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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1716069387230317.jpg (29 KB, 469x452)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>bayer filter
horrible, but a necessary compromise in the early stages of digital imaging due to limitations in tech
>xtrans
a good idea with the potential to increase color fidelity but never actually implemented in a way that actually realizes that advantage due to sheer laziness on the part of Fuji
>monochrome
a great idea, increasing light gathering by at least a full stop, while providing better sharpness and detail
>Foveon
All the advantages of monochrome but with full color, but at the cost of limited ISO range due to noise
>Film
All of the advantages of Foveon but none of the downsides, more dynamic range, flexible, more choice in terms of body and lens choice. The only 'disadvantage' is increased post processing time, which is actually very fun (so no downside)

Why is film just strictly and obviously superior every time? Digicucks are constantly coping about 'quality of life' and have spend thousands upon thousands of hours trying to reproduce 'the film look', when they could just easily start shooting film like lmao, it's not that hard
>>
A d850 has more resolution and dynamic range than drum scanned velvia 50 in 6x7.

Film is dying because I’m right and you’re wrong. Even (((hollywood))) is moving on.
>>
>>4317358
>velvia
>dynamic range
don't make me post a Rockwell page
>>
>>4317358
Hollywood is doing it because it's cheaper/faster and no one cares about the image quality degradation because movies are slop to keep the livestock occupied it's not a coincidence that the artistry of cinema died along side the abandonment of film.

>A d850 has more resolution and dynamic range than drum scanned velvia 50 in 6x7.
and yet the people still prefer the film image, crazy, it's almost as if technical fidelity isn't the thing that people want when looking at images, but that couldn't be because bigger number better.
>>
>>4317354
Based thread, op. Pixel peepers absolutely btfo once again.
>>
>>4317361
>people prefer film
>technical fidelity doesnt matter
in reality: almost no one prefers film, sales nonexistent, it's such a small group this is like saying "people prefer linux".
>t-technical quality isnt the thing
Yeah you ONLY say this shit after you say THIS SHIT
>BY THE WAY GUYTH BAYER IS FLAWED AND FILM HAS FULL DETAIL AND COLOR AND MORE DYNAMIC RANGE AND HAS NO DOWNSIDES AND HAS THE MOST DETAIL IT HAS THE MOST DETAIL FUCKING BAYER REEEE
And get proven wrong. See: OP.

Do you know what "people prefer"? In reality, not your IG feed bubble?
FUJIFILM FILM SIMS.

People can't even TELL THEM APART! I'm sorry, I know you spent like, $2000 on film and processing over the past year or two, but you are never getting that money back and it really was 100% wasted. If you did the same thing on digital everyone but you would not have noticed. You are essentially a photographic masturbator.

I know. This hurts. Every dollar you wasted on film was a genuine waste. You paid more for the same or worse results. Meanwhile some teenager with a nikon D60 his dad gave him for free is photomogging you daily, and every last frame he takes is free. Let the cope flow forth....
>d-digislugs arent better than me they're just salvaging their mistakes because you cant edit film (o-ok i admit you can edit film...) ;_;
>its because he shot more than me and had more practice and more chances! ;_;
>oh by the way yes i cant afford to shoot that much film but ur a poorfag right RIGHT? ;_;
>>
>>4317372
you seem very upset to have typed all that and I'm not going to read it.
>>
>>4317372
You're right and what you said is going to be genuinely hurtful to some people so they're going to pretend they didnt read it. But they did.
Denial is how 4channers cope with devastating loss
>i didnt read it
>that didnt happen
>i hang out with famous photographers and they all told me film is the best
>i am a multibillionaire and i have sex with supermodels and i did not read your post
>but i did thats why i replied instead of just ignoring it
>*cries*

Judging by the post rate on /fgt/ some of these people spent way more than $2000 in the past year or two lol, take that dog guy for example. He's most likely spent upwards of $5000 on just snapshitting the dog he fucks. All for boring photos that look like they're slightly edited shit from a used canon DSLR. You have no idea how bad it hurts some /p/eople to know that film either looks the same as or worse than digital, which is why people like OP try and pretend its "technicuhly shuperior"
He even seethed aimlessly about fuji xtrans... specifically, because xtrans pics look exactly like film.
>>
File: 1716450014316696.jpg (26 KB, 516x484)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>4317375
you are so fucking mad lmao
>>
>>4317372
Angry or german but nailed it.

>>4317375
Also nailed it.

Imagine spending $1000+ per year to take photos that look the exact same as the ones from a $200 fuji xe1. The whole “film look” is encapsulated in a drop down menu in lightroom bruh you fags got scammed.
>>
>>4317373
Classic cope
>>4317376
Coping hard

You are never getting that money back. Now write another essay about how film is “technically better”, op. What matters is that you believe it.
>>
File: cameras.jpg (1.15 MB, 1500x1500)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>4317354
only film i actually shoot anymore is on my kodak h35 lol

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 25.9 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2024:05:25 14:54:11
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1500
>>
>>4317376
You can tell when someone is seething because they bring up the people/dogs/doghair that lives rent free in their head, especially mine. Lol.

Film is for printing through an enlarger. Except for portra, maybe... 99% of people on here live on the internet, pixel peep every image they look at to decide if it's shit or not, and have never produced any sort of physical media. This is the sad truth of this place.
>>
if you dont pixel peep fuji and film look 100% identical and if you buy a $10 preset pack you can do that with any camera. Only pixel peepers zooming in on grains can tell them apart. Film and digital have the same detail, the same color, the same dynamic range. Well, "technically", digital has more colors, but once you load the preset it has the same color because nobody wants to see all the colors. That is more interesting to museum staff than photographers.

>>4317380
>confirmed: the coping gearfag seething about digital being "technically worse" is the money wasting dog fucker
>>
>>4317373
>Make shitty statement
>Get response
>"HURR DURR UR MAD HURR"

classic weak af bait
>>
>>4317385
I told you I wasn't going to read all your shit. I'm watching a movie (which was shot on film and looks great btw)
>>
>>4317360
for real, dude knows nothing about film if he doesnt know slide film is very high contrast/low DR
>>
>>4317387
>thinks everyone is the same person
>is angry instead of ignoring
>responds in <5 minutes
oh yeah you read it and it hurt

you will never get that money back
no amount of gay techie cope like the op will change that. it was an actual waste.

film has no advantage over digital whatsoever it is the same shit for more money. you are just masturbating like people who wear mechanical watches.

>>4317389
dude all you need to know about film is no matter how much effort you put in, it looks the same as a photo taken with any other camera. if you edit your scans to sharpen the grain to emphasize that there is grain it will look just like any digital grain simulation. it is a waste.
>>
>>4317383
No it isn't, dummy.
>>
>>4317389
His ego is so big he can't even fathom anyone doing things differently. You are evil and stupid if you do not agree with him. PTSD from the great console wars of film vs digital. A sad sight indeed.

Normal non autistic/overly inflated ego/narcissist people are just happy to see other people enjoying the same hobby they share. Surely the anger and overly aggressive attitude comes from a place of insecurity. The lad is so worked up he can't even have a real discussion.
>>
>>4317396
>Normal non autistic/overly inflated ego/narcissist people are just happy to see other people enjoying the same hobby they share
based and true, wish this was a more common sentiment, things didn't used to be so bad here
>>
>>4317354
>The only 'disadvantage' is increased post processing time, which is actually very fun (so no downside)
It's funny how you made an exception for a the massive downside of developing film. I have no interest in developing or scanning film. Anything you do will be inferior to a proper film lab which has thousands worth of equipment. On top of the the cost of constantly buying film and the space it takes up storing it.
I'd like to shoot some film but it will be as a novelty
>>
>>4317402
You can easily print 35mm in a 4x4 darkroom, or a converted bathroom(similar footprint to many computer desks+chair) and your prints will look far better than any scanned image. One contact sheet takes about 4 minutes to make also.

An 8x10 binder that holds film is far smaller than most computers.

Price is unavoidable for most, but there are ways to shoot for very little money. For example You can buy 100m of 70mm agfa aviphot for less than 300 dollars. That's around 3.5 cents per shot for 6x7 medium format. Compare that to around 1 dollar per shot for normal 120 film...

You can also buy 5 inch rolls of film and cut your own 4x5. Last I heard that was costing like somewhere in the 15 to 30 cents range per shot! Compared to shooting tmax100 at 3 dollars per shot.
>>
>>4317402
Alsooo about cost. If you take the cost of a camera and divide it by the average shutter lifespan you will find there is a price per shot for digital cameras. May be 10x less than film, but I would argue that most people shoot 5-10x more images when they are using a digital camera! It definitely doesn't balance out, but it is short sighted to say that digital shooting is "free". It's like saying I bought 100 rolls of film, and so now that I own them I'm also shooting for free.
>>
>>4317402
>I have no interest in developing
U gay or somethin son? Development is the most kino part of the whole process, like you’re doing alchemy or some shit. Very based.
>>
>muh cost
Go play with your Nikon DSLR that was bought off Facebook marketplace with 200k shutter count for $60. I'll spend thousands on film per year and love it
>>
>>4317415
it's not smaller than a hard drive. I prefer to edit digital
>>4317420
seems like a waste of time
>>
>>4317425
Fair enough. I can respect a difference in taste. I hate sitting at the computer staring at a screen. I press auto on all my film scans. My computer broke and now I just make contact sheets in my darkroom. Could not be happier.
>>
>>4317396
As if OPs retardation is not even greater

Bayer is still the best color capture method known to man. a 42-50mp full frame camera beats drum scans of velvia 50 in detail, at ISOs super fine grained high detail slide film can't even achieve, and literally any APS-C digital beats the best negative films in dynamic range. Yes, APS-C.

Film has great exposure latitude, but using that to its fullest just fills out shadow detail. It will never have more than 11-12 stops of dynamic range. APS-C has 13.5. FF has 14.5.

There is almost no quality argument in the film vs digital debate. The ONLY thing film has over digital is a lack of moire (which is easier to fix with digital than film is to put in most manual cameras!)
Film is either about the process, or you are a stupid gearfag. A really, really fucking stupid gearfag. Looking at dogfucker and his "MUH 4X5S ARE 5000MP" gearfag brag posts. Fuck, 4x5 is quality mogged by a GFX100S. Sorry dogfucker.
>inb4 CMS20
Oh okay so if you shoot black and white ISO 20 film at ISO 12 and use the highest contrast targets possible you can sort of keep up with GFX100S pixel shift.
>>
>>4317431
>Beats drum scans of velvia 50
6x7 velvia 50. To be exact. This is something that has been tested and proven because it's the color film with the most detail period and the mark to beat for big print landscape wank.

Maybe once you get your A7RIII up to ISO 800 it'll start to fall behind... and finally have almost as little DR as velvia.
>>
>>4317431
>doubles down

Must have really bruised that big ego of yours.
>>
>>4317431
I didn't make this thread either. Proving my point that your ego will not allow you to be wrong.
>>
>>4317434
>>4317437
>nonarguments, fregoli delusions
Do we need to get artrepofag back in here to btfo these filmtards?
>p-photography isnt about pixel peeping detail bbbbBBUT FILM HAS MORE OF IT
He went into details about color gamut too after some filmtard claimed "bayer has 1/3 the color, because film has layers!", it was very epic to watch sunk cost fallacy losers seethe at the pubes on his scans as if they were any better.

There is a reason stocks are constantly vanishing from the 4x5+ selection and film is being discontinued left and right. It's only used by train set hobby tier tinkerers who enjoy the process, and a few fashion photographers who can neither accept moire nor inaccurate clothing detail from correcting it.

For all of you, because none of you are fashion photographers, film is either about the process or you are a really, really fucking stupid gearfag.
>>
>>4317438
I never said any of that stuff, and you're missing my point entirely.

I will agree that it was pretty funny when everyone got mad at me for having dog hairs on my scans. Annoying, but funny.

Can you name some 4x5 stocks that are vanishing rapidly, also? Like within the past year?

I think what you, as a true gearfag, is missing is that people use cameras to produce art. If film does that better for them, none of your arguments matter at all. You're just complaining about how an apple doesn't taste like an orange and how apples are clearly superior to make a salad with.
>>
>>4317440
>dogfucker talking about producing art
zach tier. the only thing you produce is dog cum scented farts.
>>
I accept your concession. :)
>>
>>4317441
Oh yeah, you really shouldn't talk about your mother like that also. Wanna see the nudes I made of her? Her saggy tits are true art.
>>
>>4317441
He stores his puppy batter poots in jars, pleb. Its about creating something physical. You wouldnt get it.

Imagine not saving your farts for later huffing. Sad! Nophoto trolls will never get it!
>>
Incredibly embarrassing.
Anyways, thanks for the fun fellas. You've clearly and unequivocally admitted defeat in the only way you can. I'm out!
>>
>the film gearfag was the badphoto dogfucker
Of course
>>
Lel I shoot fashion and use both formats. Everyone I know uses both formats. They’re both valuable for different shoots. None of us spend time arguing about it online; no working photographer would. By the time you respond to this I’ll be cuddling my model gf (I won’t be responding to your cope post, lel).
>>
File: IMG_9743.jpg (95 KB, 470x630)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>4317470
found the magazine you shoot for

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution93 dpi
Vertical Resolution93 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width470
Image Height630
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: superiority.png (713 KB, 2567x1716)
713 KB
713 KB PNG
OP here and I just got back from work. I see people are still mad as hell about the superiority of film
>>
>>4317470
Your exact sentiment is how I can tell someone is an absolute shit photographer on here. Well... Aside from them being too scared to ever post their photos.
>>
>>4317475
film is so superior bro especially in the larger formats thats why it keeps getting discontinued except for purposefully inferior lomo shit and portra
>>
>>4317354
I stopped shooting film because i was sick of going through 1 roll every 15 shots to have photos that looked almost as good as my z8. Instead, I got a fuji x100vi. Now it looks exactly like 645 and still looks almost as good as my z8.

Cope about it with your data sheets and charts, nophoto. Dont forget another dash of technobabble you dont actually understand…
>the halide emulsion has more nyquist apodization in the demosaicing frequencies
>Spock, what the hell are you talking about?
>>
>>4317489
yes, because as we all know the market selects for only the best quality and not for convenience and 'good enough' performance
>>
>>4317396
>>4317398
>>
File: 1692762361143804.gif (73 KB, 512x512)
73 KB
73 KB GIF
I just think that is fun to use a camera that doesn't need batteries and smelling dev chems
>>
>>4317430
that's fair I'm a computer chud anyway so it doesn't bother me. I do appreciate how the look of film is done as soon as you take the photo
>>
>>4317363
>>4317398
>>4317420
Based on what?
>>
>>4317358
?? 6x7 film has like 80MP equiv, not even a sony could keep up
>>
>>4317372
>>people prefer film
>>technical fidelity doesnt matter
>in reality: almost no one prefers film, sales nonexistent
people prefer iphone photographs thoughbeit
>>
>>4317354
Film only gets good with medium format. 35mm is actual dogshit.
>>
>>4318501
It looks really nice for 8x10 and 11x14 prints, even higher speed/bigger grain film. 16x20 is stretching it a bit, but with the right image it would work.
>>
>>4317566
No lol, 6x7 has like, 50mp, maybe. When the 5ds R, D850, and a99ii came out everyone was putting them against film and film kept losing.

Film has "data sheet resolution" which can only be achieved in certain photos and then the real resolution because film needs contrast to record contrast, but digital can record contrast in 0-contrast deep shadows just fine. Just like digital has its resolution as stated, and then it has its resolution on an alternating blue-green finely detailed object which looks like 1/2 its stated resolution.
>just dont pixel peep trees
>>
>>4318501
You own trash cameras
>>
File: table.jpg (127 KB, 468x566)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>4318506
this table here says otherwise

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2014:12:18 16:17:31
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width468
Image Height566
>>
>>4319083
>size of scan = megapixels as a proxy for resolving power
lol no. you can scan however big you want but you stop seeing anything resembling new detail fast. after 50mp-ish for 6x7 it is the same amount of detail but the file is scaled up.

there isnt even a digital printer on earth that can print at densities to justify the perennial fantasy of scanning grains and the spaces between them making it possible to replicate an optical enlargement digitally... and these figures do not transfer well to optical enlargers.

he is right about data sheet resolution, which is when idiots with sunk cost issues assume films resolution is equal to its grain density unaware that real photos do not work like that

REAL photographers, not spec sheet gearfags, put their digital cameras up against real film prints and drum scans and found film lacking. that's just a fact. digital records max detail above the noise floor and film needs extreme amounts of contrast to come close to the resolution implied by the grain density, like if you were shooting a test chart with flash and printed your chart with the blackest pigment ink available.
>>
>>4319087
you misunderstood, they measured the resolution and the calculated the equivalent pixels from that
>>
>>4319089
YOU misunderstand
actual photographers, not people flashing test charts and checking data sheets, already went over this 10 years ago

because of the way film works, test charts represent actual photographs 0%. only a small portion of a photo might actually represent the potential resolution of film. a lot of it can easily be mush.

this discrepancy is why gearfag and pixel peeper started out as very heavy insults that imply someone is detached from reality. digi-only kids can be confused by the stigma because on digital, every photo is recorded with max sharpness deep into the shadows so test chart pixel peeping is surely just like a real photo. on film? no. not even close. 4x5 is easily mogged by a high res FF if you're not using movements to give it a unique look.

the world is not moving on because digital is more convenient. there is nothing convenient about pre-paying for gorillions of shots with a $50,000 phase one xt compared to working shot to shot with a much cheaper 4x5 view camera. nothing. the world is moving on because digital ranges from as good to better unless you shoot 8x10.
>>
>>4319093
Are you an actual photographer?
>>
>>4319093
>YOU misunderstand
what do I misunderstand?
>>
>>4319104
you misunderstand that film is painting with light and digital is eyeballesque HDR reality scanning, so comparing film and digital on resolution terms is pointless because a film photo is never a max detail scan of the scene unless you applied extremely bright hard light to evenly illuminate everything, backlighting objects if necessary. in real photography films resolution varies depending on contrast and lighting not grain pitch, like a paintings resolution varies depending on the brush strokes, not how tight the weave of the canvas is.

digital's resolution is determined by pixel pitch and demosaicing accuracy alone. it is as sharp everywhere as the lens lets it be. clinical. film dissolves into darkness and low contrast areas are indistinct, while the lit subject appears dramatically sharper even compared to other things that are in focus. like a dramatic renaissance painting. automatically. with no editing required.

>>4319095
are you a dogfucking 4x5 shooter that pixel peeps his shit scans? or worse, moop?
>>
>>4319109
Holy schizo.
>>
>>4319109
this sounds like digifag cope tbqh
>>
>>4319120
>"film is artistic light painting, digital is scanning"
>REE THIS IS COPE I THOUGHT I WON THE GEARFAG WAR BY BUYING A VIEW CAMERA SO I COULD HAVE THE MOST MEGAPIXELS t. pixel peeps test charts on fucking film
yeah bro if you print a usaf iso 42069 chart using vantablack on satin white paper, flash it and shoot with a zeiss rodenstock and pull the film a stop and spend an hour scanning it you'll have more "megapixels" but only for that shit photo of a chart. when you finally move the camera from your chart and point it at your cat the photo will vary from mush to sort of sharp where the light hit the cats whiskers just right.
>>
>>4319120
You got the real photographer real angry with that one. Lol.
>>
>>4319122
>>4319120
>>
>>4319120
yeah, but how is he wrong though?
>>
>>4319140
idk I only ever read like the first five words lol
>>
>>4319149
He just angrily parrots the same three things he read on some sony shill's blog over and over again.
>>
>its the snoys
you read it
you couldnt refute it
you are wasting your money faster than you are wasting your assholes tightness if you think you're winning a tech contest by shooting film
i dare say, you are a snoy at heart if you are so offended by film not having "megapixels"
>>
>>4319149
Told you she was angry. Lmao. She becomes extra schizo she gets angry.
>>
>>4319162
>she
huh so poopco is trans now? congrats I guess
>>
>>4319163
Yes. She finally found her true self. After acting like an angry woman for so long she finally decided to become a woman.
>>
The passive aggressive lol lmao samefagging just makes you look even more btfo than you already are

When will film gearfags learn to keep their heads down? You’re ex-digifags trying to win the MP wars by scanning individual grains, but you already lost.
>>
File: HugeBlunder.jpg (1.04 MB, 1440x2310)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>>4319171
The troll cries out in pain as he strikes you. Lmao.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.G998U1UESAFXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1440
Image Height2310
>>
>>4319184
Clean your negatives filmsissy
>>
>>4317358
>using a 50iso slide film to talk about films dynamic range
Retard

But Velvia is probably about 18-30 mp of detail in 35mm so no way anything has beaten it in 6x7 yet.

The best argument for digital is convenience and cost as film has exploded in price since 2019. If I had unlimited money and shot for a magazine/ads I would probably shoot mostly medium format film because I could have a minilab and high quality scans at hand and I wouldn’t have to do much editing.
>>
>>4317379
Get one of the older 1970s half frame cameras like the OG Olympus pen basically the same size but you’re not stuck with one shutter speed.
>>
>>4319184
Really makes you when it's always individuals like him that are the greatest advocats for Sony cameras (which on here, funnily enough, frequently goes hand in hand with endorsing trannyism or other woke garbage)
>>
File: s1r pixel shift vs 4x5.jpg (374 KB, 2148x1192)
374 KB
374 KB JPG
>>4317354
>>4317380
>>4317433
>>4318501
>>4319083
>>4319120
Here is an apples to apples comparison between s1r HRM and 4x5 e100 developed by Denver Digital. 4x5 film scanned with my s1r in HRM and a nikkor 105 macro lens. The digital completely mogs 4x5.
>but the film shot is out of focus!
Its not, the cross hatching on the comic books(finest detail) is coming through.
>but the film scan is bad
the film was scanned with the same camera and same lens. So if the scan was bad, the digital shot of the artwork would be bad too.
Film is just soft and grainy.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerWeston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
Here is the film scan aggressively sharpened. 3 pixel high pass layer plus smart sharpen. While it does improve the detail, the grain becomes more visible. The fine detail of the oil pastels still isn't coming through

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerWeston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: both sharpened.jpg (488 KB, 2138x1196)
488 KB
488 KB JPG
Here they are both sharpened. The digital shot is much clearer. No noise, and very crisp. The difference will be obvious when printing.
The real kicker is that you can get the s1r used for under 1500. A couple manual focus primes from yesteryear and adapter can be had for 500. Complete kit for 2k. A 4x5 kit would be a bit cheaper, probably around 1-1.5k for similar lenses, tripod, changing bag, etc. While the digital kit is more expensive, factoring film processing makes the 4x5 kit more expensive in the long run, don't forget that 4x5 basically impossible to use in many of the situations that the s1r can be used. Its just way more versatile.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerWeston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4319548
>The digital completely mogs 4x5.
It has more detail, but it looks substantially worse and you missed focus on the film
>>
>>4319552
If the film shot was out of focus, the cross hatching in the comic book collage wouldn't be resolved. How does it look "substantially worse"? The detail is better captured, the colors are way more accurate, and didn't cost $12 for the shot plus 2 weeks shipping to the lab and back. The only the reason this comparison was even possible was bc the client was so unhappy with the color accuracy of the film shot. The client and I both agreed that the digital shot was both higher IQ and more color accurate.
>>
>>4319548
Interesting. What lens and aperture was used for the 4x5 shot? Do you have a similar example in b&w?

The blurriness of the 4x5 looks a lot more like the lens. LF lenses are always a bit worse at resolving the super fine details than modern digital lenses.

Possibly, a better test would be to use a process lens at 1:1 and then frame your digital so it matches the 4x5 frame.
>>
>>4319555
>The client and I both agreed that the digital shot was both higher IQ and more color accurate
Well you and the client are both brain dead, so that makes sense.

I know this shot >>4319550 is the one you took after you realized you missed focus and that I am right.

>How does it look "substantially worse"? The detail is better captured, the colors are way more accurate
The film has better color regardless if it's more 'accurate' or not. I know this is going to melt your gearfag brain, but more detail does not constitute a better looking image. Artistic softness is often better looking and more pleasing. Being able to see every fiber and paint stroke is distracting and makes the image worse. It takes on an uncanny and unnatural look and it looks bad.
>>
>>4319562
Don't even try to reason with that dude, he is literally a walking scanner
>>
>>4319552
The film isn't out of focus. This is what proper film scanning actually looks like - film is simply soft if you point it at a bunch of midtones and shadows because film's resolution is driven by contrast and light intensity. Film is also MADE out of soft pixels - dye clouds arranged randomly. Digital pixels are a grid, so this adds a superficially crisp appearance for the same measured resolution. So even if you drive the film to the peak of its abilities by using very bright, hard light to really get everything defined, it will still look a bit softer with the same amount of detail resolved if you are viewing 1:pixel and magnifying grains beyond monitor subpixels.

Usually what film people after a "THIS IS OBVIOUSLY FILM!" look to their photo do is they do a quick and dirty dry mount scan and sharpen the grains to make it look more defined and "filmy". This is what most lab scans are. But properly scanned film, and optical enlargements, will always be round around the edges. That is the real film look [goto 1]

>>4319562
>but more detail does not constitute a better looking image. Artistic softness is often better looking and more pleasing
It's fucking hilarious how film gearfags start spouting this one minute after they lose the "UHHHH FILM IS 200MP" argument. Did you know that you can soften digital too? There's an entire BRAND dedicated to "artistic softness"... it's called the fujifilm X system. Or you can just turn off unsharp mask in capture one. Close enough.
>f-film has better color
l-learn to color grade! If you ask me the film's color looks a bit shit. It's just a limited palette

[you went to 1] Hello there. See what I said about the fujifilm X system? Xtrans also has lower color resolution, which limits the palette and creates detail loss on certain colored patterns, which is why film photographers are flocking to fuji X in DROVES and saying they can't tell the difference. Because unless you go full brooktree film lab on your scans film = fuji
>>
>>4319562
Wait... You don't carry a 10x loupe with you to look at prints???
>>
>film is higher resolution bro
>wrong
>NO WAIT RESOLUTION IS BAD
fucking kek
hey you know digital can be soft too, you fags have been bitching about the x100vi on those grounds since it came out
>>
File: 3a7.png (42 KB, 499x338)
42 KB
42 KB PNG
>>4319565
>Film is also MADE out of soft pixels - dye clouds arranged randomly.
>>
>>4319566
I've just had one permanently installed over my eye

>>4319565
>There's an entire BRAND dedicated to "artistic softness"... it's called the fujifilm X system
truly excellent, you truly are a master of the craft and it's a pleasure to watch you work. At first I thought that I made you actually mad, but then as I read I saw the beauty of your setup. It's a double-ironic concern trolling and you made it look effortless. I was particularly impressed by the footnote technique. Simply beautiful. I tip my hat to you.
>>
File: images.jpg (10 KB, 398x126)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>4319568
>does not know how color film works
You are a fucking idiot indeed. Color film is "made out of soft pixels" - round gobs of dye. Anyone who fanboys film on technical grounds is an idiot. All you did was read some made up resolution comparison on a gearfags blog... but in real use even the best black and white film stocks are only "as good" (for pixel peeping) as fat full frame (gfx100).

Once this is proven, and it is always proven, the filmfags bragging about hundreds of megapixels vanish and are replaced by totally new film fags bitching about how sharpness is the worst thing ever and you can not have fine detail or clarity in real art. Moody hazy shit only. Ironically, part agreeing with the people that proved you wrong, but you're still wrong because you are telling us "objective" "facts" about art which reveals that you are actually a midwit STEMbug/factory worker with an IQ between 100 and 110, mentally incapable of creativity and only good at copying and pasting javascript.
>>
>>4319567
I never said film was higher resolution, I said it was strictly superior, which it is as proven by this shot >>4319550 (the one which is in focus)
>>
>>4319571
I can appreciate the dedication.

Where did you get pixel peeper tattooed? Tramp stamp?

>>4319548
Wouldn't hrm create a lot of limitations because it needs still subjects as well? How does a non-hrm shot compare?
>>
>>4319578
>Where did you get pixel peeper tattooed?
actually just above the dickroot. So that way it's visible while I'm caged, it's just a little inside joke between me and my gf
>>
>>4319575
how the thread started
>a great idea, increasing light gathering by at least a full stop, while providing better sharpness and detail
>All the advantages of monochrome but with full color, but at the cost of limited ISO range due to noise
>All of the advantages of Foveon but none of the downsides, more dynamic range, flexible, more choice in terms of body and lens choice. The only 'disadvantage' is increased post processing time, which is actually very fun (so no downside)
>t. camera tech expert (junior web developer at bad-dragon.com)

How it's going
>LESS DETAIL AND FEWER COLORS IS STRICTLY SUPERIOR t. ART EXPERT (junior web developer at bad-dragon.com)
>what like the x100vi
>NO FUJIFILM CAMERAS DONT FUCKING COUNT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

lmfao anyone shooting film for anything but enjoying the process is a fucking idiot
if you just want a blurry photo with a limited color palette learn to edit your shit or buy a fuji

here's to more discontinued color stocks in the future. the only reason it even exists is because hollywood doesn't like editing out moire. once hollywood stops shooting film for a purely technical reason (they digitize it and edit the fuck out of it while applying color grading and VFX, so it no longer "looks like film" anyways), like they're... already doing... film is really going to die except for shitty "lomography grade" film stocks. you did not discover some technological or artistic secret. everything could already be done on digital, except for totally avoiding moire - and the newest ultra high resolution cameras made it a non issue at last. you want soft? you want limited colors? digital already does it even on consumer toys like fuji
>>
>>4319582
Cute, and a funny double meaning, no doubt. Thanks for sharing.
>>
>film gearfag got btfo so hard he changed his argument twice and samefagged about a weird gay sexual fantasy
Kek.
>>
>>4319588
To be fair to the film gearfag, cuck cages are normal compared to what his fugly german shepherd is involved in. He felt he was being more mild mannered.
>>
>>4319590
I'm not the crazy film troll, please.

>>4319561
>>4319566
>>4319578
>>4319586

Was me if you need to know... reasonable questions about his methodology and a couple jokes...
>>
File: Capture.png (49 KB, 1212x396)
49 KB
49 KB PNG
>>4319588
I wasn't samefagging.
>>
>>4319591
>hey dogfucker!
>no one turns around except for the 4x5 zoophile
Kek. You’re not even the only GSD owner on /p/. Cinefag also has a GSD.
And yet here you are in all the crazy film gearfags threads backing yourself up and responding within minutes.
>>
>>4319594
>Cinefag also has a GSD.
and have you seen him around at all lately?
>>
>>4319593
>ctrl+shift+i (you) removal
yawn. your defensiveness and the sudden halt to the 1 man film defense force speaks volumes.
>>
>>4319596
yes, you caught me. I'm the only person on /p/ who shoots film. It's always been me, all of it.
>>
>>4319596
You can't really prove it either way, so it's a moot point. The only confirmed samefag is the degenerate troll that is obsessed with me.

I actually do just prefer the process, and even grainy 35mm makes really beautiful prints in most reasonable sizes. Once I get my 4x5 capable enlarger/darkroom set up things will be even better. I'm going to be doing 8x10 contact prints and wetplates as well.
I'm not mad at anyone for doing things differently than me. I made a post in a different thread about how mentally well people are just happy to share a hobby with others, and all this anger towards differences in opinions is stupid. I was honestly just curious about the methodology for his testing because he left out some important details on the 4x5 side. I don't abuse my dog either. It's honestly disgusting that someone even brings something like that up. The real animal abusers on /an/ targeted me even more fervently than this guy. It was pretty funny how upset I got them.
>>
>>4319601
I wish I could come over to your house and look at all your gear and see the infamous dog. Then maybe we could go out and shoot some stuff together, might be fun
>>
>>4319601
>big essay about how you are innocent and chill
>the poster who was very actively and angrily shilling film as “objectively better” finallt vanished
Hmmm yeah thank you for agreeing that film is an option, not an upgrade, and is shot for the look or process not any gay made up facts

You’re the center of drama on how many boards? Something is up. You fuel it on purpose or start it yourself.
>>
>>4319608
>>the poster who was very actively and angrily shilling film as “objectively better” finallt vanished
I'm still here. >>4319604 this is me.
>>
>>4319604
Hah, I think about that sometimes, or if one of the /dog/ regulars and I had a dog playdate... It would be fun, and Im extremely normal irl. I don't think I could do it because of the crazies and my "infamy", sadly. Just too risky.

I think it would even be difficult for me to go to a meetup and remain anonymous...
>>
>>4319608
Also I didn't say it was "objectively better" I said it was "strictly superior". Don't misquote me
>>
>>4319608
You want me to link you to the threads where the real dog abuser spammed 400+ char limit AI generated stories about my dog getting brutally killed and having puppies with a pitbull?
>>
Smart of you to samefag with your phone but I’m not buying it

Toodles
>>
>>4319614
>Im extremely normal irl
I'm pretty sure 95% of people on here actually are. I only say outlandish things on here because I'm bored and lonely and it's the only way to get any response at all. It would be cool to have irl photography friends since I do it completely in a vacuum right now.
>>
>>4319615
>>4319614
These were posted less than a minute apart... I guess you'll say I have a 4chan pass next.

>>4319608
The only upgrade I hold to be true is using a view camera, but that isn't limited to film. It does generally work better with film because large projection lenses are better suited for use with large format sized film.
>>
>>4319621
we all have a phone+a pc and can do that too. pointing it out makes you look guilty.
>>
File: blurred plus noise.jpg (544 KB, 2113x1173)
544 KB
544 KB JPG
>>4319561
schneider symmar-s 180mm f5.6 and nikkor 105mm f2.8 ais macro. Both lenses are from the 1980s. I don't have an apples to apples comparison between s1r HRM and b/w film. I do have some HRM shots that are b/w, and some b/w 4x5 shots that I could compare. I'd have to scan those 4x5 negs. From prior experience, the detail would be better on the b/w vs slide, but the grain will be more visible. I don't think a better scan of the film will reveal any more detail. 8x10 would probably be slightly better or on par with s1r HRM
>>4319562
>The film has better color regardless if it's more 'accurate' or not.
I'm in the business of reproducing art. My clients want color accuracy. The success of my business depends on how close the colors match between the print and original. Even if I didn't want color accuracy, digital is still edit since it gives you way more flexibility in post. Film's limited color accuracy completely breaks down in any lighting condition other than daylight or flash. Shoot some color film under fluorescent lighting and tell me how great the colors look.
> I know this is going to melt your gearfag brain, but more detail does not constitute a better looking image. Artistic softness is often better looking and more pleasing. Being able to see every fiber and paint stroke is distracting and makes the image worse. It takes on an uncanny and unnatural look and it looks bad.
Digital images correctly sharpened for print often look over sharpened on the screen. Prints are softer than screens, this file prints extremely well. Digital images can be softened as well. Upscale, slight blur, add monochrome noise. I attached an example. I use this technique all the time when a client has lost the raw or high res jpg and we need to print from a low res artifact ridden jpg.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerWeston Harby
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4319620
It's unfortunate and I heard it was better years ago. I don't have any other passionate photographer friends either. I'd like to have more productive discussions about improving my work and all that good stuff, but I don't seem to share that sentiment with many people on here. It's still fun to share my work, and bullshit about all these silly anger inducing topics. It seems that I'm one of the few people left that even produces physical media! I kinda think that scanning film is a little silly, but I get it.

>>4319622
You not realizing that there are obviously 2 people talking to each other makes you look foolish to both of us. Do you have trouble admitting when you're wrong? It's okay, buddy.
>>
>>4319622
I didn't mean to mindbreak you anon. I know it's shocking to know that all of my autistic 'film is superior' talk wasn't real but it was. But that doesn't mean I don't exist as a completely separate entity from the other guy. I don't own a dog, in fact I don't like animals at all. Nor do I own a 4x5 camera.

I guess I have to be the one to pull back the curtain for you, but most posts on 4chan are fake. They are people pretending to be emotionally invested in stupid shit. When in reality that it's all for fun.
>>
>>4319578
>Wouldn't hrm create a lot of limitations because it needs still subjects as well? How does a non-hrm shot compare?
I don't have a non-hrm shot for the apples to apples comparison. I always use HRM since thats what my clients pay for. A single shot wouldn't be as clear of a victory, but the colors would be just as accurate. HRM on panasonic cameras have a mode 2 that can fix subjects in motion. I don't use it very often, but from my testing it works well on people, cars, and other "simple" subjects. I works well if the camera is still and subject is moving, or vice versa, not both. Its definitely a limitation, but I can't imagine a situation where you could use a 4x5 but not HRM. HRM is way more versatile than a 4x5 camera on tripod, and the same as a 4x5 press camera with a flash. With the added advantage of not having all detail pissed away due to f/128 diffraction.
>>
>>4319623
So, a non optimal lens for reproduction work. I think it's a decent test, but maybe not perfect. Do you have any idea as to what scale both of your images were taken at?
Curious how much a real process lens specifically designed for 1:1 reproduction would improve things vs shots focused at/near infinity where your symmar-s is designed to be. I have a couple rodenstock APO ronar CL process lenses I could use to do a similar test.

Do you think I could use a 5dm3 and a modern-ish pretty good macro lens to do a reasonably fair test in your estimation? You can't really do any pixel shifting type stuff with that camera, right?
>>
>>4319624
>I'd like to have more productive discussions about improving my work and all that good stuff, but I don't seem to share that sentiment with many people on here
It's why I never bother to share anything. The feedback isn't very good. It's either those mass reply, one sentence spam 'critique' or just "that's shit". It's not worth the hassle and you never know what's going to set someone off and have them attempt to doxx you. That in addition to all the other site limitations like the file sizes and the captcha.

But when I do give some feedback there is also very little back and fourth on it. It's hard to have conversations here. I've tried taking irl photo classes, just to meet people but it's never worked for a variety of reasons.
>>
>>4319624
you dont have productive discussions because snapshits of your dog and the general nonexistent quality are not worth discussing with your massive ego
>>
>>4319623
What if you used a digital back adapter for your 4x5 camera so you could use the same lens for both tests? Wouldn't that be the most ideal apples to apples comparison?
>>
>>4317354
just end yourself, you pseudo elitist shitfucking cunt.
>>
>>4319631
I recently got some good advice on fgt for one of my wetplate projects. I had to fight for it a little, but it was actually helpful. If my photos get ignored that means they're not bad, and if someone says something they're good hah. Pretty unfortunate, but I guess it sorta helps.

Once I spend a few hundred more hours doing b&w and color darkroom work and wetplates I may offer private photography/printing classes. It could be fun, and the hundreds of hours of 4x5 work I've been doing has really boosted my technical skills significantly.

>>4319632
The blurriest dog picture I've posted is still better than a nophoto complaining. Sorry!
>>
>>4319548
I'm still not convinced
Why does the film shot show some fine details but lacks coarser stuff like the paper texture?
this seems like the lighting changed between the shots pretty significantly
>>
>>4319815
He is testing his lens, 4x5 camera, and 4x5 photography skills more than he is testing 4x5 film.

The more I think about this the more convinced that the only fair test would be to mount his digital camera on his 4x5 camera. I just don't know the best way to reframe the image once you have the digital camera on the back.
>>
>>4317378
Only poorfags care about the few thousand it takes to shoot film. It's only like $5000 or so a year at most, literally who even gives a shit.
>>
File: lol.png (495 KB, 2270x1833)
495 KB
495 KB PNG
>>4319815
It was explained already

The way film records detail varies by the texture, color, and lighting on the detail. The only way film can reach the peak of its resolution is if you cover the film with a metal plate and then blast it with light. Near infinite contrast levels. Since it's layered some colors can be softer than others and light and contrast intensity mediate detail loss. There is no shadow DR. You need to overexpose as much as possible to build density. Also, the lens you will actually use on a film camera is much more likely to be heavily flawed, with coatings that worsen color specific detail loss, make color accuracy worse, and optics that soften the image.
IN THEORY, art repro fag could have gotten a sharper image by trying to get more exposure and contrast onto the film, but he might have blown out another part of what he was trying to duplicate requiring masks over the subject

The way digital records detail is with highly sensitive photon collectors but the way it records color is by interpolation of a 2d plane instead of 3d layers. Its powered by electricity, not light, so digital can pull sharp detail out of insanely deep shadows that would not even expose on film, but once those collectors overflow it's a hard clip from grey to solid white. The color is guessed based on adjacent collectors with color filters so some combinations of color, especially noticeable in foliage against blue skies, so digital loses resolution on different kinds of targets but has much more with underexposure. Since that looks like a rather dingy part of the image digital is going to record sharper detail, but if you look at the halftone pattern you can see digital is starting to shit its pants a little. Also, the lenses you will actually use with digital are going to be a lot better.

>>4319849
So what
Cameras are used with the lenses for them

You are not using a sony GM with any film camera, or a rodenstock on a snoy
>>
>>4319859
Are you sure about that because you're wrong.

What's the point of the test if you aren't going to give one side a fair shake? I'm not saying he isn't. I'm trying to see if he is with my questions.
I know from experience that he most likely isn't getting the most out of his film, and I'm trying to pick at his methods to see why.

I'm not saying he did anything like this, but you could easily falsify these tests by using the edge of a 4x5 lens' projection circle where it's at its softest. Parallelity in front and rear standard are extremely important for getting the sharpest images from 4x5. There's many variables that could influence his test that isn't the inherent quality of the film.

It's also an interesting discussion to have.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.G998U1UESAFXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1440
Image Height1440
>>
>>4319634
>>4319849
The test is to compare a 4x5 film system to a modern mirrorless system to see which had better IQ. I already knew that film wasn't color accurate enough for what I was doing. I had to reshoot the piece anyways, so I had the chance to compare the IQ of the system.
>Why does the film shot show some fine details but lacks coarser stuff like the paper texture?
this seems like the lighting changed between the shots pretty significantly
The lighting is a bit different between the 2. For the film shot I used 4 xexon flashes, digital is one d50 led hot light. The angle of the light on the artwork really affects how the texture. Its possible the lighting was more favorable for that detail.
>>4319859
The main problem with film its not its soft MTF, which can be fixed with appropriately sharpening, its the noise. There is a haze over everything with film, s1r HRM at 100 iso is basically noise free at 14bits. The only advantage film has over most digital systems is resolution. 4x5 is gonna mog 24-36mp systems regardless of how low their noise floor is since the resolution is so much higher. I really wish I would have taken a single shot image to compare.
>>
File: 1706-Camera.jpg (265 KB, 742x591)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
>>4319859
Look how much went into rigidity and precision in this camera. This is what high end art reproduction was before digital cameras and they most often used around a 1:1 magnification ratio. You think his test would have shown better results if he had a proper set up like this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2832
Image Height2254
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:05:30 10:30:41
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width742
Image Height591
>>
>>4317354
>xtranny
>a good idea with the potential to increase color fidelity
kek
how does skipping entire rows of some colors "increase color fidelity"?
Bayer is far from horrible but naturally not even close to glorious Foveon, which together with 3CCD actually has the ability to increase color fidelity.
You know when was the last time Fuji had a good idea? Back when they had SuperCCD, now that had potential. X-tranny is a cope and a bad one at that, it only sells because brainwashed basedboys and trannies will buy it.
>>
>>4317361
This
>>4317358
35mm Copex Rapid has more resolution than the D850 could hope to ever approximate. Seethe harder.
>>
>>4319889
delusional

35mm copex rapid might equal a d850 for real photos
it will surpass it for flashing test charts only and only small areas of real photos

>>4319885
>this is the bullshit that filmcucks will engage in to compete with a palm sized black box
hes already comparing fucking 4x5 to a coin sized sensor
this is ridiculous
>>
lol you losers spent a Friday evening in this thread
>>
>>4320467
>what are time zones
It's wednesday here, retard.
>>
>>4320503
Art Repo is in the US
>>
>>4320467
the idea that friday is supposed to be a social evening is very underage/blue collar. i'm very white collar (lawyer/ex prof) and i work thu-mon with tue wed off so i can go to less crowded fishing spots. set my own hours. caught ya kiddo.

-sent from my nikon z9 and 600mm f4 (was like buying a candy bar, afterthought, never use it over my x100vi lol)
>>
>>4320562
>i'm a fred
You guys take the worst photos. Every dentist office in North America is plastered with signed vacation snapshits taken with expensive gear.
>>
File: GJH3wX5aEAA1MfS.jpg_large.jpg (335 KB, 1242x1394)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
>>4320565
>Every dentist office in North America is plastered with signed vacation snapshits taken with expensive gear.
the virgin zoomer instagram page of hobos and building corners
the chad UWA 100mp snapshit of some beach in california greeting your future torture victims

Your energy will never be that big dick
>>
>>4320573
Honestly, based. If I had to pick one, I’m taking the Ken Rockwellesque pleasing boomer landscapes over gritty crackheads and abandoned gas stations all day every day.
>>
>>4320565
The bad news is that no dentist office ever replaces them. The ones at my dentist are clearly prints from like the late 80s/early 90s
>>
>>4320562
You’re old and posting on an anime imageboard, kiddo.
>>
>>4320562
>the idea that friday is supposed to be a social evening is very underage/blue collar.
I work in IT at an office full of white collar workers and every friday at 1 there's free beer so the last few hours of the day are workplace-sponsored socializing.

Also, not sure if they count as blue or white collar, but every teacher I know goes to a bar and gets PLASTERED on friday. Protip: Lonely drunk teachers are easy lays
>>
>>4320796
There's free alcohol all day every day at my wife's building. Plus mini putt, basketball, tennis, and a bunch of other shit.
>>
>>4320817
Like you’re better for arguing about m43 and fucking goats? Pffff.
>>
>>4320834
I’m better for wrapping a shoot Friday evening, lol.



[Advertise on 4chan]

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.