What is it with people that shoot on film?Film is expensive to film, develop and scan.Yet what do they do? They film the most mundane bullshit.Traffic lights. Or some mediocre bullshit to some obscure indie song.Why do they all do this?If you're gonna spend hundreds of dollars. Atleast film something good. But it's like they think the vintage aesthetic will make their shit good.It's like they just want to see what their mundane boring life would look like on film.
>>4467935most retarded thing about filmfags is that they scan the negatives. many of those fags send the film off to a lab and dont even want the negatives back. they just want the digital scans lolthat's a prime example of mental ilness
>>4467936Certain color films are designed for scanning. I scan my negatives to keep a digital contact sheet of them and also print my negatives.Definitely stupid to not want your negatives.
>>4467936You seem upset
>>4468899admit that you only want scans
>>4468906I’m a lurker who doesn’t shoot film
>>4467935beginner film fags shoot mundane shit because it's easy to meter
>>4468907you only want scans
>>4467935and why do you care? are you paying for their shit or what
I absolutely think 90% of people shooting film here and beyond are just hipster faggots and/or people who want to distance themselves from the problems of digital and can't afford a top-end DSLR/MILC.And yet, OP is a massive faggot and should gargle dicks instead of making threads.Who cares if people like doing a thing. That's all it really comes down to.
because it's fundid you guys forget that photography was supposed to be fun?this is one of my favorite systems I own and it makes everything look like a vintage postcard, I don't care I can do it in digital, this is more fun. people always ask you about it and it's a great conversation starter. go outside and enjoy shit you fucking spergs
>>4468940>did you guys forget that photography was supposed to be fun?This entire board minus the maybe 6 or so anons I've noticed, they all would rather bitch about gear than actually enjoy photog. This is a gear board and nothing is going to change that as long as the mods refuse to add more rules.The most fun I've had with photography is when I forget this site exists. Posting shit here is ancillary, and it's the only healthy way to treat this board.
>>4468940A naked chicked swimming in the river asked me what my view camera was. I think she got uncomfortable when I told her it was a camera. It was on a tripod without a lens.
>>4468950Missed opportunity
>>4468952I was with my gf. She loves my photography, but that would have probably been crossing the line lol
>>4467936>>4468899If your process isn't analog from end to end, you should just shoot digital.
>>4469492according to who
>>4469521Johnny Kodak and Tommy Ilford.
>>4469522Fuck those faggots Lucky Chang said that I can do whatever I want
>>4469492why?so i can spray and pray my battery doesnt run out?
>>4469492this is the redpill right hereif you scan your negatives you're living out your mental illness. get help.only film fags I respect are those who develop and print(with an enlarger) themselves. all the others are poseurs and should get on SSRIs ASAP
>>4469536Meds, NOW.
Did a film shooter fuck your dog or something?
>>4467935i like using vintage film cameras. give me a way to shoot digital on those old film cameras and i'll do it. but if the only way to use them is film then i'll do that until. the better question is why does that bother you?
>>4469590Sane post. You've brought balance back to this thread.
>>4469536>making proof sheets is for posers!Kek. This place has the most braindead takes.
>>4469536and why I should care about your respect, turbo nigger
>>4469536i scan my negs cus im a bad boy
>>4469535if you have space for spare film rolls, you have space for spare batteries
>me looking at my kino
>>4471238Based and nice kino viewing room.
>>4467935>It's like they just want to see what their mundane boring life would look like on film.Because it looks less boring and mundane on film.
>>4467936>most retarded thing about filmfags is that they scan the negatives.Some do, some don't. I view them directly with a loupe.
>>4469492Personally I only shoot film so I can upload pictures of my camera on my insta / snapchat story. I just get jpegs back from the lab and tell them to chuck out the negatives. I also only shoot portra 400 so I can film myself loading my f3/t and lining up a shot of nothing for my insta reels / tik tok.
>>4467935Post your interesting photo op
>>4467935When I am being paid to take photos that I want to be technically perfect, I will use my digital kit. Autofocus, spray and pray. Like engagement photos. Boring, perfect looking, digital soulless photos. Like every photo in your portfolio
>>4467935I like the whole process of shooting film and that means also developing the photos by myself and printing them.It's just fun to do it. I don't do it all the time though, because it's a pretty long work: developing, then drying, cutting, printing or scanning. That can take hours. Typically I shoot 5 or 6 rolls through the year.
>>4467936>Diginiggers paying $70 a month for (((adobe))) and spending 50 hours weeding selects out of their 10,000 flat boring JPEGs Not to mention that photography has basically disappeared from the public eye since the digital revolution. Imagine siding with the robots
>>4467935>>4469536shooting film is the only way I can take full advantage of the image circle on my MF lensesif there had ever been a real MF digital back produced commercially I'd be using that (the unobtanium spy satellite sensor one from like the 80s doesn't count)you just can't beat instant feedbackso instead I shoot portra, scan, treat like digitaloh also sometimes I shoot 35mm but I got the camera for free so it's basically just fucking around
>>4471441Its $200 for capture one as a one time fee and then a lifetime of laughing at grain peepers for the cost of electricityOr just shoot jpeg. Its lower quality and if the camera fucks up some setting you’re boned, but lab scans do worse
>>4471456Tell me more about this spy camera please.
>>4471460sorry it was the 90sDicomed Big Shot 60x60mmhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61105838tl;dr not worth even if you can find one
>>4471481Dang. Massive pixel pitch. If it worked well it could be a cool one to use.
>>4471459Capture one expert
>>4467935Because digital is ugly.Digital cameras are soulless consumer slop and the resulting quality of the images is evidence of it. Digital isn't made for artists or anybody with a ounce of creativity. Its made for chink tourists and autists who just want to be able to show off that they have the better camera because of some meme criteria rather than the merit of their photos. I would love to shoot digital because its cheaper but it just looks so sanitised and soulless. It's bad enough the world is soulless, I don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to have my camera remind me of it every time I take a photo.
>>4468916For unimportant shots yeah. Its an extra $5
>>4472072hell yeah brother, your crooked horizon put those digislugs into their place once and for all!
>>4469536>only film fags I respect are those who develop and print(with an enlarger) themselves. all the others are poseurs and should get on SSRIs ASAPbased
>>4472921All forms of analog printing are based. Only a know nothing imbecile would discount contact printing considering that most of the "fine art" printing techniques require it. Look into photo gravure, carbon printing, platinum palladium, etc, and tell me they aren't based. (They mog the print quality of silver gelatine, and especially enlarged silver gelatine prints.)
>>4468940I thought the point of photography was taking good photos not to larp as your mental image of an artist (100% influenced by dumb movies) and being nostalgic about absolete technology
>>4473063No. The point of photofraphy is to argue about graphs, specs, and brands online to justify my choice in consumar grade electronics.
>>4473063welp, you did it, I'm selling all my film shit tomorrow, you convinced me to do it. some bed-wetting teenie-bopper on a Malaysian post card exchange forum old enough to be my kid must certainly know more than me about film. /sthe point of photography is to enjoy something. you are holding the closest thing man has created to a time machine.who cares how you do it, the point is to enjoy it and have fun. too many things in modern society have to have a quantitative value attached to them, or has to have some kind of cost-benefit analysis done to figure out if it's worth doing, ever thought about doing something because it's fun? try it some time. >>4473066that's only on the Internet, the rest of us who go outside and touch grass don't do this.
>>4473071No fun allowed. Making art is very serious business.
>>4473071>some bed-wetting teenie-bopper on a Malaysian post card exchange forum old enough to be my kid must certainly know more than me about film. /sthat is not the gotcha that you think it is man
>>4473071Reminding people your age only highlights how much of an underachiever you are.
>>4473071>Im old so Im right You're in cognitive decline since your late 20s and your judgement is clouded by nostalgiaIm in my 30s and I much preffer to listen to what younger full of life people have to say than people my age or older, all my friends are delusional nostalgia faggots that cant form novel opinions or experience new things and they are probably way younger than you are, thats a depressing thought Young people are not perfect, they lack experience and confidence but at least their brains still work.Be more humble
>>4473082>it's invalid because i said so!You have some growing up to do.
>>4467936Is film not designed for a printing process? Surely scanning skips half the process and fucks up the end resultI notice a lot of influencers scan their negatives and then have to dick around in photoshop to get the levels and contrast right
>>4474889There are color films designed for scanning like portra. There may be an argument that slide film is good for scanning as well. B&W film is definitely not great for scanning if you ever want to print your negs in darkroom. If you want really good b&w scans low density negs are optimal because highlights don't block up from not enough light going through the densest areas. Low density negs = low contrast negs. This does not matter with scanning because you have contrast slider. Conversely low density negs suck for printing for a variety of reasons, and sometimes if your negatives are too flat they simply will not print well.
>>4467935drawbacks of shooting film:>expensive>limited number of exposures>limited to the capabilities of your film stockbenefits of film:>boomers love you and want to reminisce about film cameras>millennials think you're cool and unique>zoomers want to buy your camera off of you>can shoot street and don't look like a pedophile with a digital camera, can also tell people "fuck you i can't delete it, it's film">texturally just looks great>get to be a hipster>releases you from the vicious dopamine cycle of shooting 4-5 frames of every composition>releases you from spending 5-6 hours picking through shit in lightroom>learn to accept the bad with the good>get exposed film back>shoot totally manual, spend so much time with metering and composition that you actually become better>if you don't have a meter, learn to eyeball metering>can shoot medium format without spending $7k on a camera and lenses>film canisters are useful>rolls of film feel good in your pocket>no more idle discharge, just pick up your camera and goeveryone uses hipster like it's derogatory, larping as someone with taste is fun. shooting film is like shooting a 3-gun match with wild west guns, it's fun and doesn't lock you into the gay boring modernism that we live in.if i shot weddings i wouldn't use film. I don't shoot for money so why would i do anything other than have the most fun i could possibly have while doing it?
>>4467935Nostalgia. The process. The fact that the whole experience is different... there are lots of reasons. As for what they shoot, that's no different than digital. Life's a mystery (apart from the JQ) and we're all different.
>>4467935I pay for film so I dont need to spend more than 5 seconds editing photos and I only have 36 photos to choose from.Digital costs hours in front of a pc trying to fix colours or choosing which of your 30 photos of the same thing out of the 500 you took to use.I am happy to pay $10 to take that utter hell out of my life. Is the end result that much different? Prob not but my day is more enjoyable so it’s worth it
>>4467935Film seems so cool that it's easy to indulge in navel gazing without realizing it. People sometimes treat shooting film as an achievement in itself.
>>4467935I have an aversion to nostalgia. I fucking hate it and anyone who indulges in it needs and gets a proverbial kick in the balls when I see it.Film is great at shooting if what you want is an image that film produces. There are many kinds of film, and each produces a different kind of image. There are also many kinds of classic lenses that have specific looks, which depend on film bodies to operate well or at all, and if you want to make the images that that gear produces, then shoot with that gear, and given how long film was around, and how long digital has been around, film is part of the equation more often than not when you're designing your image. If you're limited to only knowing or affording one technology or the other, then you will design your images to work with what equipment you have.If you are shooting because you are easily bored and would like an additional challenges in creating your images, film will give you plenty of fucking challenges. It will also give you some very interesting surprises sometimes. If you don't like surprises, you will not like film. Film is a tool. Digital sensors are similar tools. Lighting rigs are tools. All are part of integrated complex systems. The upside of having and knowing all available tools at your disposal is the ability to produce more kinds of images. The downside is explaining to people who have no idea about anything why you're not just shooting everything with your fucking iphone.If you care what other people who are cool think of you on this or that fucking social shitbox media toilet, you are a fucking child and not an artist and it doesn't fucking matter, no one is looking at your fucking pics anyway. Put shitty insta filters on them, no one cares. No one has any reason to care about anything, the country is getting burned down the world is going to be flung off into space as the sun burns up, and none of the other star systems around will even notice. Do what thou wilt.
>>4476678What if I post nudes of the stars mom to the intergalactic starbook?
>>4476678Most based take in this thread. If you're using any sort of a medium like film as an accessory to your appearance or personality you're not serious at all about photography, you were never even close, and you need to do a deep soul search and ask yourself if you really even enjoy photography or enjoy telling yourself and appearing to others as an artist or photographer, digifags and nostalgia fags alike.Also, the amount of smooth brained people in this thread who assume the only reason people shoot film is to "create a more nostalgic look" is making me realize just how elementary /p/'s knowledge and wisdom on photography truly is. I'm disgusted at myself for even participating in this conversation.
>>4476625>Digital costs hours in front of a pc trying to fix colours or choosing which of your 30 photos of the same thing out of the 500 you took to use.Skill issue. There is nothing preventing you from using digital and taking sub-50 exposures per outing. Editing takes minutes per photo at most unless you're doing something fucky, and if you treat every photo with the same recipe (like film would) it will take you literally 1-5 minutes to process every photo you took (+ waiting for the PC to do the work, but that's hardly something YOU need to do).If forced scarcity of exposures is necessary for anyone to take better photos, then you're ngmi. Just slow down and treat digital like film and quit over thinking shit.
You gotta give people a break. It’s trendy. As long as they aren’t shooting entire feature films on a medium they aren’t competent at, I don’t see the problem with hipsters having fun.
>>4467935Because imperfections are what life is made of.
film is cool but in the UK they're charging £15 for kodak gold now which is insanewith development costs factored in you're paying nearly £30 a roll or £1 a shotinsanity
>>4476688Actually I’d prefer that. Tarantino shot grindhouse on 16 and included every sloppy shot & dirty workprint & fucking burnout for texture & comedic effect, and it’s all fine, it’s all a fun & messy playtime. I’d much rather see artists DIY features looking like what they are, a filmmaker working their way through a tricky & unfamiliar medium, with film than taking themselves seriously with digital and turning out trash. I’ve seen enough terrible goddamn amateur digital video garbage to know they have 0 charm whatsoever and I’ll never sit through one again. Fuck, Red Letter has reviewed dozens of them, go have a look at how terrible bad DV looks. But if you shoot your I’ll-conceived & mismanaged project on film then I at least know you fucking tried, bc there is no “not trying” with films, if you’re doing it, you’re stuck going through the whole miserable process or you have nothing. It gives me something to appreciate even if every other aspect of a film is forgettable.Here, sit and watch at this 90min slideshow. Your choice: Slideshow 1, scenes shot on an iphone with algorithm-defined auto exposure & flat fill lighting.Slideshow 2, scenes shot on a movie camera w a movie camera lens & natural light.I mean, #2 is bound to produce at least some interesting images to look at. #1 just makes me hate Steve Jobs a little more every day.
>>4476697>with development costs>not huffing the chemistry in your bathtubAbsolutely disgusting.
>>4468948Meh some people truly do enjoy the technology more than the actual photography itself. It's like someone who would rather build an amazing race car but can't drive worth shit, and see others drive their creation.
I like the texture and film cameras are just nice to use. They're generally smaller than equivalent digital cameras and make nice mechanical noises
>>4476958being free from lithium batteries is a huge thing for methe idle discharge from modern cameras is absolute fucking cancer. I want to pick my camera up and walk out the door without charging the batteries for four hours. my film cameras are the only ones that I can pick up in the exact same state I left them a week ago
>>4476678>has no fond memories of the pastWhat a depressing life
>>4476971>Not charging them when you sleep or carrying multipleNigga are you that lazy shit when I was doing my regular Moab visits I had 4 batteries for my D4 fully charged and I still had two left by the end of vacation, get your shit together. Most cameras made in the last 20 years don't continuously draw on the battery this is the most pathetic excuse i've seen for not shooting digilol and that's coming from a film shooter
>>4477178>this is the most pathetic excuse i've seen for not shooting digiloli do shoot digital. if my goal is to capture something with high detail and fidelity I'll absolutely shoot digital, I'd never shoot a wedding or event on film.passive drain is absolutely an issue for me because I don't shoot all the time. Maybe it's with nikon only, but I'm straight so I can't use snoy, and I'm white so I can't use canoneventually I just gave up on swappable batteries because I can carry two V-mounts for my videography rig that will last me DAYS of constant shooting and I just take the monitor off to shoot photosthat said, I can just bring my F100 somewhere and if I run out of batteries, chances are there's a CVS somewhere if I somehow outshoot two extra rolls of film in my back pocket
>>4467935And for the record, 5-9-78 isn't some obscure indie song, BMW used it in their commercial for the 7 series years ago.
>>4477186>I'm whitePost hands.I find it hard to believe a first worlder would struggle with recharging a battery every once in a while.Maybe if you live in a backwards shithole like Greece, I'd understand.
>>4477615For me, it's 6-2-8.
The idea that I could have fucked up an entire photography trip, and wouldn't even know it until days later scares me.
>>4477627>Not 1-4-88I shiggy diggy rest in peace biggy my niggy
>>4477712Back when we were still a functioning society, One hour photo used to be on every corner. How far we’ve fallen.
