/p/ - Photography » Thread #4204374

[40 / 9 / 23]

122KiB, 605x219, Screenshot from 2023-07-17 09-38-46.png

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 07:41:56 No.4204374 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4204387 >>4204395 >>4204440 >>4204500 >>4204549 >>4204567

2005
>lol this shit look nothing like film fucking soulless digital photography!!!
2023
>OMG HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT LE HEKKIN OLD DIGITAL CAMERAS OF YORE??? THEY LOOK SOOOOO MUCH LIKE THE FILMERINO!!!! SO MUCH SOUL!!!!
photographically speaking, why does this happen?
back then many people still shot film and they all said digital cameras looked nothing like it, but now zoomers magically think they have film-like qualities

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 07:43:10 No.4204375 Report

Quoted By:

OLD GOOD
NEW BAD

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 08:18:34 No.4204387 Report

Quoted By: >>4204421 >>4204425

>>4204374
Zoomers are clueless idiots. Of course not all but by a huge margin, yes. And no, this is not me being old man yells at cloud. They’re the first gen to grow up with wifi and their brains have been wired for instant gratification which completely fucked them up. They have great things going for them in their gen but not so much when it comes to arts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 08:22:08 No.4204390 Report

Quoted By: >>4204689

Soon as he can he’ll be a leicafag, guarantee it. It’s all just cope until then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 08:43:56 No.4204395 Report

Quoted By: >>4204421

>>4204374
The idea that something is "like film" or "filmic" has become a meaningless term. It used to mean 'kinda-sorta, if you squint and have limited experience with film you could believe it was. But now it just means it has limitations. If it's memory card can only hold 40 shots, that's film like, if it doesn't have raw files, so you can't edit it, that's film like. It can mean anything now.

But I think what's more interesting is why it's happening to zoomers. I think it's because they've grown up being told that absolutely everything is relative, their is no truth only differing perspectives. Nothing is binary, everything is a spectrum. They are fed contradictory lies, that they know are lies, men can be women, all humans are equal, etc. So I think they are desperate for ANYTHING which has a fixed self-relational point. Something which breaks that relativity. I think that's why you are seeing the growth of spirituality in zoomers as well. Spiritual practices typically involve a fixed point of focus in a transcendent reality which is completely unaffected by change. I think that is why they like the *idea* of film. Film of course, is fairly flexible, but film is symbolic of that thing they are craving.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 10:01:44 No.4204421 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204387
as opposed to boomers who were the first to introduce a 24/7 propaganda machine into their house and turn it into a lifestyle. but i agree that zoomers are worse. and then theres covidbabys. i saw a dude pushing a stroller with a phone strapped to the handle (pointing towards the baby) playing youtube videos. go to any restaurant and not a single kid will be without an ipad. 90% of them will be on meds and gay
>>4204395
also because the cycles of nostalgia are becoming closer together. you see young people buying digicams from the 2000's for nostalgia, or even things like vine. in 5 years, people will have nostalgia for tiktok

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 10:23:59 No.4204425 Report

Quoted By: >>4204429 >>4204572

>>4204387
Nah I’m looking at my Olympus point and shoot shots from 06/07 (I was 18) and they have way more soul than any new cellphone. You just don’t like seeing kids do cool shit because you’re a nerd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 10:40:22 No.4204429 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204425
I feel like you're replying to someone else. I'm not even mentioning photography but I suppose contextual and abstract thought are a doozy for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 11:40:11 No.4204440 Report

Quoted By: >>4204484

>>4204374
>The camera is indeed the instrument of “fast seeing,” as one
confident modernist, Alvin Langdon Coburn, declared in 1918,
echoing the Futurist apotheosis of machines and speed.
>Photography’s present mood of doubt can be gauged by
Cartier-Bresson’s recent statement that it may be too fast. The
cult of the future (of faster and faster seeing) alternates with the
wish to return to a more artisanal, purer past—when images still
had a handmade quality, an aura. This nostalgia for some pristine estate of the photographic enterprise underlies the current
enthusiasm for daguerreotypes, stereograph cards, photographic cartes de visite, family snapshots, the work of forgotten nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century provincial and commercial
photographers.
>But the reluctance to use the newest high-powered equipment
is not the only or indeed the most interesting way in which
photographers express their attraction to photography’s past. The
primitivist hankerings that inform current photographic taste are
actually being aided by the ceaseless innovativeness of camera
technology. For many of these advances not only enlarge the camera’s powers but also recapitulate—in a more ingenious, less cumbersome form—earlier, discarded possibilities of the medium.
Susan Sontag, On Photography, from the 70s.

It's always happened, this obsession for imperfection and archaic methodology. It lends unearned validity to photographs taken. Not only because they no longer can be judged in technical perfection, but because the mere act of taking a photograph with antiquated machinery is seen as a valuable action, in the way that taking a photo with a phone or digital camera is not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 13:09:27 No.4204456 Report

Quoted By: >>4204475

We'll have same for cameras from 201Xs

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 14:14:19 No.4204475 Report

Quoted By: >>4204522

>>4204456
>202X
>Why the Sony A7 mk1 is a compact classic

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 14:32:08 No.4204484 Report

Quoted By: >>4204501

>>4204440
whenever i see "susan sontag" i ignore it. an "intellectual" without achievements other than rambling while consulting a thesaurus is a prehistoric 4chan shitposter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 14:57:01 No.4204500 Report

Quoted By: >>4204689

>>4204374
They dont actually know what film looks like

They think film looks like thedarkroom.com scans and you can't edit when you have a lot of editing latitude with negatives. More, actually, than you ever got with DSLRs until the later full frame cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 15:00:36 No.4204501 Report

Quoted By: >>4204510 >>4204511

>>4204484
filtered lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 15:07:49 No.4204510 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204501
Oh and did I mention her real name is susan rosenblatt and her most well known quote is this little piece of vitriolic, racist ignorance
" The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."
>meanwhile in africa: still genocidin' other tribes and playing sahara highlander
>meanwhile in china: general xiu fei hui invaded the principality of hujkukortikokok of tibet, 100,000 civilians were eaten
>meanwhile in japan: general subaru kawasakimoto pulled a fast one on the asia pacific, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 15:09:26 No.4204511 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204501
>Filtered
You can not get truth from someone who peddles lies. Ad hominem is, in fact, not as broad as you may think, and it is prudent to pass over the ramblings of madmen and in the case of susan sontag/rosenblatt, mad women.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 15:49:47 No.4204522 Report

Quoted By: >>4204525

>>4204475
>just look at these wonderful green skintones reminiscent of sadly discontinued fuji 400h pro film stock

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 15:56:14 No.4204525 Report

Quoted By: >>4204528

>>4204522
Ironically camera jpegs are more magenta/red tinted and so are the raws in every program except lightroom/acr. It's remiscent of kodak gold, if anything, because the default AWB setting always goes too warm.

If you want truly filmy colors, which means dull and saturated to most people, shoot pentax.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 15:58:56 No.4204528 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204525
not if you shoot under artificial light, the white balance settings in early sony cameras undercorrect for the green tint

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 16:29:02 No.4204549 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204374
This is just the continuation of the neverending ever faster moving consoom-flow that we are currently living in.
We search for something special in artifical shit instead of as in this case just produce photos with whatever camera you have, for yourself and not others.

People by bags of crystals to place on the sound cables of their hi-fi systems as they seem to think it matters, others buy old shitty cameras to look for soul.

Fuck all of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 17:37:51 No.4204567 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204374
It's cope.
Whenever people, especially the young, can only afford something substandard, something that the world has rejected, they always create a narrative in which this unwanted thing is actually superior because, uh, it encourages creativity or something.

Film cameras used to be ass-cheap, and film was at least affordable enough that the cheapness of the camera justified the cost of film. That's no longer the case with many types of cameras and film. So in order to continue in their creativity-from-austerity ethic, people will find whatever is cheap and shitty NOW and pretend it's good.

It's a side effect of young people, and artists, and especially young artists, *always* being broke as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 18:00:33 No.4204572 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204425
>I’m looking at my Olympus point and shoot shots from 06/07 (I was 18) and they have way more soul than any new cellphone.
compare your point-n-shits to a modern mirrorless camera; phones add a whole separate dimension of usability problems by not being camera-shaped, that has nothing to do with their technical imaging capabiliies

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jul 2023 23:04:43 No.4204689 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204390
Correct.
>>4204500
Also correct. I stopped shooting 35mm film after learning (thankfully pretty quickly) that every good film photo is heavily worked on in the darkroom. Somehow that gets skipped in everyone’s conception of film, and doubly so when most film photography is really just an attempt to RETVRN to being a 15 year old with a point and shoot and a learner’s permit.

Film in medium format and above is a different ball-game of course. And no one shooting medium format pretends they aren’t doing work in the darkroom with their film. Or dropping a TIF or DNG into photoshop or Lightroom and going to work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 00:53:01 No.4204719 Report

Quoted By: >>4204721 >>4204760 >>4204837

Nice bait but I'll bite because you don't seem to understand the appeal. This movement has been going on far longer than you think all coming from different branches of reasoning that are only really converging now for good reason.

1. It's always been a contested topic over sensor technologies, most notably CCD being taken over by CMOS. Users were left with a bad taste in their mouth when CMOS came around as a cheaper replacement to CCD sensors which by the time they were being replaced had their color science and accuracy been "perfected" and while CMOS caught up in every way people still spoke fondly of CCDs when you had big players like Sony still not get what had been great a decade prior. So naturally there's always been nostalgia for odd (and expensive) sensor technologies because they did things differently or just right. Think of foveon for example, it hasnt been that long since the last foveon camera was released but people are super nostalgic of it and praise the shit out of it for its colors and raw image qualities even though it's a clunky as fuck way to shoot. They're just technologies that will stand out over whats currently done because there are aesthetic differences or qualities you just can't get on CMOS (for better, worse, or different)

2. Film is just plain expensive. Unless you're bulk loading black and white film it can quickly get out of a lot of people's casual shooter price range. It is also a process you can't get from digital as easily anymore because technology far surpasses the medium in all technical manners. People aren't just after the look of film but in a way the process as well. Using a current digital camera you will get an insane amount of autofocus points, continuous af tracking, insane iso performances, and ibis. It's easier than ever to not have to think and get great results. Old digicams don't have this and you will have to make a lot of considerations when taking a shot because your camera now has more limits than...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 00:54:37 No.4204721 Report

Quoted By: >>4204760

>>4204719
Cont.
…a modern camera. It’s not as good as either film photography’s process and not as technically perfect as modern digital but it presents its own unique style of shooting and aesthetics that aren’t offered up by film or modern digital but still offers a taste of both. It’s fun, cheap, and unique and it’s only some idiots that think it will replace film.
3. Aesthetics. No I’m not talking about CCD colors that are film like or “more pleasing or natural than CMOS”. I’m talking about oddly noisy files, CCD flares, crushed blacks, barrel distortions, shitty optics in general, softness, lack of detail, low resolution, unique processing engines that aren’t fully baked, periodic noise, harsh purple fringing, banding… the imperfections go on. Some are more unique than others but this is just stuff that doesn’t happen on either film or modern digital unless you purposely add it and even then it might not be as unique as what you see from an old busted up no brand digicam. People seek this stuff for a reason, not all images have to be razor sharp or have uniformity to it and when the subject matter calls for it this is the tool to do it with.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sony MVC-2000b_7f2f4cfe65f8cb1eb (...).jpg, 82KiB, 1245x934

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 03:13:38 No.4204760 Report

Quoted By: >>4204804

>>4204719
>>4204721
>So naturally there's always been nostalgia for odd (and expensive) sensor technologies because they did things differently or just right
>They're just technologies that will stand out over whats currently done because there are aesthetic differences or qualities you just can't get on CMOS (for better, worse, or different)
Based, summed it up perfectly. I feel like a shithead saying nophoto but what do you shoot with?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2808 (1).jpg, 3MiB, 2000x2670

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 04:48:39 No.4204804 Report

Quoted By: >>4204813 >>4204847

>>4204760
I mostly work with an S90 right now. I try to really push it by shooting it in the later hours. 800 iso gives it a pleasing noise pattern and reds,magentas, and purples are really what this camera excels at. Unfortunately I don't have any better examples of what Im doing right now (computer has been packed away for the last 6 months) this is far back ages ago and I've taken this camera everywhere, even to Japan back in June. I think I've literally put a good 2000 images on this camera if not more. I think the beauty of a camera is the lens which gives me a great range in something I can carry with me every single day, im mostly doing a lot of architectural compositions and abstract stuff. I'm looking to get into bigger CCD cameras just because I enjoy the look. It's not perfect but I'm not trying to represent things accurately anyways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 05:12:30 No.4204813 Report

Quoted By: >>4204841

>>4204804
nta, but that is a beautiful photo. The noise looks great. Are you talking about the powershot s90?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FXCD0019.jpg, 2MiB, 2272x1704

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 05:43:14 No.4204822 Report

Quoted By:

I'm going to contribute and post a photo I took early on with a digicam back when It was new.

These things were great in their time but I got this digicam as a graduation present and from my photos I can tell just a scant 5 years later I had swapped to a phone camera. 5 years was all it took and I was definitely late to the party.

Since this is a slow board I'll go out and get some shots with the Fuji in the year of our lord 2023 as well. I still have it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 06:24:42 No.4204837 Report

Quoted By: >>4204849

>>4204719
listen you liberal arts faggot, maybe you should review your reading skills because they are clearly lacking

the point of the thread is that when those cameras came out, photographers which actually had experience with film said they looked nothing like it, but somehow today the situation has reversed even though the pictures are identical

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2755.jpg, 2MiB, 2000x2670

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 06:26:09 No.4204841 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204813
Yeah the PowerShot s90 and thanks, this was stuff I shot when I first got it and I think I've shot some cooler stuff. Might make a dump once I've sorted and gotten my computer up and running a month from now

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO MVC-041S.jpg, 23KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 07:00:29 No.4204847 Report

Quoted By: >>4204851

>>4204804
>architectural compositions and abstract stuff.
That's usually what I do with my digishits too and I think that's where they really shine over modern cameras. I always thought its because maybe there's some truth to artsy bullshit like "less detail so the viewer's brain fills in the gaps", or maybe its a bit of aesthetics and old home movie nostalgia, but you nailed it on the head and put it into actual words kek

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2805.jpg, 5MiB, 2670x2000

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 07:05:41 No.4204849 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204837
I think you lack reding comprehension because I did address that. I called those people idiots to think that it looks exactly like film. Now which photographers 15-20 years ago are looking back at this saying "wowzers this is just like film!"? Please tell me because most of the people who fawn over these things didn't get to experience that shift of going from analog to digital. Right now it's mostly zoomers and 20+ year olds who didn't get to experience that significant shift in medium and are probably not hugely deep into the analog rabbit hole to accurately compare. I can see why some people feel its *like* film to some extent. It's hard to explain things to others what you like about it and easier to make analogies to existing things. "I see neat grain, crushed blacks, and exaggerated tones" it's easy for someone to say "hey that kinda reminds me of film and that nostalgic look, film is always lo-fi right?". It's only until you experience both that you truly understand the nuances. Obviously this guy doesn't shoot enough film, and besides he is a YouTuber so even if he does shoot enough film it is in his interest to create clickbait titles to get views "look here kid! I have the answer to your filmic look needs and you only have to spend 20 dollars!" It's the gullible people who will follow the advice because they hardly have a point of reference. In all the vintage digicam communities I've been to no one has ever said that it's film like. People only compare one digicam to other digicams because that's the only thing that it can really be compared to and not even to a huge accuracy because these cameras can vary so wildly. It's pretty dumb to compare because there even isn't one film stock which we call film, what is this guy even comparing it to? They're lying through their teeth if they can't even do a like for like comparison of shooting the same scene on a film camera and this Olympus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 07:15:27 No.4204851 Report

Quoted By: >>4205112

>>4204847
This might sound stupid but I think I got inspired by liminal spaces and the low fidelity look that movement brought. Usually it's the looming emptiness that buildings give from the exterior and because they are artificial structures the noise and lack of aliasing and even the colors for that matter just add to what was there already and blends in really well. People and animals are much more organic and Its not my favorite thing to shoot with old cameras because once you see that something isnt right, its off putting unless done tastefully. Even busy trees and plants can kinda look bad if you don't shoot them right on these, its a challenge.
>MVC
Is that a mavica?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 08:00:54 No.4204859 Report

Quoted By:

I believe the kernel of truth to the notion that "CCD sensors are like film" was "CCD sensors are like *slide* film", as opposed to negative film. Compared to negative film, early digital CCD's had a small dynamic range and were very unforgiving of blown highlights. Well, so was slide film. Hence the boomers who actually did transition from film to digital, tended to say things like, "oh this new digital shit is more like slide film than negative film".
Of course anybody who says "CCD sensors look like film" now, most likely doesn't know any of this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 08:30:14 No.4204864 Report

Quoted By: >>4204870

This guy is the worst because he is completely aware of what his videos do to older gear prices and still kept on trucking

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 09:14:27 No.4204870 Report

Quoted By: >>4204879

>>4204864
why does that bother you? are you in the market for old pieces of shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 10:22:16 No.4204879 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204870
Yes.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 07digital-cameras-02-videoSixtee (...).jpg, 346KiB, 1600x900

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 21:50:04 No.4205076 Report

Quoted By:

I feel like the trend for older digicams didnt start to imitate film at all and more about seperating photography from their phones, y2k aesthetic and the built in xenon flash. its only youtube influencers that bring film into this because they cant accept that the retrophoto trend moved on or something i dont really know.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO MVC-045S.jpg, 35KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Tue 18 Jul 2023 23:39:14 No.4205112 Report

Quoted By:

>>4204851
>the noise and lack of aliasing and even the colors for that matter just add to what was there already and blends in really well.
I feel the same way, I like liminal spaces and you just can't recreate that look/feeling of emptiness with modern gear or even film, I wish I could describe it better than "it just works" but that's it really
>Is that a mavica?
ye FD88, it was the first one I bought a few years ago and I ended up with half a dozen more after

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