>>4330808
Filmcucks have no self esteem, they shoot outdated format, can't view photos while they shoot, go wash film in some sketchy chemicals that shorten thier lifes to in the end miss thier exposure and ruin the photo. Then then return home where big cocked digichad bangs thier wife while taking multiple photos and clips to share them immidiately on the internet. Filmcucks can't compete.

>>4330808

I scan with a Plustek 8100 thank you very much.
Any serious film photographer buys a dedicated scanner.

>>4330820
>Plustek 8100
It's a digital tool, basically a digital camera

>>4330829
It has a CCD sensor so yes and no. Yes it's digital, but No because it's CCD and it's very film like.

>>4330819
Projection

File: DSC_1098.jpg (143 KB, 997x1333)

143 KB JPG

Making prints is great fun

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	XQ-BT52
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Sensing Method	Not Defined
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	997
Image Height	1333
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:02:19 18:25:24
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	874
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	-1.9 EV
Exposure Bias	1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	D65
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.05 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	997
Image Height	1333
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4330819
You just spoke God's truth, and they'll hate you for it. Stay strong anon.

>>4330819
Laughable joke, film lasts centuries u kniw?

>>4330847
This is the truth and true endgame of photography. If you aren't making physical media out of your photography you aren't actually doing photography.

>>4330878
I print my digital photos just fine.

>>4330808
>Shoot film
>Pay someone else to develop because lol its the oil change of photography
>Digital scan of the film still looks 100x better
>some autist: but u didden resolv de grane... UR RESOLUTION THE MEGAPIXELS! how will u zoom in on the grass and see the superior details???? so many blades of grass ur missing...
>some other autist: but its nad a purely analog process you did not use an enlarger you didnt do it right YOU DID KNOT!
Gearfags keep finding new ways to be mad at photography i love it

>>4330832
>CCD
>film like
pick one

>>4330886
Awesome!

I print my eyesight using canvas and brush

>>4330832
How you like the 8100? Think you'll upgrade to an 8200 for dat infrared dust removal?

File: d290863c42cda5a2c5853b189(...).jpg (238 KB, 1024x966)

238 KB JPG

>imagine scanning your negatives instead of using contact sheets and enlarging selected frames
Disgusting

>>4330819
Holy shit, this has to be a joke

>>4330808
>use a digital camera to "scan" film photos to post-process them and upload to social media
because nobody uses enlargers anymore, right? not every film shooter instagramifies their shit. only reddittors

>Film stops looking different when it's digitized
In that case i just put my digital photos on fujicolor crystal archive and WALA, film!

>>4331053
You can easily make digital photos look like film with post processing.

Shooting film just to have the "film look" is falling of jewish propaganda

>>4331053
>put my digital photos on fujicolor crystal archive
just find some premade JPG profiles and load them into your cam

>WALA
such is american education

>>4331057
Can you prove this?

Shoot 6x9 portra 400, put it up against a z8, z7ii, a7rv, whatever, let's see if your presets can cut it

Try using colored light instead of "white is WHITE!" color grading, I find digital fails the hardest when light has a color other than the white balance value.

Digital is literally more real than film, if you shoot film to get away from realism you should just do painting instead. But you won't do that because you're all talentless and are using film to compensate.

>>4331060
>Shoot 6x9 portra 400
Can't. I'm not a faggot

>>4331065
Then literally fucking anything except nerdwank like cms 20 (bro everyone shoots iso 10)

>>4331064
Neither is real. At all. Digital is not even close. My eye's CFA is 2000x better and essentially has a pixel shifted video feed with a curved sensor, 30 stop DR and multi-WB with a panoramic FOV. Painting is actually what you get into for sheer realism as well as more expressive liberty because photography is inherently limited by technology.

>>4330808
Ok one question for ya: What exactly is wrong with doing this?

>>4330924

I love it. Over time you master your workflow so no dust or finger prints on the film. If you shoot 35mm film it’s an amazing scanner.

>>4330819
Kys digitranny

>>4331115

Ie don’t put on your hoody while scanning or vacuum your room 10 minutes before etc, you just need to think what makes dust and avoid it for 30 minutes or whatever around scanning. Also negatives goes instantly from plastic sleeve to scanner and I always get my negatives cut and put in plastic sleeves.
As a last resort I have a cleaning cloth I can wipe the negative with if I ever saw dust and I hold up to a light when it’s in the scanning holder first to check no dust.

Also you master how to hold the edges at all times so never get a fingerprint.

It’s not bad once you master the workflow.

>>4331113
It's placebo film.

You're getting all the downsides of digital CCD sensors in scanners or tech limitations of cameras an lenses used to scan.

You think you're shooting film but you're closer to digicam image quality with a big markup and rose tinted glasses.

>>4331140
And it still looks better than digital does, on a digital screen. What a fucking mogging lol.

>>4331140
>You're getting all the downsides of digital CCD sensors in scanners or tech limitations of cameras an lenses used to scan.

This sounds like ultra cope. Do you invent weird head canon about film users in your spare time as well?

>>4330808
The whole "digital looks too perfect" is exactly why a DSLR or mirrorless camera is perfect for scanning film.
It will pick up the imperfections film shooters appreciate without adding any of its own imperfections. The only real world difference to a flatbed scanner is that it can be done cheaper, and the process is faster.

>>4331118
kys filmtranny

>>4331170
>>4331172
samefilmfag

>>4331190
>t. seething digicuck getting raped by filmchad

File: 19-02-2024170836135516821793.jpg (152 KB, 1500x1120)

152 KB JPG

>>4330808
>shoot digital
>print
>photo scan the print
>upload on Instagram
>x10 better than film
i give you permission to use my technique for free

>>4331140
No, that's not actually how it works

Film captures luminance values. Scanning film is just taking photos of translucent sand glued to a sheet of plastic.

>>4331140
Take this album and go to the park today. You'll really enjoy yourself.
https://youtu.be/tLAUTBkACiU

>>4331221
Show us the result.

File: 1719631153198819.jpg (8 KB, 225x225)

8 KB JPG

The great thing about film photography isn't the prints or scans, it's showing everyone online that I did

>>4331241
...have gay sex

>>4330868
Film doesn't last being taken out of it's case on a sunny day wtf are you talking about?

>>4331190
>>4331191
Oh he’s mad

>>4331241
>>4331242
Honestly, I really don't know a single photographer, who shoots film, that isn't gay.

Even youtubers are all homosexual or closeted, but very obvious.

>>4331319
Fucking feminine men that wear lingerie doesn't make gay you know

>>4331319
>Honestly, I really don't know a single photographer, who shoots film, that isn't gay.
You're making this up but i've heard from quite a few people now that their purchase of a canon mirrorless camera coincided with an unexplained urge to descend anus-first upon a phallic object

>>4331241
>>4331242
Truth nuke

>>4331322
100% true. It's homosexuals and art whores who are lesbians.

>>4330819
Filmcucks will never recover from this

>>4331322
Digidork's favorite past time is creating weird head canon about filmchads.

>>4331371
>filmchads
filmchuds

Bumpin redditfrog

>>4331632
Kys youself

>>4330808
wrong

>>4330808
Well "scanning" with a digital camera IS retarded, you're right here. The whole point of film is to avoid Bayer filter

>>4332302
Dedicated film scannera like Plustek OpticFilm have a shitty CCD scanner.

>>4332361
But /p/ told me CCD is gigaSOVL

>>4332302
Yeah if you're autistic. In that case just scan with pixel shift bro.

>>4330819
You fucking nikker, you want to be gangraped by real men??? You like beung humiliated????? You will never be a real photigrapher, you don't have big enough cojones to be so. I wish you very painful and long death. Hope they never discover your grave you piece of shit motherfucker.

>>4332454
Sorry, gigaSOVL is now reserved for film. CCDs are lame and cringe now, I'll have that memo faxed over again

>>4332955
Take meds grandpa, film is OVER

>>4331059
>such is american education
Such is a Frank's sense of humour

>>4331067
>My eye's CFA is 2000x better
>CFA only extending out to the mid frame
lol

>>4331140
>the downsides of digital CCD sensors
What is the downside of a tri-linear CCD recording a well illuminated 2 dimensional object?
It's better than film and Foveon.

>>4331322
Such are the sorrows of mirrorless.

>>4333005
Cut out the middle man and just use CCD camera then. Oh wait, they don't make them anymore

>>4331232
QRD on this album?

>>4331140
Incorrect.

>>4331113
Absolutely nothing. Current digital cameras can easily outresolve 6x7 film. Buy into 100mp macro four thirds and pixel shift outresolves all but the most useless measurebator B&W stock (singular). They have a wider color gamut and more dynamic range. But you're not capturing scene brightness values with a scan, you're just looking at the film which already compressed ~14 stops of DR into about 8 stops.

Metaphysics schizos can make up anything they want but the end result will be the same as any other process.

>>4335126
> Buy into 100mp macro four thirds and pixel shift outresolves all but the most useless measurebator B&W stock (singular)
... in 4x5.

And 8x10, if you want to stitch. You'd shoot so few frames stitching is still easier than drum scanning.

>>4335129
An em5ii in pixel shift outresolves 6x7 velvia 50. Not a high bar. Thats a cheap ass camera too. Its no wonder alex burke has one like it. Must be nice for the frames that arent worth a real analog scanner’s runtime. Analog wet scans are always gonna beat camera scans and both will beat the vast majority of enlargers. A pure analog process is for fun only. Its a hobby. Like carving things by hand instead of using a CNC machine.

you could even stitch 4 em5ii/zf pixel shift shots for 4x5 and outdo a gfx

>>4333019
Scan backs can't be handheld.

>>4335132
Is carving a sculpture by hand more artistic than using a cnc machine to make one? If both are made by skilled users is one really better than the other??

>>4331059
>look at that
french is so fucking lame once you learn a few words lmao

>3D rendering
>Film "recipes"
>Pushing/Pulling
>Microcontrast
>"Sony Colours"
>Comments on build quality without opening the lens and inspecting the interior
>Glow

>>4335132
???
even a sony a7rv hardly out resolves 6x7 velvia

>>4330808
>shoot digital
>it looks shit

>>4330808

Shoot slide film, and view it directly with a high quality loupe.

Nothing else comes close!

>>4330844
>Projection
No, most filmcuks shoot negative not slide film

>>4335288
???
6x7 velvia 50 is outresolved and out-DR’d by a canon 5ds.

>inb4 data sheets and surely grain density is megapixels
not how films detail recording actually works. especially not if you refuse to acknowledge an unidentifiable squiggly dotted line of grains hidden between blades of grass as a detail. you’re just coping until you’re shooting 4x5.

>>4335288
Lolwut

People have been doing this exact test to see if digital was good enough for ages. It only takes ~45mp to outdo the detail resolution of 6x7 film in a real photo (not a test chart shot with flash at a lower ISO than box speed). Bayer can fuck up in subject dependent ways, but on the other hand film dissolves into a void if light is just a little sparse, so it evens out. With the sole exception of grain peeping certain slow black and white films.

The digital folks are so hung up on technical performance that they can't see the forest thru the trees!

>>4335429
Literally this.

>>4335429
Vague statement = no statement. You are talking about something that only vaguely exists in your “mind” (i am not gonna assume you even have one)

You lost. There is nothing wrong with shooting film to scan it. It still looks like film. There is no performance loss. There is no aesthetic loss.

There is no reason not to scan film. That’s it. None. If you think you have one it’s schizo shit. Plain and simple. The very premise of this thread has been ripped apart and flushed down the toilet. Every last squabble anyone had with scanning film’s been flushed.

Go on, hit us with the schizo shit. Lets see what kind of pseudo spiritual magic nonsense you can come up with to make scanning film “invalid”. So we can laugh. We dont want to see your photos we already know they suck.

>>4335429
no one said film was worse or better because digital has better technical metrics
anyone who would ever say something like that is a soulless bugman and coping about something
they said digital being technically better makes it perfect for making copies of negatives

digital is technically better just means digital can be used to make a perfect copy of a piece of film without losing any information from the original.

>>4335429
Damn bro, you really rustled some jimmies with that truth bomb.

>>4335465
sad samefag

>>4335429
whats the forest? ill tell you what the forest is

content
composition
color

quality is not the forest because it depends on display size and viewing distance

scanning a frame does not change any of these so op is a retarded gearfag. he probably whines about people using voigtlander lenses on leicas too.

>>4335471
Like clockwork. Lmao.

>>4335473
>*shits pants*
>Hey look that retard shit their pants
>Ahahaha what a retard
>l-look at how mad i made them
>Go change your pants retard
>l-l-l-like clockwork. reply again! i am so rent free right now *farts*
gearfags get dumber the more technically bad the gear gets

>>4335476
See
>>4335465

>>4335477
>shit your pants
>brag about "rustling jimmies"
I'm gonna go scan some film now

>>4330820
>>4331115
mind posting a few example pics scanned with it? I'm looking for a decent upgrade from my canoscan 9000f mk2.

>>4335478
>Continues to fantasize about people shitting their pants.

Cool.

>>4335483
>fantasize
you did shit your pants
pissed, even

Why are film shooters the most pretentious of them all? Not all, but always film. It's almost like approval and hype keeps them there

>>4335485
Whatever gets your rocks off, bro.

>>4335486
Just think of them as pot addicts. Sure, you can smoke pot without ill effects. 0.2g bowl in the evening on a weekend, big deal. Then you have the addicts. It's a psychological addiction, not a physical dependency, so it builds up some complex copes backing it up most of which give them an excuse to continue being an addict and to feel superior to non-addicts. But because they are copes spontaneously created to feed the addiction they end up being total BS.
>inb4 film isn't a drug!
Actually, buying shit IS addictive. This is a fact of human psychology few people are introspective or educated enough to be aware of it so very few people resist it. A co-opting of ancient hunter gatherer instincts. Buying film is a hit. Paying for chems is a hit.
https://www.psychguides.com/behavioral-disorders/shopping-addiction/
A lot of "hobbies" are actually forms of shopping addiction that we turn a blind eye too because they appear to generate things other than money lost to acquiring junk, but with film it hits a bit different because you can take infinite photos for free otherwise.

>>4335489
hoarding/collecting is also addictive and easily destructive behavior that appeals to the base elements of the human psyche

film incorporates it heavily. just ask about freezers and gear shelves.

digital photography does something to disappoint a shopaholic. it is... good enough. forever. a 5d classic still mogs phones. do you need more? maybe if it has to be compact or you don't want to put shit for effort in... or you're a shopaholic.

>>4335490
>>4335489
Aaaand there it is. The weird head canon comes out. Every single time.

>>4335495
>Weird head canon
You're such a shopping addict you somehow managed to worm the name of a camera brand into a discussion about proven facts about human psychology.

>>4335497
Really showing off your low iq, but atleast it was funny.

>>4335499
Go buy another roll of film junkie

The absolute state of digicucks.

>>4330808
What a dumb non-issue to complain about. Is there something about the process you perhaps don't understand?

File: Hobbies_Instead_of_Coping(...).png (13 KB, 578x180)

13 KB PNG

>>4335489
>A lot of "hobbies" are actually forms of shopping addiction

>>4335588
desu they are

there are creative hobbies like the arts and craftsmanship that only have startup costs and then there are hobbies with a gas bill like film photography, vinyl records, audiophile shit, digital gearfaggingg, and funko pop collecting

>>4335597
>Damn those oil paints are expensive!

>>4335597
Guns and guitars anon

>>4335453

Completely DELUSIONAL!

>>4335486
They have to feel good about using something that's completely outdated and gets trashed with 3 clicks in lightroom to achieve the same "film" look with a filter.

>>4336581
Hyper cope