File :-(, x, )
why i still like film Anonymous
and this is 400iso, damn.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelQSS-29_31Camera SoftwareQSS-29_31 001Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1544Image Height1024
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I don't really see how this shows why you still like film...
>> Anonymous
because it comes from an olympus xa2 i got for 40 dollars

http://mattdentonphoto.com/images/olympus_xa2.jpg
>> Anonymous
>>78547
a camera with built in film? amazing!
>> Anonymous
built in film? its not disposable ]:
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>78547
So "Why you still like film" boils down to "It's cheaper in the short term"?
>> Anonymous
Actually i just meant i liked the picture it produced :\/

But if there was a real reason, i'd say quality + form factor/design of smaller film cameras > their point and shoot counterparts. More smaller digital rangefinder-esque cameras would be nice, i suppose.
>> Anonymous
Film as of this moment, has exponentially higher resolution than a digital sensor can practically reproduce. This is a fact.
Will the average person be able to tell the difference in 99% of cases? No
>> Anonymous
>>78553
What size of film? What type of sensor?
>> Anonymous
>>78555
Some Velvia films, for instance, are capable of capturing over 20 megapixels of equivelant "data"

A digital camera with a sensor capable of capturing 22 megapixels costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Of course, this is all apples and oranges
>> Anonymous
I'm sure in a few years where better sensors can be put into smaller cameras without being too expensive, my justification of film will be a lot harder.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
ITT pictures that prove why we still love to use film?

Straight outta the camera.

Velvia 100
>> Anonymous
>>78562
deal!

and straight out of the camera, of course.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
woops.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelQSS-29_31Camera SoftwareQSS-29_31 001Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1544Image Height1024
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
400 speed Ilford Super S XP2 Not the best pic from the shoot, but i'm trying not to show her face.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
>>78562
i'm with you on this one.

Straight outta the camera.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:27 23:42:49
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>78566
Opps, forgot to say what it was taken on.
Fuji Provia 400X
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The past 3 (op included) are superia 400

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelQSS-29_31Camera SoftwareQSS-29_31 001Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1544Image Height1024
>> thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>78565
Liska, is this from the portfolio of your coworker I heard you talking about a while ago?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>78578

yes, from a model shoot we did last weekend. We have another two coming up.
>> thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>78580
What camera are you shooting with, may I ask?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>78581

Nikon N80, with the back taped shut so I dont' expose my film. Still works like a charm; f22, lens was a 35-135.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>78581
Worthless fucking question... why does everyone ask this?

Protip: it doesn't matter. Ask about the film and lens, not the camera. Cameras are light-tight boxes, nothing more.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>78582

as on add on, the TSA broke it when I had my camera packed in the suitcase. They tried to open the back, was careless, so it won't close anymore. Tape is a must have these days.
>> Anonymous
>>78583

protip: its worth it to ask. not everyone uses SLRs.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>78583

it's fine, some people are curious about that; get the question all the time from people walking by, too. Some cameras are better than others, but all that really matters is how you use it.
>> thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>78583
No need to be a prick about it
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
as it stands, i am using the most basic, standard equipment anyone can pick up. I use mostly two lenses, my 28-80 that doubles as my macro (kit lens, came with the camera) and my 35-135. I have a wide angle and a 200-500 that I barely ever use. Slap a polarizing filter on the end, add in a monopod and a tripod, and that's my whole aresnal. Everything was gifted to me, i've never spent any cash on equipment. Have had the same stuff since my very first camera. Works out great!
>> Anonymous
>>78588
How valuable is the polarizing filter?
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>78587
i agree with you on that one, was a bit heavy handed and unwarranted.

>>78582
one of the most important feature of a film body is the metering, not all film bodies are equill.
The F80 is a wonderful piece of equipment, especially the wonderful Matrix Metering of Nikon bodies,
And that brings me onto my next point.
>>78583
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>78591
wtf, what happened to the end of my post?

well anyway, it was ment to read something along the lines of

"one of the most important part of a film body is the metering," bla bla
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>78589
Dirt cheap polarizer will run about 30, all the way up through over a hundred, they also cost more for bigger diameters. A lot of them seem to hover around the 70 or 80 price range. Expensive for filters, but not particularly valuable.
>> Anonymous
>>78593
bit of a lag these days. i get it myself sometimes and I have to refresh several times before it shows up
>> Anonymous
>>78583
Protip: none of the equipment used is interesting, especially when the pictures are as shitty as the ones ITT.
>> Anonymous
>>78602
kthnxbai
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>78589

I love it, will never go anywhere without it.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>78553
>>78559


Wrong. Velvia 50 and 100 top out at around 16mp for red, 10 for black.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

In VERY select circumstances and with very specific films, film did better than digital SLRs back around 3-4 years ago.

Film does NOT have "infinite resolution", or anything close to it. ISO of the film is based largely on how large the grain is. Larger the grain, higher the ISO.

A higher ISO setting on a dSLR results in more noise, but does not change the sensor's resolution.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>78649
>Film does NOT have "infinite resolution", or anything close to it. ISO of the film is based largely on how large the grain is. Larger the grain, higher the ISO.

And we also need to remember that one dot on film either is or isn't "lit". Film is more digital than digital is digital. In some sense.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>78650
But there's also the counterpoint of bayer interpolation on the digital side.

The point I'm trying to make is, oranges make much better pictures than apples.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
some day, in the future, photo historians will look back and say, "boy! it's a good thing that /p/ spent all that time arguing about film vs. digital! they were the ones, of all people, to solve the problem!"

srsly, stop arguing and go take photos. you guys aren't optical engineers or image scientists, you're photographers. most of the stuff in this thread (and all f vs. d threads, on all forums) are just ken rockwell, fred miranda and luminous landscape rehashes anyway. one side is just going to keep trotting out ken rockwell arguments, and the other is just going to trot out ll links. boring as fuck, and i'm on to your games.

pic highly fucking related, because the last panel describes exactly how photographers sound to optical engineers and imaging scientists.
>> Anonymous
>>78659
No no no! I can’t take photos, I’d have to leave my room!

Well, maybe not, wanna see a macro of my keyboard? The spilt soup (cum) really adds to the composition.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
In all honesty, each photographer has his or her own preference and each has their own advantages and disadvantages. No one medium can be called completely superior to the other; only differences. *shrugs*
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>78694
lies, large format is superior

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A400Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size5.91 - 13.19 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2005:09:21 16:59:50Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/3.8Lens Aperturef/3.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length13.19 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeFull AutoImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeRed-Eye Reduction (Auto)Compression SettingNormalMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.850 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number100-0077
>> Anonymous
>>78659
Actually /p/ rarely ever argues about film vs digital

>>78649
Didn't say infinite resolution. 16 megapixels is nothing to shrug at either. To be honest, I don't even give a damn about digital camera res anyhow. If and when I buy one, I'll probably get one with 6-8 and not give a damn what the salesman is trying to convince me
>> Anonymous
>>78723

http://zip.4chan.org/p/res/78513.html
http://zip.4chan.org/p/res/77448.html

including this one, three in five days.

woops!
>> Anonymous
>>78745

God forbid the post you reference be sarcastic. Have you never accidentally clicked on /b/?
>> Anonymous
the only reasons a photographer would still use film are aesthetic ones, which is completely valid.
>> Anonymous
Why I still don't use digital for my personal work: Still too clean. While it is amazingly efficient, and gives you an almost infinite toolbox full of things to fiddle with, it takes away the possibility of random physical error that many times is responsible for the best photos.
>> Anonymous
>>78751
if random error is responsible for your best stuff then guess what?
you suck
>> Anonymous
>>78751
Why don't you shoot lomo then
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>78764

I do get what he's saying about digital being "too clean"

alecsoth.com/blog/2007/06/04/tactile-photography/

I also shoot film along with digital, but I do it mostly to experiment. I think both formats has its own strengths and weaknesses; personally, I think B&W is better when done with film, while the convenience of having a digital camera with a large enough memory card/stick is something that a film camera along with a bag full of film cannot match.
>> Mr. Otter !!RaYANj+e83A
>>78562

Noise in sky is ugly.