File :-(, x, )
ac
Woot. They didn't fuck up developing my (Fuji Sensia 100) slides this time.

Redneck-scan of one of the slides (courtesy my Digital Rebel XTi and my cubicle window) related.
>> Anonymous
>>47378
beautiful colour saturation from what I can tell from the improvised scan :P

Can't wait for the full scan!
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
Real scan
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
This should would be better if the statue hadn't been facing into the sun like it is. Probably should have dropped it a stop or two.

Still. Go Sabres.
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
I normally don't like posting pictures of plants, but this one seemed less boring than most to me...
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
The sky was being cooperative this day. As was the seagull.
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
Taken at the George Eastman house.

On Fujichrome Sensia 100.
>> des
Great stuff
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>47650
I love this one. Nice work overall!
>> elf_man
>>47650
That's because it isn't just a plant, it's casting interesting shadows.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>47659

I personally really love this one. Not sure why, but it appeals to me.
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
You can tell it's Buffalo because, even though the grass is green and flowers are blooming, we still don't trust the climate enough to put away the snow plows.
>> Anonymous
>>47378

Its good, I like this a little bit more than the real scan. But the pic scanned is very good. Nice work.
>> Anonymous
>>47647

Also, she has a fucking fine arse!
>> Anonymous
>>47678
I can't see it. :( It's completely dark, like #000.
>> ac
>>47678
Hated to see her leave. Loved to watch her go.
>> Anonymous
film=100 times better than digital.

no one will ever be able to tell me otherwise. the fact of the matter is that digital means that you have to do a shit ton in post to get your images to have the same feel to them as film. to get them to feel as real.
>> ac
>>47769
As the originator of this thread full of apparently good film pictures, I disagree.
>> Macheath
>>47647
>>47650
>>47652

I like these. Funny how you can take two boring things (a brick wall and a plant) and come out with something interesting.
>> Anonymous
>>47770

THANKS FOR READING MY FUCKING POST.
oh wait, you obviously didnt.

fuck you.
>> Anonymous
>>47780

wait.
i obviously misread your post?
or something?
>> ac
>>47780
Yes I did.

You were saying that film is significantly better than digital.

I was responding, as someone who shoots both film and digital, and apparently is pretty good at shooting on film, that you're wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>47783

yeah, i realized thats what you meant after the fact.

i dunno man, it seems like my favorite photos/photographers right now are shot/shooting on film.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>47652
Fucking great, I love doorway/window/any sort of portal shots, and this one is very nice. Get a goddam flickr, you bastard!

I'll say this about film vs. digital: I like the results I get from film better than digital, on average. The color's better if it's color film, and the contrast and tonality and grain and overall exposure is better if it's black and white. You'll never stop me from shooting TriX, not until they stop making it.

However, I do think that digital is the superior platform. The tools are so close right now. A few years ago, film was still top dog. Now, it's pretty ambiguous. For 35mm, you pretty much have to shoot digital. There's no good reason not to. For 120 and 220 film, the choice is obviously film unless you have 20-30k to blow on a digital back from PhaseOne or Mamiya or Hasselblad. For large format, there is simply no competition whatsoever, but sadly it's fucking expensive even if you shoot film, heh.

One more note: I couldn't get into film until I got my digital SLR because it was so difficult to self-instruct with film. Even when I got my dSLR, it took me nearly 300 frames just to figure out the basics of exposure, probably 1000 until I started understanding DOF, motion, and intermediate concepts, and it wasn't until around frame 2000 or so that I got shots that I was really damn proud of. When you think of how many rolls of film that would've been, it's outrageous. Digital was my entry into photography, and will be my future, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the strengths and beauty of film. It'd be stupid to simply ignore one for the other. Shoot both, and be happy.
>> Anonymous
>>47803
i agree with everything you typed, and i am>>47769
>> Anonymous
>>47652
Best.

>>47650
Also good.

The others are all right, but don't jump out at me.

>>47678
I'll disagree. She has well-proportioned hips, but it looks as if her buttocks isn't that good. Too large.

To each his own, I guess.
>> Anonymous
>>47813

Oh, and though I haven't done real work in film (I had to use a disposable camera twice... bad story... to try to get some irreplaceable shots, which didn't come out, of course, and so were lost anyway along with upwards of thirty dollars all told) and can't really weigh in on this debate, this article seemed to make sense to me:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

But like I said, I can't weigh in myself.
>> Anonymous
>>47769
signed.

Question: whats the difference between sensia, provia, velvia, etc?
>> Anonymous
>>47652

Oh, the awesome light!
>> des
>>47867
sensia is a good all-around "dunno what I'm shootin but I'm shootin slides film." It has good skintones and is cheaps.
provia is marketed as the pro's all-around slide film, haven't used it. I've read it's similar to sensia with better shadow detail, dunno.
velvia is the bombastically saturated slide film, marketed for landscape and nature but used by lots of people for lots of things. I actually prefer its more-subdued 100F version but most people don't; I'd imagine they'll discontinue it because I like it.
Astia is their dedicated portrait film, lower contrast, realistic colour

You just really have to try them with your kit and workflow, you can't really be told how something will perform for your methods.
>> ac
>>47867
Velvia's got extremely saturated, pretty colors. I don't really know the difference between Sensia, Provia, and Astia, other than that Sensia is apparently Fuji's consumer slide film while Astia and Provia are their professional slide films for people who don't like the Velvia look.
>> ac
>>47803
Fine, fine, I've given in to peer pressure.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allankcrain/
>> Anonymous
>>47815

I dont buy the argument in that essay; sure as far as the digital image itself goes there could be a bigger range of tone due to the analog argument, but i'd persoanlly rather judge a photo's quality based on what i see hanging on the wall and in that case i dont have access to a printer that has reproduce the same image film can.

I just have a physical preference.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>47954
Remember kids: you can't say no.

Awesome!
>> Anonymous
>>47977

but if you have access to a lab that can enlarge film you probably have access to a place that can make awesome archival-quality prints from your digital files.

but then you get into the problem of how to edit your digital photos for printing, because its not the same as editing for the screen.

i think when it comes to printing i think its about the same nowadays. so many digital labs are popping up and you can email your files to companies and all that.
>> Anonymous
wrryyyyyyyy did you delete my psots you modfaggots!