It all depends on what you buy, how much you photograph, how much of the digital stuff you would have bought anyway even if t wasn't for photography, and so on. Do the math for your own case to see how it works out for you. But the idea that there's one single answer for everyone? That's a big fat and obvious piece of bait that you swallowed hook, line and sinker.

>>4362013
This is dumb how much xhe’s stretching, it’s like saying well you have to include your electricity bill since you use electricity to charge your camera so it’s part of the cost.

>>4362013
except youre going to have an iphone and a laptop anyway

I have spent about 10k on digital camera gear and about $500 on film cameras, prob $3k on film and developing so yes film is far cheaper.

A modern mirrorless + 24-70 + 70-200 + a couple of primes and a flash costs a lot.
You can get multiple film cameras and lenses for under $500 total.

>>4362022
not everyone is cattle like you

Cambo 8x10 is around 1k.
Decent 8x10 lens is around 1k.
50 sheets of fomapan 8x10 is around 175.
All other bullshit is another 825.
3k for over 9000 MEGAPICKLE CAMERA.

Want 200 measly megapickles in digital? 80k dollar MINIMUM for camera and lens alone.

Film ALWAYS wins.

Also you can build out a darkroom for less than your budget 900 dollar printer and FINISH the process of photography. LOL.

>>4362049
>8x10
not everyone is an autistic manchild that enjoys taking photos of dead bugs

I can use my iPhone for photography for $0 since I already had to buy a phone anyway.
Spending money on anything photography related other than film cameras in 2024 is just cringe.

>>4362050
>This camera only takes pictures of dead bugs!

The obsession is so real, nophoto. Why do you love embarrassing yourself so much?

>>4362013
Internet is mandatory. Cant even hold a non cattle job without jt.
“Cloud” storage is for brainless cattle (you own nothing)
Printing is optional

Verdict:
Woman is retarded

Who knew?

>>4362049
By the time you finish 1 day of shooting with a noticeably grainy 80mp 6x7 you will have already spent enough on film, BEFORE your DIY development larp no one serious would engage in, to buy a new fuji GF lens
As a working pro i have over 20 shoots per week averaging hundreds of frames per day.

Film is economical resolution if you only take it out on your once monthly vacations. But it will not be long until you’ll see the prices on used fuji gfx100s bodies, add up your yearly film costs plus the $500-2500 camera (from bronica slr to mamiya rangefinder), and go “FUCK”

A gfx100 outresolves mf film for usable resolution

Shoot film if you like the way it looks but dont give us this horseshit about sheets that are barely usable for snapshots of your dog

>>4362057
>9000 words of cope and goalpost shifting.

Do digicucks really?

>>4362058
>but bro my 8x10 sheets that cant shoot anything moving and take 1hr to focus and cant leave my house
Kek

Buy a pack mule and maybe one day someone will look at your landscape under a loupe and say “nope, no bigfoot. shit photo too.”

>>4362060
Skill issue and more cope. Typical of a digicope.

>>4362061
Can we see your dirty out of focus 8x10 sheets sometime this week?

>>4362065
I love how you immediately went to 80mp MF cope as a sort of anti film NPC script when I was specifically talking about 8x10. I am almost certain you have never seen an 8x10 contact print. It was all really cute.

I give 8x10 another another 3 days until he finishes focusing on the latest dead bug

That format is not even economical for a one shot and done studio shoot (which doesn't really happen, crewdson shoots multiples)

>>4362066
>muh dead bugs

>>4362073
*until he finishes missing focus

>>4362074
I will accept your concession. :)

>>4362073
Maybe consider a little less cope with your next post?

>look into phase one rentals
>700-900 dollars a day without lens or body.

TRULY ECONOMICAL.

i believe in film supremacy

>>4362013
thanks based film cost saver! now I can cancel my internet subscription and sell all my hard drives.

>>4362028
unless you're a hopeless consoomer cattle you're going to keep your digital camera for 10 years. your lenses for longer. also you should have bought used because buying photo equipment new is like buying new cars.

>>4362049
>Film ALWAYS wins.
yeah, have fun admiring your film gigapixels on a 10x15 cm print lol

>>4362144
don't forget to sell your phone as well since you don't need a way to contact people if you shoot film

File: 10,000-ppi-Scan-vs-5Ds.jpg (2.6 MB, 3840x3840)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4362057
>6x7
>80mp
Choose one and only one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	3840

>>4362013
This is the dumbest shit I've read in a long time.

File: image12.jpg (94 KB, 442x883)

94 KB JPG

>>4362189
Uh, yeah, 6x7 = 80mp
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

You can repost all your tiring childish screeching about unmentioned, hidden scaling algorithms and 3 well respected men with $20k+ (EACH!) invested into high end digital conspiring to screw over digital but the facts hold true.

6x7 actually has slightly superior detail resolution than an expensive ass 80mp phase one. When the digital camera can no longer resolve details, it generates entirely new ones. The film test sheet has a more believable transition into "indistinct". When your eyes cant see something its just a spot without details, not a rainbow maze where the converging lines start diverging.

Digital does some things "better" than film at the pixel peeping level. CFA digital raws are more compatible with noise reduction and sharpening algorithms than film scans, but that's the root of why people dislike digital isn't it? The technical performance it achieves doesn't just LOOK fake, it IS fake.

It is absolutely true that a common $2000 fuji gfx100 would btfo every single film stock you can run through a 6x7, and likely equal 6x9, for most subjects, but film melts into nothing and digital has a harsh clip into aliasing so film is still being produced much to your chagrin.

Facts are facts.

You will now proceed to spam shitty posterized scans of maps and other such worthless apples to cherries comparisons. What I am posting is a proper test, corroborated by other figures in the industry, with fully disclosed methodology and a REAL professional, not a canon POS R 4chan shill, making real claims with his real name. You will never disprove it. Rather, it disproves you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	LinoHell
Camera Model	TANGO
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2148
Image Height	4555
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:11:12 10:08:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	442
Image Height	883

File: image00.jpg (149 KB, 1130x416)

149 KB JPG

>>4362345
Here you can observe the give and take relationship of the film/digital war

Film has awful shadow resolution and often needs to be overexposed. Digital clips highlights easily, but has much better shadow resolution. unfortunately the details also look shaky/nervous because of the resolution loss inherent to CFA cameras.

The film has higher resolution and renders a more natural scene similar to human vision. The digital camera captures more shadow information at the cost of natural resolution and aliasing, because digital is still being held back by CFAs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3750
Image Height	4230
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:11:12 10:09:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1130
Image Height	416

>>4362013
Women are so fucking stupid lol
>You need to update every few years
>You need a $1000 iphone
>You need to pay $750 a year for phone service
>You need to pay for cloud storage
>You need to pay for software
>You need to replace hard drives every few years
Lmfao women are so fucking stupid

>>4362189
>after applying ai nr, sharpening, and upscaling, the details on the plastic look plastic
>please ignore how smeary the non plastic parts look and the more faithfully resolved textures
>and the ugliest color science in the world on the canon 5ds

>>4362350
And that the tire on the 5ds shot is closer to the camera (almost twice as large in the frame) and that the film is underexposed, and still the tire has more texture

he's only looking at the tire because his full car snap would look too bad in many places

>>4362345
But, people don't take photos of test charts other than for the purpose of tests. In real life it's not much of an issue and digital gets you more detail, especially if you need to go above ISO 100.

>>4362346
And yet the film has both no shadow detail and blown highlights, as well as being noisier and lacking detail. Also you're comparing to a nearly 15 year old back, try again with something more modern. And finally lets be real, the vast majority of people shoot 35mm. Something like an A7R V can hold its own against MF film and would absolutely destroy 35mm.

>>4362378
Digital gets more shadow detail but the digicope (sharpening and NR) that looks ok on tires sidewalls and makeup slathered faces looks awful on natural things, which will usually alias into weird blobs and wrong colors

File: 385788623_101593668578068(...).jpg (655 KB, 2048x1152)

655 KB JPG

>>4362383
Honestly, I don't think I've ever had a situation where digital artefacts have been an issue. Even going back through old photos purposely looking for it, like with this photo I'd expect the fine detail of the radiator grill and carbon fibre to cause an issue but I don't see anything.

>>4362348
is she wrong?


Give us a quick rundown (qrd) of your costs

>>4362016
Thread ended here.

Emily's is probably the single worst argument for film though. The appeal to me is that you get pretty high-end results for not much money; for mirrorless it's like skipping straight to your dream full-frame camera from the get-go.

But again, depends on you. I do wildlife and I have no doubt that I truly would spend more money photographing animals on film. You can practice for years to anticipate the critical moments so you don't waste film, or just concede to using a mirrorless to get more shots at low cost with a debatable loss in quality.

Plus beginners don't even know what they want to do. I'm a noob and only just realised I like astrophotography, thank God I don't use film for that.

>>4362390
Start shooting hot asian bitches. Their hair is dense enough to cause moire on a d850.

File: _DSC9635crop.jpg (1.31 MB, 3819x2037)

1.31 MB JPG

>>4362423
I've taken plenty of cat photos, again never noticed an issue.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM3 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:24 12:46:31
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Brightness	-0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3819
Image Height	2037
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4362463
There’s a little false color left around the eyes. most camera jpeg converters and lightroom have moire reduction on by default which desaturates some colors and deadens some tonal transitions. Look at the raw in capture one for the full color image (moire included). Capture one uses weaker chroma denoise and leaves it up to the user to selectively edit out moire and chroma noise blotches to preserve more color info.

File: 645-vs-5Ds.jpg (1.22 MB, 3142x2014)

1.22 MB JPG

>>4362345
>sperges out again
>clings to the same tired fucked up line chart test again
>line chart test doesn't even disagree, 6x7 Provia lost hard
>"uh...if you shoot 4x5 or an ISO 20 microfilm with a high contrast line chart you can out resolve 80mp"
But you still can't prove you even own a camera, can you?

File: MF-Fuji-RVP-Howtek-vs-5Ds.jpg (800 KB, 2370x1185)

800 KB JPG

>>4362345
>>4362346
>>4362350
Samefagging this hard.

>>after applying ai nr,
"Preserve Details" is built into PS and is not based in any way on AI.

>sharpening
There was no sharpening. Actually, I take that back. There WAS sharpening of the film scan. And yet it's still softer.
>oops

>details on the plastic look plastic
COPE. You can clearly see every detail in the 5Ds crop, all the writing, the stripes in the logo, plus reflections in the wheel. At that level the 6x9 10,000 ppi scan is showing...grain.

>>please ignore how smeary the non plastic parts look
Are you talking about the film scan?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4362346
>uses the shittiest scaling algorithm available for digital
>digital ends up pixelated as a result
>"the details also look shaky/nervous because of the resolution loss inherent to CFA cameras."
If you have to lie to defend your belief, then your belief is a lie.

>>4362352
>IT'S ALMOST TWICE AS LARGE!
No, it's not. The 5Ds tire is a little bit taller. But if film has "infinite resolution" then a 10,000 ppi scan should still kick the 5Ds' ass. Except it doesn't. It's the other way around.
>nooooo it's not fair it's not exactly the same size!
I had to find something that was close. But please show us your real world photos where 6x9 scans beat a 5Ds/R5/A7R/Z7 etc.
>crickets
>nocamera

>he's only looking at the tire because his full car snap would look too bad in many places
I'm looking at the tires because they're in focus and DoF on both, retard.

Any way, here's a stricter test >>4362486. But we both know you'll sperg out and come up with bullshit excuses for it as well.

>>4362345
>provia 6x7 can't resolve as well as IQ 180
>"uh it's 80mp"
Retard.

>and 3 well respected men with $20k+ (EACH!) invested into high end digital conspiring to screw over digital but the facts hold true.
They literally did. It is well known that they shot their tests at far higher contrast levels than real world in order to make it possible for film to "win." One of them pushed the contrast higher than 1000:1. Fine detail is closer to 1.6:1.

Is /p/ archived any where? Because I would like to remind you of the following.
How it started:
>noooo digital is only good on line charts film is better for real world
How it's going:
>BUT FILM WINS ON THIS HIGH CONTRAST LINE CHART TEST WHO CARES ABOUT THE REAL WORLD?

>6x7 actually has less detail resolution than an expensive ass 80mp phase one.
FIFY

>When the digital camera can no longer resolve details, it generates entirely new ones.
While film is solid grey mush long before then.

>but muh aliasing!!!
You can typically attach AA filters to MF backs. That's all it takes. "No AA filter" is a meme, weak AA filter is best.

>but that's the root of why people dislike digital isn't it? The technical performance it achieves doesn't just LOOK fake, it IS fake.
See >>4362485
I know you have never been that close to a woman before, but right side looks like she looks if you were about to kiss her. Left side doesn't look bad, but real life doesn't have grain, soft detail, or blotchy strands of hair.

>BUT...MUH...ALIASING!!!
Show us your real world photos that were ruined by aliasing.
>crickets
OK, as someone who actually owns cameras: aliasing is rare and easy to clean up.

>What I am posting is a proper test
High contrast line charts are not a "proper test" unless you spend all day shooting high contrast line charts.

File: img271.jpg (3.74 MB, 2825x3278)

3.74 MB JPG

>>4362490
8x10 film still does better than any digital sensor in 2024. If you want to get close you have to spend an absolute assload of money and the camera still takes a very high level of technical proficiency(slow) to obtain maximum quality images.

Why do digitoids always compare inferior formats instead of the truest format of film, 8x10? Just curious. In all honesty I could care less because contact printing my 8x10 sheets produces IQ and prints so beautiful I simply do not care for anything more and only utilize less for my own convenience.

Also look at this real world image that is sort of like a line chart. This is around a 1/60th crop of the whole negative, unsharpened. Poorly scanned at 2400dpi, but it is a full resolution jpeg.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:16 00:19:38
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4362492
>8x10 film still does better than any digital sensor in 2024.
If you do everything perfectly and shoot low ISO, yes. Of course it's expensive and slow, with limited film selection, and challenged by simple stitching.

> If you want to get close you have to spend an absolute assload of money
You just need to stitch. Which isn't a problem since anything that can be shot by 8x10 can likely be shot by stitching as well. You don't even really need a pano head any more though they still help.

>>4362467
You're seeing things that aren't there. Whether stuff like moire is removed is irrelevant because it works, and there's still more detail than you'd get with the majority of film.

>>4362486
>>4362485
How many times are you going to repost invalid comparisons and throw a tantrum before you finally admit that an actual professional putting his name behind his tests and his well documented methodology is correct, and your random apples to candybars comparisons are horribly botched and generally crooked due to poor scanning and sometimes not even using the same photo? You're delusional, mate.

Film is still being produced. Every digislug who isn't delusional has long since admitted the 5ds was not better than film, and they were just coping until the gfx100 came out. Sorry.

>>4362495
It's significantly cheaper than similar quality digital excluding an 8 hour day where you take 500 shots disregarding the computer required to efficiently edit and manage the enormous files, and stitching is significantly more limiting than the work it takes to shoot one exposure of proper film.

You can buy an old wooden 8x10 camera for like 600 bucks and a decent lens for like 1k. 100 iso B&W film(delta 100) is like 8-10 bucks per shot, and home devved color is less than 30 dollars per shot if you're using portra 160.

Like I said it costs over 1k dollars a day to rent lens, body, and digital back if you want to even get close to any 8x10 film.

>>4362467
>There’s a little false color left around the eyes
Where? Circle it in red because nobody else can see it.

>most camera jpeg converters and lightroom have moire reduction on by default
That's a lie for jpg and ACR. I don't know for sure about LR because I don't use it, but I strongly suspect it's not true there either. Moire cleanup is a tool with settings, not something that's "automatic."

>which desaturates some colors and deadens some tonal transitions
Post examples and evidence.

>Look at the raw in capture one for the full color image (moire included).
RAW converters use different algorithms which can lead to moire being greater/less, along with sharpness and fine detail. That's not the same as "moire reduction."

>>4362499
>How many times are you going to repost invalid comparisons and throw a tantrum
This coming from the liar who throws tantrums in unrelated threads and desperately clings to one high contrast line chart test which doesn't even agree with him (Provia lost).

But let me answer your question: I am going to call your bullshit every time I see it, without fail. I'm even going to prepare new comparisons using high resolution sample scans from some of the most well respected labs in the world (like the VW scan).

>before you finally admit that an actual professional putting his name behind his tests and his well documented methodology
Yes, he documented that he used >1000:1 contrast, an old trick in the film world as film's resolution is highly dependent on target contrast. Fine detail in the real world does not occur at 1000:1. Film manufacturers played that game for decades, "look at how high resolution our film is!" while downplaying the real resolution indicated in 1.6:1 tests. They still do (visit Adox's page for CMS 20 II).

>are horribly botched
The only thing horribly botched is your high contrast line chart test which doesn't even agree with the "professional's" real world tests ON THE SAME WEB PAGE.

>Film is still being produced.
I'm glad it is as I sometimes shoot it, but not for the autistic bullshit reasons you think people should shoot it. You shoot film for a unique rendering, not because "muh infinite resolution muh 20 stops DR!!!"

Since I've answered your question, please answer mine: when are you going to finally buy a camera? Any camera?

>>4362503
>you need 500 frames and 8 hours!!!
LMFAO do you even own a camera?
>crickets

>stitching is significantly more limiting than the work it takes to shoot one exposure of proper film.
No it's not, not if the camera is 8x10. Have you ever, even once, shot a large format camera? I'll accept 4x5. Have you?
>crickets
There's a reason why almost all LF shots are landscapes and still portraits.

>You can buy an old wooden 8x10 camera for like 600 bucks and a decent lens for like 1k. 100 iso B&W film(delta 100) is like 8-10 bucks per shot, and home devved color is less than 30 dollars per shot if you're using portra 160.
So you're at >$1,600. Any of the older high res FF DSLRs can challenge it with a 3 row stitch, and they're a lot cheaper now than $1,600. Throw in a pano head and lens and you're still under $1,600 and there's no cost per shot other than time.

I would love to shoot LF again. I'm not saying that someone with the money and time shouldn't try it. But this "hurr film won you need 500 frames to match 8x10" exaggeration bullshit is just tiring. Shoot film for film, not for resolution. If you need gigapixel resolution there are even automated pano heads and stitching software that will cover your needs.

>>4362506
>>4362508
tldr stop being such a baby

5ds = 50mp (bayer, low dr, bad color science, mf film sized for good 35mm performance)
6x7 = 80mp (true color, no moire)
gfx100 = 100mp (up to 400mp true color with pixel shift, possible to focus stack pixel shifted shots, doghair btfo)

File: 20240918_100115.jpg (4.51 MB, 3414x2766)

4.51 MB JPG

>>4362511
Relax, bro. I'm honestly just curious. Why is it so difficult for you to have a discussion like a normal person/in good faith?

Here is an 8x10 macro shot developed with amidol and silver chloride paper, aka real photography start to finish in all it's stunning brilliance.

Look in the fgt thread for a perfectly in focus picture of my dog I shot using 8x10. Do I really need to say you just have a skill issue?

Answer my question. Why do digitoids always compare the best of the best digital with one of the smallest film formats?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S24 Ultra
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	13 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:18 10:44:35
Exposure Time	1/290 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	6.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	2.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4362515
tl;dr stop lying and actually prove to us that you own a camera, any camera.

File: kek.png (202 KB, 289x675)

202 KB PNG

>Provia lost
>mmm delicious zigzags

>>4362518
>Relax, bro. I'm honestly just curious. Why is it so difficult for you to have a discussion like a normal person/in good faith?
Because you came off like the nocamera/nophoto infinite resolution fag. Don't lie or exaggerate. No, you don't need 500 frames to match 8x10.

>Here is an 8x10 macro shot developed with amidol and silver chloride paper, aka real photography start to finish in all it's stunning brilliance.
Very nice.

>Do I really need to say you just have a skill issue?
And there you go again, acting like the nocamera guy. If you need a 500 frame stitch to match 8x10, then you are the one with a "skill issue."

>Answer my question. Why do digitoids always compare the best of the best digital with one of the smallest film formats?
6x9 is small? 4x5 is small? People stopped comparing digital to 35mm and started comparing it to MF around the time of 16mp FF. Actually, it was popular to compare the 11mp 1Ds to MF. At those resolutions 6x7/9 still had an edge, but not any more. And 100-150mp MF is challenging 4x5.

>>4362520
>Provia won
>mmm mush
If you're going to use a line chart test, then you have to actually treat it like a line chart test. Even if you insist that the aliasing is the stopping point, the IQ 180 clearly resolved the lines before that point better than Provia, which is already fading out by then.

Your line chart test. I didn't post it, you did. Don't cry because it proves the opposite of what you claim.

>>4362521
>16mp is as good as medium format!
Fucking kek
>100mp is challenging 4x5
It "sort of" holds up to 6x9

A 50mp FF can not even approach the resolution of 6x7 unless you purposefully gimp the film with a shitty CCD scanner or a mirror slapper used incorrectly

>>4362524
>>16mp is as good as medium format!
Your straw man fell down. I said people were comparing to MF at that point, and explicitly said that they weren't fully matching it yet. But they started comparing to MF because 35mm was done.

>>100mp is challenging 4x5
>It "sort of" holds up to 6x9
It knocks the shit out of 6x9. So does 45-61mp FF.

>>A 50mp FF can not even approach the resolution of 6x7 unless you purposefully gimp the film with a shitty CCD scanner
>drum scanners and Phase One backs
>"shitty CCD scanner"
If you have to lie to defend your belief, then your belief is a lie.

>>4362526
Lol this guy is addicted to writing essays being wrong

6x7 = 80mp. 35mm = 16-24mp. Facts. No ifs, ands, or butts. Stick to praising the extended ISO range and ability to AI cope your photos.

>>4362521
Thank you for at least appreciating my own efforts for excellence! It has been a rewarding experience. I am mustering up the courage to start platinum/palladium printing.

You misunderstood. I am saying that in terms of cost efficiency you need to dedicate a whole ass day to taking hundreds of good shots when you rent a high MP digital back for over 1k a day or pay like 80k dollars for the camera compared to like 2k-5k for 8x10 camera + lens + film/dev to achieve better quality.

My main point with film is that it still has the capability to outdo digital in terms of cost and efficiency in most cases, ESPECIALLY if you only want smaller prints.

File: 4x5 vs iq180.jpg (261 KB, 640x832)

261 KB JPG

>>4362529
In the real world 6x9 Velvia is <50mp, most 35mm is <12mp. Only Adox CMS 20 can actually deliver fine detail like high res FF in the same format, 35mm. All other films can't compete in the same format, you have to go much larger. Facts proven by multiple samples. Even the site your line chart comes from proves me right with their real world shot where the IQ 180 was 95% the resolution of 4x5.

Now go buy a camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4362531
>Thank you for at least appreciating my own efforts for excellence!
I always appreciate good LF. I don't hate film, I'm just realistic about its performance in the real world and the real reasons someone might want to shoot it.

>You misunderstood. I am saying that in terms of cost efficiency you need to dedicate a whole ass day to taking hundreds of good shots when you rent a high MP digital back for over 1k a day or pay like 80k dollars for the camera compared to like 2k-5k for 8x10 camera + lens + film/dev to achieve better quality.
I can agree with that point. Someone who wants to occasionally produce extreme resolution shots, not shoot every day all day, is going to find LF more cost effective. But I will still point out that stitching with a pano head is also very cost effective.

>My main point with film is that it still has the capability to outdo digital in terms of cost and efficiency in most cases, ESPECIALLY if you only want smaller prints.
"Most cases" I don't agree with. If you're actually going to regularly shoot, film+dev+scanning adds up fast. If you're going to shoot a couple rolls a year (72 shots?), sure, film is cheap.

digital cucks need to ai upscale and denoise their photos to compete with 6x4.5 fomapan

Film chads...we can't stop winning

As if anyone on /p/ owns a drum scanner.

>>4362537
You're actually reasonable. Nice.

>>4362551
I was considering getting one to troll /p/, but then I realized I could get better results with a contact printing frame and a light bulb.

>>4362013
i have a digishit camera with the file size of 5mb and from this camera i have done at least 3 big projects.

film is a fashion accessory.

>>4362555
Let's see. If you deny us an image you're lying.

>>4362563
yes i am lying, you gotme :(

>>4362566
Im sorry.

>>4362013
>Apple products
>Paying for cloud storage
>Lightroom instead of Dark Table
>Including shit like a phone, laptop, and home internet that you have anyway and use for a lot of other things
>Paying extra money for external hard drives instead of just adding a $40-$50 WD Blue to your PC
I'm going with Retarded/10

>>4363537
/thread

File: scaled.jpg (4.52 MB, 3840x3840)

4.52 MB JPG

>>4362189
>50 x 4 = 714
lol

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:23 07:00:45
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4362013
Why should I care about the opinions of dumb art hoe?

>>4362013
You can get in to digital full frame for ~500 eurobux, probably less in freedom currency.

First gen a7 (meh camera, yeah, but it's cheap) is under 400, the rest you can use for an adapter, vintage nifty fifty and an SD card. You're done.

If you're gonna include the costs for phone and laptop, might as well print this in a newspaper instead of posting online because how tf are we supposed to read it? Either way a midrange android is around 300 and if you're patient, you can develop raws on any laptop made in the last 10 years.

If you don't have wi-fi or a phone plan, you likely have bigger issues, like applying for a job.

You don't need cloud nor some overpriced hard drive unless you keep all the duds. If you want backup, SSDs are under a hundred with enough storage for a decade.

Film side is equally retarded:

Point and shit camera and 24 exposure rolls?

Cheapest lab around here sells a 3-pack of gold for ~30€, so 360 exposures are 100€ for film and 150€ for dev + smallest print size, assuming C41.

I recently acquired a working SLR + kit lens for 80€, so that'd put me at 330€ entry cost for film, assuming I limit myself to 360 photos per year, which is not much. Even as someone who doesn't shoot much film, I go through 2 a month, more if I go on a day trip somewhere. if we adjust the costs... 680 first-year expense, with a pretty crazy reoccuring price for film + dev + print.

This cunt sucks at budgeting in general, also WTF are those murican phone subscription prices?

>>4362536
Bruh comparing a 400 speed sheet to a bunch of base iso digital sharpening and nr smears and film despite its dramatically-resolution-losing relationship with sensitivity still looks better
If “better” refers to color and real definition and not noise smoothing and edge highlighting

Listen, digital has an advantage. It doesnt lose 3/4 of its resolution and all but 4 stops of its 14 stop dynamic range by ISO 1600 like film. But the facts are the facts, good slow medium format film vastly outdoes fool frame digital. Around gold 200 and portra 400 you could claim <50mp, but low ISO films can not be out resolved except by a gfx100, and low ISO sheet film is entirely beyond digital. Outside of resolution MF film has better rendering because there is no bayer array and its a larger image area and longer simple lens (smoother DOF falloff than snoy gm rf l shit) and the “bad” color accuracy makes photographs more pleasing to look at than ken rockwell realism.

>>4363663
film also does poorly in scenes with deep shadows where you might want to see what the shadows are, but digital shits its pants any time there’s a tree in the frame

>>4363617
If the 5Ds had as little light as the E100G did, you'd see a very different comparison.

>>4362189
Tire was closer in the digital pic, digital camera shot it under broad daylight, it was also exposed more. If you want to do worthy comparisons try to make the playing field even.

>>4363672
The man took a photo of a map badly and got angry about a scaling algorithm conspiracy theory when a boomer shooting a test chart proved he must have fucked up

He’s also zooming in on plastic tires instead of finely detailed headlights or grills for a reason

>>4363675
The almost absolute superiority of film triggers the technophile consoomer like nothing else.

>>4363617
I scaled to match the sample crop on their page which wasn't 100%. But it doesn't matter, if I scale the entire RAW file to match the full 10,000 ppi scan it's even worse for the film.

>>4363663
>excuses
Always with film fags.

>Bruh comparing a 400 speed sheet
But I thought film was infinite resolution and 6x7 = 80mp. How could 4x5 Portra not BTFO the IQ 180???

>to a bunch of base iso digital sharpening and nr smears
If you need to lie, then your belief is a lie. I didn't need to sharpen the 5Ds samples (car or map) or apply NR. Meanwhile the VW film scans have been sharpened. Reality is the opposite of your lies.

>and film despite its dramatically-resolution-losing relationship with sensitivity still looks better
Yes, grain is so realistic. Oh wait...

>But the facts are the facts, good slow medium format film vastly outdoes fool frame digital
If that's a fact, then why can't you prove it with your own real world shots?
>crickets

>Around gold 200 and portra 400 you could claim <50mp
I can claim it around Ektachrome 100 and Velvia 50. And prove it with comparisons. That last part is kind of important unless you're a nophoto.

>Outside of resolution MF film has better rendering because there is no bayer array
No, FF digital has better rendering because there is no grain. See: >>4362485

>and its a larger image area and longer simple lens (smoother DOF falloff
Thanks for demonstrating that you know even less about how DoF works than you do resolution.

>“bad” color accuracy makes photographs more pleasing to look
The ONLY sort-of-true thing you've ever said. The real reason to shoot film is that it can provide a unique...not necessarily better, but unique...rendering based on how it interprets color and tone.

Let us know when you buy a camera.

>>4363692
>Yes, grain is so realistic. Oh wait...
It's organic, it looks like the materialization of a memory. Some people (I may or may not be one of them) ascribe nearly mystical qualities to it.

>>4363692
Tldr

Provia 6x7 was 80mp with a competent experimenter
You are not a competent experimenter.

>How could 4x5 Portra not BTFO the IQ 180???
Because it's a 400 speed film, and despite the dramatic, almost exponential resolution loss of high sensitivity films... it still BTFO the IQ180.

>>4363670
>If the 5Ds had as little light as the E100G did, you'd see a very different comparison.
No, you wouldn't. At ISO 3200 the 5Ds can still out resolve ISO 50/100 6x9. It's not until ISO 6400 that noise starts to significantly eat into sharpness/res on the 5Ds. It's still quite usable at 6400 and 12800, but not at large print sizes (i.e. 36" or more). ISO 3200 is great at large sizes. I remember when I made my first ISO 3200 5Ds 36" print. I remember comparing it to MF prints and thinking "holy shit, it's still better."

>>4363672
>excuses
Feel free to post your real world 6x9 samples that out resolve high res FF.

>>4363675
>BUT MUH TEST CHART!!!
Reminder that when this started you said:
>hurr digital is only good on line charts, film is better in the real world
And now your claim is
>who cares about the real world LINE CHARTS ARE EVERYTHING!!!

>He’s also zooming in on plastic tires instead of finely detailed headlights or grills for a reason
Show me where there's a finely detailed grill on the vette you utter retard.

As always, excuses, lies, "hurr if you only did this", but nophotos. Why is it, if ISO 100 6x9 is so damn good, I can't find a single example of it beating high res FF outside of high contrast B&W line charts under bright lights??? Hell, I can't even find that outside of Adox CMS 20. Where are your examples?
>crickets

>>4363677
>"hurr film is superior!"
>nofilmphotos
It never changes. Human psychology is fascinating. Some how, confidence goes UP with less evidence and experience. This is why we have people believing in religions to the point of killing each other. "My god is better than your god!" yet neither person has ever met god.

>>4363696
>manufactured dyes are organic
Funny I don't see those in the real world. Ever kiss a woman? When you were that close, did you see dye clouds in her skin?

>Some people (I may or may not be one of them) ascribe nearly mystical qualities to it.
Imagine getting a boner for dye clouds, holy shit. I mean, I get the nostalgia angle, but I'm able to separate that from an objective evaluation of "better." No, the dye clouds aren't capturing your soul ffs.

>>4363699
>Tldr
>Provia 6x7 was 80mp with a competent experimenter
Except that it wasn't even with a high contrast line chart that favored film

>NOOOO FILM HAS EXPONENTIAL RESOLUTION LOSS AT ISO 400
Another COPE with zero evidence because you're a nophoto. In fairness, I seriously doubt you know what "exponential" means. It's just a dramatic sounding word that helps your COPE.

>>4363704
I have met my photographic god, I've touched it and developed it. You can't experience ones and zeroes.

>>4363702
You are impossible to talk to because you think fucking everyone is the same person you replied to last week

Competent testers all agree, 6x7 provia = 80mp.

>>4363710
Ever head of alchemy and the role silver had in it, anon?

>>4363715
You ever take a little sip of rodinal?

>>4363719
No but I tasted the awful instant coffee I once used to try out caffenol

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-23 at(...).png (34 KB, 40x598)

34 KB PNG

>>4363716
>nooo i'm totally not the retard who thinks mush out resolves clean lines
In what world does the top "out resolve" the bottom? Do you even know what "resolution" means?

Here's an interesting link:
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html

Note that this is FUCKING 8X10. The IQ 180 wins in some places, 8x10 in others. But even where the 8x10 wins, it utterly kills the claim that "Provia 6x7 = 80mp". Just utterly demolishes it. It edges out the IQ 180, it doesn't blow it away. The largest gap comes with fine, high contrast text. But still, if that's the best Provia can do in 8x10, then in 6x7 it will never touch an IQ 180. Or any 45-61mp FF.

How could this be? How could a fucking IQ 180 come this close to 8x10 and even win a couple???
- Film's resolution is highly dependent on target contrast and the real world is not a line chart.
- There are a lot more variables with film, things that can go wrong and pull it down.
- Large format lens quality is one of those variables, those lenses can be all over the place.
- Amazing how good things look when you use a decent scaling algorithm instead of cheating by purposely pixelating the digital file.

That's the real world where digital almost always delivers 100% and film only *sometimes* offers its best. I remember that time quite well. Our resident nophoto has never experienced that because...well...nophoto.

inb4 excuses

File: lol.png (1.44 MB, 871x1184)

1.44 MB PNG

>>4363731
Film looks like a photo and is honest about its failings

Digital looks like an AI generated smearfest

Winner: Film

>>4363731
Worth mentioning that Phase One is now at 150mp. Pretty sure that back would have won every single one of those comparisons vs 8x10 based on how close 80mp came.

>>4363734
souled being (gnostic)

>>4363731
soulless being (hylic)

>>4363734
>8x10 can't even resolve the detail because shadows
>while soft (at this extreme scale), IQ 180 clearly resolves more detail because shadows
>"nooooo the film was still better!"
Human psychology is just amazing. COPE must be an evolutionary survival trait.

>>4363738
>Referring to your own species in the third person
Confirmed soulless

The film is honest about its failings. The digital overstretches itself and tries to lie, it keeps trying to lie long after its lies are believable, and it looks like "green" instead of "a thing that is green" (and sometimes, it generates brand new colors). Film is confident, digital is frantic and insecure.

>>4363740
>film is honest about its failings
What a creative way to say "film lost in that comparison despite being fucking 8x10." But tell me again how 6x7 = 80mp.
>nophoto is dishonest about his copes

>>4363747
Skill issue.

>>4363747
this has already been reiterated here multiple times, it's YOU who is being dishonest for not accepting the superiority of film

File: .jpg (2.6 MB, 3000x2000)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4362013
i upgrade my desktop pc every 6-7 years
8tb hdds are 100€
i got free fiber internet in my apt and even if i didnt i would just share 5g internet from my phone. data caps do not exist here
prints cost like 10cents
lightroom is free
capture one is free
using digital camera costs nothing

>>4363762
>it's YOU who is being dishonest by not letting me beg the question
And it's YOU who is a nophoto.

...can I shoot film for the fun of it? I really dont care if something is better than something else

I feel like this whole 'pick a side' tribal shit is ruining absolutely everything lately

>>4363983
If you find it fun then sure. I personally don't see any appeal to being limited to 36 or less shots before having to change roll, not being able to review my photos until having them developed (realistically the next day at least), all the technical disadvantages of film bodies, and then having to pay every shot. I find it more fun being able to snap away taking as many shots as I want without worrying that each one has a cost.

>>4363983
>...can I shoot film for the fun of it? I really dont care if something is better than something else
Perfectly valid reason to shoot film. Suggestions:
- See if a local JC has an intro to B&W film course with an on site lab. Lab work is fun, peaceful, and teaches you some valuable stuff about B&W tonality.
- CineStill makes home dev pretty easy, and even lets you dev Ektachrome as a tungsten film. Great for long night exposures.
- If you have a digital camera and macro lens, you have a film scanner. Depending on your camera/lens one that is possibly better than dedicated 4,000 ppi scanners. Just get the accessories to hold the film flat and aligned and light it from below.
- 645 is a nice jump in IQ and a lot easier to work with, in terms of printing and IQ, than 35mm. But also more $ per shot.
- Film is another creative outlet and shooting it can improve your digital work.

>I feel like this whole 'pick a side' tribal shit is ruining absolutely everything lately
nophoto is butt hurt and has to turn threads into an infinite film fight, and I'm an autist who can't let bullshit statements go.

>>4363992
Ultimate fried brain consoomerist mindset. Give me all of it and give it to me now!

>>4363992
>I find it more fun being able to snap away making as much digislop as I can without worrying that each one has a cost.

>>4363995
>fried brain consoomerist
>t. chomping at the bit to give more money directly to his corporate masters at kodak
as an exclusively digital photographer i have never given any corporation money for this shit. i bought my gear on craigslist. meanwhile you pay these people
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kodak-insider-makes-well-timed-stock-gift-of-116-million-to-religious-charity-he-started-11597154826

>>4363997
You dont even take photos lmao

File: 1706498698672849.png (7 KB, 646x501)

7 KB PNG

>>4363999
good site

>>4364002
>breaks websites
>complains that they are broken
your tinfoil red flagged you for closer monitoring than anonymized advertising metrics btw

>>4364003
since when is using adblocker tinfoil

>>4363995
>>4363997
Have fun needlessly cucking yourself and paying for the privilege
>want to take a photo of a rock
>that'll be 50 cents please

>>4364011
>> >want to take a photo of a rock
Snapshitters double owning themselves to own the chuds, you love to see it

>>4364043
Why wouldn't I take a photo of a rock when it's free?

>>4364055
Your camera only has so many shutter actuation, so technically, you are still paying per shot even if it may be significantly less than the 8 cents you pay for a shot of cheap 35mm film.

>>4364057
$0.025/shot for a $5000 camera rated for 200,000 actuations, with no time lost to wanking with patterson tanks and scanning. Or pay a lab, get scans from some CCD digishit, and you might as well have shot digital and applied a preset.

>>4364058
Thank you for agreeing with me that it is not "free".
Often times I take 100x more shots when shooting digital, but for some strange reason I end up having the same amount of keepers as with film. Funny how that works out. :)

>>4363997
>i find it fun spending 6 months finishing 1 cinestill roll because im too scared to take photos
i bet it was fun dusting off the camera before using up a frame

>>4364062
With film you have to be careful as you don't really get to "redo" a shot. Maybe a couple times if you don't worry about a single exposure that much.
With digital you figuratively have infinite redos, so if you fuck exposure, focus, have the SS too low etc, you just try again
But you're realistically still only trying to take ONE good photo of any given subject at a time, so keepers stay relatively constant.

>>4364057
>>4364062
I'm never going to take 200k shots with a single camera so no it's not a concern at all.

>>4364011
You're basically admitting the lack of cost per photo makes your photography worthless lmao, a photo of some random rock.
>>4364058
So you admit the only true reason to cuck yourself out of film is money, got it.
>>4364069
I think you believe the fireworks halation shot came from the F100 when it was actually from a F90X, an impulse purchase I made because it was so cheap I wanted to try it out. It felt Jurassic in comparison. Early AF SLRs aren't great in terms of handling, it's best to either get a late one even if consumer tier like the N80 or just get an old MF one. They hadn't figured an ergonomically efficient design yet with the old AF ones so you get a bunch of sad sliding switches and things like that. I would only skip the N80 for IR and fast action, otherwise it's a lovely model.

>>4364118
>You're basically admitting the lack of cost per photo makes your photography worthless lmao, a photo of some random rock.
No, I'm saying I have no hesitation to take a photo of anything because there is no cost to it. I can take a photo of a rock if I want, could be shit or could be amazing, it makes absolutely no difference which.

>>4364150
It could theoretically not be ahit but it will be a snapshit, photography is the art of not pressing the shutter.

>>4364150
And you NEED to give kodak money to look at a shite photo in the viewfinder and go “hmmm, nah”

An i reading this correctly? You are
INCAPABLE of not writing that raw to your sd card because it’s free? You just cant pass it up unless you are giving cash directly to kodak and their “jewish charities” that are single room budget offices with no staff (money laundering)?

Do you also think you’re a real photographer because you copied light meter settings from an app and let the lab scan operator fix your exposure misses?

File: _DSC9919.jpg (237 KB, 1619x1080)

237 KB JPG

>>4364213
Well yeah that's my point, I can literally take a photo of whatever I want. Are you mad about that? Here's a photo of my favourite crackers taken just now, because I can. Can you?

Also not all snapshits have to be shit, and just because you contemplate a photo for ten minutes doesn't make it not shit.

>>4364218
Are you telling me you've never taken a photo, got it developed and scanned, and then come to realise it wasn't as good as you remember? You never looked at one of your photos and thought to yourself "maybe it would have been better if I shifted my composition slightly", or missed focus or not had enough depth of field, or cropped something out because the viewfinder on your film body is smaller and has less coverage than an EVF?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM3 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:24 19:22:37
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Brightness	1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1619
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4364326
>taking photos of whatever I want
This is exactly what everyone with a camera does and there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that except for their own discretion. What are you trying to prove?

>>4364331
Not with film, because it costs time and money. If I only shot film I wouldn't be able to show you my crackers.

>>4364338
You could if you didnt think $20 a week was expensive
The cost meme is such horseshit
“It forces me to slow down” - 10 tolls of triX a week

>>4364338
You are beyond dense.

>>4364342
>>4364344
So you would spend the 50 cents to show me a photo of your favourite crackers? Come back tomorrow, I'm looking forward to it.

>>4364347
Want to vs. Can do

I could go take a pointless picture of a box of crackers with a small piece of bulk film, develop it and scan it in less than an hour for about 10 cents. Do I want to waste my time doing that? No.

>>4364350
But I want you to. Am I not worth that time and effort? It wasn't much hassle for me.

>>4364351
I tend to put more effort into my film photography, so no, you are not worth it.

I have a phone for sharing pointless snapshits that is more convenient than your overpriced phone camera on wheels.

>>4362013
Retarded take and I don't even need to check her math to know that.

>>4362013
“In 1998 a picture was “done” when it was printed.”

Zoomers really are the Year Zero generation, JFC.

I’m anti-film because if you look into every ‘great’ film photographer, the mental model people have is “tortured artist faithfully waiting for the decisive moment and capturing one, maybe two frames of perfection”

In reality, whether it was the studio, street or landscape, pro’s were cranking out shots nonstop, burning through hundreds of rolls a year. Some of that is just to get the right moment, but also because skill is only developed in repetition.

In real life, you can go take 10,000 digital photos and the cost is basically 0 after you’ve bought your gear. It’s why the ‘starting kit’ recommendation is usually body+tourist super zoom lens. Go shoot a 24-200 a few thousand times until you know what you really like.

>>4364593
Gotta agree with this one. Learning is repetition. You take the photo, look at it, see that it sucks, then avoid that and repeat. The faster a beginner can repeat that cycle, the better. You don't want to over-commit to expensive, slow-to-use gear that is overspecialised before you even know what you want.

Every hobby is like this, I don't know why photographers think they're different.

>>4364669
But like dude i can only afford one roll and going out with just 36 is like so satisfying dude it gives the photos weight and value dude *hits vape*
>street sign, japan
>back of head, blurry, japan
>cat, japan
>rocks and leaves, japan
>blurry bicycle rider, japan

>>4364593
>“tortured artist faithfully waiting for the decisive moment"
You are not anti-film, you are anti-Cartierbresson because it is one of the most dishonest things to happen in photography.
Claimed decisive moment, had infinite rolls due to being on the roll for agencies, claimed spontaneity of the people, had half his work staged, claimed traveling to shit places ensued more interesting photos, spend all his time in resorts and elite meeting places saying they were not.
He was a walking contradiction.

>>4364724
Painters were the same way. Look at the mastery of the early pioneers of blah blah blah
>mfers went to tracing & paint by numbers as soon as they got the measuring stick/camera obscura/photography.

>>4364593
It's a shame since printing and framing is such a satisfying experience. Kind of achieves the same thing as film, since you only print the good stuff and you only frame the really good stuff.

>>4364690
you forgot the magnum opus
>diffracted to shit tree near river during sunset

File: Kodak200_25.jpg (1.04 MB, 2292x1305)

1.04 MB JPG

>>4364690
yes

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Fujifilm eSystems, Inc.
Camera Model	Digital Link
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:28 19:15:01
Color Space Information	sRGB

i consider film affordable only because i have my father's camera
i buy and develop film every now and then totaling <100€/year

anything more is compulsive consoomer behaviour

>>4364739
I used to not think anything of printing, but this year I got one of those canon pro200s, and boy does it ever feel like it completes the experience. Now I feel like without prints the process is incomplete, for sure. There’s something immensely satisfying about making your images something tangible in a way, it’s a bit hard to explain just why:

>>4364847
Prints aren't backlit even though they sort of are, but not like screens.

>>4364843
>spending more than me makes you a "consoomer"
says you while eating boiled beans and canned chicken

poverty centric misery cult lol. i dont know how to break it to you, but being wealthy is not a sin. dying wealthy (hoarding money and forming the basis of a corrupt empire of generational wealth) is.

>>4364739
IMO, printing is a far more worthwhile effort than film. A Pro-300 isn’t too expensive, and to your point, not only does it force selectivity, but it also forces you to rethink your compositions. There are a lot of ‘good photos’ that are actual shit when printed. All that dark orange and teal shit that’s popular with YouTubers looks like dogshit when printed. There’s a reason color film for stills was never color-graded like that.

>>4364863
A small darkroom to print b&w 35mm and 120 film can be had for much less than 1k usd.

>>4364724
Correct. Cartier-Bresson is a fraud.

>>4364669
Because photography is the ghetto of art, and most photographers are not artistically minded at all. It’s really shocking that your average YouTuber photographer has no artistic point of view or reference beyond film, at best, which goes a long way to explain the obsession with teal/orange color grading, LUTs, etc.

>>4362057
>As a working pro i have over 20 shoots per week averaging hundreds of frames per day.
hundreds of frames per day? are you making animated gifs?

>>4364914
Let's say it's 21 shoots and he's doing 7 days a week and by hundreds he means 300, that's 100 shots per shoot. Now if he's doing 3 shots per keeper, because why wouldn't you when there's no cost to it and you're getting paid, then that's 33 keepers per shoot. We don't know what these shoots are exactly but that doesn't sound that ridiculous to me.

>>4364914
That's not much. People blink. Poses and expressions are sub-perfect moment to moment. Models are always moving, and photographers are always blowing through frames instead of trying to get it perfect in one unless their style is stodgy.

I've never been on a "real shoot" where every single photo wasn't taken at least twice, and then repeated across several variations, all taken at least twice. Internet tryhards will say "ONE EXPOSURE PER MOTIVE, U WASTE TEH FILMS" but thats never been how the real world worked, that's how the blurry japanese street signs world works.

>>4362057
ive shot 25+ rolls of 120 on a shoot with a model + studio. stop being poor dickhead

>>4364993
>uhhh my dad is donald trump i shot 25 rolls of 120 that was like, $150. I bet that's a big number to you huh.
Wow, 200 shots. What a baller you are. I bet you even paid a lab another $150 *WOW* to develop it!

>>4365008
that must be $150 you cant afford since you were complaining about costs to begin with. kinda sad

>>4365008
Bad at math. No wonder you can't afford film. Sad!

>>4364939
>3 shoots a day every day

Imagine thinking that makes sense to say.

>>4365029
Makes sense for a professional studio that’s doing kind of poorly

>>4365029
Buddy have you heard of american public education

>>4365029
It wasn't just some stupid assumption, the guy said he does over 20 shoots a week.

>>4365029
Spray and pray
Vs
3 shots no keepers

>>4365032
It’s one of those statements that makes sense if you’re larping but for an actual business would be super worrisome.

>Heh I do 5 shoots a day every day all year!

Like that’s terrible lol.

I bought an APS-C camera with kitlens for €300 new and then got myself a manual LingLing prime lens for less than €100. Add an SD card and that's literally all there is to it.

I love the look of film and I'm sure the process of developing your own photos is nice too but people pretending like film isn't a multitude more expensive than digital are lying out of their ass and they know it.

>>4365250
>I do 5 shoots a day every day
Bro is shooting porn.

>>4365627
Based