[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]


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 images
Bullshit, 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.
>>
>>4330482
Shoot 4x5 film.
>>
>>4330484
A 16mp micro four thirds with pixel shift is enough to scan 6x7
>>
>>4330490
This or 645, the thinking man's format
>>4330491
Whatever you have is always the right answer
>>
Digifilm
>>
File: 1000016411.jpg (598 KB, 2000x1089)
598 KB
598 KB JPG
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 MakeGoogle
Camera ModelPixel 6a
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2024:06:26 20:47:17
Exposure Time4169/250000 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating202
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Brightness1.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.11 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.38 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1089
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Digital Zoom Ratio1.4
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
film is the immortal medium of the masters
digitool is a jewpanese conspiracy to make you consoom
>>
>>4330482
>film aesthetic
do 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 process
swap 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.
>>
File: order.jpg (1.79 MB, 1326x2000)
1.79 MB
1.79 MB JPG
>>4330695
>Those film-like color characteristics are simply lab boosted with their color profiles
what 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 one
maybe 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 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>4330484
This defeats the purpose of the film. Whole idea is to take a pic without using any digital image processing equipment.
>>
>>4330482
I 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.
>>
>>4330714
Then how are you going to post your photos online where anyone can see them
>>
>>4330717
You scan your print!
>>
>>4330717
You dont. That's a thing.
>>
>>4330714
And 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 perfect
Film 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
>>
>>4330780
As long as you're enjoying it mang, to be honest, it's not that time consuming to edit raws comparatively, I maybe spend 2-5 minutes per photo on actual adjustments.
>t. full time jobber myself
During the week usually do an hour to hour and a half walk after work and edit between 2-5 photos I like of wildlife while cooking dinner, weekend hikes usually take more time editing wise, but that's expected. It's also a good excuse to keep active.
I also like the process of taking the raws and bring them back to what I saw with my eyes, it's satisfying to be honest.
>so I just enjoy photography
That's all that matters, enjoy brotha.
>>
Does editing take people a really long time? If you're doing extensive adjustments just save a preset
>>
>>4332222
>dubquad
>checked
Presets are pretty bad in general imho, each photo even of the same subject(cloud/branch moved on next shot causing a lighting change) will need different adjustments, for me like I mentioned in this reply: >>4332221 I usually average about 2-5 minutes, sometimes may go longer if I'm doing comparisons. Example being, I like doing exports at various steps of +/-5 on values for shiggles which will obviously take longer but that's because I'm experimenting.
>>
>>4330482
>buys film with a preset look determined by a chemist in Rochester, NY
>"digital is very cookie cutter to me"
What did OP mean by this?
>>
>>4330482
>film or digital
>here are my retarded opinions
POST PHOTOS FAGGOT
>>
>>4333062
who hurt you
>>
>>4330482

I just shoot film purely for novelty. Yes it is an expensive hobby but many hobbies are expensive: cars, bikes, fitness, gaming, fishing, camping and so on. Sometimes the challenge of shooting film and the achievement of getting a nice print is the reward. I find the whole process very interesting and satisfying, more so than taking digital raws and sitting down in front of a laptop.

Call me delusional but I think the magic of prints is that they are not meant to be shared to social media. There will be a limited number of individuals who get the privilege of seeing the print in person. There is scarcity and there is uniqueness. Even getting 2 identical prints is challenging.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 12 Pro
Camera Software16.1.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2024:07:01 21:09:54
Exposure Time1/121 sec
F-Numberf/1.6
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating40
Lens Aperturef/1.6
Brightness5.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.20 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4330482
filmfag here
I'm thinking of getting a DSLR not because I'll enjoy it but solely because the photos will be cheaper and I want to maybe start trying to actually get paid doing photo work and, if I ever get somewhat established I would prefer to shoot film

not as a full time job or anything

Since I want to get a film EOS at some point I figure if I get a DSLR it should also be an EOS, does anyone have any advice for me?
>>
>>4330482
>It comes a point where the digital images look very cookie cutter to me; too artificially and clinically perfect.
This really comes down to your workflow. As long as you shoot in raw and have the right know-how, you can make any picture have the "film look". Most digital pictures look cookie cutter because they're not color graded the way film rolls are during manufacture.

Film is ultimately an expensive hobby, although a very fun and creatively satisfying one. You can find used cameras for very cheap, shoot of a couple of rolls, and then decide whether to keep investing.
>>
>>4335119
Get a 2nd hand 5D mk II or whatever newer fits in your budget. Simple.
>>
>>4335282
Unfortunately, a 5D looks to be far outside of my budget. Since my whole reason for trying a DSLR is to lower the cost of shooting in certain scenarios I would ideally like to spend under $50 on a body and almost certainly under $100. I don't mind spending a bit more on a kit lens with image stabilization because I would use that when I buy a film EOS camera in the future and I just love shooting film.

Now, I would assume that
>whatever newer fits in your budget
means that basically any newish EOS camera should work just fine, but I'd like to ask, how new? And why should it be newish to begin with? I wouldn't mind using a lower resolution, older camera if the price were right.
>>
File: IMG_2164.jpg (1.34 MB, 3368x3260)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB JPG
>>4335407
Canons unfortunately have always carried a price premium regardless of age or feature parity. If you want full frame (hint: you do), you’re gonna have to suck it up. Even the oldest 1d bodies still go for over 100 and they’re nearly 25 years old. As for film eos, the best bang for your buck is probably the eos 5/a2. Getting higher spec than that makes the price climb quickly. It’s a good idea though because you only need one set of lenses.
EOS chads rise up

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelFinePix S9900W S9950W
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:12:21 13:55:47
Exposure Time1/9 sec
F-Numberf/8.4
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/8.4
Brightness2.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceAuto
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeOff
Macro ModeOn
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeAperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusBlur Warning
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>4335431
are the cheapo Rebels not full-frame? Or are those so much worse than the pro-series cameras that it's not worth it? I don't feel that I need many features. I'm used to shooting on a Minolta X-370. Manual focus and aperture priority are enough for me.
>>
>>4335440
Only full frame dslr canons are 1ds/x, 5d, and 6d. You could get a crop body sure but the your lenses will look different than when you use them on film. That would bother me but maybe you’re fine with it, dunno. If that’s the case any shitty canon dslr will work they can all mount regular ef lenses fine. But film bodies cannot mount ef-s so be careful there.
>>
>>4335456
>Only full frame dslr canons are 1ds/x, 5d, and 6d
Oh shit, I had no idea. I think it'd bother me slightly, as long as I'm still getting a camera that works with EF lenses, then I would just live with it, and then use the EF lenses later on. My ideal film AF SLR setup would be a high end EOS with a nice stabilized zoom lens.

Thanks for the info.
>>
>>4335407
>spend under $50 on a body
You're scraping the barrel at that price point.
Not even the original 5D has come down that far yet.

>why should it be newish to begin with?
Custom modes, gapless microlens arrays, liveview and video.
That's basically it.
Do take note that the D30, D60 and 10D can't record RAW+jpg or accept EF-S lenses.
>>
>>4335589
>You're scraping the barrel at that price point.
I know, but I'm trying to balance wanting to do a bunch of things in my life with the money part of it. A super cheap DSLR makes sense for me at the moment.

>Custom modes,
I'm not entirely sure what this is, but if it's like shooting modes, I feel I don't need it. I'm used to manual focus SLRs with aperture priority at most, and often I use a scale focus viewfinder without any light metering. Basically if I had the exact same cameras I already do, except with digital sensors, I would pretty much be satisfied.
>gapless microlens arrays, liveview
I'm not familiar with either of these, I'll look it up but I have a feeling that since I don't even know what these are I won't miss them if I don't have them.
>and video.
Might be useful for actually trying to work with people to get side gigs but I'm perfectly fine without video, I hadn't even considered it yet.
>>
>>4335595
>if I had the exact same cameras I already do, except with digital sensors, I would pretty much be satisfied
The problem is that digital cameras have a lot more settings than even the most complex film body.
Custom modes allows you to recall all of it by just rotating your mode dial (or scroll wheel, in the case of the 1D series).
You may not miss it, but it's pretty much the only reason I'm looking to replace my 1D.

>I'm not familiar with either of these
After a certain point, the microlenses on top of the sensor were redesigned so that their edges butt up against those adjacent to it without space between them.
It allows for better sensitivity.
Canon introduced them with the 50D; you can make your own inferences for the other lines based on its introduction date.
This is a technical detail though and not one that will affect ease of use.

Livevew indicates that the camera can read from the sensor continuously and display the output on the rear screen.
It's good for lowlight (or dangerously bright) scenes as well as positioning the camera at odd angles in which you can't access the OVF.

>I hadn't even considered it yet
You shouldn't if you're starting out.
Hybrid cameras didn't start getting good until far more recently and you'll get a much better stills camera at the same price point.
>>
>>4335431
>Canons unfortunately have always carried a price premium regardless of age
How so?
I find that they have some of the lowest used prices because of how many that were made.

>Even the oldest 1d bodies still go for over 100
That's mostly because of the charger.
I got my 1D (body only) for $90 in 2016.
1D MkII(n) should be going for about $100 now with the original 1Ds not much more than that.
>>
File: IMG_2166.jpg (1.08 MB, 1284x2205)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
>>4335631
I guess there’s some currency conversion fuckery involved lol. And at least here in person, what I meant by expensive for their age was compared to Niggon. Niggon seems to have been way more popular here, the dslrs and lenses seem to all around be cheaper than canon on like Kijiji and Facebook marketplace and even the local shops used displays, etc. could be regional, could be small enough sample size to be meaningless, I dunno.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1284
Image Height2205
>>
>>4335635
$125 USD is cheap for the 1D MkIII
Too bad they fucked up the AF on the MkIII's
>>
>>4335628
Then I'll stick with stills for sure. Thank you for the info--I feel reasonably confident I won't be missing out on too much of what's important to me if I go for a cheaper rebel vs. a full-frame EOS.
>>
>>4335190
>As long as you shoot in raw and have the right know-how, you can make any picture have the "film look"
Nope. Even the best look fakely digital.
>>
>>4335645
Can't wait for you to fail the next exif-less photo
>>
>>4335646
Oddly specific. Am I supposed to know what you are talking about? Post an example of a digital shot with a "film look".
>>
>>4335641
>Thank you for the info
You're welcome, friend.
Unless you need the smaller size of the Rebels, I'd advise that you go for something from the xxD series.
They're better built and they tend to be cheaper for the same specs.
>>
>>4335645
How about I take a film pic and trick everyone into thinking it's digital?
>>
>>4335652
Okay, I would prefer something larger anyway. Just thought only the rebels were the cheap variants. thanks
>>
File: 1594_s.jpg (79 KB, 1200x1200)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>4335407
Well, it depends of you. I myself use a beaten 2nd hand 100D which I got as temporary when my 600D died. That was rather many years ago. Any DSLR but entriest of entry level not older than 700d or so is likely fine for a hobbyist.
There are plenty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 100D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.12
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.1
Lens NameEF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III
Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2024:01:15 14:13:17
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5184
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeProgram
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
ISO Speed RatingAuto
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
Color Matrix129
Color Temperature5200 K
White BalanceFlash
Exposure Compensation2
Sensor ISO Speed160
>>
>>4335691
I looked at the photos coming out of even the older ones on Flickr and they all looked pretty fine to me, honestly. I'd be fine with a 10D. If I try to do any small time work for people for social media I won't need high res anyway. Just wanna be able to have a couple photography gigs instead of having it just be a hobby. If I ever get to a point where people actually want me to work for them my end goal would be to switch back to shooting film since that's what I love.



[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.