[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 43 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Image posting is back. Expecting a more permanent fix soon!



File: bug.png (26 KB, 632x756)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
>#filmisnotdead
>>
>>3292748

I don't see a point in film beyond being a hobby. Any affects made by film can be produced in edit.
>>
>>3292748
Great thread! Keep up the good work!
>>
File: neckbeard.jpg (78 KB, 1280x720)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
#sony

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1280
Image Height720
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:07:21 14:16:56
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height720
>>
great thread
>>
>>3292749

i shoot film because I don't want to spend time producing *anything* in edit -- color correction / contrast / sharpening is all I need with a film scan

plus, I like that it gives a second opportunity for self-criticism, seeing photos you took months ago whenever you get around to dev'ing a roll
>>
File: DogSmile.png (258 KB, 559x564)
258 KB
258 KB PNG
#Adobe
>>
>>3292749
>I don't see a point in film beyond being a hobby.
Much lower barrier to entry for quality prints.

A 20x24" print costs me £3,5 including film, chemicals and paper.
The camera and lens used to capture it was £300.

How much would it capture a frame in comparable quality with digital? How much would each 20x24" print cost?
>>
>>3292749
I like that it doesn't make me chimp, I take the shot the best I can first time and accept it. Plus there's something really fun about developing yourself or sending off to a lab, not knowing how the images will turn out or seeing them with fresh eyes if it's a roll you didn't develop instantly.
>>
>>3292791
The cost of big prints is only really relevant for commercial work, where you aren't likely to use film for other reasons. There are only so many walls in my house I can hang a 20x24" print on, so it doesn't really matter whether it's $5 or $35 a piece, and for just viewing, I get bigger images on my TV for free, with more contrast and color fidelity.
>>
>>3292806
>it doesn't make me chimp

I never knew cameras could rob people of free will.
>>
Imagine feeling threatened enough by the existence of film and people that like to use it that you make a thread like this.
>>
>>3292791
A quality 24x16" print from a digital source will cost me around $10 where I live, even less if ordered in bulk. That's hardly a big difference, especially if you include costs of film for shots that don't get printed. As for the camera, something this big is generally never viewed up close, so you can print at 200dpi or less - and I'm fairly sure you can get a 16MP digicam for £300 nowadays.

The thing here is that I don't even remember the last time I printed anything bigger than 6x8". Everyone wants me to just send them jpegs, so even when I shoot film, I still have to digitize it anyway.
>>
>>3292810
>The cost of big prints is only really relevant for commercial work
It depends what you define as commercial.

What about big prints that you want to sell, or give to friends as gifts, or include in your portfolio? Or just hang on your wall.

Even medium sizes like 8x10" or 11x14", how much would they cost to have a shop print them for you, or to own a decent A3 photo printer + paper?

>I get bigger images on my TV for free, with more contrast and color fidelity.
If you believe that I doubt you print much, if at all.

TV's "equivalent" (i.e. direct and not reflected light like prints) would be slide projection. £70 for 35mm and £150-200 for medium format ones, and you can project as big as your whole wall. Are you sure you wanna make that comparison?
>>
>>3292813
The film general on /p/ is unironically the comfiest one here. There's very little autistic slap fighting, people actually upload their photos and there's genuinely enthusiastic discussion. Compare that to /gear/ where it's endless Sony shilling and slap fights over pixel density or crop factor and /video/ where everyone is so depressed they're on the verge of suicide.
>>
>>3292817
>Everyone wants me to just send them jpegs
Yeah, I know, it's like that everywhere.
Digital can do amazing things and very conveniently, and it can only get better.

One bad habit that people have picked up though, is they stopped printing. To me that's a shame, because the whole point is the print and no screen can match the quality and viewing experience of a good print.
But noone cares, especially when they don't have prints side to side to compare. Also they "can always print later, if we want to", but that "later" never comes, until you have forgotten about the jpeg files or lost them at a disk crash or along an OS upgrade or whatever.

Maybe the photographers are to blame too in some cases, when they charge extortionate prices for prints, just as they used to do in the past. They forget though that in the film days, they could do that because a big enlargement was a very hands-on thing that took considerable time and human input, as well as materials (papers, chemicals, test strips, etc.). And also the client *had* to have some prints, because it was the only way to view the photos.

Now that they can view the photos for almost free, and that a big print is just a click in terms of time and effort, there's no way you can charge that much for prints/reprints. The higher price should be for the service, and not trying to milk them in prints.
>>
>>3292820
>What about big prints that you want to sell, or give to friends as gifts, or include in your portfolio? Or just hang on your wall.
As I've said, everyone just wants jpegs. If I make prints for friends, they still ask for files for shots they like so they can post them on their instagram or whatever. As for walls, I prefer artwork; and if I was into art or commercial photography enough to have a printed portfolio, I probably wouldn't have cared about the barrier to entry for prints.

>Even medium sizes like 8x10" or 11x14", how much would they cost to have a shop print them for you
These are way cheaper than larger formats. On standard paper, 8x12" is $0.75 and 12x18" is $1.5; finally, 4x6" is $0.08 a piece if you order 100+ at once.

>If you believe that I doubt you print much
No need to doubt, I literally wrote that I don't print much in my previous post, lol.
Sure, it feels good to have physical prints at first, but most of the stuff I printed just collects dust.

>Are you sure you wanna make that comparison?
I do have a 35mm projector, but the results generally aren't as colorful/contrasty as on a quality TV. The projector is admittedly old, it uses a filament bulb that makes everything warm-colored and isn't powerful enough to cover an entire wall while retaining a semblance of brightness, but can you really do better for £70? As for prints, anything with high contrast and light sources like a sunset is just so much better in direct light (and in additive color instead of subtractive color, I guess) that prints just don't compare.
>>
>>3292824
>the whole point is the print and no screen can match the quality and viewing experience of a good print

That's completely subjective. For example, my grandfather has shot film since late 1940s, but now he asked me to digitize all of his old rolls and views everything electronically - even though he doesn't even own a good monitor.
>>
>>3292824
Handmade artisanal optical prints from high-res film on quality paper, especially in color, are only accessible to a small minority of people. Most people order minilab-type prints, where your
>no screen can match the quality and viewing experience
just doesn't apply.
>>
>>3292822
This, I smile everytime a new /fgt/ is made, even though I shoot just as much digital I post more in there.
>>
>>3292836
I guess if the goal is a digital medium (screen), it makes no sense to shoot anything other than digital as capture medium.

The only barrier seems to be initial investment, but this keeps getting lower.

>Most people order minilab-type prints
Even minilab-type prints are on RA-4 paper, exposed optically. The difference being, in more modern minilabs, the frame is scanned and then digitally projected on the paper.

Interestingly, quality colour paper is cheaper than quality B&W paper. I guess due to economies of scale, with so many minilabs using it.

Even minilab prints, and of course inkjet prints, are a much better way to look at photos than a screen to me.
Maybe high dpi big screens could change that, but a printed photo has more impact. And when printed huge, even if the dpi drops, it has a different and more dramatic impact. Physical size and material matters.
>>
>>3292836
>I literally wrote that I don't print much in my previous post, lol.
neo-/p/ everyone
>>
>>3292748
Digital tends to be overcorrected - to make things perfect and ultimately make a sort of hyperreality. It's the way the most popular art seems to be going - there's no real limit.

It's the same as the problem with CD's. Objectively they're better than vinyl - higher dynamic range and better quality, and more tolerant of shite mastering. But because they're so tolerant of shite mastering - they tend to be mastered shite. Every level is firewalled to try out-loud the next song.

Do that on a vinyl LP and it'll play fucking awful. The format therefore, forces you to do some basic things right which results in what seems like a better product - if only because it's forced you to do something that you should've been doing anyway.

Working with film forces you to think. Is this worth shooting? Do I have my settings right? Is the light too much or little for the film I've loaded? Even, what am I planning to shoot today, because that determines what I've loaded in the camera, and brought in the bag.

And then you have to work with the limitation of what you have.

It's good if you've nothing relying on it beyond your own satisfaction, interest and curiosity.

You have what you have, you are where you are, and what you get is what you get. When technology is now letting us create images into whole realities that never really were, something tangible and physical has value. This is something that actually happened.

Fuck me I should stop drinking late.
>>
File: 1526396198939 (1).jpg (107 KB, 900x900)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>3292748
film point and shoot is true chad mode
>>
>>3292856
Oddly enough, I don't remember any #printsarenotdead threads on /p/, even though prints are, by proportion of usage, much "deader" than film.
>>
>>3292858
>Digital tends to be overcorrected
Digital has no will of its own, it's only as corrected as you make it to be. Obviously, other people might be doing it in a shit way (like your CD example), but nothing compels you to follow their example.

While I agree that questioning
>Is this worth shooting?
is always worth it,
>Do I have my settings right? Is the light too much or little for the film I've loaded?
- these are purely technical hindrances that have no relevance to the concept of photography. No matter how satisfying it might be to get a great result after fiddling with dials, a camera that gives the same result with less fiddling is objectively a better camera.
>>
>>3292822
>>3292849
I'm glad you guys are enjoying /fgt/ will be posting a new one shortly
>>
>>3292749
>I don't see a point in film beyond being a hobby. Any affects made by film can be produced in edit.
It gets cunts wet and you can pick up a lot more bitches with 120 film than with your cuck digicam
>>
>>3292749
I shoot digital but I can recognize (on a computer monitor) a well made 4x5 especially if on fujifilm velvia 50. There is something "rich" about it. After years I still haven't been able to get close to that rendering.
I was looking at Adam Gibbs's works last night and I could clearly tell which ones were shot with a 4x5 LF camera. The guy uses a D850 nowadays.
>>
>>3292762
Same here.
>>
>>3292748
I shot a good amount of film on a variety of formats but ultimately gave it up a few years ago. Here's why:

>I like the instant feedback because I am more worried about screwing up a shot and not realizing it until it's too late than I am about the implied street cred of being able to "get it right the first time" - especially since no photographer is perfect
>I don't like being forced to shoot "ISO priority" mode for 24-36 frames until I can justify taking that roll out and exchanging a different speed one
>I don't dislike the digital look at all. Film does not look bad - sometimes it looks very good - but it's not so amazing for me that I can't stand parting with it. In fact sometimes I prefer the way digital handles scenes over film.
>>
>>3292894
>It gets cunts wet and you can pick up a lot more bitches with 120 film than with your cuck digicam
Well you certainly sound like a wet cunt
>>
isi takes more meaningful and aesthetic jpegs using film simulations than all of /fgt/ puts out together, with less time spent editing and more time spent shooting.
Film is a meme for dips.
>>
>>3292987
I know this is terrible bait but go look at the photos GRS just posted in /fgt/ ∞x better than any isi thread.
>>
>>3293030

lol put your trip back on grs.
>>
>>3293030
>GRS
>better

Not after they shat up the p book. And the photos GRS takes are really sloppily composed.
>>
File: Laughing burns.gif (1.81 MB, 176x144)
1.81 MB
1.81 MB GIF
>>3292748
>hear a film festival is in town
>heard where they're setting up an infobooth
>go there
>it's a queer film festival
>one of the faggots is using an AE-1

too perfect
>>
>>3292748
>people who make an identity out of some particular hobby niche are obnoxious cancer, more news at 9
>>
>>3292941
Tl;dr "I am addicted to instant gratification"
>>
>>3293145
well at least he's getting gratification from actual photography and not from wanking to outdated technology
>>
>>3292762
That's about all I do with a digital photo.
>>
>>3292811
And they steal your soul.
>>
>>3293156
>he
Always fun to pretend to be someone else so you avoid confronting anybody eh kid.
>>
>>3293145
>I dont like travelling to a far away place and taking a shot I love only to find out later it got ruined by missed focus or camera shake
>hurr u must like instant gratification

"No."
>>
>>3293200
>I like the instant feedback
>I don't like instant gratification
do you have brain problems m8?
>>
>>3293200
>such a bad photographer he needs assists and state of the art autofocus to hold his hand so he can pump out anything halfway acceptable
The state of /p/.
>>
>>3293208
>I must have the last word in this painfully trite exchange
>>
>>3293212
Yeah, you kinda do bud.
>>
>>3293214
Sorry, I'm just massively depressed about the state of the board and humanity in general.
And I appreciate I'm not helping either with remarks like that.
>>
>>3293217
Yeah, imagine a photography board where someone can't nail manual focus on a landscape shot on holiday without the latest autofocus technology. Almost like they don't belong here.
>>
>>3292864
Technical hinderances do make you think about them. Even on a full auto system you still have to at least check and make sure the thing's giving the right settings for the scene before you push the button because you can't chimp it after the fact.

Digital makes it easier to be shite without ever learning a thing.

Just doing the basic shit like getting exposure right, being aware of shutter speed and what the conditions you're shooting in means a better picture. Even if it's of the barbeque in the back garden.

Using an old film camera taught me a lot about these basics. Even utterly basic stuff like what the fuck they were.

I'd probably be better with a digital camera now that if I'd started with one. But I'm far too broke to buy one now
>>
>>3293120
>>3293036
it ain't me man. Plus my phone's cell data is ISP blocked from posting lol

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width2152
Image Height746
>>
>>3292942
Get raped
>>
>>3293208
Apparently you do if you think being able to see a shot after taking it is equivalent to instant satisfaction.

>>3293211
>>3293219
I didnt say anything about landscape photos. Jesus you're fucking dumb as shit.
>>
>>3292749
>movies with millions of dollars of budget get shot on super 16 film because it is easily emulated in post
>you pay tens of thousands of dollars in digital videography to step up from 8bit color and 4:2:0 chroma subsampling to 12bit 4:4:4 but films infinite color smoothness is a stupid waste of time
>medium/large format digital sensors are affordable for literally everyone
sure mate

i know /p/ is not the brightest board but if people with no clue about anything would just lurk before embarassing themselves it would improve significantly
>>
>>3293307

>it's better because it's more expensive

/p/iss off m8
>>
File: 462.jpg (113 KB, 680x989)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>3292748
>#filmisnotdead
>#throwback
>#darkroomdevelopers
>#thriftstorecamerafind
>#zerofilter
>All pics actually taken with $4,000 Sony A9 and heavily edited in lightroom
>>
>>3293233
I don't see why you can't learn the same basics with a digital camera, any ILC has a full manual mode. Hell, I'd say it's better to learn on digital because you can experiment without wasting film, and you will see what you've done wrong right away. (If someone can't learn with anything but a mechanical camera because he can't bring himself to rotate the dial to M when AUTO is available, then he probably needs psychological help, not photography)
>>
>>3293307
>films infinite color smoothness
You do realize that's not how film works, right? The dye clouds in film are discrete - they either develop or remain transparent, with no halfway states. So on a micro scale (or not so micro for very fast film), film is neither smooth nor infinite.
>>
>>3293323
>I don't see why you can't learn the same basics with a digital camera, any ILC has a full manual mode.
Of course you can, and many people do.

Most of people that don't learn know obviously wouldn't have learnt with film either, and therefore wouldn't have picked up photography as a hobby. Digital made photography accessible to people that don't necessarily want to invest lots of time to technicalities, and thus opened up the hobby to a broader audience. It's a good thing in the long term, even if it needs we need ti dig through bigger amounts of shit to get to the good stuff. But the good stuff has increased in absolute numbers, which is good.
>>
>>3293282
>checking the shot after taking it
Never going to make it. You're not supposed to chimp, just take the shot and move on.
>>
>>3293501

Yeah, all of those polaroid backs out there were just for the inferior image quality and insane expense.
>>
>>3293504
Polaroids were the basic bitch ezpz photography of the day, not a good example. Keep trying though, I'm enjoying watching you justify chimping.
>>
>>3293507

peel-apart 4x5 and medium format was basic bitch?

you must be confused. enjoy blaming your poor technique and garbo photos on "the magic of film".
>>
>>3293509
I think you're projecting mate, I only use film as a side hobby. You must have been really upset when you got your negatives back after you went on holiday and your lack of technical skill was right there in front of you plain to see. Must have left a deep scar in your ego so bad you started hating the whole medium of film itself.
>>
>>3292749
so all the great and modern artists who still use film are just hobbyists or hipsters? fuck off man
>>
>>3293510
>I think you're projecting m8
>proceeds with a 300 lightbulb strong projection in his next two sentences

sure thing senpai
>>
>>3293507
is this true? i've shot a lot of SX70 with Impossible/PO film, and it's actually pretty challenging to get the exposure right.
>>
>>3293501
>reeeeeeeee

You're supposed to shut up and swallow bitch.
>>
>>3293507
consumer polaroid cameras and polaroid backs for large format cameras are completely different things m8
>>
>>3293527

No, but I don't see why they couldn't do the exact some thing using digital.

Film is a selling point but not necessary to create. Like racing a stick shift car when you have access to a faster automatic.
>>
>>3293860
Well it's not like /o/ doesn't have similarly awful auto vs manual shitposting threads.
>>
>>3292864
technical hindrances help the photographer think about how the process works. by having to fiddle with dials, you develop an understanding on the interaction between the different variables that account for an image and the physical mechanism that emulsion provides in the chemical capturing on film. you can get the same thing obviously if you shoot manual on digital, and i think technical hindrances are present for whatever kind of photography you want to do. they manifest in whatever ways but they all still offer further insight into someone's hobby or work
>>
>>3293880
How the process works has no relevance to the concept of photography. Ideally, one should be thinking about artistic qualities of the image, not how aperture works or how is color temperature defined. As long as the end result properly reflects your vision of the scene, it does not matter whether an image is captured on a celluloid roll, a piece of silicon or a quantum entanglement detector, through a glass lens, a sheet of nanomaterial or a compound bionic eye, etc.
We obviously are far from the point where we can ignore the process completely, but technical hindrances can only "help to think" if you didn't really want to think in the first place.
>>
>>3293545
>admits freely in front of the whole thread he quit film photography because he kept messing up shots, especially crucial ones when on a holiday
>walks it all back and acts defensive when he realises that kind of admission shows his lack of technical skill

Lol
>>
>>3292841
Can somewhat relate to this. First time I got some of my work printed, I was overwhelmed with pride over having a tangible form of my work but the more I looked at the prints, the more I realized that many of them were either disappointing in terms of quality or just flatout didn't match how the images looked on screens.

The only time I was impressed by a print of mine far more than just viewing it on a screen was when I got a 60x60cm print on metallic paper but that set me back almost 40 euros including shipping(there isn't a proper printing lab where I live).
>>
>>3293940
You're talking to more than one person. I hope you realize that.
>>
>>3293940
You conveniently ignored the other two points made in that post and are fixated on messing up shots. That was one of a few reasons I could think of. I mostly stopped shooting because I like digital images more than film and gain nothing from film as a result. You're also way overflowing my statement about messing up shots. Sometimes I will simply bump the tripod on accident during an exposure. Or something out of my control happens like a big rig drives over the bridge I'm standing on and causes the camera to shake. This is where it's necessary to double check my image wasn't ruined by something so stupid. It's not worth it. I just delete any duplicates after making sure it's nice and sharp and free of issues.

Oh, and more than one anon responded to you. I hope you realize that.
>>
>>3294019
>>3294028
If you're going to act that more than one person is talking here, maybe don't end off both posts with "I hope you realize that" because it's like shooting a horse in the hoof before it can gallop.
>>
>>3294043
Both those posts are mine but the ones above that you responded to are not all mine.

>ignoring everything else I said cause you cant argue and bitch about it
lol that's what I fucking thought you loser.
>>
>>3294062
Let's be honest, someone who bails out of using film basically because "it's too hard" is a real bitch made loser. You can try to explain it away as if it's an inferior medium, yet plenty of photographers on /p/ including me use it because we understand what we're doing. You're the loser who couldn't handle it and quit.
>>
>>3294248
I never said any of those things. I never said film was "too hard", I also never said that it's inferior. You're just going off the rails on a strawman and it's not doing you any favors.

>haha YOU'RE the loser
>I know you are but what am I
An idiot, apparently.
>>
>>3294248
Sounds like you're substituting pride about overcoming pointless technical hurdles for pride about taking good pictures. Why not go full dancing bear and start shooting wet plates?
>>
File: 1469221329010.jpg (18 KB, 252x233)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>3292748
>#buyfilmnotnegapixels
>>
>>3292838
If he's been printing since the 40s then it'd be understandable that those prints look like trash. Not to mention that scans are a great way to archive your photos as well. However, I doubt an average monitor can match the quality of something like a platinum palladium print.
>>
>>3293937
You sound like you're approaching this from a very subject-oriented pov here. Understanding the fundamentals of the photographic process and how they work enables you to attain a higher level of artistic freedom because you know how to better manipulate them to reflect your artistic vision. No doubt about it, there are times and situations where less fiddling with knobs is more beneficial. However, I'd still rather make the decision not to mess around with those knobs because it suits my process rather than having to leave them alone because I have no idea what they do in the first place.

In other words, you gotta know the rules before you break them.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.