The "House Deposit Tripod" EditionSeriously, what is this?Previously: >>4513965
Follow up serious question: has anyone used a Neewer tripod before? I don't want to splurge a couple hundred bucks on a tripod but I don't want to spend money twice either. Are they a decent brand? or total junk?Picrel is my coveted: tall, ball head and folds up small. Only for stills so a pan handle isn't necessary. Also detaches into a monopod if I ever thought I needed that.
Delete this, we already have a breadThis is a pain
>>4515594Oh wait, bread is full. Pain it is
>>4515595This joe shmoe never heard tell of the bump limit.
>>4515593It's okay, there are dozen brands that put out tripods just like that, mostly from the same factories, just with different branding. The monopod functionality is something you'll probably never use.$100 is too much though, and even that exact one is also only $55 at BH right now. There are others at a similar price like the Smallrig CT-20, or the $70 CT-25 which offers more functionality.If I were you, I would wait for a good sale on a better tripod. $100-150 is a fine budget for a basic tripod, but you can get something much better at that price range.
>>4515597>$55 at BHI'm in Australia and I did find it cheaper on Amazon ($89AU) which is only ten dollars off the price you saw at BH, once you exchange it. >I would wait for a good sale on a better tripod.I suppose, I could always wait...
>>4515596Didn't think it would fill up so much. Too much shitposting that's what it is
>>4515593They’re shit. Look for a sirui tripod. They’re actually as well made as real brands, because Sirui is a real brand (their AF lenses are better than panasonic, nikon and fuji now)
>>4515593You can often find tripods the same as what OP posted for a hundred bucks. Nothing loses value like tripods. Look for used miller, manfrotto stuff. Ex used cinema gear is well made. Maybe not suited to your used case though.
>>4515592Get a used gitzo carbon
>>4515593I pretty much exclusively buy Neewer stuff. It's inexpensive and it always gets the job done which means utility per dollar is really high. I haven't had to replace anything.If anything, Neewer stuff can be a bit heavy, though.
>>4515592That's a rip offIf you're gonna spend that much on a system, go the oconner route.
Does anyone have a reccomendation for a camera bag? I was thinking of getting the think tank walker pro, but the 200$ price tag is a little steep for me, so I want to look at other alternatives
>>4515593I'd only ever get Manfrotto or Benro.>>4515638For those prices? Look at Tenba or Lowepro instead honestly. The place I used to work at use Lowepro for all their gear so that gives a good idea of quality, since all that shit went through a lot of throwing around.
what is the best camera for taking pictures of trees, annoyed nyc pedestrians and my dogs ass
>>4515645Your phone
>>4515638Manfrotto PRO Light Backloader
Why is buying used such a common recommendation? Spending hundreds of dollars for someone's used goods sounds gross
>>4515652How would you ever buy long discontinued lenses that create more pleasing images than modern slop if you don't buy used? You could wipe it down with alcohol pads if you're an actual germophobe or something I guess...
>>4515652Are you a germaphobe or just paranoid that someone else has wiped their cock on it? I'm not sure I've ever bought a brand new lens or body and none of them have ever been what I would describe as gross. A little dusty maybe and just the general grime that comes from use but nothing that can't be cleaned off in five minutes. Any time I leave the house and go out in public I'm touching things much dirtier than my gear.
Guys. I like shooting sunsets and I find that my R5 is not able to capture what I see and I lose colors.For instance, spectacular sunset lots of striking orange and purple with some blue mixed in the center of the image, yet when I go to check the photos the blue is completely lost. No amount of messing around in DXO or DPP is able to bring it back what was supposed to be blue has just been smeared in with the other colors. Do I have to go the medium format route?
>>4515652only exercise a little judgement from whom you buy and what, and you will have marvelous discounts on what seemeth new but not.
>>4515663Wdym lost colours? Like they're desaturated or they're shifted? Can you post an example?
>>4515663Post RAW & your attempt at editing.> Do I have to go the medium format route?Only if you are already doing everything perfectly, which you almost certainly are not.
>>4515592I admire the unabashed greed of that company.
I've said nice camera to two old guys with digital leicas and they both ignored me entirely.I said nice camera to a guy with a hasselblad 500cm with motorized winder, 40mm distagon + CFV digital back and he stopped to chit chat a bit and he took a look at my contact printed 8x10 egg pic. The guy even knew about Sinars.Is this a common occurance?
>>4515675>be jewish>be rude as fuckYes it is a common occurrence
>>4515675Leicafags are retards, don't worry about it. It's just a fashion accessory to them. I've had fine luck talking to pretty much anyone else about cameras, usually we get talking about any interesting spots nearby and maybe share our IG names depending.
>>4515663These are all with the OG R5, can't wait to see yours since they must be on par.>>4515675>try to talk to 3 strangers, 1 responds back, I must conclude something from thisYou should try one of the Beers & Cameras meetups, or really any photo/camera oriented social group. Much better way to get a more informed opinion on the types of people that use certain cameras.
>>4515677Same. I try to grab the attention of anyone that has an ILC type camera around their neck when I'm selling eggs at the market because I assume they would like to see one of my albumen or contact prints that Ive brought and it usually works, but I've never had any luck with Leica wearers.>>4515678Are you ken rockwell or one of his acolytes? Not a bad idea to go to an actual camera meetup. I guess I could bring one of my smaller film cams to it or whatever I guess.
>>4515681>ILC type camera around their neckSpeaking of which, any recommendations for a good neck strap for a full frame?
>>4515682I just choose one from a different brand because it's kind of funny and I have a few different ones that inadvertently got swapped around between cameras.
>>4515683I love my Minolta strap lolUse it on a Pentax
>>4515678These all look terrible ken
>>4515685Should be that much easier for OP to show off how they've mastered their R5 then
What’s better: this?
Or this?I’m not sure if this is overkill, I mainly need something to rebalance the weight of the camera on the tripod, not sure if I need to support the lenses as well (800g and 650g roughly on a 700g camera).
The camera has a magnesium alloy chassis.
>>4515685this is the norm for "good" photography.Crank those levels up to trigger maximum dopamine.Who cares what the scene actually looked like.The same way "good" food for normies is oversweetened slop. No appreciation for subtlety / refinement / accuracy, just blast those dopamine receptors
>>4515688I got one of these which I've been pretty happy with: https://au.neewer.com/collections/cages-rigs/products/neewer-aluminum-alloy-film-movie-making-camera-video-cage-for-dslr-cameras-66600481If you think those two that you posted are overkill then the Neewer rig probably goes above and beyond overkill. I use it with an adjustable height Smallrig Y-bracket that has little wheels on the apexes of the Y so I can use the manual focus on my big chonky 300mm but it doesn't seem to be sold anywhere anymore (or maybe I'm just retarded, also very likely)Even if it's overkill, it opens up a lot of options and possibilities that a more simple lens support doesn't. Pic rel is from when I first got it a couple of months ago, I flipped the handle around pretty quickly because it was a pain in the ass.
>>4515687I have this and it's fine for basic macro.Realistically if you can afford it get a version with adjustment knobs instead, as it's quite difficult to fine-tune at macro DoF levels.
>>4515688This one is an L-bracket.For rebalancing on a tripod you will need this >>4515687
>>4515676Go be an antisemite somewhere else. Digital leica cucks are cunts because they’re $10k deep into digislugging and dont like being reminded of film’s lasting superiority. It makes them REEEE internally. If they were jewish, they wouldn’t spend five figures on a nerfed sony alpha seven arr and they’d be nice to you as long as you weren’t a pro-iranian anti-civilization lunatic. >>4515701Nothing a digislop machine produces will ever, ever look like what was really in front of the camera. All the things digital fucks up and needs corrected to look vibrant fake or dull fake (saturation, contrast, and white balance) are handled significantly better on film. Film has a random array of non-linear photoreceptors The human eye has a random array of non-linear photoreceptorsIf you want to “have taste” stop being a bitch and grab some kodak 120 five packs. If you want to have fun, crank those sliders.
>>4515663Yes, or an older camera with a stronger CFA. Digital color rendition gets worse every year. The engineers behind most cameras have negligible soul and think they’re building astronomy equipment for NASA. The latest digislug trend is just desaturating everything because it will never look good if the colors the machine saw are emphasized.
>>4515730but anon, digital cameras just reproduce the colours that are there. film is just random tints for le aesthetic larp lmfao. im sorry you can't handle this fact, i hope you learn to cope rather than lying to yourself.
>>4515731I came to the conclusion that it is color banding that can't be corrected and is baked into the RAW files. Some sort of overlap between blue and magenta. There was supposed to be a patch of blue in the center of an otherwise very purple and orange sunset. Like Ken Rockwell tier levels of saturation, but in reality. The camera was unable to reproduce it accurately.
>>4515738not an issue if u learn to expose correctly btw
>>4515738Digital doesn’t reproduce the colors (perceived). It discriminates between the wavelengths (scientifically measurable) but does a horrible job with replicating human perception which is “objectively bad” (scientifically useless). The physical world that is measurable is not what you see and never has been. This is why color, contrast, and sharpness have always looked more unnatural on digital than film. Sharpness is a huge offender today. Pixel peepers have pursued sharpness to the point that photos look AI generated solely by using rise distance as a measure of quality and ignoring the importance of decreasing contrast with increasing frequency and the supreme importance of how focus falloff and field curvature have to be rendered for a natural looking photograph. Consoomers have demanded lenses that render star fields and test charts perfectly wide open. Digital photography now looks 10x shittier and film is surviving solely because of this. Otherwise kodak wouldn’t even make consumer film anymore. You’d be respooling bulk cinema film to shoot.
>>4515740What you see is not what is real and a soientist with the proper equipment would come to the same conclusion as the camera: it was an illusion. Film and strong CFA digitals do not have this problem. They are also susceptible to the illusion as they should be. >>4515741I’ve had the same issues and it wasn’t clipping channels. It was just a weak CFA bayer sensor telling me that the colors I see are wrong and were actually shades of lighter blue. And that everyone’s skin is grayer and more pallid than I see. Etc. ever since shitty modern weak cfa hdr sensors like snoykon/poorax dslrs started dominating due to their specs (ability to shoot at iso 12800 and push shadows 5 stops), the digislug cope has been:>Raws are meant to be flat so you can edit them!>does this >>4515701 >or the flat desaturated versionWhich lead to most people abandoning cameras for phones because their photos would look unnatural either way, or film if they still cared
>>4515744trvthmost fine art photographers are still primarily using film so they dont enshittify as badly as annie leibovitzvintage CCDs and phase one trichromatic backs are the only recording mediums that still do color right
>>4515701Lol that was so much effort just to make the image look a little fried. Could have just dragged down the highlights and upped the shadows if you want mildly cooked HDR vision. It's always a kind of cope that happen in the editing room. "Maybe I can make this mediocre picture interesting..."
>>4515742That's why the best in between is a high megapickle body and adapting lenses or using chinese recreations of older designs. Just keep around a cheap weather sealed kit zoom for when you want that ultra digital look the couple times you might need it.
>>4515745>most fine art photographers are still primarily using filmWrong.
>>4515749go ahead and post all that amazing digital fine art photography (you cant. it sucks)no, samey vogue and elle covers and editorials are not fine artor artat allits sears photo studio for rich kids
>>4515747>Could have just dragged down the highlights and upped the shadows if you want mildly cooked HDR visionAlso since this was shot on a Lumix could have turned on some level of i-dynamic to get the same effect algorithmically straight to JPEG.Most cameras have some form of this:https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical
>>4515751Yes, but no one serious wastes their time editing raws pre-capture because that is every bit as stupid as rockwellian mania editing.It is not 2008. Raw is the standard. Storage is cheap. Processors are fast. Capture one perpetual costs as much as a kit zoom. Carrying a gray card and GND pack (the only way to actually shoot jpeg) is best left to videocucks (who basically shoot jpeg).
>>4515751>panasonigga thinks lumix invented in camera tone curvessony has d range opt, black level, and full gamma control in jpegscanon has it (with a base iso of 200)fuji has it (dr200/400/800)nikon has it (active d lighting)who doesnt have this? no one cares because camera jpeg engines are a bit blurry, literally all camera screens are inaccurate, and limiting your “color science” to your purchase - beyond universal trends in sensor and CFA design - is for cucks, frankly>i cant use a better camera with better everything because i like this worse ones jpegs!>-a victim of consumerism to humans, a successful experiment in golem creation to MBAs
Do people spend money on gear in order to achieve the following?>higher fidelity (e.g. more sharpness, less noise)>greater subject isolationI'm brand new to photography and started learning about this, and I keep hearing that lenses are "better" or "worse" than one another. I'm assuming that "better" just means higher fidelity, in general.I guess if people want things that are imperfect or add coloration, they either do it in post or they just use film instead of digital?
>>4515762they spend money so they can zoom in and have harshly rendered pores/peach fuzz and perfectly smooth bokeh ballsdont do thatit makes photos look like AI
>>4515754>I don't have time to push a buttonfound the iToddler
>>4515754>no one serious wastes their time editing raws pre-captureYou speak the truth>>4515755>fuji has it (dr200/400/800)These aren't really tone curves in the same sense of the others, they change how the camera is exposed on a hardware level (and thusly affect raws too)
>>4515755>>panasonigga thinks lumix invented in camera tone curvesI literally said "Most cameras have some form of this:" but I guess your vision blanks out with rage as soon as you see the word LUMIX.
>>4515768yeah fuck lumixtotal panasonic death
How do you anons clean your lens? I was thinking about getting a small blower and pack of lens cleaners wipes
>>4515771I use Kodak cleaning papers that came with old gear I've purchased. Same as tiffen today I believe. I breathe on it and then wipe.There is quite a bit of difference when it comes to the quality of blowers. The cheapest ones are just no-name crap made to be a product they can bundle with other crap so they are soft and may have large nostril causing the air to just leisurely flow not really getting rid of the dust.Do not buy pic related.
This one is better, but not the best I've used.
This one is the best I've used. It shoots straight, with force and has thicker rubber.
>>4515774Depends on the size I think since there's a smaller version. The biggest one works great.
>>4515701no amount of editing could take away the brown dirt in the foreground.
>>4515771good blowerLINT FREE wipesisopropyl alcohol spray
>>4515782>isopropyl alcohol sprayToo much risk of drying out seals or damaging the coating imo. I use a mist of distilled water on lint free wipes.
>>4515785I never heard tell of such a riskwhere’d you learn about it?
>>4515786Automotive use of isopropyl alcohol, it's hell on rubber and certain coatings and those items were built to be able to withstand intense weather conditions. What I like about distilled water is it won't leave streaks or water spots since it's free of calcium and other minerals that cause that. The bonus as well is that even if it got into seals, there's nothing in it that would promote growth of fungus so it just dries up into nothing.
>in need of new sd card>look up prices>128gb sd card goes from $90-120I hate this planet
>>4515792I was looking at a 256gb, it's truly fucked out there.
>>4515792>>4515793AI slurping up all the chips.It's definitely hurting/hindering camera releases as well, about half as many releases this year compared to normal.
>>4515794My assumption was the slow camera releases were more about the overall world economy rather than chip shortages. I still don't even really understand why flash memory like cards are becoming scarce, it's not like those things are running data centers.
>>4515793>>4515794>>4515795worst part is that I have a trip coming up in a few weeks that I need to buy some spare ones for, so I can't even wait for it to get "better"
>>4515795Manufacturing capacity
>>4515792yeah but how about those AI memes huh
>>4515742>looks shittierI think lukewarms say this because they don't know how to take good photos and need to rely on le cinematic colour grading. Film looks nothing like real life, it changes colours, creates casts in shadows and highlights that aren't present in real life.
bros coffee or black on black half case
>>4515812Black coffee for me please
>>4515817AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>4515812they both look like shitbut black obviously
>>4515810Film looks more like real life than a flat reality scan made of a 2x2 or 6x6 grid of colorful computery squares designed by autistic computer scientists and engineersFilm was made by chemists and physicists, so they actually had souls and got laid>>4515812This is even more tasteless than nikon color science
>>4515810meanwhile most fine art photography is still film and digital can either look lo-fi (some of the few noteworthy art digisnaps are lo fi) or like a horrid unnatural CGI render with max edge contrast down to the smallest detail before it starts shitting out rainbow squiggles like an AI generated image (because dpreview and dxomark said AA filters are bad, and companies listened)
>>4515837But anon, what about the colours? Film has totally different colours from film stock to film stock, so which one looks like real life? Please provide a better answer this time. >>4515838Try again but make it coherent this time, schizo.
>>4515812Half cases like this aren't that good when they don't come up to the shoulders like they did on older cameras, pic rel. On the case you posted, some of your fingers on your right hand are gripping the case and the ones up higher are gripping the body, which is kinda uncomfortable. You're probably better off with a battery grip or L bracket if you want some protection on the camera.
>>4515839The colors might not be scientifically accurate, but they look more like real life and are closer to memory-accurate than a gross flat cold reality scan verified by an optical scientist to show scientifically accurate colors. >Uh, peoples skin is actually that gray and pallid with red blotches! It is, really! I measured the wavelengths and every region is correctly discriminated with an error of +/-2.3% and an sensor metamerism index of 93. Maybe you should COLOR GRADE and do my job for me. This camera discriminates between 4 million shades of red instead of a few hundred. “Ohhh no but the flowers look pink” yes retard because they are objectively not pure red and it has to render them as a different shade to reflect reality. EDIT IT. And maybe be thankful for the ten stops of shadow recovery you have thanks to me? Bye! -camera designers now>No the sky isnt that teal but it looks really good and some people think the sky is that teal so who cares. Aren’t these skin tones nice? No not everyone looks this healthy and this guys rash blended in and basically disappeared but it looks nice. Check this out. The red flowers are red. Raws look like jpegs. Who needs to edit? -camera designers then
>>4515841>The colors might not be accurateCould have ended it here, lil bro. Digital wins again, EZ. Thanks for admitting film sucks.
>>4515839sorry if this >>4515838 isnt coherent to you, you have zero experience using film or digital. maybe you have a canon rebel and order lab scans from a guy with fucking noritsu/frontier. digital always looks like shit. film always looks good. most fine art photography is film. there are 200mp 16 stop dr cameras and most fine art photography is still film (200mp 16 stop dr is a thing on film already - 6x9 color negs kek. digislugs dont know because they think dr is a shadow noise measurement, but on film its highlight recovery with subjectively allowable color shifts)
>>4515843Your eye sees: Red flowerFilm photographs: red flowerCanon 5D classic photographs: red flower but you can edit it to another color if you wantNikon Z8 photographs: pink gradient flower because objectively according to scientific equipment its not true red/you’re meant to edit it actually/just turn the saturation up until it all clips red>digital wins! SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE!Your eye sees: decreasing edge definition with decreasing detail sizeFilm sees: decreasing edge definition with decreasing detail sizeCanon 5d classic sees: a pleasing soft effect that doesn’t try to render anything it can’tNikon Z8 sees: maximum edge definition regardless of detail size until bayer/xtrans fucks up and creates moire, rainbow garble, maze patterns, worms, etc>digital wins again! SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE!Modern cameras are not artistic tools. They are astronomical observation and forensics equipment. You probably dont know this but the biggest buyers of high end digishit like hasselblads and fuji gfx are museums, research institutions, and forensics labs.
>>4515843What >>4515845 said except>Your eye sees: Red flower>Gold 200 photographs: yellow flower>Portra 400 photographs: maroon flower>Vision 3 500 photographs orange flower with teal halation>Ektachrome photographs: purple flower>Tri-X photographs: grey flowerLol, lmao even.
>>4515844>digital always looks like shit. film always looks good.Wait so how come all professionals shoot digital now? And how come all artists have already switched to digital tho? Answer quicker please.
>>4515852Its all red. Sorry you had your film scanned at the lab. >>4515853>professionalsAre soulless snapshitters with no artistic ability. Yeah, the walmart photographer shoots digital! The wedding GWAC needs an R5 not to fail at his job completely! The news shoos digital! Win!>artists switched from filmInstagram accounts are not artistsAnd neither is annie leibovitz or anyone shooting for tabloids and fashion rag toilet paper for that matter (annie’s modern work has been hot fucking garbage since she picked up her first d810). Shit, most fashion photography can’t even be called art. A photobook by garry winogrand is more art than that american-rich studioslop. The vast majority of fine art photography is shot on film. When its digital it tends to suck so it’s still mostly film. Or did you think kodak still made sheet film to wank? No its because anyone who takes photography seriously as an art form uses film instead of a max sharpness scientifically accurate wavelength discrimination digicope machine.
>>4515853omg guys realestate photographers are using digital cameras it is so over for filmhow can we seriously sleep on the ultra sharp 67mp snoy when it is so prominently used on zillow? im tossing my 500cm assp i dont need this inconvenient shit that only produces 200mp scans and wall sized enlargements if im willing to accept soft details and visible grain when pixel peeping. digital is better because its sharper and has less grain. zillow has spoken.
Nothing will convince me otherwise that the people who whine the most about digital color, are just bad at editing (or genuine nophotos)
>>4515857>The vast majority of fine art photographyWho are some fine art photographers I should be be looking towards?
>>4515857>Instagram accounts are not artistsWait so film photographers aren't artists? Because thats the only place film photos end up nowadays... oh an lomography.com ahahahahahahahahah
>>4515863There is not a digital camera on sale today that could produce worse colours on auto WB than even the best film stock. They don't even need to edit. It's just poorfags coping because they can't afford full frame digital - so they're cucked into >photography as a subscription service>aka filmI'll take my pay once, and 'smile-at-perfect-colours-everytime', machine thanks. The thinking mans choice. Pretty simple.
>>4515867>>4515866>>4515864Digislugs cope hard but notice they aren’t posting any fine art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet film. Digital is mostly for commercial photography and low tier work like “guess the ethnicity” art and “i have access to famous people!” shoots. Oh and yeah, worthless snapshots that might as well be AI like youtube and insta. Kodak isn’t expanding their consumer 120 and 4x5+ film offerings again for no reason. Pixel peeping sharpness and noise is getting old. 240fps shooting is passe. If film is so much worse why is it bigger than ever now when anyone can afford a sony a7rii, canon 5DS or nikon D850? People arent even buying those cameras to photograph things anymore, they’re buying them to make film scans as lesser versions of their final darkroom prints. And mock digiplebs when their most poorly shot, soft lens wide open 6x6 is still good for 70-100mp. Soth, Hido, Eich, Crewdson, even the up and coming like Wright and Dooley. All film. If you aren’t shooting 6x6cm at least, at making real prints, you will never be taken seriously as an artist. You’re competing with and will be mistaken for AI. Sorry! Have fun competing with grok for likes and follows whenever you aren’t being the G.W.A.C. at some suckers weddingFilmGODS will continue defining art photography in your absence
>>4515869Very true, this simply could never be achieved on digital
>Film:>Ken Griffith>Jon Nicholson (primarily)>Nick Carver>Emily Rinard>Ken Rockwell (only competent on film)>Alex Burke>Jules Frazier>Bryan Schutmaat>Annie Leibovitz, the better years>Literally every 20th century photographer desu>Digital: >Seth Stern? (His film shots are better)>Ken Rockwell (poorly)>Gerald Undone>Fro Knows Photo>Annie Leibovitz, the half assed years>Uhhhh?>>4515871@grok generate me a cinematic photo of a coping digislug shot on a sony a7rvi and color graded in capture one
>>4515869>>4515872Damn that's crazy lil bro.So where's your 'fine art' on film?Don't start coping now, after all, you spent so much of your wagey on your hobby as a subscription service... LOL!
The filmchad is correct. We’re wasting our time giving a shit about digital gear and comparing our SNRs, MTFs and megapixels. The only photos anyone looks at more than once are shot on film, and pretty soon no one will even want to see a jpeg unless they can also see an original negative/slide. As far as digital goes, the one you have with you that doesn’t have AI or wifi. Digital doesn’t matter.
>>4515873>ESL + innercityeseIllegal: detectedOpinion: discardedICE: calledOnce you’re back home you can take some awesome photos on film :)
>>4515873Yeah I’m with filmchad here. Film is pretty cheap. Even sheet film is basically free compared to serious hobbies like modding cars, sailing, and civilian aviation and shooting medium format or sheets for years comes nowhere near the expense of a single professional level musical instrument. If you think its a major copeworthy expense you might be more used to the economic situation in another country, h1-bro.
>>4515874>We’re wasting our time giving a shit about digital gearAs a film user, we're definitely more guilty of gear fagging. People such as myself and others in this thread pay thousands of dollars for vintage nikons, mamiyas, pentaxes that will likely fail in the near future and have no spare part available, leaving them unrepairable. As much as I love my film gear, I've got to admit, nothing beats just being able to buy a cheap digi and shoot infinite pictures at no additional cost...
>>4515877You should have asked AI to correct your ESLbabbleThen again, you could also ask AI to do digital “photography” for you and saved thousands by not buying the newest canikony
>>4515877Dubs of truth, checked. I am also a film user, but I agree, we are usually the most heinous gear-fags with the least artistically or commercially viable portfolios. Personally, I, like other film users in this thread, prefer to shoot boring subjects at boring focal lengths. This is because this is all that is available for my vintage camera and I rely on the unnatural colour grading of my chosen stock to make my photos look interesting, which they don't.
>>4515871>this simply could never be achieved on digitalfoveon
>>4515878*could have asked AIAccuse the ESL, become the ESL. Wait… Is it contagious?
>>4515879>>4515877>my fellow film userstrying too hard samefag. >>4515869>>4515872irrefutable and extremely epic win for filmchads - and their dogs
>>4515869Personally, as a film user, I also think this dogshit webcam photo is 'art'. Probably why most people disregard the opinion of myself and others like me who are also annoying, child-like, film shooters. At least I can take pictures of my gear (I have a Nikon F3) and get lots of karma on reddit!
>>4515873You need to stop asking this!!! It's not fair to film shooters like me that have to wait six weeks for 24 4 megapixel drum scanned snapshits. This next roll will surely get me into magnum, you fricken chud!
>>4515869You triggered a major meltie with this trvke
>>4515867>>photography as a subscription serviceIt's over film sisters... digichad raped us... how will we come back from this? He's right, we're having a MAJOR MELTDOWN here. Just cancelled my next shipment of Tri-X, which cost two hundred dollars before development and low quality scanning fees... im going to start saving up my wage-coin for an R5... It's the only option if you're a real photographer...
>>4515886>we're having a MAJOR MELTDOWN hereHonestly, it does kind of seem like it
>>4515886>im going to start saving up my wage-coin for an R5I was thinking this also. Canon colors were always the best, but now with the new R system, they're better than ever. Most importantly, better than film ever was.
>>4515886Yeah you’re genuinely melting down hereCouldn’t post any good fine art photographers who use digital huh
>>4515893I understand your enraged confusion anon, I used to be a film-sissy too. It's ok, there are cameras out there that take good pictures. They're called DIGITAL CAMERAS. Hope this helps and you can stop irritating beloved family members with your annoying and misinformed 'film-is-better-than-digital' lectures at gatherings... :)
Film and digital are just different. They both have objective and subjective strengths and weaknesses. Saying one is strictly better than the other is retarded.
>>4515894>meltdown continues
The melty was epic so I refined my post as a pastaDirections: copy below line and use an epic photo by one of the listed filmGODs_Digislugs cope hard about their canikony’s autofocus, megapixels, sharpness, zoom lens, and auto modes, but notice they aren’t posting about art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet film. Digital is mostly for commercial photography, magazine snaps, and low tier diversityslop art. And of course, unimportant snapshots that might as well be AI - typically found on youtube and instagram.Kodak isn’t expanding their consumer 120 and sheet film offerings for no reason. Pixel peeping sharpness and noise is getting old. 240fps shooting is passe. If film is so much worse why is it bigger than ever now when anyone can afford a nice FF digital and the world's supply of functioning film cameras is running low? Why are some of the few film cameras still in production leicas, medium format tech cameras, and 4x5 view cameras? Why are all the best selling digital cameras casual PnS?Because film is synonymous with art, and digital is synonymous with snapshots.Soth, Hido, Eich, Crewdson, even the up and coming like Wright and Dooley. All film.Ken Griffith, Jon Nicholson, Nick Carver, Dog Hair Negatives, Emily Rinard, Alex Burke, Jules Frazier, Bryan Schutmaat, literally every 20th century photographer - all film.Who shoots digital again? Ken Rockwell? His serious work is on film. Even low tier youtubers like Jared Polin do their serious work on film. So really, who is using digital for serious artwork? If you can name one, they probably do better work on film.If you aren’t shooting 6x6cm at least, and making real prints, you will never be taken seriously as an artist. You’re competing with and will be mistaken for AI. Sorry!Have fun competing with @grok for likes and follows whenever you aren’t being the G.W.A.C. at some suckers weddingFilmGODS will continue defining art photography in your absence
>>4515900>deleted ESLbabbleThat's a lot of words. Here's all digital needs:>digital looks like real life>film is photography as a subscription serviceSorry to absolutely demolish that yap you took two hours to write, LOL
>>4515902There's nothing stopping you from making your own film. The most basic types use simple, easily attainable chemicals and are fairly straightforward to produce. If you want orthochromatic film things get a bit more complicated, but still achievable with a basic darkroom/lab setup.
Here is my argument for digital, regardless of any artistic merit and just discussing the process of getting the photo. If I was using film I probably wouldn't have bothered wasting any shots attempting it, but if I had I probably would have burned through a whole roll and not even known if I had a shot I liked until days later and would have needed to get lucky guessing the shutter speed. Digital allows you to experiment for free, and try as many times as you need to get the shot you want with no cost.
>>4515901Didn't read lolStay mad
>>4515902>digital looks like real life
>>4515904But your shutter speed was still too slow for your shot. Once you understand what exposure is and how to use a light meter you can nail exposures on film just about 100% of the time. Camera operation is the easiest part of photography.Many film cameras also have superb metering systems that will nail just about every shot as well. Nikon F5/F6 are notable examples.
>>4515904>digital is better for people who haven’t learned photography yetwell, that settles things>>4515901based
>>4515901>reformats his post>/p/ seethes twicebrilliant
>>4515901The levels of retardation in this post are massive, but at the same time I love how mad it makes gearfags. It's very conflicting.
>>4515907>But your shutter speed was still too slow for your shot.Says you. I got the difference between the splashing water and the falling drop that I wanted.>Once you understand what exposure is and how to use a light meter you can nail exposures on film just about 100% of the timeIt's not about the exposure, as you say there are many film bodies that have decent metering systems. What I'm talking about is the effect the chosen settings have on the outcome. Without looking up the exif I bet you can't tell me whether that shot was at 1/250 or 1/1000, nor would you have been able to choose the correct setting to get the desired balance that I mentioned. And then there's the actual timing of the shot, once I had the settings down I probably had 10-15 that caught a drop to choose the my favourite from. I was probably out there for maybe 10 minutes and knew I could stop because I had some promising shots, with film I would have just gone until the roll was spent and hoped.
>>4515901The levels of genius in this post are incomprehensible – and it makes geafags seethe. It’s not just a meme, it’s a revolution. It recontextualizes equipment, questions the assumption of creative intent, and explores photography’s nature as an inherently American art form. Bravo. I salute thee. Great post.
>>4515913But I wouldn't want the water drops to look that blurry and unsatisfying. I dont do a lot of freeze frame type photography, so I do not have a good sense for shutter speeds in that way.How many pictures in total did you take to get 10-15 to choose from and is none of your photography worth the cost of a single roll of film to capture?
>>4515913Can you post one where you completely froze the droplet?
>>4515922Anon. You could have done a droplet picture with flash. In fact, flash pulses and film cameras with leaf shutters (ie: hasselblad, bronica, large format) are the best way to freeze motion. Flash fires faster than 1/8000 and leafs have no rolling shutter and sync with flash at all speeds.
>>4515922>But I wouldn't want the water drops to look that blurry and unsatisfying.And that's fair, but your wants aren't my wants. I wanted the splashes to look energetic and the drop to be still and that was the balance I settled on. I maybe could have gone slightly faster, that shot looked better on the screen and I was taking so many and was getting cold so didn't take the time to zoom in on every one. But I could have, I could have put in more effort and got it closer to perfect. I couldn't have done that with film.>How many pictures in total did you take to get 10-15 to choose from and is none of your photography worth the cost of a single roll of film to capture?Probably at least double that dialling in the settings and missing shots because the timing was off. Considering it's about £25 to buy, dev, and scan a roll no I don't think it would have been worth it for a single shot that might not have turned out. I know not all film photos would have that cost, depending on the situation you could get 36 great ones per roll, but I'm talking about this specific situation.>>4515923Unfortunately not, I had a look back through my card and I deleted most of them while I was narrowing them down. I remember not liking how the splashes in the background looked being frozen.>>4515924As above, I wasn't trying to freeze the whole scene otherwise I would have just used a flash as well. You're missing my intention with the photo. And before you say it's shit that's irrelevant, it's what I wanted and I used the advantages of digital to get it.
>>4515924Depends on the flash, but yeah you're right. I didn't mention it because he was just wandering about and taking pics outside. Probably didn't have the time to whip out a flash or whatever.>>4515926Differences in opinion are totally fine.Upon reflection I think your precise situation is actually fairly uncommon in the grand scheme of "good photography" so I don't think it really has that much weight in the argument, but I will say that sometimes it is fun to just use a digital camera and not really worry about film and all that. Doesn't really facilitate good photography most of the time, but we don't need to be doing that every time we use cameras.I also think that a lot of useful experiments/learning/test shots need to be done with film if you intend to have your final images be taken with film. Back in the day people would use polaroid for their test shots to make sure their strobes were all set up well, etc. Totally fine and smart to swap a digicam out when doing something like that.
>>4515930>i want to freeze one drop but not the restDigislugs
>>4515792I sell digicams online to finance my GAS so I've had to buy lots of SD-cards and I was shocked as well looking at my purchase history on aliexpress compared to what it is now. Regret not buying a whole lot more, but we are talking about a 3x in price for even generic slow cards.
>>4515932I paid $20 for a 2GB card for my digishitter since the fucker of a thing will only accept the very oldest version of SDs, and even used vintage ones were insanely priced.
>>4515877the best compromise is doing both80s-90s autofocus film SLR + 2010s DSLR that uses the same lenses film SLRs are usually pretty compact, the size of a apsc mirrorless or smaller and often <$50 if you go for a non-professional body. take your pick of nikon, pentax, minolta/sony a-mount (get a la-ea5 adapter if you're e-mount), canon
>>4515931You could probably do it with an annoyingly finnicky strobe/continuous lighting setup, but definitely not achievable in the rain.. Oh wait. It's digital he could just make a composite image!
>>4515935I've been using a Nikon 90s SLR for my film photos, the whole thing works just like a brand new camera which is comfy (loudest AF I've ever heard since it's the screw type so I just manual focus now). Film costs are still just a major pain in the ass, especially if I have a timeframe to get everything done within. I've had a 36exp roll with only 10 shots used sitting in it for two months now.
>>4515938You can take the roll out if you keep the leader exposed. Mark how many shots you took then put a lens cap back on and take pics until you get passed your exposed section.
>>4515939I'm not confident enough to do that, so I'm fine with it just sitting until it's ready. It's still a few months away from expiring anyway.
>>4515943Okay well you now have an excuse to buy another film camera. :) May I suggest a 4x5 camera. A field camera would be good for maximum portability.It will completely solve the problem you are currently suffering from. You can dev each sheet individually or do batches of 4-10 depending on the dev tank you use.
>>4515946I've got a little PnS that picks up the slack, it's an early 90s Jap one that has a glass lens instead of plastic and can also read those barcodes from rolls that tell it the ISO (which is amazing for such an old PnS imo). Honestly if developing and buying film wasn't so expensive, I'd probably be firing off photos constantly. I was getting rolls and development dirt cheap during COVID for some reason but prices seemed to hike up in the last 2 years.
>>4515947Dang I thought I was going to convert you to sheet film. B&w home dev can get down to pennies per roll and it's really quite simple. You start saving pretty quickly too. Maybe like 20 rolls or less and you've already paid for your tank and chems.
>>4515951>Dang I thought I was going to convert you to sheet film. Maybe someday, but not yet. >B&w home dev can get down to pennies per roll and it's really quite simple. You start saving pretty quickly too. Maybe like 20 rolls or less and you've already paid for your tank and chems.Yeah I'm going to look into b&w home dev when I have more time and a bigger place. My next place is going to have a giant garage so I'm going to build a little development room in the back and also a few sets. I posted in some other thread about having a massive vinyl record collection and some anon suggested building a record shop set, so I'm going to do that too.
>>4515930That exact situation sure, but there are many situations where being able to take more photos and get instant feedback are very useful. And it's not just a skill issue and chimping away, some things you just have to be really lucky for and for others, despite how good you might think you are, you just won't get right the first time.>I also think that a lot of useful experiments/learning/test shots need to be done with film if you intend to have your final images be taken with filmBut I have no intention of using film. Unless you're poor and don't take many photos or you're shooting larger than 35mm there's really no need to.
>>4515953Oh I remember that. A sink with tempered water is nice for b&w dev, but you don't need a whole room for just dev. You only need a changing bag for roll film and 4x5. Your room could be made into a darkroom first that makes loading film convenient and easy. I'm getting a crazy darkroom built in my shop. Permitting is holding stuff up like crazy but maybe Ill be lucky and get permit approval in a month or two.>>4515955If you shoot a lot of film you gain a sense for what a photograph will look like with whatever film you're using. Getting lucky means capturing the moment. Chimping and retaking a shot will almost never get you that moment back. Get it right the first time or SOL. No difference between film and digital in that respect.35mm film makes wonderful looking prints up to and above 11x14 depending. Do not talk poorly of a great format.
>>4515956> you don't need a whole room for just devYeah it'll be just a little space at the back, I'd use the other space for sets and my cars.>I'm getting a crazy darkroom built in my shop. Permitting is holding stuff up like crazy but maybe Ill be lucky and get permit approval in a month or two.Based. Making it into a proper business or is it because it's modifying the building?
>>4515957I'd like it to become a small business/side hustle, and you can totally do that without permits if it stays small enough, but just the building modification is what's slowing it down. I was close, but they found a small discrepancy between the building size and the actual size of the building or some bullshit and so it has to take an extra 4+ months to get figured out now.Keeping lots of room for sets and a studio is a good idea. You need a suprisinf amount of space depending on what you want to do and more space = more possibilities.
>>4515958Based, hope it works out for you anon. You could do some serious business if you price things a bit lower than others (even a dollar makes a difference) and get some good local connections. I'm a little envious honestly, it sounds like a great way to meet like minded people.>Keeping lots of room for sets and a studio is a good idea. You need a suprisinf amount of space depending on what you want to do and more space = more possibilities.I'll temper my expectations. The record store will be easy, it's mostly going to be just the corner of one like a TV show set but haven't decided what the other set might be, but it should be something that is otherwise usually too crowded/not private enough for a photoshoot. The record store set looks easiest since I just need a few shelves, some posters and some of those crates those stores put records in.
>>4515959My initial thought is that I'll offer maybe 5ish portrait sessions for just the cost of materials and choose a selection of people that look pretty different from each other to build a diverse portfolio. Then from there idk, but I'll have some really high end prints to show how nice large format film looks to people. I'll be able to do RA4, and I really want to try 8x10 color contact prints. I think they will look exceptional if I can get the color balancing figured out.From my experience with having vision and concepts that I've tried actualizing through photography I think you're going to find more use out of the props you assemble than you expect. A record store could turn into a 70s themed living room, or a cool bedroom and those changes won't require you to get all new stuff, but make use of what you have in unexpected ways.Full sized set design is going to be really fun and a great way to take unique and awesome pictures.
>>4515960>From my experience with having vision and concepts that I've tried actualizing through photography I think you're going to find more use out of the props you assemble than you expect. A record store could turn into a 70s themed living room, or a cool bedroom and those changes won't require you to get all new stuff, but make use of what you have in unexpected ways.>Full sized set design is going to be really fun and a great way to take unique and awesome pictures.Pretty cool idea, I could just rework it into different period pieces with the same items. Just kinda sucks that I can't do any portraits of myself with it, I don't think putting my face on 4chan is the best of ideas so most anons will probably never see the set when it's completed.
>>4515961Exactly. If you keep an open mind you'll find some pretty cool inspiration with what you have.You can always get a dog and take pictures of dog in your set lol.
Lol and they say film doesn't look like real life... fricklen digichuds...
