File :-(, x, )
Sad thing is.. Spartacus !zMyrw5Fuo.
I hate my 350D... you know why? Because for work I got to spend the summer using a Leaf Aptus 22 ....

Good lord I do miss that thing. So, so godly. And now I have to go back to my tiinsy little APS-C 350D. Why does the world tempt me so?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern891Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:04:18 13:27:55Exposure Time0.7 secF-Numberf/14.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width216Image Height325RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoftSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
so that you can come on /p/ and brag about it. just go buy a cheap medium format kit, a brick of velvia or astia and be happy.
>> Spartacus !zMyrw5Fuo.
>>170886
Not bragging... I mean, its not my camera, I just used it for a while. And now I'm back to a camera thats pretty damn entry level for you guys.

That and I don't have the money to start shooting film, much less film on an entirely new format.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>170897
"And now I'm back to a camera thats pretty damn entry level for you guys"

lol, im flattered you think we use such great cameras :D
but TBH, im only with a not-so-godly 30D lol ;)
>> Spartacus !zMyrw5Fuo.
>>170905

Well, I mean, most DSLR users her, such as yourself, will be using the 350D or better. I mean, my camera is great, it's just... I've tasted forbidden fruit.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>170908
yea, i guess im lucky i dont personally know any photogs, and espesh any photogs with better equip so i dont have to worry about lust.

except that damn 5d at the store... :(
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170905
You realize that a 30D is better than a 350D, right?
>> des
>>170897
film isn't expensive :/
>> Anonymous
>>170970
But processing is.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170970
Relative to the cost of a JPEG it is.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>171008

depends on how you look at it in terms of time spent. If you look at it that way, digital/jpeg costs more than film does.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>170918
One of my friends is a pro sports (touring cars, the bastard 2x the envy), uses a pair of D2s and a collection of fast long lenses.

Even for being Nikon i so do want.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>171029
How so?

It takes pretty much a minimum of an hour to process 36 film pictures. Especially if you have something like Lightroom, you can process RAWs way faster than that.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
liska's crazy. i shoot only film, and have been for many years. it's expensive as shit.

but all of photography is expensive, so complaining about the price of film is sort of like complaining about the price of lenses or bodies: pointless.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>171090

That's my point. With film i don't NEED to edit the photos. They're ready to go as soon as I get them back on the slide.

In terms of my time, digital costs me MORE than film did.

>>171093
Up until Christmas 2007, I was film exclusive. I know what the costs of film are.

I'm not trying to give film superiority here or anything of the sort, but i AM saying that for me if i factor in time, etc, then digital costs WAY more than film. Digital supplies also cost more. I've spent more money on memory cards & digital supplies where my film equipment couldn't carry over to my digital, in the past few months than i've ever spent buying/processing film in the past year.

not that everyone would agree with me, though. ;-)
>> Anonymous
>>171094
But you don't process every photo you take for digital. You look at the preview of the raw file and do ~1-5 out of every 36. The other ~31 on the roll you don't have any use for except self-study, which the previews serve just as well for on digital.
>> Anonymous
>>171095
Let me rephrase: "But one doesn't..." etc. etc. I don't know what *you* do, but most digital shooters work it like that, or if they're professionals that need most of the "roll" to show to clients, batch process and fine-tune the ones the clients pick out later.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>171096
Point seems to be that, whatever percentage of digital shots are actually edited, it takes about 4-5 hours, which, in time spent, is at least equivalent to the cost of paying for film and development.
>> Anonymous
>>171103
Signed
/p/ is always harsh on model pics though, so its almost a given that anyone posting people shots is going to get flamed
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
it's fairer to say that for YOUR workflow, liska, color slides are cheaper and easier than digital. that's because you're not developing them or printing them.

black and white is a bit more labor intensive.
>> des
>>171100
>>nip slip, or an upskirt
pics or it didn't happen
>>is there such a thing as white balance for film or does shit come out magically right
it's mostly taken care of during printing/scanning for negative film, depends on the film. Some are more forgiving of mixed temperature.
If you're working with a good lab or shooting slide film well, it's nothing to bother about.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>171109

Yes, i thought i had made it clear that in terms of my experiences, digital is more expensive for me than film is. I'm sure i'm not the only one out there that runs into that, but the 'me' specific part I thought I made clear in most of my posts.

I love b/w too, though I don't get to use it as much as I used to. :(

FYI though- i've never had a need to do anything in terms of printing my photography, except with a few specific cases for a magazine.

>>171110
Those photos should never go beyond the model and my computer. No matter what. Especially when they forget to wear their underwear on a shoot and ruin an otherwise good shot :(

>>171106
everyone here nearly always hates everyone elses shots. I'm still new, and learning too, but yeah. I stopped posting a lot of my model shots here because I don't want them to get circulated around without the model knowing and/or them doing it themselves. Oh well.
>> Just sayin des
>>171116
>forget to wear their underwear
read: are trying to seduce you
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>171100
>or a nip slip, or an upskirt and I have to go into photoshop to cover her.
Fuckin' /r/.
>Especially when they forget to wear their underwear on a shoot and ruin an otherwise good shot :(
*Vastly* different definition of "Ruin" from the one I have. :)

>>171105
>is there such a thing as white balance for film or does shit come out magically right
Yes. Kind of.

With negative film, the pictures are not the real colors (since they're negative and have the orange/brownish film base that needs to be subtracted from the mix) so it basically ends up getting white-balanced kind of like with digitals when they make the print/scan.

With slide film, what you see is what you get. So there are separate daylight-balanced and tungsten-balanced slide films, and if you shoot one in the other lighting, it will look off-colored (unless you add an appropriate cooling filter for tungsten-balanced outdoors, or warming filter for daylight-balanced indoors)
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>171136
see
>>171128
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>171137
I read it. I chose to ignore it.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>171139
Ah. Fair enough.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>171100
How's the f100 working out?
>> Anonymous
>>171128
I'm sorry Liska. I love your work, and I loved when you dumped some metart or other hi-res pr0n shit on /s/ (:

The film/digital cost is a problem that is totally based in your ability with computers.

My computer takes about 0.20s to load a 10mb cr2. 2.4ghz c2d, 2gb of patriot ram and 8600gt. it just works faster then I would browse manually thru anything. Plus, there's adobe bridge and LOTS of other software that help me to browse. And if you are not a lazy fucking bum, you would do with digital the same thing you do with film. Set your fucking white balance, expose properly instead of thinking "fuck these f-stops I can FUCK YEAH +2.0 EV IN RAW, RAWR >:3" you won't end up with 200 frames of the same thing. I'm a pretty much trigger happy kid type, but if I have an assigment that requires lots of pictures. I do the exposure/white balance as proper as possible. And then fix it all up with a photoshop batch or something of the same sort. In the end I have my already done auto-leveled shots, sharpened, just waiting for a final touch if needed. And they got done while I was watching porn. When you learn to love and live with computers, you'll see that no fucking film would "develop itself" like photoshop can do today. Do most things on camera, you're film hardcore right? Just keep at it and learn computers. You'll be golden.
Just my opinion though.
>> Anonymous
This is stupid. You are comparing non-edited film with fully edited digital images.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>171510
Skin tones are hell.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>171527
I could always only shoot in IR
that would save me a lot of processing, just convert to B+W
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>171525
Point is that, for Liska, she gets the results she wants with film, unedited. Digital requires extensive processing to get the a similar quality look and result.
>> Anonymous
>>171531
If you are trying to get the look of film, then shoot with film. It's not that difficult.

For most people, however, this is not the case.