I currently shoot digital and like the convenience, flexibility when editing and how fast and hassle free everything is.It comes a point where the digital images look very cookie cutter to me; too artificially and clinically perfect.I have also shot film in the past, and I get that it's a whole aesthetic and more manual/tactile process, which is rewarding. The drawback is that it's not very flexible in what you can do to your images, it requires considerably more time, you might fuck up and have light leaks, so on. Not to mention the high cost of buying and developing and scanning.I like the manual feel of putting a new roll, advancing the film, the classic vibe you get from the shots, but at the same time digital is just so much more convenient.
>>4330482>The drawback is that it's not very flexible in what you can do to your imagesBullshit, get a cheap old 100mm macro so you can DSLR scan yourself using the full sensor, there is ass loads of information to work with, not to mention much better dynamic range in highlights, that alone let's you create entirely different looking images but also push them to have a digital look if you want. I don't think it's ever a one or the other, both are still better at certain things (objectively and aesthetic) so unless you're a poorfag just do both and do them both right.
>>4330482Shoot 4x5 film.
>>4330484A 16mp micro four thirds with pixel shift is enough to scan 6x7
>>4330490This or 645, the thinking man's format>>4330491Whatever you have is always the right answer
Digifilm
I have only shoot bw film because it's cheap, fun, and keeps me away from screens and worrying about how my photos are turning out in the moment. I enjoy the act of being out taking photos the most, so film's inherent drawbacks don't bother me because I really dgaf about the photos after I've taken them. They'll get developed/scanned/edited when I feel like it. Pic related: frame hanging to dry from yesterday's dev sesh[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeGoogleCamera ModelPixel 6aCamera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:06:26 20:47:17Exposure Time4169/250000 secF-Numberf/1.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating202Lens Aperturef/1.7Brightness1.5 EVExposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.11 mMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length4.38 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height1089RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoDigital Zoom Ratio1.4Scene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
film is the immortal medium of the mastersdigitool is a jewpanese conspiracy to make you consoom
>>4330482>film aestheticdo you know that if you scan the strips yourself, they look cookie cutter and lifeless like digital raws? Those film-like color characteristics are simply lab boosted with their color profiles.>tactile processswap your memory cards and battery every shoot if you care so much about "muh feels".The only thing I can agree with film is that each shot feels more valuable because you're literally burning chemicals and more money than digital. But that's only at the point of capture, it's not like photo itself will be any more or less valuable than a digital one.
>>4330695>Those film-like color characteristics are simply lab boosted with their color profileswhat about slide films on a light table?>swap your memory cards and battery every shoot if you care so much about "muh feels".nothing close to the same feel or impact on photos like the grain/curves/B&W change from different rolls>it's not like photo itself will be any more or less valuable than a digital onemaybe not but its likely to last longer... time is money[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiColor Space InformationsRGB
>>4330484This defeats the purpose of the film. Whole idea is to take a pic without using any digital image processing equipment.
>>4330482I shoot a lot of 35mm film. Stick with digital. There is nothing more convenient or "better" about 35mm film unless you develop it yourself and make prints. However, if you want to get into medium or large format, that's a different story. Those formats have the advantage of getting the film look while also being sharp and blow upable so to speak. The only reason to do 35mm imo is you just like the feel/developing. Everything else is cope. It's just an inferior format.
>>4330714Then how are you going to post your photos online where anyone can see them
>>4330717You scan your print!
>>4330717You dont. That's a thing.
>>4330714And this “purpose of film”, you got this from who exactly? I’ve never heard of it, sounds like a you issue.
>>4330729>The purpose of film is making sure no one can ever know your 8x10 dick pics are macro shots, not even the government
>>4330482>It comes a point where the digital images look very cookie cutter to me; too artificially and clinically perfect.skills issue.
>>4330482>too artificially and clinically perfectFilm is too time consuming. I use vintage glass, mist filter and jpg sooc (natural look and b/w mostly).inb4 you can't edit jpeg: I have a real job, so I just enjoy photography
