What climate do you live in? Do you live in an apartment? Anyway it's warming up in the northern hemisphere, so container gardening is fun and not too expensive and is good for the environment and your health. You can even do it in an apartment if you have a balcony with good sunlight. You can start with herbs, like mint which are basically unkillable and cost less than $5.

>>4508439
just use the camera you have instead of buying more gear?

>>4508439
If you like waking nature, you can just do that without a camera
If you're autist, perfect reason to start birding
Hiking is a cheap hobby, but camping can get as expensive as cameras
Running is a cheap hobby you can do most anywhere
You can engage with photography cheaply too

>>4508439
Translated into English:
>Any cheaper hobbies to replace gearfagging?
>Gearfagging was a reason I'd blindly go walk into a nature reserve, I don't want to lose that without some form of alternative.
I suggest photography.

>>4508439
Uhmm what part of photography is costing you money?
Or is your imam complaining about your hobby being haram again?

>>4508439
Plein air painting.

>>4508481
I'm too broke to be a gearfag

>>4508482
Haha, I totally have no clue what you're talking about. Its just upgrades to get to a stable ground. All I want really is a full frame and a lens for landscapes.

I have the 800D rn and I feel it a lot especially in low light. Canon entry cameras are actual scams.

My whole setup costs like 1000ish depending how much you value the 800D. My goal is just to find another hobby where spending a 1000 is equivalent to buying the R5 mark II

File: O4021548 1.jpg (3.11 MB, 2592x1944)

3.11 MB JPG

>>4508439
get a boat then come back to photography and never complain about cost ever again

>>4508523
But it's a one time expense only, just save up and get what you need.

File: landscape2.jpg (4.05 MB, 4000x5000)

4.05 MB JPG

>>4508523
All of these were on gear worse than an 800D. If your focus is landscapes, that's actually one of the best opportunities for basic gear.
What do your landscapes look like?

If you want more resolution, take 3 or more shots and stitch them together, now you have more resolution than an R5II
If you want better lowlight performance, use a tripod, and now you have better lowlight performance than an R5II (only applies to static scenes), upgrading lenses typically yields greater lowlight gains too
If your strict about exposure, and shoot at ISO 100, you will have more dynamic range than someone more casually using their R5II on auto ISO hitting 250 or above

>>4508539
Flickr thief strikes again with an ass take and a bunch of other peoples photos.
Everything this guy posts is carefully constructed cope to avoid inducing his own buyers remorse over the $$$$ fuji kit he bought for dog snapshots
just dont listen to flickr thief

>>4508523
Get the fuck rid of that piece of shit canon. Buy ANY nikon. Even a lowly d5xxx aps-c DSLR would be great but honestly if you hit up fb market d750s and d800s are <$500 any day and the 24-120 f4 VR is the last lens a landscape photographer will ever need. You now have significantly less use for bullshit like tripods, GNDs and bracketing, especially with a decent VR zoom, and can stick to just a CPL simply because nikon uses good sensor technology. You will never actually need to upgrade from a ff nikon dslr!

IIRC in full frame only nikon is the #1 or #2 brand depending on whether or not sony dropped something and everyone fled to it before their old snoy broke.

>>4508539
You need some dog pics to round out that sample gallery imo.

>>4508539
digicope and chartfag tier opinions complete with a collage of uselessly small thumbnails of other peoples photos. whats next, a dpreview screenshot?

>>4508523
d810
24-120 f4
50mm f1.8
simple as

>>4508477
BUT I MUST CONSOOOOOM

>>4508478
I love camping but I wouldn't think of it as a traditional hobby. It's not something I can do anywhere. Also what makes it expensive? Only expense I had is some starter gear and a cheap tent.

>>4508532
>>4508609
>>4508613
My point is just getting more bang for buck . Instead of spending 1k and having low-medium end gear. I'm looking for a hobby where 1k would be medium-high instead if that makes sense.

>>4508625
Paint brushes, paints, nice paper, easel. High end gear for less than 1k.

>>4508523
I know everyone in this board is shilling for his own gear and technique but have you considered switching to film?

You can get an olympus 35C for 150$ and that's literally all you need to go out. This is an all mechanical camera so entirely repairable, you buy it for life. By using film you always have the best analog "sensor" you could have, it's all about glass, and the 35c has a great fixed lens. People say film is expensive but it has a very low entry point for an excellent camera, and then you can just shoot less if you want to save money. Thinking about the price per shot could actually make your photo better. If you just invest the money you get from selling your current gear in buying cheap film (gold / fuji / or litteraly anny B&W) you are good for half a year at least.

Photo is my reason to go out, and I feel like film works very well with this mindset. Having to wait for the result makes it more motivating.

>>4508609
>Flickr thief strikes
Thank you for the compliment
>>4508610
Just remember this next time anyone says I only do photos of dogs
>>4508625
I guess car camping with a budget tent is pretty cheap, but if you ever get into like actual backpacking, things will add up
>cooking, filtration, tent, sleeping pad, sleeping bag, backpack, permits, gas to get there, bear canisters, shoes, jackets, etc
Just my backpack and go-to tent is $840 at full retail price
One thing to consider is cost over time. While photo does have that large up front cost, it's not like you have to buy new gear all the time, most of those pics were taken on a body I've had for 10 years now, and still use
Many other hobbies have much steeper long run costs
If you aren't getting pics like I posted, you still have a lot of reply to grow with the 800d anyways

>>4508625
>nikon ff DSLR
>low medium end
The D810 is literally better than every fujifilm, every panasonic, all micro four thirds, the z6/z7, z6ii/z7ii, every nikon and canon aps-c, and every sony camera period. Stop being a a bitch
>but i want an r5/z8/phasone iq180!
Cry moar

>>4508667
OP doesn't really care about photography it seems, they just want something more immediately gratifying with as little effort as possible

>>4508665
>photo thief fujislug is also a glamping redditor
My tent and backpack were $150 between sportsmans warehouse and army surplus. Then I bought a .40 magnum glock for $500 at a yard sale in case of bear. Git gud.

>>4508669
Based mountain man saving his money for full frame

>>4508669
What kind of tent and backpack do you have?
There are lots of good cheap budget options I could recommend for OP, but if you do a lot of backpacking, eventually you'll want something a bit nicer
When I said bear canister, did you think I meant bear spray?
Sounds like you don't actually go backpacking lol

>>4508671
Bear canister? You mean a tarp and rope?

>>4508625
>My point is just getting more bang for buck . Instead of spending 1k and having low-medium end gear. I'm looking for a hobby where 1k would be medium-high instead if that makes sense.
why would you NEED cameras that cost more than that for hobby purposes?

>>4508667
>$1700
>screen can't pop out

>>4508668
Real, I want dopamine injected into my brainstem

A week or two has passed since I first thought of selling my camera gear and I don't think I'm gonna do it. I'll probably slowly save up for some upgrades (full frame, speedlite, etc.) till I'm happy with my gear then stop.

Thanks for the help /p/

>>4508668
Brainrot encapsulated.

Fuckin hell OP, I have ADHD and strugge for that immediate hit, but even I can hold down hobbies and activities that are more methodical and paced. Your brain must be youtube-short style fried if you can't just stick to something and get better at it.
You're unironically doomed if you can't just enjoy a hobby for what it is.

File: IMG_1145.jpg (70 KB, 800x440)

70 KB JPG

Field recording's easy and if you get a floating point recorder, you don't even have to set the gain, you just turn it on. I use h1n , it's the cheapest apart from a phone. You have to put a windshield on it, not the hairy one, that looks bad

>>4508768
>>4508668
>I want a cheaper hobby
>"wtf op you brainrotted inbred retard can you not enjoy something other than doomscrolling? Kill yourself"

Lmao

>>4508815
Photography can be done cheap quite easily.

>>4508815
Photography is cheap. Gearfagging is not. Since this board is about the latter but pretends it's about photography OP got confused. It's understandable.

>>4508668
>>4508768
>>4508815
OP is not brainrotted. He's simply doing what this board say is photography. Just look at those answers:
>>4508539
>>4508609
>>4508613
>>4508667
>>4508669
>>4508722
>>4508767

Photography is not dead. /p/ is.

If /p/ was sane the only answer to OP's thread would be:
> Post photos or shut up.

OP, have you made even 1 photo thread here, or are you just using this board as your safe place to whine about your meaningless life like everyone else?

Ok, that being said i'm gonna offer a personnal advice. Ditch digital. You have demonstrated that you are not able to shoot digital without becoming a gearfag. It's ok, it's hard, I failed, everyone posting here did. So now it's time to grow up and understand that digital is low quality slop designed to sell the latest model. Sell your e-waste, and buy a pocketable fully mechanical film camera for less than 200$. Use the rest of the money to cover some film and development. You now have a professional tool designed to last you a lifetime, that can support you in making your vision into art pieces, and also, that takes effort to use and time to produce result but get this: effort and time is what makes litteraly anything feel good. That's what e-waste consumers can't comprehend.

>>4508890
What do your landscape photos look like?

>>4508523
800D/T7i is pretty good though. Not a scam at all.
Maybe the shitty kit lenses are but that's a skill issue.

>>4508897
I would love to share, but since I'm being quite blunt in this thread I don't want people to reverse search my pictures and harass me or whatev. I do make photo threads every now and then so you might have already seen my pictures.

Are you genuinely curious about my photos using such a film camera, or are you wanting to judge what I say based only on my end result?

If it is the latter you misunderstood my point. I am not saying I am more talented than anyone. I am saying I love taking photos, and that I found digital destroys the love for photography in most people, turning them into gearfags. Look, OP owns a digital camera, supposed to be able to take more or less an infinity of pictures for no cost, yet wants to stop photography because it's too expensive. How many times did you see this exact same thread? Gearfagging, and by extension digital cameras, are making people hate and quit photography.

And before someone retarded makes this point against me, I'm not saying you cannot do art or take a good picture with a digital camera. All I'm saying is, at the end of the day, photography is about loving to make photos, and one way to get there, is to ditch digital cameras.

>>4508899
>I am also a nophoto, hear me cope
Sad

>>4508902
>>4508897
Flickr thief, we know its you. Go away. Please. You never post real photos not of your moms dog. And you beg for photos because you steal them.

>>4508890
This is literally a wut camera thread

>>4508902
>>4508904
Welp, I tried.

>>4508904
Thank you for the compliments bb

>>4508905
>OP should post a photo
>hear me wax poetic
>no I will not share my own photos
What did you try? Being a hypocrite?

>>4508890
IMHO film is true gearfagging, the ultimate worship of equipment and the highest expression of consumer neurosis - customer identity, FOMO, and a need to always buy something
it always starts with
>i buy film so im a REAL photographer

Just buying a FF DSLR is as far from gearfag as it gets. Its not made to be upgraded from before it breaks or when you finally admit so and so was an arbitrarily withheld standard feature like canon crop shit, fuji, and sony. It’s a $500 purchase that lasts a lifetime and shoots with higher quality than MF film that is effectively $25 a roll. And then filmfags reveal their true nature and start talking about $8000 scanning setups to get 500mp 6x9.

File: 260512033.jpg (617 KB, 1000x1500)

617 KB JPG

yay camping

>>4508909
more like glamping

>>4508914
Half of it is obviously for car camping, but we must have different definition of glamping

>>4508908
Ahhh, the classic 5d classic has better IQ than 8x10 slide film argument. We love to see it!

Digital is better if you only ever share images online. If you make prints, which is what real photography is, film is objectively better. Mentioning MP or anything like that is just you being a gearfag.

>>4508908
>film is true gearfagging
Gearfagging is gearfagging, doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital. Thinking the real gearfags are the ones who use the cameras of the other brand/technology is the quintessential gearfag take.

> it always starts with
>i buy film so im a REAL photographer
I didn't say that though so ... ?

>Just buy X and your problems will be solved
You accuse film shooters to be gearfags, immediately to follow with this?

>a 500$ FF gives higher quality than MF film
Yeah, I mean clearly you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.... Why are you even arguing?


So, your solution to OP saying photography feels too expensive is to buy a better and more expensive digital camera? But you're not a gearfag?

>>4508919
>ah, the classic *strawman*
>*vague statements about image quality*
Any modern/"peak" FF DSLR ie: d610, d750, d800, d850, 5d iv, k1, a99 will easily match PRINTED 6x7 and equal and often exceed scans. 35mm is equaled and exceeded by more meager equipment like the 5d classic and d700 and the few and far between professional grade APS-C models. So-so canon DSLRs like the 5DII/III and 5DS are certainly up there as well. Lacking DR, yes, but they have exactly as much as most film besides portra which matches modern cameras better.

A lot of professional 4x5 landscape photographers switched to d850s you know, right? It was all over luminous landscape. Favorable comparisons vs drums and optical prints, favorable meaning they couldnt tell without a loupe. If you have to shoot fucking 8x10 to marginally outdo digital (while fighting hair, dust, scratches, and your doubtlessly mediocre skills) that’s just proving my point that for 99% of people, film is just gearfaggotry, IQ chasing, attempts to buy better photos. A decent FF DSLR will continue taking as many photos as you decide to take for decades and do so as well as any hasselblad 500cm or zenza bronica. For people who do not have the time or equipment to enlarge 8x10 sheet film to several feet across, a decent FF DSLR will outdo 8x10 as well.

To be clear you ARE talking about enlarging sheet by a factor of feet, correct? Otherwise it has zero advantage other than tilt/shift, which 4x5 does… Shit, do you know what DSLRs edge into, that mirrorless has trouble adapting with unchanged IQ? Tilt shift photography.

Admittedly DSLR TS lenses are so expensive, someone who doesn’t do that stuff very often might save thousands by keeping a cheap 4x5 kit or mamiya rz67 kit around. So film still has some point, where digital is more expensive just to take the same picture

>>4508920
>You can NOT BUY QUALITY TOOLS FOR RATIONAL REASONS THATS *GEARFAG*
No, it’s the reality men live in. Cameras are tools.

And yes, film has no advantage over digital unless you are enlarging 8x10 to several feet across or doing occasional tilt/shift photography, or something even more niche like analog effects… it simply doesn’t do anything different otherwise. It’s generally a worse, more expensive tool that requires constant purchases, so its users can pretend they are "not gearfags" because their decision is irrational and fashion/social perception based instead of logic based.

Some dogshit canon 80D would honestly come close to and often beat the average roll of 35mm film shot with vintage kit and scanned with a labs most expensive option.

Filmtardation is thinking an authentic mink fur paintbrush is making your fine motor skills better because of magical properties that are bullshit on the level of
>3d pop tonality microcontrast rendering
And yet calling the guy who recommends just buying a standard brush, not a frou-frou cork sniffer one or a cheap elementary school art kit, a gearfag because he dared apply logical thought to acquiring art supplies.

>>4508922
>gearfag essay of seethe

>>4508925
>stop applying rational thought to art supplies
>wasting money and holding delusions will transform my talentless self into a true artist
No that’s just how to play the comical, tragic part of a starving artist in a stereotypical story, minus the part where you strike creative gold and get famous

If 35mm is good enough for you so is a canon 80d, nikon d500, d7xxx, cheap stuff
If you think medium format is it, any decent and still cheap ff dslr will do.
The better ones output photos that stand alongside real world printed 4x5.

Film is just gearfagging outside of a few niches
>buying this will make my photos better
I offer the comfort of reality and sanity to you
Buying this won’t make your photos better, or you better at photography. Nothing can. But it will balance your budget better, work in more situations with exponentially less supporting equipment, and take the same shitty photos you always take.

>>4508926
>no, I have never made a print in my life
>yes, spend MORE money on worse things
Gearfag mentality

>>4508927
>i swear bro my 8x10 prints made from 8x10 film are super special. they break the laws of physics. i can feel the 3d pop. i’m not a gearfag at all. you’re the gearfag for spending as much as ten 8x10 shots and 1/4 as much as my studio monorail kit on a camera that takes infinite equally good looking photos for 20+ years
So sayeth you and the digital equivalent that thinks his instagram benefits from a gfx100s

>>4508928
>yes, I invent villains in my head to cope and seethe at
Typical gearfag behavior

>>4508929
> If you make prints, which is what real photography is, film is objectively better.
It’s not. It’s the same as very cheap and pedestrian cameras.
>how DARE you mention MP! NUMBERS ARE SOULLESS AND GEARFAG!
I mentioned megapixels because it’s something the filmtarded often do when they have to cope
>look at this oversized scan. 35mm is 200 fuzzy looking megapixels!
>my dog shot on 4x5 is 800mp!
>my dog shot on 6x6 is 70mp!
These are real things real /p/ users have really said.

Why do closeted gearfags always make thing up in their heads to get angry at?

>>4508931
>can’t even walk away
Do I have to scour archive.palanq.win to show you all the coping filmtards? Since there’s a 99% chance you’re that gearfag with the german shepherd or the one with the husky I shouldn’t have to show you your own posts.

Just accept the truth.
Film is gearfaggotry.
Photography really doesn’t benefit much from anything other than an old, formerly high end DSLR. Digital image quality matched and then beat film, and now it’s stagnant. There’s no reason to buy film anymore and only professionals need to upgrade to shit with 40fps, 8 stop IBIS, perfect auto-autofocus and 8k raw video. It’s not 2008. Film isn’t the one true way for a hobbyist to exceed the blurry digital shittiness of a low end canon rebel anymore. Everyone can afford a d750 which might even be more than they need (a d750 is as good as 645 and a lot of typical 6x7 - printed, in real world use, not talking pixel peeped scans of flawlessly calculated max resolution shots with $2500 lenses here)

>>4508932
Have you considered answering my question instead of proving my point?

>>4508933
You’re not important enough to answer, and you don’t ask important questions. You’re just enough of a gearfag to talk down to. Just like OP being an OCD faggot about how he feels left out for not being able to afford an R5II.

Seriously great news for OP, every camera since 2016 takes the same fucking pictures, there are no real upgrades, and lots of stuff older than that is up to snuff and sometimes better.

Idk how this is bad news for you
Unless you’re that german shepherd guy who wastes 8x10 sheets making 8x10 prints of blurry, dirty dog snaps and hallucinated 3d pop tonalities to cope.

>>4508935
>proves point further
>seethes
Concession accepted. :)

>>4508439
Looks like shooting film is the right answer OP.

>>4508936
You said film is better for printing. Basic facts and logic say this is false. It is, at best, pretty similar to digital equipment that is now cheap and common, within restricted ISO ranges. I don’t feel like looking up and explaining some lp/mm shit I totally forgot the specifics of since I already drew the same correct conclusion every working photographer did, which is that for all but a few specialists using certain niche photographic effects or playing with scanning equipment that costs as much as a car, a cheap old FF DSLR easily makes 35mm and medium format film obsolete, and in real world printing and display, the D850/5DS tier replaces 4x5.

It is true a lot of digital cameras are just consumer products that are built to break or frustrate users into upgrading, and look bad in prints. I didn’t recommend any such cameras. Such things existed for film - they are mostly all broken by now.

However film can be a cheaper way to do occasional tilt/shift photography and to use unique analog effects. By 8x10, it is a cheaper way to do occasional huge enlargements since such a massive piece of film can do the job of a $50,000 digital camera. If you’re using it for some imagined quality advantage or better looking photos, but aren’t printing such massive photos, I really can’t see you as anything more than the hipster version of the kind of retard who buys a phase one iq180 (digital quality equivalent of 8x10) to post on instagram and frame 8x10 prints of their pet. Because that’s really what you are. Just poorer, and more likely to ride a yard sale find fixie than a custom made carbon fibre road bike. Sorry.

I have never seen someone on /p/ with any print larger than 20". Here’s your chance to prove something. Let’s see that better print.
Or are you just some consoomer who wastes money to waste film and ultimately pretend he is somehow different?

>>4508940
>Invents more lies to cope, but just projects their own insecurities instead.
Your request only proves your own ignorance and stupidity on the subject matter. Sorry!

>>4508941
What, no photo? You said, contrary to every working photographer, contrary to the people whose prints fetch thousands to millions, and contrary to basic scientific facts about the capability of optics and imaging devices, that film is inarguably always better for printing.

I do agree that in a limited scope. Higher end film certainly beats mid tier digitals like the 5DIII and D750. A professional photographer named alex burke has himself confirmed 4x5 can stay sharp enough at 40x50". This is about the same as higher end (and still relatively cheap) digital like the nikon d850/z7 and canon 5DS, which reach 41" at 300dpi and stay sharp enough (no perceptible quality drop in real world viewing) dropping a bit of dpi to hit 50". Many people have made slightly softer prints from both 4x5 and 45+mp digital at 56"+ by exploiting the simple fact that most people looking at such a large photo will stand further away to do so. So the truth of the matter is that yes, 8x10, with four times the resolution of 4x5, is better than any digital camera a normal person can afford, and produces the film equivalent to a 200 megapixel or so file in one shot - albeit with a more limited ISO range.

I have also agreed that for occasional use, because not many people need 56" prints daily, 4x5 can even be more cost effective per print than a D850 and an assortment of tilt/shift lenses.

Everyone here would love to see the massive 100 inch print you have made from 8x10

File: IMGP0217.jpg (473 KB, 2100x1400)

473 KB JPG

>>4508439
>Cheaper

I paid $400 for a K-70 with two lenses and a few accessories at a pawn shop five years ago and since then the only mandatory expenditure was ~$125 to get the solenoid repaired.

>>4508943
the quality here is pretty close to the average persons scanned 645 desu
you really cant beat how cheap photography has gotten vs the results

>>4508942
>the true gearfag/chartfag comes out
It's sad you've never seen an 8x10 contact print before and still have such strong opinions about them. Thinking 8x10's only purpose is for massive enlargements is about as ignorant and stupid as you can get. Are you going to say that 10MP is all you need for an 8x10 print indiscernable from an 8x10 contact print next?

Ill send you a couple contact prints if you give me an address in the continental US to send them to. :D

>>4508944
It's far below 645 quality. 100 speed 35mm would look a lot better even.

>>4508945
>hey bud, stop with the facts
Show us your 8x10 contact prints

I guarantee they don’t look any better than a 300dpi 8x10 made with any camera 5DII or better and ran on a decent printer (not a consumer inkjet). Downsampling from a too-good format does do something to minimize the appearance of grain… to a point (this is even more pointless on digital and finer grained films). But not to the point where you need the equivalent of a 100 or 200mp camera to improve a fucking 8x10 print. That has never been the case and never will be.

>>4508946
I said most peoples 645 scans

A competent person with 645 can bring it to the same quality standard offered by FF DSLRs. Who knows, maybe you have a $8000 fuji medium format kit for film scanning and can squeeze more resolution from it at the cost of everything being blurry lol
>its real resolution. look these two blurry details are one pixel apart! its a line pair!

>>4508947
>my limited knowledge and ignorance based theorycrafting is facts!
There is not point in posting a digitized version of something that can only be truly experienced in person, especially a 5MB scan of one.
No matter how good your recording and playback of the symphony is it will never sound better than being there in person. Sorry this is so very difficult for you to understand.

>>4508948
You can get way better with a v850 that's properly setup and your highlights won't clip. 645 will make a significantly better looking print than that digital file as well lol

>>4508950
Rather Unlike the three dimensional nature of human hearing, we are talking about two dimensional photographs here.

There is nothing about a print you can’t photograph. It’s not a painting where hills and valleys of pigment make it more than a flat image. It’s a print.
>well i pixel peeped the scan
Great but even alex burke, who dedicated his life to keeping the LF hobby alive (for dem movements), agrees that as far as print quality goes, 4x5 and 45mp ff both land in the same 50" long edge zone.

Can we see your missed focus, dirty dog 8x10 now?

>>4508951
>i clipped my highlights because i am bad at using cameras
Lol
>well i pixel peeped the scan and squeezed a few more blurry dog eyebrows out of it
Yes dear I’m sure your 645 scans of your dog are like, 500mp. But every working photographer has come to the same conclusion as optics and imaging specialists. As far as raw quality in printing and display goes, film is obsolete for most use cases and barely hanging on to a niche. Sorry about your pixel peeping hobby. That must be rough. Having autism.

>>4508952
>appeal to authority
>more cope

Post some of your prints. :)

>>4508954
>continues to invent things to cope
>continues to totally miss the point

You're a chartfag and a gearfag lol. What a sad combo. Funny you can't even understand why a contact print looks better than a 10MP digital print.

I make 8x10 contact and it looks better than any digital print or enlargement I've ever seen. It's really that simple for me.

>>4508955
Where did I say 10mp? Please. I said about 20. 8x10 300dpi = 8mp.
>nooo chartfah gearfag
Because I know how photography works and dont define it with my feelings of buyers remorse and delusional perception? I have only advocated for spending less money on older equipment that achieves the same thing and often better. I am broadly against gear. Nothing you can buy will make your photos any better unless you are upgrading from flat out ewaste.
> Downsampling from a too-good format does do something to minimize the appearance of grain… to a point (this is even more pointless on digital and finer grained films). But not to the point where you need the equivalent of a 100 or 200mp camera to improve a fucking 8x10 print. That has never been the case and never will be.
So you claim to break the laws of physics. Let’s see it.

>>4508956
>runs and cries when asked to post a print
I hear people spew the retarded claim that around 14MP you can't gain anything more from an 8x10 because that's the limit of how much the eye can see or some retarded bullshit like that. People can pretty easily tell the difference between 4x5 enlarged to 8x10 and an 8x10 contact print. This isn't some magical thing. It is grounded in reality, but I'm not a chartfag so I don't know why. I have more experience making prints than most on this board and it does not get any better than a contact print.
Maybe because of compounded grain softening through the enlargement process, contact printing paper + amidol also has much higher Dmax and finer grain than enlarging paper or any printer. I do not think that resolution is the only determining factor in a prints quality either, and even if you reach a theoretical maximum resolution there are other more important factors to what makes a print look good that contact printing on chloride paper achieves better than any other printing method.

>>4508955
>appeal to authority
fallacies arent never true, they’re just not necessarily true and dont belong in formal debate because when they are true they can be proven through better constructed arguments

in this case alex burke has more experience printing both large and small than anyone on /p/. he makes a living off it. if he says his 4x5 tops out at 50in long side and this figure is in the same +/-10% ballpark as a bunch of other claims, even if it being the same print size range as a d850 hurts your feefees it is likely to be correct and it isnt worth anyones time to pull data sheets and run lp/mm figures for you.

you are some guy who takes photos of his dog.
SORRY!

>>4508957
>darkroom printing is a lossy and difficult process where enlargement quality is dependent on skill and the quality and nature of the equipment and chemicals used
great when comparing 4x5 enlargements to 8x10 contacts, but printing a digital file is not like that at all. The process is actually similar to idealized contact printing one portion of the image at a time rather than enlargement.
countless working photographers replaced 4x5 with a d850 or similar already
film can beat itself but digital has outclassed it for quality wank.

im not really sure your prints are worth the negligible sharpness bump vs other film either

>>4508960
>still thinks resolution is all that matters
You are so lost in the digicope sauce it is embarrassing.
Post one of your prints. Lets see it. You are begging me to repost a photo I posted months ago. Maybe you have something as memorable?

>>4508962
Resolution is the mathematical expression of something that objectively exists. If you can’t use a proper term for something you’re likely biased and full of yourself.
>my failure as a photographer is memorable
Yes and it sucked and still sucms which is why you’re not regaling us with proof of how blowing $20 on an 8x10 print of your dog (not mentioning the overall cost of equipment) is worth it from a "goodness" standpoint. May as well take 5dII output to fine art paper via lightjet or a top tier pro inkjet.

Any sensible person would say it’s not about the technical metrics, it’s about analog photography being its own hobby and experience, and the innate scarcity of the results.

But you went in claiming some pixel peeper shit about zooming in on scans and digital being worthless for printing.

No, dear, digital is the same and often better for printing up to four fucking feet wide. Not that you’d ever enlarge a dog picture that much.

>>4508963
>obsessed with dog picture, confirmed, still better than any print he has ever posted
>thinks Dmax is not a scientific metric, proves extreme ignorance.
Inkjet has worse Dmax than azo paper, worse tonal gradation because of how it physically places pigment, looks worse overall because it doesn't have the same organic "pixel" distribution as azo paper. All of those are physically measureable differences that are not resolution specific and make contact prints look better. Sorry!

I'm so curious who's arguing given these where the last I posted >>4508909 >>4508916

>>4508943
Based photo poster, posting a photo is auto win if the other side doesn't

>>4508931
Anything to avoid actually taking photos

>>4508965
Are you saying I should I really post dog? It's beyond worthless to post scans of 8x10 contact prints.

File: WETPLATE (8).jpg (4.68 MB, 2282x2844)

4.68 MB JPG

>>4508967
>>4508965
Well... I found a scan of a print... I was teaching myself how to make unsharp masks and comparing the differences between a standard print. Visually in person, and side by side pixel peeping to better understand how it influenced the look of my print.

>>4508964
>i looked at it under a loupe
A print peeper kek
>muh dmax
Azo paper dmax is ~2
Most glossy lightjet photopaper is ~2.5
Quality inkjet papers can achieve either
https://luminous-landscape.com/whats-the-gold-standard-of-inkjet-papers/

Now, let me be clear
You will cry chartfag pixel peepet and then bring up technicals you dont understand and talk about zooming in on scans and louping prints
I am telling you that these here facts support what every working pro had already done
Which is ditch everything smaller than 4x5, and only keep 4x5 for dramatic front/rear standard movements combined with D850-ish resolving power in real world prints.
I use facts to support anti-gearfag truth. The equipment now matters very little and everyone can afford 4x5 quality, which is more than anyone needs (four foot prints!)

If quality is your sole pursuit 8x10 is truly only good for massive prints over four feet wide. You are wasting it. Please dont give out advice. At least not without a reminder of your absent skill. Or a disclaimer that you DGAF about quality and are after the experience, which is what a non-gearfag would say about film!

I’ve been posting here longer than you and have observed the complete and total death of your actual photography as you replaced it with gearfag pixel peeping: film and also digital edition. It’s pretty sad. Fucking sinar hy6 for dog photos. Fuckin 8x10 for dog photos. Justified with mps and dmaxes that dont exist. Sad.

>>4508970
Looks like you shot it with a nikon z7+cheap old lens and added dust overlays in photoshop
And blew your highlights
Kek the superior technical merits of film everybody

Remember kids; film isn’t specifications, it’s experience, it’s scarcity, it’s hands on work and craft. Claiming superiority or inferiority to digital on technical merits is a fools errand. If you actually know how cameras and photography work well enough to speak of technical merits, you already know that digital and film are technically capable of the exact same things, with a few notable exceptions.

Never go full print peeper if you dont want your photos judged as less than peeping grade

>>4508971
>still thinks resolution is all that matters
>absolute seethe and cope
LOL.

>>4508972
>too stupid to know the difference between checking your work and learning vs. Resolution wanking
>thinks that a scan of a print means anything
Pure digicope.

You cannot achieve the same look from digital that an 8x10 contact print can achieve. Post one of your prints to prove me wrong.

>>4508974
>something else matters
>doesnt need a loupe to see it
>not resolution, dmin, or dmax
>can’t name it or quantify it
>uses expensive 8x10 and digital medium format to snapshit his pets
>buyers remorse cope and biased perception confirmed
Film is not and should not be about any technical qualities. It’s physical, handmade, and scarce. It’s not about a better looking photo. It’s not about sharpness or any statistic. It’s about making something. Not buying the best camera ever.

As far as appearances go, a sub-$1k d850 or 5DS kit will get you all the quality 4x5 would have and 8x10 is only worth it if the end result is over four feet wide.

That is what the facts support. Its not about the gear unless the gear haver is retarded and bought thousands of dollars worth of flimsy fujifilm shit only to get mogged by a canon 90d and its worm-free photos.

>>4508889
Unironically true, realized I was being a fag and decided I'll just thug it out with my gear.

>>4508890
Ive posted photos in threads before but I've made a thread at least once.
See
>>4505116
Ironically it got taken over by gearfags

Also I might try film one day but for now it isn't my favorite idea, I think Id enjoy digital more than film. I'll keep it in mind though.

>>4508898
I was under the influence of gear faggotry

>>4508938
Maybe one day


Saw the thread suddenly had like 70 replies only to find it its like 4 actual replies and a 66 reply argument.

>>4508977
>still no print
>still more lies
>convenient cherrypicking
>still more cope
>still more extreme ignorance
Well.. thanks for the entertainment while I was cutting grass, but you're just repeating the same cope over and over again at this point. Lol. Try to avoid those charts for a day and take some pics. :)

>>4508978
If you're shooting film or digital just make some prints of pics you like and hang them on your wall. It will really help a lot. Just do it.
Hopefully you have seen just how brain rotted one can get if you obsess over viewing digital images and charts on your lenovo thinkpad as well.

>>4508979
You’re an /an/ drama fag. I will post for your delusional gearfag ass the day huskcuck reappears because I heard he was threatened with being doxed by /an/ dramafags.

I maintain that buying anything but a FF or well made DX DSLR is POINTLESS. Because it is truth. Film, better for prints? No, you could never buy better photos, and these days you can’t even buy better quality. Get over it. Your gear is meaningless.

All the facts, charts, datasheets, measurements, and real world photography on earth support this conclusion. Camera quality has peaked bigtime. Your photos suck because you took them.

I will fight anyone who thinks their minmaxed gearfaggot oversized film/snoy setup makes for better photos and I will fight them to the death.

>>4508981
>I'm so lost I cant use my eyes anymore.
>chart numbers and stats = better art!
You even admit you have never seen an 8x10 contact print in person. Really sad how you've happily given up your own ability for discernment in exchange for charts. Trust the experts, right? The scientists taking pictures of test charts are the truest arbiters of aesthetic value. Truly a time to be alive. You are truly delusional if you think that an 8x10 contact print doesn't have its own unique look and exceptional image quality. I wouldnt hold it against you considering your extreme ignorance, so it's fine if you dont.
So much modern digital looks like absolute shit to anyone with discernment greater than reading numbers on a chart.

Idk why huskyfag made the decision to leave(I dont make shit up and speak for other people like you) but the drama is basically all done on /an/ and I only had a very very small part, if any, in any sort of doxxing attempt on him. There was a dog abuser that got scared and threatened reverse doxxing huskyfag, but nothing came of it and then the only person that ever actually tried doxxing me and huskyfag was some m43 guy that had a massive meltdown. He posted his guess of where we live on an m43 general or something and had a crazy meltdown on the dog thread.

But look, I will say this. A lot of the time gear doesn't matter. Use what you enjoy and what produces the images you like best using the process you like the most. You hold numbers in the highest regard because you fear the subjective discernment of aesthetic. You fear posting photographs and would rather recite statistics because that is all you have, nophoto.

>>4508439
Photography is probably one of the cheapest hobbies if you buy old second hand dslr gear.
But you, youre getting ripped off if youre buying brand new mirrorless consoomer slop.

>>4508922
Ok, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. I feel like what you said in >>4508908 really unreasonable so I reacted to that, but I completely agree that digital can be better than film.

Have you even read OP's post though?

OP has a camera, want only to take pictures on his forest walks, yet he thinks photography is too expensive.... This is not a gear issue at all. OP is saying that because he feels like he should buy a better camera, he doesn't enjoy taking photos with his current camera. And this is a problem I relate with a lot, and I think actually a lot of people have with digital. Hence, I'm advising him to switch to film.

I'm not gonna do like all the turbo retards that demand you post a picture before they think about your opinion, or act like you must be some talentless hack because you disagree with me. So ok, let's admit you shoot digital and you love photography and take some every week and have become a great photographer, congrats. But you're clearly the minority on /p/. You fail to see this wall of specs and camera name you just spontaneously wrote is why people hate taking photo. Photo has an extremely easy learning curve, which means that paradoxally its very hard to be better than most. So when people buy a digital camera, they take pictures, it's not rewarding because the brain need a challenge and a clear example of what is the goal to achieve to learn and enjoy an activity, and then they try to find the enjoyment and the improvement in the digital specs by buying more gear. And that's how we end up with OP feeling like the hobby is too expensive for him when he already has a camera.

So is film objectively better than digital , no. But digital killed /p/ and made photography harder to enjoy for many, many amateurs.

>>4508978
Happy for you OP. You don't need to switch to film. It was just my suggestion to make you enjoy the process more. Also cuz I felt like the reason why you felt photo is expensive despite already owning a camera was because of the digital incentive to get a better camera instead of practice. But since you're feeling better go and enjoy.

>>4508987
OP thinks photography is too expensive because he feels he’s missing out by not having the best equipment. He wants a hobby where he can have the best for cheap.

The problem is photography equipment is totally stagnant and now everything is the best. A DSLR that can be had for less than $800 used equals 4x5 slide film. It has been one of the most slow moving fields in tech since its inception. He has a low end canon that is purposefully made to disappoint, down to the crappy controls, so all he has to do is buy something meant to be kept, and such things are everywhere for cheap.
>But digital killed /p/
No, /p/ being part of 4chan killed /p/.
>and made photography harder to enjoy
Because the real fun is having an upgrade to look forward to. Damn digital. Killing upgrades. Thanks for making every camera good, nikon! Now to have fun we have to buy shitty fuji and sony plastic so we can know what it’s like to feel a need for the next model again. SAD.

No, digital actually made photography itself easier to enjoy than ever. The need for bags of equipment and high prices has been gone for a long while. Thats why as a hobby, photography exploded in recent years. Those people sure as fuck arent buying new mirrorless, they’re slurping up that “old junk” thats actually high end equipment from a quality plateau.

>>4508987
Operating a camera has an easy learning curve. Photography as a form of art/expression and everything that revolves around it being art has an extremely steep learning curve. The more you move away from aimless snapshitting and the more you use a camera as a tool for your own artistic expression the more enjoyment you'll get from the hobby.
Does digital or film matter in this case? Only if what you're trying to achieve needs the specific look of one or the other. Maybe a phone camera has the look you want, or maybe a 1MP digishit, or maybe 11x14 contact prints. They're all just tools to achieve whatever visual expression you think would work best. This is the only real non-gearfag take.

>>4508990
>>4508991
You're both entirely missing my point but nobody got it so I guess I am shit at explaining lol

whatevs

>>4508992
I understand it exactly, but what's the real end goal of learning a craft? To create with it. Does OP think the look of film will enable him to better express himself or not? OP wanders around the forest with a camera. He's just tacking on the "fun" of camera operation to his nature walks. Do you think he would be struggling to continue on with the hobby if he was using his camera as a tool to say something he thought was important? Snapshitting gets boring after the novelty wears away no matter how many MP your camera is or how big the film is.
If he isn't satisfied with his current cameras image quality then he either needs to find something that better suits his end goal, or work with his cameras own visual quality to create something. FOMO is just gearfag cope.

You could just use your phone

>>4508987
Nophotos killed /p/

>>4508994
One day the resident digicoper in this very thread will be arguing that phone cameras are all you need because the charts tell him they are the best. Just give it a couple years for phone cameras to get a little better.
In reality a lot of gearfags ultimate endgame camera is the phone because they don't really care about image quality. They care about how many grams it weighs, how good the AF is, and how easy it is to share photos online. Sad, but an objective truth.

>>4508996
Shepturd and huscuckolds/cinefag and cANON’s arrival precipitated a steep decline and they are pretty hasphoto
Haslotsofbadphotos

>>4508996
This is true.

>>4508998
This is powerful cope and typical board ruining nophoto behavior.
Please explain to how me posting pictures of my dog and eggs on /p/ has severely reduced traffic on a near proportionate level site wide?

>>4509000
>eggs
These have have been some of /p/'s greatest contributions in recent years
I keep waiting or you to reveal you are secretly Alex and this is just all your experimental shit from home

File: scamsung.jpg (49 KB, 674x416)

49 KB JPG

>>4508997
they re now all aislop trickery like upscaling, nr and so on now

>>4509000
ya’ll niggas killed /m43/ for starters

>>4509003
Well, thank you. I sort of feel the same way, but also think there are plenty of people here who could do just as good or better if they chose to really hone in on a subject and make the most out of it like I have tried to do.
Unfortunately I'm just some guy with a dog, pigs, chickens, and an 8x10 camera, but that would have been pretty funny if I was Alex.
The eggs started off as a sort of joke, but I just kept at it for months because I liked still life and macro work with a large format camera, and eggs. Eventually one of my egg images inspired me to create a series with formal guidelines(egg + geometric shape + found farm object), and that idea gave me the structure I needed to actually produce a formal series of images.
The level of focused series work Ive been doing has really been interesting and creatively eye opening. Establishing/building a visual grammar is an amazing thing I only really learned about somewhat recently.
Anyways that's enough. I've been wanting to share my creative process and how I stumbled upon the idea for my egg series for a while now. Maybe it will help someone. Thanks for reading.

File: IMG_1146.jpg (140 KB, 1290x999)

140 KB JPG

>>4508997
I prefer phone to real camera: it's small and I'm already carrying it. It's good enough for image quality. And the video is fine too which is mostly what I shoot nowadays. The people that look at a photo and say it's sharp or the colours are good or anything other than feel what the photo is trying to evince in terms of subject are backwards looking. I would recommend not getting any gear at all and spending three months ambiently thinking about what you want to see and what you want to show people.

>>4509020
It just depends on what you want to do. Theres a time and place for phones, but my style of still life photography loves exceptional image quality, and it's just not possible with a phone at this point in time. I can show you phone snaps vs 8x10 scans of the same scene if you're curious to see how much presence and beauty great image quality can give to a still life. I think I have some posted in the still life thread, actually.

Personally, I think that high effort doing is a lot more helpful than just pondering at first. Formulating good images in your head is a skill that takes developing just like creativity. The link between your minds eye and the ability to create something in reality is a big part of developing that skill. Usually you need to build a scene, light it or utilize natural lighting at a specific time, have the technical proficiency to capture the image well, and then either print or edit that image.

>>4508993
Respectfully, no, you didn't get it. I'm gonna try to explain again. It's not about the look the photos have when you shoot with a specific gear. It's about how, 1) in my experience, shooting film is much more enjoyable than shooting digital, and 2), again in my experience but I think the state of /p/ kinda proves it, using digital equipment make you more likely to fall into "gearfaggotry", that is feeling more reward from buying and learning about gear than actually taking photos.

Now I could expend in the reasons why I believe shooting digital is more likely to make shooting photos less rewarding and buying gear more rewarding, killing the live of photography, but you need to understand I am not talking about image quality here.

I think you need to challenge your assumption than the difference between shooting digital and shooting film is mainly about the end result. For me, it is not. I'm not gonna talk about the soul and the happy accidents either. Switching to film, I noticed I started enjoying photography more and more, and there is very real neurological and psychological reasons for that, that I can detail.

>>4508996
Nophotos are a symptom, not the cause.

>>4509037
How long have you been doing photography? What's the "best" digital body you've owned?

>>4509148
Ok, I give up.

People posting outside of photo threads are physically unable to say anything else about photography than "you should buy a better digital camera".

Yeah sure anon, my opinion is wrong because I should buy a better digital body. Then I'd understand. Good luck.

>>4509154
I just wanted to know about your experiences with digital cameras, and see how that might have impacted your opinion

Forgive me for asking two very simple questions about your own experiences

If you don't want people to ask about your own photography experiences, you probably just shouldn't bring them up to begin with snowflake

>>4509154
>you should buy a better digital camera
Except for the people in this very thread saying the opposite of that right? Let's just pretend they don't exist