Here is a hard truth I have learnt about photography from years of taking photos.If you want to get good at photography on a digital camera it will take about 5-10 years.If you want to get good at photography on a film camera it will take about 1 year.Its insane how much faster you learn when your mistakes come with a much higher cost. Their is no slider to save a bad exposure, their is almost no cropping room to save a badly framed shot. Also you only have 36 shots that you wont even see how they look until a week after you took them.Every mistake you made on that roll will hit hard and you will see it clear as day when you get back your lone 36 photos for the week and have to sit their and wonder why you made every mistake you did.If you learn only one thing from the entire time you have been on this board its buy a film camera. Even if you only used it for a year and threw every photo you took into the dumpster, you would still become a vastly better photographer for it making it worth it.
is that kodak gold? second guess is ektar but from ektar, i'd expect the sky to be more teal
>>4502745Yeah you always learn a little quicker when the steaks are higher.Film is such a hassle, what if you didn't load the roll properly or you accidentally metered for the wrong iso? Developing can be messed up, scanning and printing can take a lot of time too. But honestly I like to tinker around with old cameras and see if I can get a decent result out of them, I love the mechanical nature of it.
>>4502749https://www.flickr.com/photos/131004254@N02/51375949852/Its here, Agfa Vista 200, I have never heard of or seen that film before.If you like this look that guy is good, also check out https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikkorray/favorites/with/53473587114Photographers who shoot rural america on film, its just such a photographic place.
>>4502745Is this supposed to be an example of a "good" photograph? Kek
>>4502760It captures an aesthetic. It has alot of symbolism with the stop sign, moon, open highway, choice of 2 different paths, the abandoned desert.It has a great color palette. Its part of a wider body of work from the photographer which expands on the aesthetic and captures rural America focusing on certain aspects of it to build a story.Combining all of this, yes, I would say this is a good photograph.
>If you want to get good at photography on a digital camera it will take about 5-10 years.maybe if you're a retard. digital allows mistakes to be seen and corrected immediately. you learn in the field, as you make the mistake. go be disingenuous somewhere else.
>>4502745This just reads like you couldn't bother putting an effort into learning unless there was a financial motivation to do soI look forward to you sharing some of your good examples with us form what film shooting has made you learn
>>4502761Kinda feels like its lacking like a gas station or motel to be a viral film shot though
>>4502745How much time have you put into learning Photoshop and other editing software?
>>4502761What prevents this image from being captured digitally?
>>4502745> Also you only have 36 shotsI only get 9 per roll>that you wont even see how they look until a week after you took them.Just do your own dev?
>>4502745No matter how many times you say it, it won’t be true>film makes my photos betterAKA>*GEAR I ROMANTICIZE* will make my *PERFORMANCE AT HOBBY* betterYeah and buy a telecaster to get better at guitar, drive a miata to get better at driving, go pick up a fixie, and start coding in vim with a minimalist keyboard. Surely you will improve. Reddit shit. You posted a photo of a stop sign ffs. I helped run a film lab and most film photos are garbage and stay garbage roll after roll. Lots of test shots and filler. Parked cars. Signs. Flowers. Cats. Dogs. But they stopped down and rule of thirds and finally fixed their mirror rest foam after two rolls etc wow such improvement.The purpose of photography is to give other people pictures of stuffYou improve at photography by giving other people photos of stuffThat’s itThe best camera is the one you can use to give other people the photos you take. If all you do with film is financially punish yourself while shooting jpeg with extra steps so you can post stop signs on the internet, sorry bud, ngmi. Film is for the craft. Its not going to replace your need to develop real skill. You do not need to financially harm yourself to learn to level the viewfinder, you retard. Film is shot so you can make a physical print, in your darkroom, and give someone something unique. Otherwise you’re missing the point of photography period. You’re the kind of person to buy a fixed f8 28mm for “creative street photography” (backs of heads, fences, flowers, benches shit all over the internet) which increasingly looks more like gear review blogger photographyIf gear affects your skill in your head you are morphing into a true gearfag
>>4502761Fucking lol. When everything is art nothing is.
>>4502761this is like when the smelly nikon shilling dogfags wrote joke essays about how photos of their dogs sniffing grass were fine art and rich with meaning and intent (i think one was just making fun of cinefag tho)
>>4502761It lacks a swim ladder in the sky
>>4502782That’s an awful lot of cope champ. How many thousands have you spent on digital gear? I’m guessing a lot.
>>4502745>Here is a hard truth I have learnt about photography from years of taking photos.>If you want to get good at photography on a digital camera it will take about 5-10 years.Uh. Nope. It's a talent. Some got it, some don't. People you some that you like that post photos, you don't necessarily even if they've studied composition, or if they just know what "looks good".
>>4502818>People you some that you like that post photos, you don't necessarily even if they've studied composition*People that you like that post photos, you don't necessarily even know if they've studied composition
>>4502815$800 so about what a lab scan pleb spends every year or what you’d spend to get started doing home dev and scan with a shittier than average camera/shatbed
>>4502753>Its here, Agfa Vista 200, I have never heard of or seen that film before.It's a German film company, they've been making film since the 1800s. Maybe the US doesn't sell Afga, as I see it on shelves in my country at a lot of camera stores. They have relatively well priced rolls.
>>4502835Your math is equating time to be worth $0If I can learn to be a good photographer in 9 years less time, I got 9 years of my life with better photos.If all you ever think about is 1 week ahead then sure just stick to digital. If you think 5-10 years ahead, what makes you learn fast becomes incredibly important.
>>4502839You do not need film to learn quickly. Sorry. You’re retarded. Imagine having to consoom film just as a form of financial self harm instead of just being mindful of not taking shitty photos. Lmao. You likelu miss the point of photography itself and definitely miss the entire point of analog photographyYou are a miserable consumerist for turning the real physical craft of photography into literally renting motivation from kodak.
>>4502847Now explain why it is the case 99% of the time that film photographers have a higher standard of work than digital photographers.Because this is an enormous hole in your theory.
>>4502853And let’s use Flickr as an example as you can easily search groups for film stocks or digital cameras.
>>4502853>Now explain why it is the case 99% of the time that film photographers have a higher standard of work than digital photographers.Kek, not really. Film has become a normie thing for muh nostalgia and the film world is now just snapshits. You might as well say Polaroid users have high standards too at this point.
>>4502855Yeah bro all the normies are shooting 4x5 film.
>>4502857They are, yes. Those plastic point and shoots are everywhere now and that shitty Pentax K1000 is now has an over inflated price from zoomies buying them because they heard it was a good cheap film camera. You'd know this if you used TikTok, but I can forgive you for not using it (since it's shit).
>>4502862Highly doubt normies are using cameras that are essentially the antithesis of a normie camera. Show me the zoomers with a speed graphic around their neck taking snapshits lol
>>4502782I broadly agree but have you seen how many people pick up a digital camera and know nothing about something as basic as the exposure triangle? Meanwhile film generally requires you to meter manually. We could talk about focussing as well, how many digital users could actually get sharp pictures without AF doing it for them? or even understand the concept of a focal plane (rather than just "duh autofocus make thingy i (the software) want sharp to be sharp")You don't need to use film to learn this of course, but the convenience of digital automatically makes people not bother to learn it. The same way the cost of film requires you to actually think about what you are taking a photo of and whether it's worth the photo. Encouraging an actually thoughtful process.Yeah it can be done with digital, but how many people actually do that? (Yes I know your argument will be "well lots of people use automatic film cameras" and I fully share the disdain for people who do that rather than use digital).
>>4502868i broadly agree, proceeds to completely disagree...
>>4502862>I don’t know what 4x5 is and can’t be assed to google>>4502868> Meanwhile film generally requires you to meter manuallywhatthere are decades worth of AE film cameras, I bet most film cameras ever made had autoexposure even
>>4502869Didn't completely disagree.I agree with the point that you *can* do all of this with a digital camera.I disagree with the point that therefore film doesn't make learning faster. Because film inherently pushes you to have to learn, unlike digital cameras which do *everything* for you.>>4502870>Yes I know your argument will be "well lots of people use automatic film cameras"I am aware, I specifically mentioned this, now go into film photography groups and see how many people post under-exposed fucked up pictures due to bad meters, low ISO in dark conditions and so on. Even selecting the appropriate film stock for the expected conditions requires you to at very least have some understanding of exposure, it requires you to engage in a "thoughtful process".And yes, a lot of filmslop is produced by people using fully automatic film cameras, these people have the same issue almost all digital users have. Which is that they never take the camera off automatic and bother to learn how photography actually works, they never engage in any kind of thought. Just "click" and another useless snap is sharted into the world.Film helps reduce this because it inherently requires more thought about the process.
>>4502871tl;dr learning requires failure and you are never going to fail if a computer is doing everything for you. Film has fewer computers.
>>4502872correct
If you know how to use a computer and are invested into learning you can obviously learn as quick today as back in the film era, but there was obviously a larger incentive to learn when money was at stake which is one reason why pre point n shoot autofocusing cameras you will see way better composition, but also more staged or set up photos.
>>4502745Nice try Kodak bot
>>4502875Nice try Kodak bot but that film is Agfa vista
>film makes sure you learn how to get the right exposure lol
>>4502880It does, but only if you're using film to make analog prints, or shooting slide film.Film scanning and editing software makes it easy to correct shitty negatives in post. Sometimes it is so bad you can't even get a good print from a negative.
>>4502853Because that’s simply not true. Again I used to help run a film lab. Most film photography that runs through is rolls upon rolls of multiple attempts at photographing one thing, fucking park benches, parked cars and lots of non-level horizons. >>4502854Flickr is a dead website for irrelevant autists and europeans and has been for 20 years. Not only that but use your brainYou can not refute this> Imagine having to consoom film just as a form of financial self harm instead of just being mindful of not taking shitty photos. Or this> You are a miserable consumerist for turning the real physical craft of photography into literally renting motivation from kodak.If you keep coping I’m just going to repost ^ that as a reply every time.
>>4502871Film does not push you to learn. I used to work at a film lab. Most people stay shit. Most of you only photograph flowers and your fucking dog. >well its uhhh MANUAL MODE MAKES YOU A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER!You fucking retarded gearfaggot. Your MIND makes you good or shit, and you are shit. You opened this thread with a stolen snapshit of a fucking stop sign. Anf thats all you posted. You have no fucking clue. You can not buy talent. You are a miserable consumerist for turning the real physical craft of photography into literally renting motivation from kodak.
>>4502872You are a miserable consumerist for turning the real physical craft of photography into literally renting motivation from kodak.I can not stress this enoughIf you can see a snapshit as a failure you’re halfway there but you’re a miserable consumerist who corrupted film into a attempt to buy skill and rent motivationMost people don’t see a snapshit as a failure
>>4502891>Film does not push you to learn. I used to work at a film lab. Most people stay shit.I explained how it does and none of your assertions will change that.>You fucking retarded gearfaggotBecause I think people should learn on manual? as I pointed out you can do this with almost any camera just most people don't lmao. Film forces you to (mostly).>You opened this thread with a stolen snapshit of a fucking stop signI'm not OP you sperg>You can not buy talent.My point is almost entirely about how you have to fail to learn, it's nothing to do with buying talent.>renting motivation from kodakAgain, I think you didn't read my post because it has nothing to do with muh film stocks and everything to do with film cameras forcing you into a certain style of shooting.>>4502892>attempt to buy skillNope, point is about you having to learn and fail to git gud. A fail from a film camera is usually a lot more dramatic than a fail from a digital camera which does all the heavy lifting on the technical side for you. A digital shooter can hold down the shutter button all day to make up for shit composition through volume of fire, they don't even have to worry about exposure or focus because it's all automatic.Also to make a point about you working in a film lab, of course you're going to see people staying shit, most photos anyone takes are garbage regardless of digital or film. You're not seeing the mountain of digital photos that never get posted and thus you never see. Whilst a lab tech will see all of them because they're actually developing the roll.
>>4502940>i explained how it does>it was real in my mindThats right bitch. It is real in your mind. You choose to be unable to be mindful of what you are doing. You choose to punish yourself with film you clearly have trouble affording (otherwise you’d be comfortable blowing a 5 pack of 120 gold in a week like me) instead of just being mindful. You choose to make free will a smaller component of your personality and lifestyle compared to what you buy and what you own. You choose to link your skill to *a literal fucking purchase* instead of any form of wholesome extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. You worship money rather than genuinely enjoying photography and wanting to be good at it. Photography is just a side effect of your real hobby, which is buying things and then telling everyone that what you buy has defined your life. >i bought film so i am someone who is learning to be a real photographer. Here’s why it makes sense in my head, and no i wont post photos i will steal someones snapshit of a stop sign and refer to a dead social media site full of bulgarian boomersFuck off you fucking poserFilm is not your artiste-larp identity. It is the real world act of photography. Film is for making real, unique, light to papers photos by hand. It is not for shooting jpeg with extra steps while titillating your findom fetish. You are a miserable consumerist for turning the real physical craft of photography into literally renting motivation from kodak.You literally suck the soul out of photography.
>>4502947damn you got that nigga
>>4502947>Clearly have trouble affordingWhat is it with retards on this website now and desperately trying to insist everyone is poor if they disagree. It's a cancer on /o/ and /k/ as well.You're trying to flex low cost purchases that don't even add to $200 a month. Grow up, I overpay my mortgage by more than that each month and then throw double that into my $50k+ of savings.>Instead of just being mindfulNot really, I got into film because I wasn't sure I'd enjoy photography and it's got a lower start up cost and I think old mechanical stuff is neat. It's a nice intersection between other hobbies. Coincidentally it also helps in being mindful. This makes you seethe for some reason, on a dead social media site full of bulgarian boomers.>link your skill to *a literal fucking purchase*No, I point out that I thought fully manual helped people learn and therefore film helped with this. My motivation for shooting is primarily because it encourages me to go to interesting places, see interesting things and live an interesting life.>you worship moneyThat's rich coming from the guy trying to get off on calling others poor>telling everyone that what you buy has defined your lifeI don't even post my photos to social media, let alone tell people it defines my life. You seem like you're projecting, given how much you insist.>no i wont post photos i will steal someones snapshit A. Any photo I post you will just try and attack because you're a raging moron.B. Post yours if you're the arbiter of realphotography(tm) I'm sure they're great, how many prints have you sold btw? how many exhibitions have you done? if you have done these how is that not just you being desperate for attention rather than being a photography truecel who only does if for "genuine enjoyment"?Now lets watch you sperg out some more and conflate not wanting to burn money with being le poor because you're a brainrotted consumerist Mutt projecting his own obsession with value onto others.
>>4502947>Film is not your artiste-larp identityNot sure I ever pretended to be an artist. I'm an Engineer and proud of that. Photography is a fun hobby on the side. I suppose some of us with real achievements in life have better things to do than sneed about "real photography" on a mongolian basket weaving forum. Maybe if my only achievement in life was some mediocre snapshits and knowing what "intrinsic" means I'd also be a pseudo-intellectual monkey on forums. Truly, I am missing out by not following your example.Speaking of which, since it's the "real world act of photography" why were you here sneeding on this thread all day whilst I was out shooting?
>>4502745this post is retarded. just be intentiall and rip digital photos. learn how to use affinity. that's all. go huff your farts somewhere else.
>>4503000>>4503001>yes i lost>you win>i am the soi wojak and you are the gigachadk lol
>>4503021Did you try shooting with a film camera?You sound like a dunning Kruger thinking he knows everything while knowing nothing.
Wow, dont you guys get tired of this. Well i understand the arguments, but i dont understand what film vs digital has to do with any of this.The actual argument of photographic knowledge is completely independent of the tools you use, framing, color grading and composition, the overall idea is independent of any tool or device, you could apply the same concepts to pen-paper art and it will work.Plus your argument is weak, who associates cost to learning speed, people take shitty photos on film or digital, only people wiling to improve, do so, regardless of medium. Plus wont getting to see your images immediately after you shoot, to learn from mistakes be much better than waiting a whole week.The primary argument for film has always been the colors, which ig is fine, but its a artifact of a bygone era of low DR film, you think film is sovl, while digital (before raw processing) is no sovl, but the scope is different. Idk why, maybe nostalgia or internet fagging, has generated artificial hype for a film aesthetic. You could achieve similar colors with much better details using a digital camera.Personally digital for me, because my 3rd world ass cant afford film, and i dont want to, who would give up the flexibility and absolute data that a digital can capture, ofc the true art is in reductionism, but i feel limiting yourself to one style by film is bad, the room for freedom has to exist.
>>4502745Needs to be a bit wider and/or framed a bit lower to get more of the road while maintaining the same amount of sky. Sucks to fuckin suck.
Myself started the hobby as kid snapping, developing and making prints at stone age when digital was not a thing. Cost of film and waste of time not being able to see the results until later is definitely not good for learning in my experience. OP photo is a potentially nice scene poorly framed. If you want discipline yourself with limits, just get a really tiny card for your digital camera. My first digital from 2002 came with a 64M SD card... (I got a bigger one pretty quick.)
>>4503052You are unhinged.
>>4502853>explain this baseless claimhow about no?
>>4503052>Whines about nobody posting photos>Won't post photos when called outHa gay.
>>4503119>>4503113>crying samefag>>4503066>>4502947threads over here and most of it is just the points made here being repeated at a brick wall (OP) with buyers remorse from blowing more than they should have on film just to get 8 bit 2mp jpeg scans from a 1hr photo
>>4503121>unprovoked bitchfit>"nuh uhh, no way more than ONE anon can find me insufferable!"You're just a plain standard-grade faggot with a samefag-complex.
>>4503121>Crying samefagSo much cope
>>4503130>>4503126>waaaaaahsorry bro, being a paypig for kodak and quirk chungus film lab wont make you a better photographer>BUT IM ON WELFARE AND THE THREAT OF A WEEKS WORTH OF MONEY BEING WASTED ON BAD PHOTOS IS…1: get a job2: you take photos of street signs
>>4503132Still posting the same nonsense seethe are we?
>>4502745The expense of film is far more likely to make you believe your photos are more meaningful than it is to somehow make you impart any meaning. And by far more likely I mean 100% likely to turn you into a pretentious knob, and 0% likely to make you or your photos better.
>>4503134>i may have been btfo>i may have been unable to refute anything>but if i call it nonsense and seetheif you need to be a paypig cuck for kodak to threaten yourself into paying attention while using a camera you might not really be self awarelike you can reflect on your past actions but no human being with your name exists in the presentyou are never hereyou are an automaton, sub-animal, operating entirely on danger and desire, unable to decide to do something because you have a conscious desire to createjust a machine that needs to be prompted by an external factoryou literally can not decide to consciously improve your photography without being afraid of wasting what little money you haveno wonder. you’d have to be a literal ape to have trouble affording film with how stupid rich this society is. factory workers make $40/hr now and only bitch because they’re literally monkeys and didnt think before buying two new cars and a 2 story house in the suburbs.
>>4503135>I paid 12k for one lens and a chinese hasselblad
>>4503137I paid a few hundred for a canon dslr and a 35mm prime lens
>>4503136when you think about it op is basically a dog wearing a shock collar, but financial pain instead of physical pain>snapshit! bad dog! *yipe*
>>4503142You have to crack eggs to make an omelette, and you should never cry over spilled milk.>>4503138Do you have excellent cardio from zooming with your legs all the time?
>>4503136>If I insist I'm right enough then that makes me le gigachad memePlease get a life.
>>4503143I never noticed anything wrong with or difficult about just using a 35mm lense. I dont take pictures of birds. I’m sure you would tho
>>4503145First off it is spelled lens. Second off why would you assume something like that about me? Kind of rude.Birdies are pretty cool, but I don't care to take pics of them.
>>4503147*lense
>>4503167>esl cope
>>4503168It’s spelled “coap”, like soap. Not “cope” like copy spoken by a gay man.
Be strategic in what you shoot when you start out and it doesn't matter whether you're using film or digital. The only thing a film camera enforces is discipline, but it's not a requirement to be disciplined. The problem with digital is very quickly blasting photos and overloading your ability to review critically. Avoid that and film / digital doesn't matter.
>>4503175I hope you're bulk loading 5222
>>4503177100' of 400nc and 100' of 5222
>>4503178Excellent job. You've done very well. What speed do you like shooting your 5222 at?
>>45031785222 is the actual greatest black and white film of all time. If I could only shoot one black and white film for the rest of my life it would be this.
Film photography has pushed me back to the job hunt. And I am grateful it be like that.
>>4503185Mostly at 400-800 so I can F8 and be there>>4503206Agreed, it's the only film Ive shoot for the last few years. I was gifted the roll of 400nc (was my favorite c41 film long ago) so I'm having some fun shooting color for once.
>>4502745Nigga cut the pretentious shit. From reading an old kodak handbook you get good at photography in a single week.Photography is not a big deal. There are simple rules and people are satisfied with the minimum. Photography branches out quickly into purpose-based specialty so you don't even need to keep track of progress in so called "photography", you just do what you want with it. Being in a specialty however, you're gonna have to think on how to get a message through and compete to keep your identity fresh. That has more to do with being competitive in your job than saying you're "good at photography"
>>4502753>>4502838Vista is out of production since 2012.Agfa still makes APX (bw) and AgfaPhoto Color (C41), both of which are nice day-to-day films, but nothing special.
>>4502745>harsh troofThe cry of the sub 80 IQ moron. OP thinks he's gatekeeping some incredible barrier and we're all going to look on in awe, hoping to one day achieve what he has. But back in reality, since OP is factually and provably some retarded angloid bog-dweller, his 'harsh twoof' is total hogwash and he has achieved nothing. The rest of us can read, so it was not hard to learn photography on digital. In fact with digital you can learn faster, because you don't have to wait for development and scans to assess your mistakes. You just have to be bothered to look for them. By the way, most people here have never destroyed a roll due to their own fault. White bitches on instagram shoot film. It's not an achievement.
