No matter how many times I try or how long, no matter how many tutorials I watch on youtube, my photos invariably still look digital. What am I doing wrong?
>>4522453
>>4522454
>>4522455
>>4522453You aren't shooting film. It is really that simple.
>>4522453They would look more filmic if they were good shots.
>>4522457Not according to this >>4522459 fellow
>>4522459Not according to this >>4522457 fellow.
idk if you told me these were all film, i'd believe you. here's a shot on kodak gold for comparison
>>4522464This one >>4522455 is clearly Snoy shit
>>4522453Aside from >>4522457There isn't much of a film look. Some film shots are sharp and some aren't. Some are perfectly exposed and some aren't. Some have hallmarks of film like halation and grain, some seem so smooth and accurate you'd swear they were digital. Part of it is the nature of film as a medium and digitally printing it. Because that's what a scan of a negative is, a digital print. Negatives were meant to be printed and edited and messed with. Slides were meant to be smooth and look good projected or in a small lightbox. Newer film can be made with scanning in mind a la portra, but that's just to ease the workflow of labs... Who then send you scans and try to sell you prints.
Sorry bruh but the lens maketh the shot, and using high resolution modern lenses are always going to give a different look than older designs.Go buy a first gen EF 50mm or nFD 50mm and adapt that to your camera. Or better yet just shoot film.
>>4522470OP is a poor with Snoy shit sensor, cannot into AF and with a kit lens that's probably honestly almost as shitty as an FD lens
>>4522474Then it's Snoy's fault and user error.A good quality FD lens (including cheapo nitty fitties) probably btfos some of snoy's current lenses. Hell, an OM 50mm might just dominate their whole lineup.
>>4522453Let me respectfully explain to you why what you're doing is retarded."Film look" exists because film is engineered to provide you an automatic color and contrast corrected image. Digital cameras are engineered to produce images that look closer to reality. In a sense, you could think of film as an automatic jpg export preset with the caveat some stuff is not reproducible digitally due to how film physically works.So, first, "film look" is not a generic thing. Evey different film stock is made to work in certain conditions and produce certain images. So you need to pick which stock you would be working with in a certain situation, and copy it.In other words, for every shot you take, you need to think what is the purpose and mood of this image, and what type of post processing would work. You cannot just move sliders around using a recipe. And now you're doing... digital color grading. That's literally it. Just learn digital color grading. Why would you want to imitate "film lookw, that is color grading engineered to work on a completely different technology that is never gonna look the same on your current, more powerful and open technology? Nigga. Just learn color grading.It will take you much further. Now you're not just blindly imitating Instagram vibes. You're thinking about the image you want to create, and learning how to make it, with a post processing workflow that uses fully the strengths of digital cameras.Nevermind, you don't care, you just want retarded film look? Use one click presets. You're not gonna do better than this. Better yet. SHOOT FILM YOU RETARDED ZOOMER.
>>4522453>>4522454>>4522455>>4522456These all do look like film. Also is this Darwin? lol
>>4522480>>4522474>>4522470>>4522468>>4522457>>4522459You're being trolled. They are film. OP is baiting filmcucks into outing themselves as clueless
>>4522482I still stand behind what I said regarding how imitating film look is retarded. The question of whether these snapshits were or were not film is irrelevant.
if you want the film look, just shoot film, or buy a fuji with the simulation thingi mostly stick to video when using digital, so here is my takethe most film like sensor ive used is alev 3, second to that is the og blackmagic. pocket cinema, the 1080 one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1rGyNiKyghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js4K-4ip2BA when you shoot sony with moden glass and you have no idea how to grade, you are going to get the digital look. but even after all that, its all lighting, lighting is everything. you can literally shoot on iphones if the lighting is good enoughhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsJ-BHohXRIshoot in raw, fuck around and find out with the sliders in photoshop, download some film "simulation" lut packs if you can find some free ones and just have a look to see what works. make sure you protect the highlights when shooting, you need to keep that information for editing.
>>4522453>print your digital pic on A3 paper>scan it>???>profitno need to add digital fake noise of fake digital blur and especially no need to color fuck you pic, the printing and scanning process will do everything for you
>>4522453If you genuinely want help, you should post some examples of photos that show what you mean by "film" look
the film look? yea i got it
>>4522586That looks so obviously digital it's not even bait.
>>4522587THIS. Aside from the file name, film cameras can't do long exposure you fucking incel fart.
>>4522589What? Of course film cameras can do long exposure.
>>4522453Too sharp and not enough grain. A lot of regular lenses were a bit soft and being really sharp is a pretty digital thing, so it needs a little more softness/blur to it. Get a black mist filter with 1/4 strength and try that out.
>>4522596Wasn't invented until the A7 dickhead
>>4522603Ummmmmmm. I'm going to need a source on that one, SIR!
>>4522603What are you even talking about? The very earliest images ever taken are all long exposure.
>>4522605>>4522606fuck i was talking about stacking averages i'm sorry i'll show myself out
>>4522606Those were not long exposures. Those were just considered normal exposures.
>>4522453>What am I doing wrong?You're looking at it in a digital display screen rather than a live of paper like we used to do in the 90s.
>>4522610:'D
>>4522614>manlet thinking
>>4522469Anon setting aside all the shit-flinging in this thread, that's a beautiful exposure.
I miss those lil Kodak thumb scroller cameras.
>>4522624Well ty. I am also very happy with it.
>>4522634You can still buy them
