>>4482924
90% of this picture is incredibly boring and the 10% left is boring. Maybe if the surfer was on the left that would be interesting ? Who knows

>>4482926
it made you look. it took your attention. you felt violated by that. you got angry. it prompted you to respond - not to my question, but to my photo. even though i never even mention the photo.

My photo, made you respond.
yet you say its boring.
my photo also made you feel something.
even if it's contempt. it made you feel something.

what a splendid thing photographs are.

>>4482924
It completely depends what your current setup is. Medium Format or even larger film is still unbeatable, even by monochrome sensors. But these sensors are able to resolve sharper images than 99.9% of 35 mm film, with the only exception maybe being something like that adox iso 20 film with the dedicated developer. I don't have enough experience with digital medium format to advise about those.

>>4482927
my point was try to take better pics before wasting money on a leica or assbold. As for your question, I use medium format a lot (6*7) and in monochrome no prosumer digital sensor can come close to the resolution you would get from upscaling 120 film. If you are truly autistic about the details and don't mind the weight just dive into larger formats you'll like it. Don't get fooled by mid tier formats like 645 it's utterly useless

>>4483009
Is there a deeper meaning to this if you don't particularly care about sharpness or don't plan to print in sizes larger than 24x30?

>>4483015
yes, physically speaking a larger sensor has a lot of implications about the picture depth of field and general look like tonality

Funny because I want to try medium format but realistically it sounds like so much more of a fuck to deal with over 35mm.
Nobody makes anything for them anymore. If your camera breaks you're just fucked. Hope you know how to service a lens and a shutter on your own. Film costs more and the price of shit in general for medium format just feels egregious. I mean the same goes for large format and then some.

If someone actually sells me the idea of MF pros and cons I might dip my toes in.

why is this thread derailing into film vs digital?
Because poor people can't afford leicas or digital medium format?

>>4483019
>be me
>bought a RB67
>traveled to all the continents
>never broke
>be in Japan
>drunk as fuck
>drop it from my hands
>the camera went straight through the glass table and fell on the concrete floor
>a bit of the concrete is shattered (not much, like a penny)
>mfw there's barely a dent on the camera
the only thing is it lost focus. I had it checked in Taipei by an expert and he said everything was fine. Most of the complicated stuff is in the lens anyway so you can always get another one

>>4482927
I click on every thread on this board to see if its worth replying to.

I will remember calling you a fucking idiot longer than I'll remember what picture you used. Neither of which for very long. Not him by the way.

>>4482924
A decent photographer would be a better investment

>>4482924
My M10-M is way better for B+W than my GFX50 was, but MF film is an even better option
The pixel level detail on monochrome sensors is great, like Foveon
My M10-M is a forever camera that IQ in such a small size is awesome, I bring it everywhere

>>4482924
Buy a Pentax k-3 III monochrome and use the $8000 left over to buy any Pentax glass you want

i'll give you my irrelevant opinion whether you want it or not
been shooting a leica m3 with a collapsible summicron, alternating FP4+ and 5222, for a few years
scanning on an LS-4000, not one single enlarger print (yet)
i really dont see the point in """advancing""" (medium or large format/digital), my photographs are detailed enough for me

>>4483009
>try to take better pics before wasting money on a leica or assbold
lmao this is the poorest poorfag cope
you dont have to be good to enjoy shooting on expensive equipment

The larger format will be better for this.
>>4482927
>"Y-you still noticed though!"
A comment is the most basic and neutral form of validation, whether it's positive or negative. If you put less priority in your efforts being positively received, and more priority in simply having been received at all, then you'll never grow as a photographer OR as a person.

>>4483056
>>4483041
>>4483037
>>4483009

lots of armchair critics posting no photos of their own.
i wonder why.

>>4483043

thank you. finally a direct response to the question.
I have been leaning towards the monochrom, but as a former Fuji shooter who misses the brand, I had the epiphany of maybe being able to go back AND get better b&w photos. But it really does seem like my original plan (the monochrom) is probably the best option.

The thing I don't like about film is the ramping cost. Yes off the bat it's preliminarily more affordable with better outputs, but after a few thousand photos, the costs keep ballooning and suddenly the monochrom looks like a bargain.
Personally, I don't want every press of the shutter to be a financial consideration.
And unless you're Elon Musk right now - anyone who says they don't think of the m

But speaking of money - i am a little reticent with the monochrom: the two i've seen for sale on marketplace have been for sale for like, 4 and 6 months. both at reasonable prices. I'm guessing moving them is a bit tricky. a bit of a niche product.

>>4483056
why do you assume my objective as an artist is to impress you, the consumer.
I dont' seek your validation for my art. I do it for me.
You are free to feel what you like when you consume my images.
I'm free to not care about your experience.

>>4483067
>pretending
The whole thread has been the result of your response to the first comment (>>4482926). A whole thread of "not caring".

>>4483064
I saw your reply and could not remember what the original image was that I criticized. I remember calling you an idiot though.

>>4483078
But i don't care.
I never asked anyone to critique my art.
I didn't ask for your opinions on my photo.
I asked for opinions on good options for digital black and white photography.
instead i get a wall of "poor pride".

>>4483106
you also forget to post your own work.
right?

>>4483117
No, me posting no picture is about the same quality as you posting a picture of nothing like you did. I suppose I could take a picture of the back of my lens cap for you?

this thread gave me cancer

>>4483200
You should take a look at this one >>4481544 it's even more pretentious

>>4483128

you posting your unsolicited opinions like anyone cares what you say, do or think is what's truly amusing.
Who exactly do you think you are?

>>4483251
This.

>>4483251
>>4483252
samefaggotry detected

>>4483254
not him.
But nice try.

>>4483254
>Woah, TWO people think I'm a faggot? Psssh, unlikely

Ironically Phase one's IQ4 monochrome will solve your question clearly.

Buy phase one.

>>4483117
>But i don't care.
>I never asked anyone to critique my art.
>I didn't ask for your opinions on my photo.

Anonymous ## Mod Mod Icon Sticky Closed
Welcome to /p/ - Photography 04/25/25(Fri)19:14:26 No.4422499
95 KB
95 KB JPG

Go /p/ro.

Want:
• Expect criticism regarding your uploads.

Your photo is ass. Efforts to improve grain quality or rendering or whatever the fuck are purely masturbatory when your composition, focus, basic idea are all dogshit. If you don't want to hear that, don't post. Of course, I can be more specific if you want, but you have to ask nicely.
>but I have more money than you!
You can't buy good taste

>I asked for opinions on good options for digital black and white photography.

Do Not Want:
• Gear threads are discouraged but permitted. Keep in mind that many users simply hide these threads.

Use the gear thread for your gear question and you'll get less hate. Do it right and you won't draw ire. Don't label your photos ""art"" if they're as trash as the one you posted in the OP, bceause it makes you sound conceited as all fuck and will draw even more hate when you could have just left that part off and put your question in the gear thread.

Learn to read, bitchass

>>4483251
>Who exactly do you think you are?
Where exactly do you think you are?

Literally if you don't want people to shit on your photography either
>don't post your pictures
>try to post actually good pictures

Based on your pictures, you think that just taking a picture in black and white makes it interesting and dramatic. You've posted the picture equivalent to indie film b-roll.

Once again, I could take a black and white picture of my fucking empty wall and it would be at the same level you're at.

File: wall.jpg (64 KB, 1740x1161)

64 KB JPG

>>4483251
I'm >>4483379 and here you go. This is the quality that I see your photography as. A free stock photo of a wall that I desaturated, applied a guassian blur to, and then compressed to hell and back.

>>4483380
>nophotos absolute best work

Thank you for confirming what everyone already knew.

>>4483389
Wait wait are you saying that >>4482924 is your "absolute best work"?

>>4483392
No I am saying >>4483380 is your absolute best work.

>>4483394
Oh then yeah you're right. Its probably my absolute best comparison I could make to an out of focus black and white photograph of nothing like you posted.

I'm quite proud of how I insulted you today, but I won't let it get to my head. I think I can still improve on my work.

how TF are you even cross-shopping a digital rangefinder with a digital medium format? that's a retarded place to start

>>4483396
Considering that is the only picture you have ever been able to muster the courage to post you should be proud. The nophoto is growing up.

>>4483401
You probably shouldn't have posted any picture at all, considering your inability to take any criticism for your "work".

You know this entire time I didn't even read the OP post! I just saw your better than thou response. Thank you for the laugh when I found out that you got that picture printed out and spend a lot of time looking at it.

Perhaps you should have noticed that its a picture of nothing by now?

>>4483403
>posts the best ever photo taken by a nophoto
>seethes
>copes

Typical nophoto behavior. You can have a gold star for your photograph little nophoto.

>>4483405
Thankfully I'm not the one in this conversation who prints out bad photos of nothing in order to use as a means of auto fellatio.

>>4483406
>posts their best photo
>Says this about it >>4483396 and this >>4483380

Biggest Kek

>>4483407
Yeah I'm better than you. Unlike you I didn't print out a blurry picture of nothing in order to inflate my ego.

Could you humor me and tell me what camera you used to take the picture of nothing? I'm half sure this is an issue caused by spending more money than you have so that you believe the end result has to be good.

>>4483408
>sucks his own dick more

LOL

>>4483409
English isn't your first language is it?

>>4483410
>copes
>projects

LOL. Bro you a hilarious, but you should really work on your photography a little. I know you're really proud of yourself, but taking a snapshit of a wall is not impressive no matter how much you say it is. Sorry!

File: 9fc4f542f8511306-1660047335.jpg (64 KB, 1150x517)

64 KB JPG

>>4483411