File :-(, x, )
Architecture Anonymous
Hey /p/, i just started photography, what do you guys think of one of my first shots?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNoritsu KokiCamera ModelQSSCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:01 09:29:13Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height3090
>> Anonymous
1) Go buy a good cam
2) Dont take pictures like this that have been done 348573904875023475034570times by everyone
3)?
4) PROFIT
>> Anonymous
Good for generic architecture illustration.

Also, resize.
>> Anonymous
OP here, it was done using b&w film, i just scanned it, hence the poor quality..
>> Anonymous
>>147059
You fail. Camera doesn't matter, and OP has a good camera.

Just not a good scanner. Nice shot though.

>>147063
Protip: When scanned correctly, BW film is wayyy better then any digital camera.
>> Anonymous
>>147127
>>147127
>>147127

Stop living in the past...

How can scanned film be better than a digital??

The scanning and the fact its film mean quality is lost right away, digital are perfect quality untill compressed, all edits made in RAW, ist perfect...

Get out of your cave and move with the times ^_^
>> Anonymous
>>147156
I'm too lazy to rebut you right now not to mention I smell troll so I'll leave it to some film zealot.

Either way, I remember reading somewhere that 35mm film scans to more than 12mp or was it 22mp before it becomes pointless because of the grain.
>> Anonymous
>>147163
>>147163


Am not a troll...

If you can find that artical for me, i will take back everything i said and re considering buying a film SLR as a back up instead of a low end DSLR... IF you can find me that artical, youve now got my intrest lol
>> Anonymous
>>147168
When shot with an excellent lens, a 35 mm Velvia slide will hold detail equivalent to 22 or more megapixels of image data.[1]

[1]http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/Velvia50AF3-960E_1.pdf
>> Anonymous
>>147172


Thumbing though that PDF now, as it stand, i withdraw my previous statements and thank you!!
>> Anonymous
>>147156

(I'm a random person, not the one you're arguing with)

I do not agree with you about digital being better than film, and really don't find right you say film photography is ''living in the past''.

I think both has their own qualities and defects. I've been learning into digital photography first, but then tried a film photography... Gotta say I've been seriously attracted by the aspect of film photography because the whole blackroom and playground you get with it is just really interesting.

Photoshop is nothing like home-made film development, in my opinion. Of course it's an amazing program, of course digital quality may in a way be better for digital post-working if you can't scan negatives with a specific high-quality scanner... But still, the difference between both makes you learn on the other and in the end you get to have fun with a variety of infinite possibilities.

Have you ever tried film photography?
>> Anonymous
>>147172
Even though that is true, 6mp is more then enough for almost anything you'll ever do anyhow with photography.

Also, there's medium format. That's 88mp for you bitches.
>> Anonymous
>>147175
Im just another random person but I totally agree with you. I started out with digital but lately ive been shifting towards the world of film and now im in love with it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I'd shoot film 100% of the time if I could afford it.

I've got no issues with digital, but it's really just a money thing. I'd rather shoot Tri-X, Velvia, RVP, and Provia than NEFs. Those films are so time tested, so utterly great, they require close to no post-processing 95% of the time. Maybe some sharpening, but that's it.

Digital is cheaper, but more time intensive. I can make good images with either film or digital though, so I'll side with the one that doesn't cost 50 cents every time I click the shutter release, y'know?
>> Anonymous
>>147281
With the price of dslr one can get old film slr and lots of film.

If you shoot like few rolls of tmax a week and develop the film yourself, you can keep pressing that shutter for quite a while until youre anywhere near the price of dslr.

Not saying that digital wouldnt be cheaper if you shoot shitloads of photos but film is not that expensive if you shoot it only once in a while.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>147281
>>I'd rather shoot Tri-X, Velvia, RVP,
RVP is velvia
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>147292
50,000 frames on my D50, not to mention all of the stuff I've done on newspaper gear...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>147294
lol, srsly? No wonder I like it. They label it differently for medium format, then?
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>147297
its labeled on the film as RVP also on 35mm. but i dont really care for the stuff much myself.
>> Anonymous
The whole "film versus digital" resolution debate is pointless, so I'm not getting into that.

Economics aside, the reasons to shoot sub-LF film are two:

A) Wanting the look of a particular film.
B) Preferring the workflow of film.

The reasons to shoot digital are:

A) Wanting a look not available with a film, which isn't an issue with meshoot digital is
B) Preferring a digital workflow


I shoot digital for reason B. I wouldn't mind shooting sheet film, but I don't always want thirty-six shots in a row developed the same way.

Both deliver enough "image quality" for anyone's needs.