>>4329129
"the masters" use light (make a photo)
amateurs JUST use framing and timing (be there)

talent matters but first you need to study how to use lighting and how it translates to mechanical eyes that see the world in their own way, or your talent won't reliably translate

also gear matters because gear still affects how photos look
large format film is overrepresented among actual good photographers
the good news is a decent LF camera is less than 1/2 the price of a sony mirrorless and you don't have to shoot frantically and mail boxes of sheet film off to make a good photo. you have a ground glass, a light meter, and eyeballs to see your snapshit before committing to it.

>>4329132
>gear matters
Damn, you're retarded

>>4329129
Talent matters in everything. People can try to learn but some people just don't grasp certain concepts well while others just instinctively get it.

>>4329135
Yeah. Gear matters. I know this hurts your feelings, and wouldn't if all gear were $0 totally free and had no class war (REEE TRUST FUNDS JEWS REEEE) connotations, but it matters. Maybe you're digital only, and you're used to "gear matters" referring to some cannot shill and a medium dick format wanker arguing over whether 40fps 12 bit raws are better than 5fps 16 bit raws. But this is different.

A large format film camera in particular does things that are physically and technically impossible for other cameras. You can't skill your way into your digital slop approximating LF film. Even when you get your model to finally hold perfectly still for pixel shift mode and buy your $3000 perspective control lens, it just won't look the same as film's rich and painterly tonality or render it quite like a good simple lens on a large image area, and the unique DOF control is still beyond overpriced nikanon optics.

>>4329135
Every hobby or profession has a threshold where yes, "gear" matters.
Sure I can go fishing with a stick and some rope with a worm on the hook. But I can achieve the same results and much more with a reeling fishing rod.

It's the same principle.

>>4329137
They made Avatar with digital tools and it looks more real than anything real shot with film.

Please clarify

>>4329138
Most amateur photography is like bass fishing, where you have the big spender boomers trying to outdo eachother, the guy in the humble rowboat with an okay rod, and then the guy on the shore who caught a pretty big and tasty bass with outdated pedestrian stuff, patience, and an intuitive knowledge of fish behavior

The former is people shooting building corners with the newest mirrorless, the latter is a guy with a $25 35mm film camera making significantly better portraits and landscapes just by trying a little harder

At the mastery level it's like a sudden jump to ocean fishing on traditional sailboats for most participants and every now and then someone unironically uses modern gear, but because someone else is paying their way forward and it's a proper profession. It's actually more financially accessible than the upper echelons of amateur gear wank, but it's also something more difficult that you learn, think about, and plan before executing instead of a constantly churning activity that can almost substitute for a personality. The results, if you have learned ability and talent, are worth it.

>>4329139
>Avatar looks real
It's CGI sci fi slop. Did you also like star trek into darkness and rebel moon? Congrats you have no taste

>fishing analogy
welp, at least is not a car or food one

>>4329138
You can also not catch anything with your pro gear while stick can feed a village

>>4329146
A cheap rod from walmart would feed a village even better

>>4329146
Depends on the user skill. Maybe reeling would be holding them back

>>4329146
Everything is about probability and risks. I get your point but I think the other point went right in one ear and out the other.

If I prepare and wiegh the risk to reward factor I'd choose a reeling rod over a stick with some string.
My first camera I got eventually peaked in what in its capabilities for what I wanted to achieve, I COULD have slugged it put and suffered snapping individual shots of animals or the three shots of bursts I got before it buffered, or I could upgrade to a more capable camera that can snap like 80 photos before it buffers and I can achieve what I had envisioned.
In a lot of cases gear does matter. But the skill and preparedness to use it matters more I guess.

ITT
>fishing anaologies and how *real* photographers use large format
Don't bother reading it

>>4329173
>concession status: accepted

>>4329137
The fact that there are instagram zoomers with their iPhones who are 5 times the photographer than you are with your large format is all the reply we need regarding how much gear matters.

>>4329173
Real photographers do use large format. It’s an undeniable fact. Real cinematographers shoot imax. Real cinematographers will shoot 16mm film before they touch a gh7. Does that bother you too? Digital looks bad.

>>4329179
>can not name one single instagram iphone retard who outdoes real photography ie: sally mann
>because digital looks like shit
confirmed for seething on a financial basis

>>4329179
>Real chefs use real ingredients
>OH YEAH WELL WELL WELL I BET YOU SUCK AND @ONGODNOCAPBRUH42069 MADE A BETTER BURGER THAN YOU WITH A KROGER FROZEN PATTY AND DARIGOLD MEDIUM CHEDDAR!

>>4329180
>>4329181
>>4329182
lmao you are so fucking mad

>>4329182
You are retarded. The real analogy would be if you said that real chefs use japanese knives and gilded pans or whatever is the best shit in the culinary world.

"Real ingredients" are composition, story, light emotion.

Large Format is used by people who want to mask that they are talentless with the fact that they use large format.

File: gregory-1.jpg (171 KB, 1200x800)

171 KB JPG

>you
boy i wish i got 3 (you)s instead of just one.

real photographers shoot large format. real photographers shoot film in general. it's just a fact. the MOMA leans hard towards film. decades go by, snoys get faster, higher resolution, more expensive, more automatic. but this doesn't change.

composition, story, light, and emotion are all washed over if your photo just looks cartoonishly bad from the outset. people glance and walk by. you're saying that nobody needs to write a novel and paint the inserts, because comic books deliver the same meat and potatoes.

when people better than you do something, you should be ready to admit that they do it for a reason. the funniest part is shooting large format is actually cheaper than shooting digital. you just can't take 5000 awful "street" pictures as a replacement for your personality - that would make it more expensive, and that makes you mad.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1280
Image Height	853
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2021:02:22 15:10:11
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

>>4329186
>Large Format is used by people who want to mask that they are talentless with the fact that they use large format.

KNOT ENJOYERS BTFO

Reasons digital is better:
When you're rushing your snapshits because you're nervous and want to get back to /p/, you'll totally fuck it all up, and with 60 megapixels and a raw editor you can level the photo out, perspective correct it, fix exposure, push the shadows up, pull back the highlights, and redo the white balance
You post on social media every day and need new content daily so people remember you exist

Reasons film is better:
It looks better

>>4329193
>You post on social media every day and need new content daily so people remember you exist
but 4x5 dogchad lives rent free in everyones heads. his latest wet plate was a banger and now all of /p/ seethes about him 24/7 while he posts a photo per week.

obviously large format is more effective

>>4329194
fuck off dogfucker

>>4329194
>4x5
>large format
please. It's bloated medium format at best.

>>4329193
and that's why good photographers shoot film

you NEED an understanding of light, and how it relates to a photograph. you can not just digitally paint in attempts at fixing bad lighting pixel by pixel with AI masks. you'd waste $1000 of photo paper trying.

>>4329193
Based and true

Digislugs seething as they spend $2000 a year on upgrades
>90 megapixels and 21 stops of dynamic range? finally my photos will be good. WAIT NO THIS ONE HAS 92 MEGAPIXELS WHATS THE RETURN POLICY
>hahaha fool framer specsfag OH MY GOD OLYMPUSONIC RELEASED A 240FPS CAMERA! NEED! I CANT TAKE A GOOD BIRD PHOTO WITHOUT IT
meanwhile film
>finally a good photo opportunity, good thing i have my 60 year old leica handy with a roll of tri-x already loaded. this will look amazing once i develop the roll next week.

>>4329194
Lol. Ty.

>>4329198
It was actually an 8x10 wetplate. I have increased my power level by atleast 4 times, and it continues growing.

Alsooooo using a view camera with tilt/swing is half of why the format is so great. You can get MF cameras that have movements, or use back adapters for 4x5 cameras, but most LF lenses are kind of soft when you go anything smaller than 6x7.

the larger the format
the smaller the talent

File: 2023-09-17-0002.jpg (1.49 MB, 1664x1712)

1.49 MB JPG

>>4329205
True.

t. 16mm chad

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Minolta
Camera Model	Scan Dual II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:09:17 12:29:30
Color Space Information	sRGB

>gear doesnt matter.
>the larger the format, the smaller the talent.
>light, composition, fundamentals, i know a lot about art....
>just use your phone.
>my favorite word is sovl.
>result:
>tree.jpg
>flower.jpg
>leaf.jpg
>rock.jpg
>buildingcorner.jpg

>the type of camera does matter, i chose my camera for a reason
>it's not better or worse, it's apples and oranges
>why are you debating watercolor vs oil painting and crayons vs charcoal
>idiots
>although i'll admit, digital painting in photoshop will never measure up to real media and is going to just be assumed to be AI in... less than a year from now.
>result:
>art career spanning 50 years
>academy awards
>professor of photography at yale
>work exhibited in 90 different countries
every time

>>4329208
>no photo

>>4329208
Thing 1 is poor college students having a bout of narcissism and trying to align their life situation with moral superiority.

Thing 2 is adults admitting the obvious. “Its about the content” sounds enlightened but in reality its a news grade attitude not an art grade attitude. The whole photo matters including the look. It’s all part of the whole. It cuts both ways. You can have the wrong look for a photo after spending $50k on digital medium format.

>>4329208
cope

>>4329212
>Thing 2 is adults admitting the obvious. “Its about the content” sounds enlightened but in reality its a news grade attitude not an art grade attitude. The whole photo matters including the look. It’s all part of the whole. It cuts both ways. You can have the wrong look for a photo after spending $50k on digital medium format.

Because boomers are fixated on high-fidelity reproduction. They don't understand art only reproduction. To them a sharp, well lit, high resolution photo must be a great photo. They are spiritually bankrupt people only capable of thinking in terms of material phenomenon and the monetary valuations of those material objects. Hence a more expensive camera is strictly better camera without consideration of the photo itself. They don't view photograph as a sign capable of referencing something abstract like a feeling or idea. A photograph is the waste product of the camera, used to demonstrate it's technical prowess for reproductive capability.

>>4329219
Heres a poor child having a bout of narcissism now

Yeah sure bud ill take it from someome who doesnt shoot rocks, leaves, dolls, and prostitutes from furrycon 24

>>4329219
>you: blurry tree
>crewdson: art professor at yale
k

>>4329221
>no counter argument

File: Henri_Cartier-Bresson-Por(...).jpg (137 KB, 900x900)

137 KB JPG

>>4329224
He btfo you. But I'm down for kicking a retard while he's down.

>>4329219
Henri cartier bresson said a similar thing, jokingly, in 5 words. You wrote a vitriolic, self important essay in... too many words, me no care.

Besides, who said film was better because it's sharper? It's better specifically because it isn't. Artrepro fag had a conniption over how it wasn't, which only affirmed filmchads confidence in the most artistic medium.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2020:09:01 18:48:31
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	900

ITT: pseuds

>>4329225
>you're right I just don't like that you said it
Okay. I'm right either way

I don't see anyone posting their photos to backup their arguments.

>>4329229
/p/ is a gear board, not a photography board

>>4329228
you talk to much = you stupid

Has anyone ever looked at a legendary photo like afghan girl and said “this would be better on digital”?

ARE there even legendary digital photos?

>>4329233
The afgan girl isn't even a good photo. It means nothing, it's not art, it's just a nice portrait.

>>4329233
No lol

>>4329236
What good photoe?

>>4329233
No, but if it was digital I also wouldn't say "this would be better on film"

File: Sharbat_Gula_-_Brussels_-_2017.jpg (1.75 MB, 3083x2062)

1.75 MB JPG

>>4329236
>The afgan girl isn't even a good photo
>meanwhile, the real world:
im sure your black metal album cover means a lot tho, dem vibes bruh, fr, no cap

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-I9100
Camera Software	iPhoto 9.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:06 17:30:25
Exposure Time	1/313 sec
F-Number	f/2.7
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	32
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	7.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.03 mm
Comment	User comments
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3083
Image Height	2062
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4329243
dude it's just a portrait

it's not really rocket science

if the girl was ugly nobody would care

>>4329242
>imagine digital afghan girl
>smears left over from editing out the moire
>rockwellian saturation
>weird colors all around
>weird contrast between super sharp in focus area and harsh bokeh cutoff
>steve: nah this photo sucks i cant find a good film sim for it
>history is never made

>>4329250
All good film photos are post processed

>>4329250
>>weird contrast between super sharp in focus area and harsh bokeh cutoff
This is the worst part of digital besides the weird CFA blur
And there’s more CA for some reason

>>4329252
All cheese is processed milk also.

>I shoot film therefore I am a good photographer

>>4329260
It would be sad if it were not true.

Your keeper rate goes up 100%
Everyone marvels at the colors and smooth tones
Every photo takes on a more artistic feel
People marvel
It’s not just the high SNR, low computer cope version of their phone
This photo is different
It’s not a replica
It’s something else
Something real and beautiful
Its not old, its not new
Its how you thought your photos were supposed to look
Why did we decide this wasnt enough?
There’s noise - “grain” - no one cares
Background focus is off but it looks good
Everything just seems like a scene from a memory
Again why wasnt this enough?
Its just chemistry right? WHY DOES IT LOOK SO GOOD?

An “inferior” medium doesnt stay in production for no reason…

File: wojak-npc-straight-view.png (4 KB, 205x246)

4 KB PNG

>>4329243
>something can only be good if an authority tells me it's good
>If an authority does not recognize something as good, it is because it is not good
>The authority has no bias, it is an impartial judge
>If the authority was corrupt, the authority would tell me so
>because I have not been told by the authority the authority is corrupt, it must be correct

You are an npc.

>>4329294
>its not a good photo its a conspiracy wake up sheeple! THE JEWS WANT YOU TO LIKE EKTACHROME DESPITE TRYING VERY HARD TO KILL FILM AND MAKE YOU UPGRADE YOUR SNOYS FOREVER!
Occam’s razor: it’s a good photo

The actual jewish plot is mirrorless scameras

>>4329297
It's an excruciatingly mid photo, but you are desperate for validation, so you agree with the popular opinion

>digicucks hating on the modern mona lisa just because it was shot on based film
lol not sharp enough for you? dpreview told you digital was good enough at 10mp right? buy digital right now. kodak is an american company. stop giving them money. send your cash to japanese companies that outsource to china NOW!

>>4329299
Can you post an example of a world class portrait?

File: IMG_9898.jpg (55 KB, 254x400)

55 KB JPG

>>4329326
>Can you post an example of a world class portrait?
Here you go chief

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	254
Image Height	400
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4329339
Oh hey, thanks.

>>4329137
Gear is useless without skill.
A skilled photographer can take a better picture with a 2008 phone camera, than a retard with large frame film or medium format sensor digital or whatever.
Camera is just a tool. Picking the right tool for the job is also important.

Real question is... Is photography even an art?

>>4329393
It's falsely considered art because it serves the same function as painting.

It's a craft.

>>4329139
Im sorry which part of Avatar looked real to you?

This is the worst thread I've ever read.
Photography is all Studying, nobody is born with an eye for composition, just like nobody is born knowing how to play the piano.
Gear doesn't matter for the most part.

>>4329410
The parts that were done digitally

gear matters realist
>knows the limitations and possibilities that different gear offers
>has seen what gear great photographers use and why
>understands image quality is important to photography
>it is obvious to him that the photographers skill and knowledge of the medium and their gear are essential

gear doesn't matter pseud
>can't stop with the "gear is the only thing that matters" strawman
>poor
>thinks anything can be compensated with skill
>will make any tradeoff for better convinience
>"but you can make a good photo with bad gear"
>does not know how a view camera works

The questions that stump every gearfag
>could you tell me what features of the gear you used were necessary to obtain this photo?
>could you tell me the kind of photos you have in mind that you want to take but your current gear doesn't allow you to?

>>4330124
>>could you tell me the kind of photos you have in mind that you want to take but your current gear doesn't allow you to?
Naked goth girl’ fat tits, which camera will allow me to do this?

>>4330129
Get a sony. Might sneak a couple shots in as she pegs you

>>4330124
tilt/swing is almost always necessary for the type of photography I do with my view camera. Dof is extremely shallow, and there's usually a more pleasing focal plane than when the lens and film plane are perfectly parallel.

Necessary for all photography? No.

>>4330124
Filmgods have explained this to you hundreds of times. Stop smoking weed and you will be able to stop asking. Maybe you’re the real gearfag for wanting the same gear questions answered 5000 times.

>>4330124
We've all been over this with someone at some point

This question is easy to answer but the true gearfag (the gear obsessed financially crushed coper) always comes up with a cope response no matter what
>you dont need ____ because you can just ____ and just not ______ SKILL ISSUE!
>you dont need _____ BECAUSE YOU JUST DONT GEARFAG THATS STUPID
Ok but I have a life, so I will get things done the easier way that makes the photo I want, not the hard way that takes a different photo just because you can't afford what I can.

>>4330135
Filmcucks beed thier diapers changed. They think thier 150 year old technology still holds up.

>>4330151
It will do until digicucks improve Foveon, yes.

>>4330151
>>4330153
No beed to argue guys, film and digi both have thier own pros and cons, don't let jews divide /p/hotography frens

>>4330151
>Their 150 year old technology still outdoes any digital sensor smaller/worse than a d810s
>their 150 year old technology is still perfectly moire-proof and has more pleasing color rendition in a smaller gamut (you dont need more)
>their 150 year old technology still makes sensors 8"x10" and larger cost effective and possible to manufacture as single units
>their 150 year old technology produces a physical original that can not be faked by AI (the highest resolution projection you can use with a film duplicator is 8mp - this has 1/4 of the resolution needed to outresolve and therefore fake a common film like portra 160)
It holds up.

>>4330148
Gear makes thing easier if you already know how to take photos and what photos to take.
Since 99% of gearfags could not properly light a studio portrait I'm thinking they should buy a 30D with the 35mm and get to work

>>4330157
See, I didn't even answer the question explicitly, and you're already wildly coping about just rent a studio and rent flash heads and hire a model bro.
>You dont need to do what you're doing take an entirely different photo instead

>>4330157
studio portraits are gutter photography

since 99% of anti-gearfag gearfags are afraid to leave their basement it's perfect for them, but award winning photography involves a plane ticket to the third world and catching the decisive moment

>>4330168
>so emabrassed by his cope he deleted his post
so specifically, it usually plays out like this
>Why u full fraem? buy micro four thirds i cant afford full fraem u money wasting benchod saar!
>i like lower noise levels because color blotches and digital noise just look bad. I would rather the background be slightly blurrier.
>NO NOISE DOESNT MATTER USE A FLASH BUY THIS LENS DONT TAKE PHOTOS THERE USE A LONGER SHUTTER SPEED BOKEH BAD WHY ARE YOU OUTSIDE A STUDIO FGT DONT U KNOW FASHION PHOTOGRAPHY IS REAL ART(TM)? WHAT ABOUT TAKING DIFFERENT PHOTO SAAR DID U JUST SAY BACKGROUND IS BLURRIER? ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF EQUIVALENCE-

>>4330155
I agree. Ive never been interested in photography but my dad was. He was very into photography but slowly lost interest as the digital came around. I was rewatching an old favourite show that had its early seasons filmed on 35mm and the beauty is astounding. This was brought me here today. The show is still paused. I wana know why its so beautiful on film as compared to digital? Digital is ugly.

>>4330177
Digital is a complex and still slightly immature technology. The film you saw had 150 years of progress behind it. It's just hilariously expensive when shot in professional volumes and has a lot of reliability issues.

Film also had better colorists behind it than most digital cameras. Sony, canon, nikon, panasonic, olympus, and fuji should be banned from making aesthetic photographic decisions and defer to the colorists who work for phaseone.

>>4330159
Define “decisive moment” without using subjective terms or ideas.

File: 83b7e1ab9c53b192f41cfefea(...).jpg (42 KB, 650x366)

42 KB JPG

>>4330190
>Define “decisive moment” without using subjective terms or ideas.
>Define something quintessentially part of the human experience without referencing the human experience
Ok robot boy
>opens laptop
>hacks into your neural net
>reprograms you to be gay
>ERROR 69: system is already programmed for flamboyant homosexuality.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows) (Adobe Photoshop CC 2017
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:08 16:25:58
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	5000
Image Height	2813

>>4330159
Half agree with you
But real top-tier photography involves doing exactly as you say (flying around world, catching decisive moment) but with portable studio rig and assistants to instantly modify lighting to your taste

>>4330197
That's university art photography

Actual top tier photography is mostly just taken with sunlight and sometimes a teenager you paid $2 to hold a reflector

>>4330129
Speed graphic with flashgun

>>4330242
t. Weegee