You buy a roll of film, take photos, have them developed, become disappointed, put the camera in the back of your closet until you list it for sale some time down the road where you explain that you never really got into film photography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F5_w5il_QI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhin4Bt_lLg

>>4332637
Ask the person who gave it to you and develop special real life bonds instead of spending time here.

>>4332637
Sell it and buy a Canon R5 or Sony A1

Option A:
>Buy several rolls of film
>Fuck about because you only half know what you're doing at best and need to learn
>Get the film developed and realise for the cost + price of film you could have bought a DSLR
>Get the film back and realise everything is horrible or poorly exposed
>Never touch a camera again

Option B:
>Sell Body and Lens for a hundred or so bucks
>Combine with money not spent on film and buy a DSLR
>Go through your learning phase on digital which is cheaper and more immediate to react to
>Have an actual honest to god chance at knowing if photography is for you or not
>Worst case scenario sell DSLR for 80% of what you paid

>>4332659
Skill issue

File: 1615152585143.gif (776 KB, 450x450)

776 KB GIF

>>4332688

>>4332650
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhin4Bt_lLg
Not OP but thank you, this was a great help.
>>4332659
you Left out
>cheaper and larger prints from the cheap dslr/mirrorless
>>4332688
>op doesn't know anything or what he's doing
Of course it's a skill issue you retard.
There's no benefit to starting on film as it takes a week to receive feedback for what you're doing wrong compared to seeing and adjusting in camera which is a lot better for a beginner.
>but but but you haveee to get it right in camera
yah and it'll take op 8 months of learning on film vs 4 months on digital if not quicker.

1) Replace the light seals (precut kit is like $15 on eBay)
2) Buy a battery for the light meter
3) Put the film in it
4) adjust the focus until you can see the photo subject in full clarity
5) adjust the shutter speed or aperture until the light meter is happy

>>4332691
Meds

Only sort of relevant, but I remember looking back through my grandma's 6x4 album that her son took through the 90s early 00s, and my god every single photo is - on a quality level - shit. I get that isn't the point, it's for memories and sheeeeeeit, but it's a good example of what a film camera and someone who is only half-assing it produces. Washed out exposures or blurry unfocused mess because my uncle's eyesight was shot when he was rolling around in the crib.

>>4332715
Should I go for Kodak Gold for general purpose?

>>4332882
that's fine, but the fuji stuff is often cheaper and also made by kodak. i usually shoot fuji 400

>>4332884
Fujicolor 200 looks even warmer than Kodak Gold. I like that, thanks

>>4332698
For 150 bucks or less you can make lovely 11x14 prints, or even bigger, and one frame of 35mm film is like 50 cents.

Grain can look great when enlarged and visible unlike digital noise and disgusting oversharpening you have to do with digital.

>>4332637
Those things have a pretty good split prism viewfinder and an almost idiot-proof exposure meter that lights up in the viewfinder. The only thing that it doesn't have and might be useful for a newfag is DOF preview but if you're not too clumsy about it, you can half undo the lens and it will stop down to your preset aperture. Just don't drop the lens. You picked a half decent camera at least, now fuck off and take photos with it.

>>4332893
Even crappy apscs with 24mp look fine at 12x19.
>muh grain
>disgusting oversharpening you """"""""""have""""""""" to do with digital.
ah,you're retarded, got it.

>>4332637
>How do I (zoomer) use this?
That's a prime lens, it doesn't zoom

>>4333109
>Most helpful /p/ commenter

>>4333079
Here he is, the guy whose photos suck

>>4333155
Post a photo to show off your talent then :^)

>>4332637
read the fucking manual you stupid piece of shit

>>4332637
sell it and buy a dslr and as many good lenses as possible. primes are best, when learning.

why a dslr? the experience is very good, and rivals leica (it's like chocolate vs vanilla).

as a zoom zoom you can look at screens way less with dslr, but should always chimp if you have a retake opportublnity, check for exposure and for focus.

I recommend you get a 1ds ii. They are truly amazing.

film, did you say, you insist? film, huh. no. you are new and need more shots and feedback.

1 hour photo was what made many a photographer. with digital, you have 0 seconds photo development.

You have no idea right now how crap you first 1000 photos will be. Make your first 1000 cheap and make your learning vurve fast.

shoot photos daily.

When you decide you want to do film, still dom't, film cameras, and film, are overpriced.

Remember that 1ds ii which I said you should get? Yeah, well, it's going to outperform any color film you can buy for $250. The high iso sucks, but the autofocus, at 1ev, beats all phones. yes, all.

Something I wish I had done was buy a good flash and a good tripod, from the start. Do it, it's worth it.

I saw the prices the 1ds ii is going for, it's jawdropping. But, instead of being a pig and biying them all up, I will let the kids join in the fun.

>>4333259
fuck off old man, no one wants your retarded blob

>>4333259
when I said outperform color film, I mean in iso.

Other good options exist. You can get a d800 for not much more. It doesn't have thr amazing look of the 1ds ii. but much better dynamic range and highs, incredibly so lol.

File: Screenshot_20240705_13574(...).jpg (220 KB, 1080x1183)

220 KB JPG

>>4333261
He specifically asked for old people :)

you are the unwelcomed one. go away.

>>4333264
picrel.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S901USQS5EXE3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1183

>>4332637
keep the film in your fridge

>>4333261
Begone nigger. Op needs to learn and what anon said is right. Go jerk off with your Kodak 400 someplace else. DSLRs will offer a much more accelerated learning path and OP might stand a chance to enjoy things.

Niggers like you who larp as successful photographers posting on a Latvian bread kneading forum, while encouraging new people to do retarded shit need to kys.

>>4333898

wrong.

You will learn so much faster on a film camera. Once you are paying money out of your pocket for every fuckup you learn fast.
You have 36 attempts to get something decent or you just wasted your money.
Their is no hiding from facts like with digital.
Also you have almost zero cropping room so have to learn to frame in camera unless you want giant sized grain.
And finally for proof, go look at any flickr film group vs a digital camera group. The standard of photography is so much higher on the film groups and its a night and day difference.

And dont even get me started on colours from digital cameras and the amount of fucking around in post required vs film just looking nice as is.

>>4333901
>It's just $10 dude
>You can crop 35mm a lot, elliott erwitt did this constantly and no one noticed
>film is not better because of a flickr group, you're just seeing enthusiasts who have been into photography long enough to know film still exists vs. surface level scrubs who just visit kenrockwell.com when they google "are canon or nikon cameras better" "whats the best nikon" "best nikon lenses" and then take snapshits of the local public park

>>4332637
Download the instruction manual pdf from web, read and understand it. (Its avail Shoot a roll of whatever subjects you are interested of following instructions, go to darkroom, develop the roll, make a contact print of it, check what frames you like, and make prints those with enlarger. Suggest you start with cheap B&W film and RC paper because there will be plenty fails until one gets routine for it.
I did all that as kid last millenium with thet exact camera and it's great fun. Digital is is more convenient and less messy, but it was not an option then.

(ME Super Manual: https://www.butkus.org/chinon/pentax/pentax_me_super/pentax_me_super.htm)

>>4333921
retard, he's a noob.

He needs a digital camera.

the pros originally were society guys, socialites. Then 1 hour photo was invented, and many plebs became pros.

Now digital is the new 1 hour photo.

You need fast turnaround. chimping is the most pro thing ever. all the pros chimo. all. all. the. pros.

>>4333901
>You will learn so much faster on a film camera
>takes a week to see what the issues were in the shots
>vs seeing it immediately on camera and make adjustments with active feedback as to what iso/aperture/shutterspeed is doing
I don't understand filmtards and their cope, there's nothing wrong with enjoying film or the process, but that's is the most bullshit statement on this stupid board.

>>4334040
They feel the need to lure unsuspecting beginners in with false promises in the hopes that a larger userbase will prevent more film stocks from being discontinued.

>>4334048
It's just so odd, like there are some benefits for film(purely muh sovl bullshit) and/or if you like the process.
It's such a blatant lie or cope trying to see it'll improve you better, if anything it'll frustrate a new photographer even more.
>higher standards in film groups
Yah, totally not filled with a bunch of autofocus backshots but it's B&W so it's "high art"

>>4334048
Film IS important. In the future, any photo that does not have an accompanying negative will be assumed to be an AI lie, especially if it's an art photo instead of real people in a real life event.

It's also piss easy. You people talk like it's all slide film. Negative film can tolerate -2/+5 stops off from correct exposure and still look fine. Just hit focus and know what shutter speeds do, that's it.

I really recommend against buying vintage cameras with low peak shutter speeds like 1/500 and 1/1000, but that's it for film, it's as easy as digital ever was, maybe easier unless you're trying to shoot at night. If you see a nice picture in the viewfinder it will be a nice picture on film.

>>4334218
>low peak shutter speeds like 1/500
Why do you need more lol? Just shtop down or use an ND. Between film and digital, speeds over 1000 are for bird blasting only.

>>4332637

do not be one of those who go on city lens cap on no film in camera and pretend to creepshot hebes

>>4334219
>t. rock and leaf pro
bet your medium format building corners are amazing

>>4334218
film holds back young photogs. phones don't have finders and are trash in random various ways depending on model, eg. no metering modes.

everyone should own and use digital, even if they prefer film. digital makes all photographers like rich kids who could afford unlimited film and prints (and learned way faster).

Everyone needs a fine tripkn and a fantastic set of flashes.

>>4334040
Taken to its extreme, if film is better, then large format is even better, you'll learn even faster if you can only fit 2 exposures into a month.

>>4334219
>speeds over 1000 are for bird blasting only.
>t. has never shot any animal, vehicle, plane, or person moving.
I guess film is only useful in streetsnaps, portraits, and landscapes then lmfao
>>4334244
>but the linessss broooo the linessss
hell when I'm photographing my friends or family I usually stick with 1/1600 at a minimum. Higher for the kids when they're zoomin around.
>>4334246
Ah I see you've studied under Gregory Crewdson lmfao.
Are you truly a master if you haven't learned your entire wealth of knowledge from 2 exposures?
Filthy casual kek

>>4334249
With the magic of the Ground Glass(tm), you don't have to waste film to see your photos. Just stare at the back of the camera, crack open a bear, and think about the image you would create if you could afford another pack of portra sheets.

File: crack-open-a-bear.png (86 KB, 764x796)

86 KB PNG

>>4334253
kek

>>4334270
This meme aged so weirdly now that TF2 is a competitive game.

I want to go back..

>>4334274
Man I haven't played tf2 since
>checks steam
Fucking Jan 3rd 2014 fuck me it's been a while.
Used to be the worst kind of shoulder stabbing spy that'd drive everyone nuts.
Heard there was a recent hacker/bot ban, so maybe I should play it again for the shiggles.

>>4333901
>the amount of fucking around in post required vs film just looking nice as is
have you ever developed & scanned your own film?
it still takes effort after pressing the shutter
processing digital photos is just like developing & scanning film, you start with a procedure someone else came up with, eventually tweak it to suit your needs, then just apply that
if you're endlessly tweaking every digital photo you're doing it wrong
>>4332893
>disgusting oversharpening you have to do with digital
what are you talking about
I don't sharpen any of my digishits, maybe use decent lenses?

>>4334253
you can do that with a picture frame as well, but neither introduce you to exposure, which is fundamental to the art of photography.

>>4334332
ie use a dslr, or leica if rich, and you get the chance to work between two worlds:
>regular viewing of light
>the photo

mirrorless impair you, because you are not forced to think about the world of natural ligjt, instead you stare at a videocamera.

Some Fujis are fine, if you use ones with an optical finder.

dslr are best though. for newbs, unlike mirrorless, the viewfinder can vary in % coverage, noticed on the edges, not exactly matching the dslr, versus perfectish with mirrorless.

There are other advantwges to mirrorless, like you can't burn your retinas by staring at the sun with a telephoto lens, you just ruin your camera. So, pros use mirrorless entirely now.

But if you want to learn the fastest, dslr/leica/ fujis w/ovf

You goal is to see the photo in your mind , and know approximate settings of iso, shutter, aperture

>>4334338
>reddit spaced post
>is made by a retard
It doesn't really matter what you use. It's a fucking camera.

>>4334340
next time you post, type some sort of a comment, rather than emptiness and nothing.

>>4334344
There was nothing to comment on. A man does not respond to a barking dog with an MLA formatted essay. You just posted nonsense that is peak gearfaggotry. "Gear doesn't matter" refers to this bullshit specifically. There isn't a single thing you can buy to become a better photographer faster.

>>4334348
>There isn't a single thing you can buy to become a better photographer faster.
Actually I take this back

You can buy a printer and display your photos for real people

>>4334351
Waste of money, everyone sucks at the start, full stop

>>4334370
if you print a real gallery owner can tell you to kill yourself

If you dont /p/ can argue over whether you need an xpro4 or a snoy a1ii

>>4334372

spread prints on ground, is noe real gallery

>>4334383
attach prints to fishing poles, is nou reel gallery

>>4334395
Mint pictures onto silver coins and scatter through a Spanish shipwreck. Is now real on galley.

>>4334219
I agree only because that is a Ken Rockwell tier take on shutter speed

>>4334457
Ken rockwell would say "you dont need fast shutters for sharp photos. just set your sharpness settings on your camera correctly and ask people to hold still, and all your photos will come out great. faster shutter speeds than 1/1000 are only for bird and sports photography."

>>4334218
Idk, I chose picrel because film looks really good colorwise and it seems cheaper than solid digicams. I spent 80€ and will probably spend not more than 80€ on film and development a year. What’s the price for a decent beginner digital camera? 400-500€? No reason to go for that since I really like the look of film.

>>4334372
but Canooon said these prints off the pro-100 are just as good as pigment prints off the pro-10.

>>4332637
I’ve shot my first photo. I have no idea what the first ring on the lense does though. I just changed the shutter speed(?) until it stopped blinking at underexposed