First you had film: a chemical process that already distorted reality. The world went into the camera, got chemically bullied, and came out looking like reality according to film. Then they made a “film sim”. Except the simulation looks nothing like film. It is two-faced and half-hearted. But it’s perfect, because now, say, “Provia” no longer has to signify the actual film but the SIGN of Provia. You aren't getting Provia, just the marketing team’s idea of what the cultural memory of Provia is supposed to feel like. The signified has begun to evaporate.But fujislugs still weren't satisfied, so now the DIGITAL camera displays a little box end on the rear screen. If you’re a zoomer, that’s the cardboard tab you'd put in the holder on the back of the camera reminding you of the film you loaded. But there is no film, no box, no physical thing inside the camera that needs identifying. Literally a simulation of the thing that used to tell you which film was inside the camera. It’s displaying a simulation of the signifier of a nonexistent signified. You successfully reached the point where the camera says: “Here is the little square that would have told you which film you loaded into the camera.” Except you loaded a menu option instead of film, and now the camera is proudly showing you the nostalgic little fake box for the imaginary film you didn't load. There is no film, no Provia, no box. There never was. There never will be. There is only a crude mockery on the back of the camera telling you that there is. Fitting that it's X-TRANS.Reality > film > film look > film simulation > simulation of the film label > ???In the end the camera is no longer pretending to reproduce reality. It's pretending to reproduce the evidence that reality was once being reproduced. It's transfilm, and it doesn't pass. It's Baudrillard's hyperreality except instead of Disneyland it's an X-Pro3 displaying a fake Provia box while you photograph your animal companion.
>>4531183Similar concept with using the "Dehancer" plugin to turn digital snapshits into something vaguely resembling film in Lightroom. It's transgenderism for photography.
>>453118312800 iso film would be pretty sweet if it wasnt too grainy. Ha ha
>The kind of thing you write when you want to think you are intelligent when you actually aren't
>/p/hilosophy threadOh well, here we go againFunny thing, it got me thinking>woman>woman with makeup>passing tranny>drag queen (not even a proper tranny, doesn't even bother appearing to be a woman or want to be one but its own simulacrum)It kinda explains why trannies are sometimes more feminine than actual women, they're concerned with the signifier because they're unable to become the signified so they compensate like that
>>4531196>"philosophy">social studiesit's not worth calling philosophy and never has been. it's critique, or, describing things in such a way fools will think you are intelligent and the thing is bad or good (usually bad).
>>4531196Funny, your post reminded me of trannies in another way. Trannies have no periods.
>>4531201>metaphysics isn't philosophy
>>4531201Maybe Pierre Bourdieu was right and photography is after all a middlebrow art. I mean look at yourself, a complete midwit populating /p/.
>>4531204metaphysics has been evicted from philosophy in all seriousness. the only time it isn't is when philosophy is used as a catch all for pretentious shitposting, otherwise philosophy refers exclusively to empiricism - natural philosophy - and all other branches are dead and buried.
>>4531211>empiricism - natural philosophyThat's just science, if anything it's the part that got removed from philosophy
>>4531211Thanks for your input, ChatGPT
>>4531194100% thisIt just shows a lack of understanding of both the film process and the history of in camera jpg presets
>>4531183Anon, let's see your film photos.Yeah, ok.
>>4531183>But it’s perfect, because now, say, “Provia” no longer has to signify the actual film but the SIGN of Provia. You aren't getting Provia, just the marketing team’s idea of what the cultural memory of Provia is supposed to feel like.This actually explains the fujislug mentality a bit too well. I mean, it's basically a cargo cult. Not too long ago they were calling them rangefinders here on /p/. They don't care what something IS but what it looks like. In fact it wouldn't be too far fetched to think they don't actually like rangefinders or the films their cameras purport to simulate. Just like someone who likes eating fake carbonara (with cream) doesn't necessarily like eating carbonara. You could easily do a similar chain of simulacrums with viewfinders:>first, you get a literal reflection of the scene that will be projected on the medium (SLR with basic ground glass focusing screen)>then you get a distortion of the scene (split prism and aids like AF squares and such)>then the EVF shows up, masking that you don't see through the lens anymore>at last, you get complete fabrications like zebras, blinkies, fake split prisms, starless skies, fake moons, "computational photography", baked-in noise reduction, the film simulacrums you mentioned, moire. The hyperreal has killed the real.>>4531201>t. mirrorlesscuck still seething about the allegory of the cave
>>4531252It's true that film isn't a completely faithful rendition of reality though. And it's fine and part of the appeal. But it's honest about what it is, that's the big difference.
Since when did "le honesty to le akchual light and color" become more important than "do whatever is necessary to make a pretty picture" (which necessarily includes not going TOO far, before you say anything). Straight photographers are fags, contrary to the name.
>>4531261Fuji simulations produce the opposite of pretty pictures though. They had some basic color profiles and decided to name them after film stocks to make them appealing. Then after the people who never shot those stocks fell for it they came up with the rear display in the OP. It's about larping, not about the picture. The whole design of the cameras is centered about the larp, you even get a dedicated dial for the simulations because they wanted some dial in the same place as the one in some vintage camera. They even used the front LED to simulate a rangefinder window.
> Oh no, Fooji shooters get some good presets for free! Help me Adobe Man.The only reason to seethe about it is if you were selling some dogshit presets yourself and now fewer people buy them.
>>4531276>good presets
>>4531281They are pretty good and they are meaningfully different. Gradients and areas with contrast look differently with different "film sims". Also "Acros" is a good BW preset.
>>4531276Address >>4531188 then
>>4531276Yeah but they don't look like the film they're named after, you haven't disproven the OP. It's like someone says sour worms are a fourth order simulacrum that no longer signifies the original thing but itself and you say "yeah but sour worms taste good" as if it rebukes the point being made. They're not a simulation of film, they're their own thing.
>>4531283I don't know, I don't use Dehancer. But I can understand people adding noise and other "imperfections" artificially, they can definitely improve the look of digital images. Not sure why, maybe they hide sharp details from areas you shouldn't focus on, or add a bit of fake texture to where you'd expect some detail. Similar effect exists in digital audio for example.
>>4531285Ooops >>4531282
>>4531286You do realize it has nothing to do with actually simulating film don't you?Taking the drag queen example from above, you may believe it improves the entertainment factor of just having a man acting. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's a simulacrum of a simulacrum of a simulacrum of a woman.
>>4531263Fuji really does live rent free
>>4531285Well, yes "film simulations" as they are implemented by Fooji do not simulate film. They are color presets. Maybe you can argue that because you add fake grain and because autofocus misses all the time, you are having a vintage rangefinder experience.
>>4531288Ok but do we really have to talk about trannies all the time?
>>4531290I can see why. cANON's mind is in a permanent paranoid state of warfare against "the fake". Less noticeable than "reach" and "equivalence" are the countless variations of "fake" in his discourse. Search "fake", you find a cANON post on the first page. Search "dishonest", same thing. "phony", same. "poser", same. I didn't bother with any other but I suspect that Fujis trigger some sort of neurosis in him precisely because the entire appeal is how fake they are. He's obsessed with Plato.
>>4531295>he's obsessed with platoit's actually just trannies. and jewish conspiracy theories. he learned about plato by arguing about trannies and da joos on /pol/.if he were a real intellectual seeking further truth he would be into pythagoras
"discussion threads" are photo threads for nophoto tards who start 14 threads and still post no photo
>>4531295It's not neurosis but disgust. I'm not really obsessed with Plato as much as with metaphysics but the allegory of the cave is great. I'm more Aristotelian when it comes to art. Art brings us closer to the Ideal even if it doesn't accurately reflect the Material. As the great Andrei Tarkovsky once put it, art would be useless if the world were perfect. I actually agree with his take on 2001 too, especially knowing the role it had in tricking the collective unconsciousness. Without 2001, maybe there would be no Moon landing hoax. 2001 concerns itself excessively with the material precisely because it was made to drive us away from the ideal, it's the Platonic idea of art.>>4531298Wrong
*ruins the mental health of bitter pseudointellectual 30y/o virgins*
>>4531322At least that one isn't trying as hard to pass as something it isn't as the X100 and X-Pro series are
>>4531322BasedMAKE PHOTOGRAPHY FUN AGAINMAKE PHOTOGRAPHY TRIGGER RETARDS AGAINAll the best photos were taken when cameras had dials and random idiots thought they were soul stealing devil devices ruining the arts (and thought they had "philosophical" justifications for such nonsense). Since fuji is the former... and if the modern antisemitic /pol/yp thinking fuji cameras remind him of trannies is the modern equivalent of the latter... it is so!
>>4531326So it's not about photography anymore, it's about reminding you of what a camera used to look like... with none of the reasons it had to look the way it did. Enjoy the desert of the real I guess. Pure ideology.
>>4531183The xpro is based, too bad they pulled an olympus/panasonic and couldn't keep the screen cable reliableDogs are also based.>Based photos:>Dog photos>Cat photos>Bird photo>Tree photos>Leaf photos>Grass photos>Rock photos>Foidtography>Moidtography>Streetsnaps>Eggographs>Building corners>Building sides>Etc>Cringe photos:>no photos
>>4531295good rule of thumb is to always ignore moon landing truthers
Average fujichad: fun camera! almost as good as a $2000 a7cii!Average fujihater: bla bla bla trannies bla bla blade ass pulled shop talk bla bla bla the philosophical implications of every camera i dislike [repeat ad infinitum]
some people enjoy photography, some enjoy preaching what they think photography should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>4531335How much is NASA paying nowadays? Can't be much with the kind of stuff their own people publish. Remember Apollo 8 allegedly saw the far side of the Moon? Well not according to current year NASA. Rogozin is right.
>>4531335i recommend filterchads guidehttps://pastebin.com/diHque73
>>4531342>come get a cp chargehow about no
>>4531344the filter guide causes so much desperate terror and seething lmao
>>4531183who the fuck cares. when your ex-wife takes everything from you you shoot what they allowed you to keep.
>>4531345Please sir… if you filter my posts they will not pay me as much as half… my village needs each and every post!
>>4531342If the filters worked you wouldn't be in this thread
>>4531344>Sars, do not click
>>4531354i chose not to use the comment ones because i call people snoys and fujislugs
>>4531339based take
I dunno, I like my Fuji. It's nice to not have had to touch photo editing software since I started using it. I preset it to what I want it to look like then take the picture.This is not a refutation of OP, note. It's just that it literally doesn't matter at all, except it would be nice if Fuji weren't killing off their actual film production.
Question for the philosophy nerds here... suppose I create a visual manifestation of my tulpa Heather and photograph it. I could perhaps use smoke and lights and shadows or even a model. Where does this fall in simulation theory? I realize it's somewhat Blade Runner tier.
>>4531385tfw got a fuji and only shoot in provia and reala ace color profiles
>>4531183right but anything digital is inherently transsince light is not being capturedbut information of lighta simulation of light if you willand then one can argue that, attempting to simulate the real way in which we do capture light into physical structures (film) is more real than what other companies are doing
>>4531467film does not capture light in a more real way than digital does. It's still information, whether you get a physical remnant of it or not. Anyone who tries to differentiate film based on results ends up doing the same mistake than hipster posers do. It's implying there would be no point in shooting film if we were to make a perfect digital simulation (which arguably is already possible if you are highly skilled in digital post processing). The main strength of film is that it gives you a much better framework than digital to practice photography. The entry price to pro quality gear is drastically lower. Mechanical cameras forces you to learn exposure. Delayed feedback forces you to visualize what you want during the shoot and focus on adjusting the variables correctly, because you don't get to just see the result and brute force a random look. You also need to think about this visualization when you pick the film stock, and you don't get to quickly swap halfway during a session. This visualization of what you want is I think the most important skill a photographer should seek, and digital just sucks at training it. Some people will say it's cope but the price per roll is another incentive to think about what you're doing.>you can just do that with digital by turning off the viewfinder and blocking your sd card and shooting jpeg simulation and....yeah ok, well do it, if it works for you great. But chances are, the same way it's a better strategy to not buy sweets than to resist taking them on the cupboard, it's a better strategy to just buy a film camera to learn photo.
>>4531467>muh real ANALOG light capturing film>muh crystalsIt's all the same shit nigga. If you want real then go out and look with your own eyes but even then your eyes are lying to you and your brain is processing all of those crappy, blurry and disjointed visual signals and filling in the gaps on the fly. What I'm trying to say is: none of that shit matters. Snap some pics and enjoy yourself.
>>4531467>and then one can argue that, attempting to simulate the real way in which we do capture light into physical structures (film)But that's not what the OP is pointing out they're doing. They're simulating some idea of what film is.The closest thing to getting a faithful reproduction are the Panasonic organic sensors. They are basically a Judas Priest song (electric eye).
>>4531471>paying money to take fewer photos and let some kid at a 1 hr photo edit your raws is getting good at photographylol its like when redditors put timer delay locks on their weed stash
>>4531516>taking fewer photosI hope you have posted many photo thread this year to feel confident with this accusation (if yes I'm genuinely cool with it)>let some kid at a 1 hr photo edit your raws is getting good at photography I actually home develop and home scan. It is true though film photography is somewhat pointless if you rely on a shit lab. It doesn't negate the whole argument though. Find a good lab or invest in home scanning.
>>4531522Film photography is pointless if your primary purpose is digitizing it. The only reason to use analog media is to produce real photographs — not to promise that your jpeg's origin has philosophical significance.>>4531516>lol its like when redditors put timer delay locks on their weed stashShooting film to scan and saying its making you bette rreally is. Can people not stay off cont high+? It's an expensive capture one preset masked in pretentiousness.
>>4531183They want the aesthetic of bing a "film" photographer, without actually having to sue filmJust like cANON wants the aesthetic of being a photographer, while being a nophoto
>>4531528>Film is pointless if you digitize itWhy?>Real photographsWhat the fuck is that? You mean printing? Because I print my photos myself also>Saying that shooting film makes you better is pretentiousI didn't really say that though, I said it could help you improve? How is that pretentious? I'm just giving advice. If you're doing great with a digital camera then you don't need advice, that's it. Why do you feel attacked by advice?Building a constructive argument against what I said would be great, but since you are only declaring what you think is the truth with absolutely nothing to back it up (which is the mark of a very low IQ,), I feel compelled to ask: How many photos have you taken and printed this year? How many exhibitions have you taken part in? How many prints have you sold, and what part were hand made?and 0 is your answer to all of the above, which, realistically, it is, then why the fuck do you think you're so smart?
>>4531551>Why?You went through all the work and expense of analog to produced a digitally processed digital file. This is inherently hilarious. It is like engaging in organic gardening just to make tomato sauce with a fucktonne of industrially produced additives and added GMO ingredients grown in pure glyphosphate.>What the fuck is that? You mean printing?Analog prints.>I said it could help you improveAnything could do anything, but it doesn't have to, and likely won't. Everything you described on film can be done with any camera. I think the redditors putting timed locks on their weed analogy was brilliant. it implies a total lack of mindfulness and self control.My argument stands on its own.Buying film to shoot jpeg with extra steps is never, ever going to make a person with no mindfulness and self control improve. Someone with those two things can consciously use any camera. Someone who "needs help" will just blast through kodak gold and send it to a lab.
>>4531554I dont see any problem with shooting slide film, digitizing it with a high quality scanner, and making prints that way. Color negative I'm 50/50 on because you can use much higher quality paper with a digital print. B&w is a no brainer for only analog printing.Some films are designed for better scanning even.
>>4531559Film stocks were designed for scanning because digital still cameras didn't actually exceed 35mm's peak quality until around 2008-2010 and cinema cameras didn't even beat imax film until very recently.People tend to forget that digital used to be considered absolute shit instead of "sovl"
>>4531554>It is like...No, it's not like, you goddamn zoomer. Make your brain work a little, explain to me with a rational argument: why is digitizing film pointless?>Analog prints. Am I also forbidden to digitize those or is it good then?>likely won'tAny argument to back that up or...?>You could act like you are shooting film using any camera?Yes, I've actually adressed that in my post. That's my whole point. Most of the value of film is in the process it makes you go through when you shoot. If you wanna act like you shoot with film using a digital camera I guess you can, but 1. you're actually not going to, you're going to rely on the convenience line everyone else and 2. why would you larp as a film shooter with a digital camera? just shoot film.>My argument stands on its own. A comparison is a shit argument though. It's closer to a fallacy than to an actual logical thought process.>Buying film to shoot jpeg with extra steps is never, ever going to make a person with no mindfulness and self control improve. The fact that activities that are too easy and have little manual input are harder to focus on and therefore harder to improve at is a very well backed neuroscience fact though. Again, if you want to state your belief like it's universal truth, then show us your results. How many prints this year anon? How many sales? I'm easy to surpass really, I only printed about 30 and sold about 10. But maybe you have enough intellectual honesty to understand that you can lie to me but not to yourself?>what I said was brilliant nigga are you for real
>>4531560Digital still looks pretty shit for a lot of photography
>>4531561tldr. you pay a premium to shoot jpeg with extra steps>The fact that activities that are too easy and have little manual input are harder to focus on and therefore harder to improve at is a very well backed neuroscience fact thoughall neuroscience says is easy things are easy and don't necessitate improvement. not that you can not improve at things if you want to. you can turn off easy mode. you can shoot consciously with ANY camera.science worshipers are fucking pathetic.>uhm, according to THE SCIENCE, i had to buy this camera because i just cant improve with a digital one. its scientifically impossible! i'm not a consumerist who discounts his own soul and will i'm a BRAIN HACKERstop discounting your soul and willyou dont need a special camera to learn to do photographyyou dont have to give kodak and a film lab money to learn to do photographyyou can just pay attention and resolve to act purposefully. that's it.
>>4531566Cope tbqhFujifilm sims have replaced film for many, and since 40mp xtrans has the same resolution as a ~26mp bayer camera with more (luma dominant) grain and smoother rendering from being oversampled, it's indistinguishable from scanned film except in quirks like halation, and things you can only get through analog printing like films eccentric color gamuts
>>4531569Dunno man. I shoot fuji and I love the images my camera produces but they are not quite film like. I think they are way better than film but also different. Not directly comparable.I actually started by shooting film and later migrated to digital due to cost but now even if film was cheap I'd never go back.
>>4531567t. no photo thread no art project no website no prints no exhibition no salesbut comes to tell me the way I learned photography is invalid
>>4531573The way you learned isn't invalid. Presenting it as a necessity is invalid - as a "brain hack" is stupid - as the only way to escape is foolish. People should use willpower, not wallets, to become better at things. It's almost a waste of film.Film should be shot to learn film itself, not to learn the concept of photography.>nooo you arent active in the art communityI am currently permanently banned from the local gallery for refusing to wear a "free palestine" pin and reminding them the population in gaza actually increased during the "genocide", and then bringing up the 1937 peel commission report when they argued further.
>>4531569I think you're kinda right but still there is a point in saying it's not any digital camera that can seriously challenge high quality film scans. Digital cameras were built with convenience in mind, not image quality, and consumer cameras started getting strictly better only in the 2020s. When you can buy a decent 40mpx camera for 300€ then this argument will be strictly outdated but we're not there yet.
>>4531577Cheapo DSLRs technically surpassed 645 a long time ago, its just that fuji has color grades that are convincingly similar to scanned film built in and makes it very easy to achieve the same smooth look with 0 effort.
>>4531577>When you can buy a decent 40mpx camera for 300€ then this argument will be strictly outdated but we're not there yet.How much does shooting film cost you per year?In two years of owning my digital camera I shot enough photos to pay off the whole thing including lenses, memory cards and other accessories. Film is the cheapest way to get into photography but also the most expensive way to keep taking photos after you learn the basics.
>>4531498> sensor that burns out after certain number of exposuresYeah, I bet the Jap cartel is dreaming of pushing that shit on us.
>>4531581If those sensors were good for million+ exposures then I'd be fine with it.
>>4531569>thinks film only exists in 35mm formatCrazy
>>4531575I never presented it as a necessity, quoting my original post:>The main strength of film is...>digital just sucks at...I just said film was better at doing a specific set of stuff I throughly described, and made sure to emphasize you could also do it with a digital camera but probably you won't. You arguing that you could just use willpower and mindfulness just shows that you don't disagree that film offers a more effective framework to learn, you say you can create this framework by yourself on a film camera, which is super great, but then I'm asking, what is the result? Thanks to this self imposed willpower based framework, are you a fullfiling photographer with art projects, prints, etc? And of course this is the internet so you could lie to me, but if the answer is no, then don't you see your logic defeat itself? And if it's yes then again super cool for you, but why is it wrong for other people to shoot film to get this framework instead of larping as a film shooter with digital camera? And why is monkeying film on digital fine but digitizing film is a crime?>I was banned from the gallery because I was being a hateful spergMy man I wish I could say I'm surprised!
>>4531585you say you can create this framework by yourself on a DIGITAL camera***
>>4531582Imagine buying a used camera and having some vlogger's face burnt into the sensor.I actually don't know if that's what those sensors do, just going off OLED analogy.
>>4531569Laughable Fuji marketing technobabble meant for its clueless customers who don't know the difference between video and stills (hence the luma thing, video can have things like chroma subsampling), don't know metamerism and don't know how real film looks. Fuji garbage can't even replace Bayer (hence why GFX is Bayer) let alone film. Ironically the worms are a lot like poorly handled film (reticulation from bath temperature differences causing the emulsion to crack). The "simulations" are less than a glib facsimile. Like artificial banana flavor, they are nothing like the original (at least the banana flavor has the excuse of tasting similar to what the nearly extinct Gros Michel banana tasted like) )))
>>4531575>I am currently permanently banned from the local gallery for refusing to wear a "free palestine" pin and reminding them the population in gaza actually increased during the "genocide", and then bringing up the 1937 peel commission report when they argued further.Based gallery saying juden raus. 109 soon 110
My favorite thing about fuji cameras is how hard they filter clueless gearfagsThe worms thing for example is just one shitty raw processor and pixel peeping oversharpened jpegs. It doesnt affect competent gear-knowers at all. Only clueless pixel peeping gearcattle.
>>4531578>Cheapo DSLRs technically surpassed 645 a long time agowathow?>fuji has color grades that are convincingly similar to scanned filmcolors? but the highest resolution film out there by far is black and white. film quality is not just color, it's also a resolution defined by the size of clumped grain in the developped emulsion. >achieve the same smooth look ok nevermind you know nothing about film do you>>4531580It's true, it's where film sucks. I'm probably gonna switch back to digital eventually, because I just can't justify paying 20€ to get a roll of professional 35mm color film. But on the other hand I am still unsatisfied with the quality of most affordable digital cameras (below 50mp), so in the meantime Im shooting black and white self developped and self scanned and that's cool too.But even then, shooting film did make me an actual photographer, that's why I'm recommending it for learning. I would not argue a satisfied digital user has to switch to film. I do think though that digital being the default choice has had a bad influence on photography because art is mainly about intention and process to me, and it is difficult to develop that using a tool that does everything for you. But that's a personal opinion.
>>4531498I may be dumb, but is this why sometimes photos in streetlights get this vomit-inducing green tint that's impossible to remove with WB controls (without turning everything magenta instead)?
>>4531596My sony cameras all did that. IDK why but nikon is more able to fix the white balance.
>>4531585>And why is monkeying film on digital fine but digitizing film is a crime?Because digitizing film exposes that "film simulations" are nothing like the film they claim to be based on. It's screaming out loud that the emperor has no clothes. There used to be a site where the slugs would share "film recipes" and it was hilarious how off they were, especially the ones pretending to be Kodachrome.
>>4531585>And why is monkeying film on digital fine but digitizing film is a crime?Shooting jpeg vs shooting jpeg with extra steps>i made a raw file of my raw file and then edited it to make a jpeg-the film scanning and negative inversion/slide correction process
>>4531604The capture process of film is transformative in a way that makes it unique and desirable.
>>4531602Maybe lol, even using the term "film simulation" is either performative or ignorant since it's just color grading.>>4531604>Shooting film is shooting digital with extra stepI guess it's impossible for someone who is not taking photos for art purposes to understand the value of a process independently from the outcome.>because the end product is a jpg it's the sameAnyone who tries to differentiate film based on results ends up doing the same mistake than hipster posers do. That's what I wrote in my first post. that's you. Also, my end products are not jpg. I make prints myself. You should try.
>>4531609It's a bit more than color grading but very little more (some fake grain is added too).And even if your end result were JPEG instead of prints, there would be differences. Because the result of the capture itself is different. When you digitize film you're dealing with a different thing than the original scene was. The film's latitude and its different sensitivities to the different sections of the color spectrum have already changed things. Digital sensors attempt to imitate the sensitivity of the eye, not that of film. Maybe if someone created a sensor that imitated film from the get-go then it'd be closer to film (in a way that's Foveon but not quite). Now imagine trying to sell people a daylight camera, a tungsten camera, a fluorescent camera and so on and so forth. Madness to even try. Who'd buy it when the point of digital is being CHEAP?
>>4531609>to understand the value of a process independently from the outcome.I wish people felt this about the process for digital editingWouldn't need film sims if people bothered to learn how to edit
>>4531612Hot swappable sensors for your 6x6 sized databack? Do it.
>>4531612I'm not sure I understand this argument. Even if I were to print film on paper without any digitizing, it would not be really the photo that's on film, it would be the paper's rendition of the photo that's on film. Also, if you're not shooting slide film, the real image is a negative, you never see it and nobody every pretends it is the real photo. So IMO this argument that digitizing film is losing some inherent quality of the "real film image" is just the result of not understanding at all the nature of film and the process of film photography.
>>4531620>So IMO this argument that digitizing film is losing some inherent quality of the "real film image" is just the result of not understanding at all the nature of film and the process of film photography.Absolutely. It's just some dumb justification for shooting digital "simulations" instead of the real thing. IMO if one's going to shoot digital you might as well embrace the digital look without making some travesty of film.
>>4531626What is the "digital look"? Undeveloped RAWs? Please. Digital is meant to look however you want it to look. Your argument is retarded.
>>4531614Right on. But it's not people's fault. 3 years ago I also believed that film was just about magic colors and digital had been the serious way to take photo since it was invented, because it's the lie the digital industry built to become the default choice of photographers despite being vastly inferior to film at the very least until 2010, more like around 2020 if you ask me. Anyone with functioning eyes and a 3 digit IQ could see that digital pictures were dogshit for most of its existence, provided they ever bothered to learn a bit of photography culture and buy a couple photobooks. Only, that requires a little bit of curiosity and a little bit of effort, while buying expensive new gear gives an effortless instant reward that everyone can appreciate, like buying the latest iPhone. That's why film gained this aura of being the tool for soulful photography while also being scoffed at by prosumers gearfags who believed that surely there newest aps-c 26mp camera was the pinacle of photography technology since the ad said so. That's why people here are wasting their life arguing about micro details on the lineup of X brand. It's easy and comforting. You don't need to get out of the house, and you have a multimillion dollar company providing you with what to think and say.
>>4531634cont.Unfortunately the gearfags won, because everybody feels the pull of buying more, buying the latest, buying the thing the ad says is so much better, and that's much easier and more consistently rewarding than to practice art. What's more, digital cameras provide an entirely automated, baby proofed system where there is nothing to learn if you don't want to, and sell the promise that now you can make art with the click of a button, you just have to chose your flavor: turn the camera towards a mountain, you're just as good as ansel adams. Better actually, because your gear is better than ansel adams. Actually, I have seen many people argue on this very board that with a cheap digital camera you have a better tool than most masters, so why are you complaining? Just be an artist now! Click the button, click it! Turns out, if you feel like clicking a button is not a fulfilling hobby and not sufficient to make art, you're correct anf that's actually obvious to anyone who is not lying to themselves because they can't get out the dopamine loop that is digital gearfagottry. So everyone has a digital camera, but nobody takes photos, while simultaneously telling you taking photos is awesome and make you an artist to keep the lie going.So yeah that's about it. If you feel disillusioned with digital like I was, if you feel like shooting photography is actually boring and lame and just clicking a button, give film a try. It's expensive, it's clunky, people will not understand, but maybe you will understand what I mean when I say it's about the process not the result.
>>4531626I would have a different conclusion personally. If you like film color, learn color grading, you lazy bum. The digital look as you call it to me is only an unprocessed canvas made to offer you as much latitude as possible to create your own style. Film is pre processing colors because they didn't have easy access to computer processing and instead chemically engineered color grading right in the emulsion. But you can do it yourself now, so why click on presets instead of actually doing the thing if it's your hobby?
>>4531630>Digital is meant to look however you want it to lookSo is film. But film has a grain structure and digital a CFA structure, and their behave in different ways.>>4531634>>4531635They have different strengths, I wouldn't necessarily argue one is superior to the other. But digital is MUCH cheaper. That's the main advantage it has. It's also easier as you said, but even then sometimes film is the easier way to get the look you want, for example if you're into lomography.What film doesn't let you do unless you have infinite money is indulge in shooting randomly and hoping to strike gold, digislugging in other words. Digital is superior when it comes to snapshits, but loses that edge when you do real photography (art). And the emulsion works better than the sensor at being like a memory. Film photography is like a form of alchemy. Digital sensors are best for machine vision.
>>4531639And you can add grain to digital, or add different graininess to film (alt processes like bromoil (which you can also do with digital negs)). They behave in different ways, so what? All that matters is the final image. Are you into photography so you can obsess over gear like an autist or so you can take pictures?
>>4531641as repeated a bazillion time throughout the thread, you will never understand film of you only think of it in term of result. The process matters.
>>4531634I disagree. Digital is the better tool, hands down, objectively speaking. Those automated functions allow you to focus more on composition, in theory, though they can let someone as you say be less intentional with their art. But that is just a matter of discipline; don't blame the tool. Your "just pressing a button" argument falls flat because you are also "just pressing a button" with film cameras. Billions of garbage snapshots were shot on film too. Anyone disciplined and skilled can produce good work with a digital camera. They will compose right, expose right, slow down and make sure they get the best image.>>4531642Why shouldn't I think the result is more important than the process used to get there? The process isn't always the be-all end-all if you can arrive at the same result another way. The final image matters the most. People get attached too much to processes, because they make producing that final image more or less fulfilling.
>>4531643What if I specifically want the large format film look? Is digital still the better tool? I think it's stupid to say one is better than the other in all regards because the camera is simply a tool to achieve an end goal. If a huge 11x14 camera is what you need to achieve your vision then that is the best tool hands down, objectively speaking.
>>4531643That makes sense, but I'm specifically addressing how digital being the default option makes people less intentional with their art. I don't have much to say to someone who enjoy creating art with digital tools. But I can't help but notice that digital created a layer of confusion around what makes photography art, and that seem to have hurt photography in general. I think that's what we're seeing on this forum being overrun by gearfags who don't understand what photography is.>you are also "just pressing a button" with film camerasFirst I chose the film depending on the conditions and my objective, something you don't do with digital. Then, I have to pay attention to the light meter and understand how it works because of I don't, the photo won't look how I want it to look, and I have no way to brute force it, I have to know. Then I press the button, but it carries a different weight than on digital, because I can only press it a certain amount of time and I am using one. Then, I develop the film, potentially adapting the development process to how I want the image to look, again without direct feedback so I must know what I'm doing. Then digitizing forces me again to have a minimal input on how I want the final image to look. So, no, I'm not just pushing a button, I'm doing much more. Again, yeah, you can have convoluted processes with lots of intervention on digital, if you really want to. But film can teaches you the value of it, if ever you need to, which I did.>Why shouldn't I think the result is more important than the process1. It is not more important, but if one process teaches you something while the other does everything for you, then one will enable beginners to learn more.2. In art, process and result are one. I cannot logically defend it, but I do think there is value in the process in itself, even if it is apparently invisible in the end result, because the process shapes the result.
>>4531646>First, I buy my lightroom preset>Then, I use a camera>And instead of dragging a gradient mask in post, I pay for gradient filters>etcYeah it's just paying to shoot jpeg with extra steps, and many of the skills you learn are irrelevant to superior technology like pre-masking skies and using skylight/warming/fld filters (actually, a lot of artificial light filters are now irrelevant in the west because LEDs have basically random spectra)
>>4531647nigga your life is dying with extra steps
>>4531649FoolI am already immortal in the astral plane
>>4531646Your preference for the film process is valid, but when it comes to art, how art will be viewed, the result matters most, not how you make it. Process and result aren't one, they are distinct. Viewers don't care what specific camera or film or lens we use to make an image. Our preferred process can make taking pictures fulfilling for us but it doesn't makes the image artful beyond how it makes it look a certain way. Just the fact that you have to choose a certain film, pay attention to your light meter, etc. doesn't make something more an artful than something that is more beautiful but done with less intention. Ken Rockwell makes technical choices all the time and look terrible how his stuff turns out. Meanwhile PH Emerson and Frederick H Evans were retarded about never retouching their negatives, they just straight printed, and yet their art is better than anything Ken can ever make.
>>4531651The process can absolutely be a part of the art.
>>4531658Process and result are distinct. Process leads to result. The process isn't art itself, the process helps you make your art. A process has value in that it gives works of art certain characteristics but has no value beyond this.
>>4531651>Just the fact that you have to choose a certain film, pay attention to your light meter, etc. doesn't make something more an artful than something that is more beautiful but done with less intention.That's true, I simply have the belief that this care will create better art, but it's not a given at all.>how art will be viewed, the result matters most, not how you make it.That's quite an old fashioned way to view art. Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but just pointing out it's not the standard nowadays. There's a very famous photographic project by Tehching Hsieh where he took a photo of himself every hour for one year. None of the individual photos or the final result have anything beautiful or remarkable really. What matters is that those photos are the witness of a strange and extreme experience the artist imposed on himself. This is one example of art where the process is arguably more important than the result, and photo is actually a prevalent media in this kind of project because of how easy it is to setup. That's just an example to illustrate where art is at nowadays according to most artists and institutions, but maybe you will say you don't consider it art.I have another argument, again something personal I cannot quite prove. I am convinced that photography's value as an art comes from the capture of a real world scene. I wouldn't care much about most photo books I own if it were generated by AI. Not because I inherently hate AI or anything, but I just think it's neat, that those were real places and moments. I know it was shaped and interpreted by the artist's vision, but that's exactly the fine line you walk in photography, that's the edge it has over painting which allows for much deeper personnal expression but lacks the reality photo has baked into it.
>>4531660cont.I think I need to clarify: the fact photography has value as an art form that is based on the capture of a real scene illustrate how the process matters. If the photography is AI generated, it loses much of its value to me, even when it's totally possible to create an AI photo that will be indistinguishable from a real photo. The only difference is where the photo comes from, the process.
>>4531659Not completely true. If your process contributes to the message, theme, idea you're trying to say it absolutely can. Like a photograph of chickens or eggs and then the print is made with albumen printing technique.
>>4531661We are talking about something different now.First, the process: digital vs film - the chosen process doesn't matter beyond how it makes an image look. If there is something that hypothetically speaking you can only do on film, then you need to use that to make it. If it can be made on digital just as well, the final result is no more artful than if you chose another way to make it, all else being equal. The resultant image looks the same.That discussion is different from that which differentiates art made by men and "art" made by machines. It's not possible for AI to make art, because AI is not a rational living being, with a conception of Truth , Beauty, and Goodness; or emotions; that creates to communicate something of these aforesaid things to other rational beings i.e. men. It does not create art but digital soup made of real art scanned and crushed into 1s and 0s. As a rational being it is a fake. Any "art" it makes is fake.
>>4531662I'm in agreement with you though I could have chosen better wording. If your process contributes to your message, yes, it matters. Beyond that it only has value in the appearance of the final image. What I'm really trying to say is Film is no more artful to use than Digital, if they can both produce the same result visible on the paper. Which they can, if you are willing to edit digital to look that way.
>>4531664No digital can't always look like film and film cant always look like digital. Sometimes, but definitely not always.
>>4531668The manipulation you can do to either digital or film on a computer is incredible. At least with a digital photo, you 100% can make it look indistinguishable from film to a viewer. It's ridiculous to think you can't, because whatever you shoot on film you can replicate by using the same vintage lens, matching the colors 1:1, and simulating any other effects in your chosen software. It's only a matter of skill and effort. Not saying you should do this, but you can.
>>4531669Cope harder. You cannot perfectly replicate the look of film on a computer or with digital prints, especially 4x5 or larger contact prints. Are you going to say that digital can unmistakably replicate wetplates next?Prove me wrong and post your digitally captured image that looks exactly like a drum scanned 8x10 negative.
>>4531669Your point about lenses is also incorrect because you can achieve DoF shallower than is physically possible with a digital sensor.Most lenses do not look the same when shot on digital versus film as well.
>>4531669Shallow DoF on large film, specifically. An f3 lens on 8x10 has something like a f0.4 equivalent DoF on FF.
>>4531670Yes, provided the digital camera is of the right specs, with the right lens, edited correctly.Your estrogen levels, however, are not something I can replicate.
>>4531673>copes harder>projectsAppreciate the concession, bb. :) Learn a little more about photography before spewing such strong opinions. You'll come off a little less stupid sounding when you inevitably bring this exact same argument up again. KEK
Reminder that for all this talk of editing, we have almost no engagement when it comes to actual editing threadsThis is just another example of people talking about things they don't actually do
>>4531641>And you can add grain to digitalBut it's fake and looks that way too. You're copying the accidental features of film, trying to mask the fact that the Essential is not there. You don't have film, you have some added grain that reminds you of what you culturally believe film is.
>>4531643>Why shouldn't I think the result is more important than the process used to get there?Because the process leads to the result. You think you can get the same result, but the artist is influenced by the process itself. In fact when you argue >Those automated functions allow you to focus more on compositionwhat you're arguing is that the digital PROCESS is better. So you have defeated your own argument that the process doesn't matter.
>>4531645Exactly. The biggest tragedy with faux-film shooters is that they're wrestling a medium into becoming a mockery of something it's not and will never be.
>>4531676Notice most of the people pulling shit out of their ass literally never post photos and are making it about "their side" in a gear console war with a heavy focus on hating some popular brandAnd a lot of it is one guy who famously singlehandedly gearfagged /fag/ to death
>>4531681I wouldnt be suprised if he says you can simulate extremely shallow DoF with digital editing and it indistinguishable from the real deal lol
>>4531672DOF is the same for all formats, using the same theoretical lens. Format has no effect on DOF, only the perceived field of view, which leads you to make focal length/aperture choices for the same perceived FOV that affect DOF.>>4531680>So you have defeated your own argument that the process doesn't matter.Nope, you're confused. The argument is: the result is more important than the process and if two processes can theoretically produce the same result, go with the better process. To my line of thinking this is the easier process, but others have their own preferences.>>4531683Theoretically you can. I am not for or against it.
>>4531670Not with one shot no, but brenizer gets you whatever DoF and resolution you want, can go even more extreme than 4x5 much easier too
>>4531684You have no clue what you're talking about, but I'm all for you doubling down on your stupidity.The only way to achieve the large format film look is with a large format camera and film. Please show me otherwise with an image rather than your ignorant babbling.
>>4531687I don't have to, this is just the laws of optics. I'm not sure why they get you mad but you seem pretty emotional of a person.
>>4531689>DOF is the same for all formatsBut micro four thirds needs a really fucking soft, manual focus only f0.9 that costs four figures to still underperform a $75 canon ef 50mm f1.8 stm with the same fov/dof/actual equivalent expsoure (and to hit full equivalence it has to be on a panasonic camera with better sensor tech)It's like, yeah, sure, you can theoretically do what you can do on 8x10 on full frameWhere is your tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lens? is it any good?
>>4531647This is idiotic in so many levels. Film is so much more than a "lightroom preset". Only someone who has no relevant experience with it would believe such bullshit.>>4531649kek, pwnd>>4531651>Viewers don't care what specific camera or film or lens we use to make an image.They don't, but the process influenced what the image ended up being.>Our preferred process can make taking pictures fulfilling for us but it doesn't makes the image artful beyond how it makes it look a certain way.Here it depends, because developing is part of the process, enlarging is part of the process, manipulating the light before it hits the film is part of the process (and achieves different things than on digital). The other day I went to a friend's concert and recorded some on my phone. As expected from digishit, the narrow spectrum lighting made it look like hot trash at parts. And it's a Hasselblad camera my phone has, it's not some turbochink phone. If it were film, it'd be a lot more gracious.>Just the fact that you have to choose a certain film, pay attention to your light meter, etc. doesn't make something more an artful than something that is more beautiful but done with less intention.It actually does, because the beauty or lack of it isn't what makes it art but the artist's input is. When you choose what to keep and what to discard with a light meter you're already taking artistic decisions.>Ken Rockwell makes technical choices all the time and look terrible how his stuff turns out.Doesn't make it less art>Meanwhile PH Emerson and Frederick H Evans were retarded about never retouching their negatives, they just straight printed, and yet their art is betterAnsel Adams talked extensively about this, the importance of previsualizing the photograph. Ironically there's a chance these guys would have taken much more forgettable pictures if they didn't have to make the shot count.>than anything Ken can ever make.Not even worth commenting on this.
>>4531662That is so pretentious lol, that's not adding to the art but is meta-art instead which is how we got in this shit place to begin with.
>>4531689You're correct, but you're missing the obvious practical/reality, which makes you wrong in the stupidest way possible. If you're doing a headshot with a 300mm lens on 35mm you have to increase your distance from the subject substantially, so the DoF will not be the same on 35mm as it is with 300mm on 8x10. Usually with 300mm you are roughly 4 feet away from your subject for a headshot. The equivalent FL is around 42mm...>>4531686Half of the brenizer shots I see online look like garbage. Im sure you can get a great result. You can also just take 60 shots with a 300mm lens and stitch them all together to get the equivalent DoF and FoV of 8x10 lol
>>4531698The albumen print has it's own look that influences the look of the image along with having a fun meta layer. Pretentious in the best way possible.
>>4531694>you can theoretically do what you can do on 8x10 on full frameThen we are in agreement.>Where is your tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lens? is it any good?I don't have one. I don't need it for the kinds of photos I like to take.>>4531700I don't see how I'm wrong in any stupid way. I never said you >Should create FF images that look like 8x10 images, only that it's possible. You're debunking an argument that doesn't exist.
>>4531700>You can also just take 60 shots with a 300mm lensInteresting to have such a strong opinion about a technique you have no experience withThere are plenty of calculators online that can give you equivalent DoF/FL
>>4531684>Format has no effect on DOF, only the perceived field of view, which leads you to make focal length/aperture choices for the same perceived FOV that affect DOF.The thing is, the format determines the crop of said theoretical lens, in other words the framing. To fit more in the same format with the same length, you step back. That changes perspective AND DoF.>if two processes can theoreticallyThat's a massive leap. You're forgetting the artist himself is part of the process.>>4531687They're forgetting a large format camera has an uniform focal plane while the Brenizer method is almost like photographing on a section of a spherical sensor. They're also forgetting that the focal plane can be wedge-shaped on cameras with movements.>>4531694>Where is your tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lens? is it any good?This is where they can't match it. Some bizarre contraption would be required to replicate that kind of thing.
>>4531706>has never touched a view camera or seen a contact print>talks with authority about itWhy would I ever waste my time doing that? It's an example of one way you could simulate 8x10 DoF with a ff camera.>>4531706Ignoring the practical reality is remarkably stupidly or just ignorant.
>>4531709I mean, I work at a photo lab so...>It's an example of one way you could simulate 8x10 DoF with a ff camera.True>Ignoring the practical reality is remarkably stupidlyI agree it was very dumb of them
>>4531708>To fit more in the same format with the same length, you step back. That changes perspective AND DoF.Yes, I know.>You're forgetting the artist himself is part of the process.Yes, irrespective of whether he shoots digital or film. I'm just saying that ceteris paribus wrt to the final print, go with the easier process, unless you prefer film for fun etc.>They're forgettingI'm not the one advocating the Brenizer method. That's somebody else.>tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lensAdmittedly I can't think of anything to match it, but I don't use these lenses and probably never will, so I don't know anything about them. Something might be adaptable.
ITT: gearfags arguing about film vs digital instead of actually shooting film or digital
>>4531714You would need an insanely huge lens to get enough projection for f1.1 and the ability for camera movements.
>>4531718I've only said it's theoretically possible to replicate 8x10 digitally, not that it's something I think should be done or can be done practically.When I wrote those first posts about replicating film digitally, I meant film and its equivalent digital format, given the context of this thread (film sims vs the real thing). I should have been clearer.In actual fact I recommendeded ITT that people use the more convenient process (digital OR film), in cases where you wouldn't be able to tell in the final print whether something was, say, 35mm or FF in origin. Of course, if people simply prefer film for personal reasons, that's perfectly fine. Go make pretentious albumin prints of eggs all you want.
>>4531714>Admittedly I can't think of anything to match it, but I don't use these lenses and probably never will, so I don't know anything about them. Something might be adaptable.You may want to look into view cameras, one of the big things about them is that the lens and the film aren't necessarily parallel. That's why the limits of the DoF become like a wedge. >Yes, irrespective of whether he shoots digital or film. I'm just saying that ceteris paribus wrt to the final print, go with the easier process, unless you prefer film for fun etc.I'm arguing the differences in the process influence the artist. Gursky wouldn't be the same without digital manipulation.
>>4531723Well I would agree with you there. I think people should just make an informed decision without slavishly saying film or digital is necessarily best. If one likes how film makes him shoot, he can shoot digital like it's film. Make more effort to previsualize, be more intentional, possibly not even review images until later. Meanwhile he would have the big benefit of no expenses for film, chemicals or sending things off to labs.
>>4531721albumen*
>>4531724>Make more effort to previsualize, be more intentionalOne should do this even if he doesn't shoot film, it's how you can abandon snapshits.>possibly not even review images until laterI don't think this one adds much, but learning to shoot without the preview definitely helps.It's when you start being dependent on crutches like exposure simulation that it really hurts the artist's eye.Not even saying one shouldn't ever use it, there's legitimate uses for it. But it should never replace the ability of previsualizing the photograph.
>>4531717Truly odd! They have conflated participating in photography accessory discussion with participating in photography itself!If one wants to talk about the signified dying at the hands of the signifier... hahahaha
>>4531726Guess my autocorrect had the pin pen merger
>>4531728>They have conflated participating in photography accessory discussion with participating in photography itself!Who has?
>>4531730You have, you idiot. Going online and making hills to die on instead of going outside and seeing hills.
>>4531732There's a pataphor to be constructed on top of your metaphor but I can't think of one right now
>>4531438>Where does this fall in simulation theory?Squarely into "glownigger shit" just like the rest of theosophy, that's where.
>>4531735>>4531739Step away from the screen and go do something else for a bit.
>>4531663I'm back>Film vs digital doesn't matter beyond how the final image lookI agree, but this statement changes meaning if you consider that if I didn't shoot film, I wouldn't have learned what enables me to do what I do nowadays. Perhaps I could obtain the same images using digital, but still shooting film, the process, influenced my output, what I'm doing today.>AI art is by definition fake artWell this is agreeing with me. Consider 2 images, 1 a real photograph, 1 an AI generated image carefully crafted so that there is no visible sign it was generated (which is possible nowadays). You're saying that knowing how it was made reveals if it is fake art or not independently or the result.
I shoot 35mm film and Fuji both. What now?
I hate reality-distorters. I use the camera's built in picture profiles to match reality with what I see in the viewfinder, maybe I boost the shadows in post, but that's it. Could I have gotten more attention and praise if I juiced up the saturation? Surely, but then I'd feel like a phony.You can make boring images look more stimulating by doing so, but this takes away from the ability to photograph interesting subjects creatively and I don't care what cope those who's creativity consists of dragging sliders in their preferred editing software have to say about it.They have gotten used to getting attention with little effort which obviously will affect how they take photos since the likes keep coming in which at the end of the day is the only metric they care about.Film may be equally gay and fake as digital in some ways, but the main appeal I feel is less ability to do so in a time where gayness is increasing all around us.Social media influencers selling their own presets is quite representative of current trends. For me it is unfathomable that there is money in to begin with.
>>4531767But isn't manipulating reality how you infuse intent in your photographs, i.e the point of art? It doesn't sound great when you call it "slider pushing" but what about creative printing processes, what about in camera manipulation using special lenses or film, and what is fundamentally weong with slider pushing if I do it to achieve the vision I have? The assumption that I am searching for attention by manipulating my images actually says a lot about your set of values, but not necessarily about what other actually feel.
>>4531767>I don't even understand what the point of editing isTrue
>>4531780>>4531781That's stage two, in a good way. A possible stage three would be doing dodge and burn on a photo and calling it a Dennis Stock or Ansel Adams. Stage four would be selling a course on dodging and burning and calling it a Dennis Stock or Ansel Adams course. Or doing like Nvidia does with its Ansel software that has nothing to do with Ansel Adams either. Or Tesla cars which run on DC. Or Apple phones which have nothing to do with apples. Or fiat money.
>>4531785This really is useless babble for miserable people who like to feel smart when they aren'tIt's somewhere between "whales are fish, birds are dinosaurs" and "actually, in *shithole culture*, ..., so its subjective" on the pseud scale
>>4531789Your post is a self preferential pure simulacrum of intelligence that you use to mask the absence of your own intelligence
>>4531794>needs 21 words to say "no u"
>>4531795It's not "no u", it's a Baudrillardian deconstruction of your train of thought
According to /lit/ the OP is a clanker and the rest of you dysgenic retarded consoomerslollmao
>>4531804canon, cinefag, go. do your thing. wreck their board. we're counting on you.>>>/lit/25562638
>>4531804You mean one salty fag that hasn't left his house in 3 months because he's reading books?
>>4531816>hasn't left his house in 3 months because he's reading booksGod I wish that were me
>>4531809Where do you imagine they got so full of themselves? They're /lit/ infiltrators like everyone else from the /film/ generals on /tv/.
>>4531766Close /p.
>>4531901>They're /lit/ infiltratorsSome of my works have been featured on /lit/ ezines but not THIS /lit/. And no, I won't tell where so you can go ruin it.>the /film/ generals on /tv/.I don't recall ever posting there
>>4531796>le Baudrillardian deconstruction of a train of thoughtThis has to be a troll, no way you're this much of a midwit
>>4531767So you prefer the mediocre prosaic to the poetic ideal. You've missed the point of ART. Sometimes the reality of a thing is best expressed by little exaggerations.
>>4531940Go back to your cell, faggot >>4531935You weren't authorized to leave
>>4531946>guy who says Baudrillardian calling others gayLol
>>4531946The direction you're taking the gear threads is making it extremely obvious you're some /mu/ /gg/ reject>inb4 i died in a motorcycle crash o algo
>>4531952He died and you can check on https://sinec.pbh.gov.br/Just write "Samuel Campos Faria" on the "nome do falecido" field. Apparently he killed himself.See https://archive.4plebs.org/o/thread/27490787/#27496730Now you can stop accusing random people of being Sam.
>>4531955kek wtf i didnt even know about thisi thought it was just more cANON larping
>>4531959>cANON>larping>>4531955Wew I thought the crash was the cause of death. Apparently the gas inhalation is from June that year so it's hard to know for sure.
>>4531183>realityLel, there's no reality independent of your mind. Political philosophy is the most braindead branch of philosophy.
>>4532001>Dude, there's like, no reality independent of your miiind, dude.I exist despite you. If not, your own mind is calling you a retard just now, and that is pathetic.
>>4531191>Buy E100>Take 36 snapshits at EI 12800>Push process +7>???>??????
>>4532016I don't think that works because the light wouldn't push the exposure past the minimum light/toe on the exposure curve. You can pull some b&w films more than 7 stops and still get good results, but that's much different than slide film.
>>4532012>I exist despite you.Prove it There's no reality, everything is relative and open to interpretation.
>>4532018This is your own mind speaking. You are the most retarded person on earth.
>>4532019Just accept that your religion is politics and stop bothering people with mumbo jumbo academic careerist dogshit masquerading as "philosophy".
>>4532017Portra could maybe do it but I'm pretty sure it'd be grain city by the time you get to 12800, even if you started with Portra 800.
>>4531295BEHOLD, PLATO'S CAMERA
>>4532021>mumbo jumbo academic careerist dogshitBut that's what relativism is. Btw you're retardedt. Your mind>inb4 responds to me even though I'm not real kek
>>4532026I cannot use this because I am not a teen
>>4532001Descartes proved you wrong centuries ago
People should shoot a wider variety of film stocksPretty interesting for all the talk of film here, how rarely specific stocks get brought upMakes one wonder
>>4532026>no OVFJust another cave shadow projector
>>4531739>theosophyLet's just call her an imaginary being and sidestep the autism you're introducing. Now where does she fall?
>>4531767Reality is in your mind. Take LSD.
