame landscapes.
You couldn't. I can. I'm also trying to understand where all this vitriol is coming from. Did you recently buy an old camera and are trying to convince yourself of its merits?

>>4076232
sorry, my guy, that looks painfully mid 2000's.

>>4076559
yes they are lmfao

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO d700.jpg, 225KiB, 1680x1118

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 02:24:06 No.4076601 Report

Quoted By: >>4076604 >>4076711

>>4076597
>yes they are lmfao
Proofs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 02:30:41 No.4076604 Report

Quoted By: >>4076606 >>4076610

>>4076601
>Did you recently buy an old camera and are trying to convince yourself of its merits?
How did I know it was going to be some seething zoomers with old cameras who would take umbrage with my claim?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 02:37:03 No.4076606 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076604
I do not understand your seething statement, i am just trying to figure out the source of your claims, perhaps you do know some visual clues i do not know of and could be interested in reading.
The image you claimed was painfully 2000's does seem to have that look of digital sharpness, if you had said 2005 cameras i would've agreed but by 2009 shit had leaped hard with the D700, D3S, 5D mk. II and the K-7.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 04:05:33 No.4076610 Report

Quoted By: >>4076622

>>4076597
>You couldn't. I can.
>ego status: massaged
You want to believe there's some great difference because you consoooooom and think your CC debt defines who you are as a photographer, not your photos (which you probably don't have). Sensors have less read noise (i.e. higher DR at base ISO and slightly better performance at very high ISOs) than they did around 2010. In theory that also translates to a finer color palette. But in practice sensors from that time period already distinguished more tones than people cared about or noticed. Even for DR/high ISO the gains have been small, except in Canonland because Canon dragged their feet on moving to a better fab so they could put ADCs on chip.

tl;dr - except for photos with hard pushed shadows or very high ISOs, you couldn't tell 2009-2022 cameras apart.

Of course you're going to piss on any photo posted and claim "yo man I can totally see the difference." It would take a double blind study to ego check you.

>>4076604
He asked for proofs. Do you have them? No?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1497115552703.png, 51KiB, 571x618

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 05:02:25 No.4076617 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076597
>my guy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 05:21:57 No.4076622 Report

Quoted By: >>4076644

>>4076610
After my D300 depreciated by 2/3rds in five years, I’ve only ever bought used. Nuts to your consoom theory.

If you want to set up a double blind test, go for it. If not, you’ll just have to accept that someone exists somewhere in the world who has been doing this longer and with more attention to detail than you. You should make peace with this concept sooner than later. It’s good for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 07:34:51 No.4076644 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076622
>If you want to set up a double blind test, go for it.
Why would I waste my time on you?

>If not, you’ll just have to accept that someone exists somewhere in the world who has been doing this longer and with more attention to detail than you.
OK nophoto

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 14:11:35 No.4076697 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075893
I bought 2 rolls of panf 120 in February to try it in nature under the bright spring sun.
The film is still in the fridge. Sad.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO onkzfpX (1).jpg, 391KiB, 533x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 14:39:28 No.4076701 Report

Quoted By: >>4076706 >>4076711 >>4078894

Pic related was taken with a digital camera from 2005

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Shobac_007.jpg, 1MiB, 1067x1600

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 14:41:51 No.4076702 Report

Quoted By: >>4076706 >>4076711 >>4077883 >>4078894 >>4078988

A different camera from 2005

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 14:48:49 No.4076706 Report

Quoted By: >>4076708

>>4076701
>0,4 mp
>>4076702
>1.7 mp

less than my sony-ericsson K750 lol

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PEI_005.jpg, 1MiB, 1600x1064

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 14:56:34 No.4076708 Report

Quoted By: >>4076710 >>4076711 >>4078894

>>4076706
They're resized for web...you know, how most people view photos?

I can post the full res 6mp files in all their glory. They still print beautifully at 11x14.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 15:03:16 No.4076710 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076708
I am not the man you are fighting with. I just lold a bit with 0.4 megapixel proof.
Anyway I don't care about your necro-digital bullshit in the middle of film-thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2022 15:07:16 No.4076711 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076701
this one def shows it's age

>>4076702
nice one despite being noticeable its technical limitations
>>4076708
>>4076601
these are quite good tho
beautiful timeless portrait

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Sep 2022 08:46:01 No.4077883 Report

Quoted By:

>>4076702
that is some trippy shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Sep 2022 01:33:16 No.4078894 Report

Quoted By: >>4082239

>>4076708
>>4076702
>>4076701
all of these are utter shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Sep 2022 07:40:51 No.4078988 Report

Quoted By: >>4079010

>>4076702
goats are evil. dont photograph them

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Sep 2022 09:23:40 No.4079010 Report

Quoted By: >>4079411

>>4078988
Those aren't goats

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO aLBYbEP_460s.jpg, 110KiB, 460x730

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2022 14:43:46 No.4079411 Report

Quoted By:

>>4079010

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Sep 2022 19:10:36 No.4082030 Report

Quoted By: >>4082040 >>4082239 >>4083065

>>4075536
iso 50 fucks up more lenses than you might imagine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Sep 2022 19:35:52 No.4082040 Report

Quoted By:

>>4082030
how the fuck autismos

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Sep 2022 23:16:38 No.4082065 Report

Quoted By: >>4082098

>>4075917
>What is the benefit of shooting film
Each roll comes with its own baked in instagram filter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2022 01:09:44 No.4082098 Report

Quoted By:

>>4082065
Other way around child

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1479193918001.jpg, 23KiB, 600x450

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2022 02:22:40 No.4082127 Report

Quoted By:

>>4075361
...Mhhhmmmhh... Vulvia...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2022 12:01:36 No.4082239 Report

Quoted By:

>>4078894
Thx for the critique

>>4082030
wot m8

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO power rangers what.gif, 428KiB, 200x183

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2022 19:23:49 No.4083065 Report

Quoted By:

>>4082030

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

iso 50 tips?