[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 47 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!



Are film cameras really worth it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width425
Image Height283
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
if you can do enlargements at home yes otherwise
the one you have with you :^)
>>
Define worth it. You get a solid film SLR with a fast prime lens for like 50 bucks.
>>
>>3402540
Optically great lenses and good SLR are ridiculously cheap, but film and development aren't, and depending on the labs at your disposal the end quality might be really low (my prints are awful beyond how badly I can fuck up an exposure). If you don't shoot a lot, and just want to have fun doing something different, they're great; also they're great decorative items when not in use, if you like their aesthetic.
>>
>>3402540
My Canon FTb gets a lot of attention from hipster girls, so, yeah, totally.
>>
>>3402547
Not since the hipster tax. I bought an AE-1P for 60 2 years back and sold it for 120 this month
>>
>>3402583
I bought an AE-1 (regular) in extremely good condition in a second hand store for 30 euro and only managed to sell it for the same price even after having it up for a month. It was a shutter-priority camera which is kind of dumb, although mechanically the thing was marvellous and the viewfinder was excellent. Simply no one wanted it.
It was much nicer to use than my Contax 137 MA but it's not like I could mount my Zeisses on it (I have learned that I prefer a high quality advance to a first gen inbuilt motor drive, which is nice to know.
>>
File: scan004.jpg (927 KB, 1000x667)
927 KB
927 KB JPG
not if you like image quality.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 21:08:02
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
>>
>>3402607
this isn't really a good example
>>
>>3402605
You should look at facebook trading and selling groups for film cameras. They are goldmines filled with desperate hipsters who will buy, and oldfags who need to sell gear to pay medical bills. I got a contax G1 with the 45mm glass and 35 rolls of HP5 for about 650. The guy couldn't afford to shoot for a hobby anymore and wanted to sell all he had, so i took it
>>
>>3402608
thats the quality you get unless you invested tons of money
>>
>>3402605
let me just close my unclosed bracket)

>>3402540
I picked up film almost exactly a year ago, I've shot lots of different cameras - 6x9 folding, 6x4.5 folding, a super compact travel zoom (which is actually a lot of fun), Zeiss glass on a Contax 167 MT and 137 MA and so on.
The question depends entirely upon what other cameras you have, if you can share lenses, what kind of processing you have locally, if you're interested in developing your own B/W and so on. If money's not an object then film can absolutely outstrip digital in terms of what is possible given careful choice and preparation of equipment. Some properties of film are of course completely unavailable to digital sensors, such as double exposures and printing B/W completely analog. There is no harm (and almost no investment involved) in starting with either a super cheap 3 pack of Kodak Gold 200 and literally any old mid-range SLR with kit 50mm f/whatever lens. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Contax, Yashica - you can't go wrong with any of them. Try to get something post 70's where you get a higher degree of reliability and aperture priority mode. It's fun working completely manual and it's good practice for a beginner, but it's often much more satisfying in variable lighting to adjust your aperture to taste and keep an eye on your shutter speed

Personally I started because I had already been adapting lots of different lenses from film systems and, since the camera bodies were so cheap, bought one on a whim and started using it. I have barely touched my 5D II since I started. The honeymoon period of trying everything out and seeing what I can do has kind of come to an end though since I know how each film reacts and what the results are like. I still want to try out Ektar, and B/W film is always fun if you dev and scan yourself like I do.

If anyone wants to buy a top of the line Konishiroku Pearl III f/3.5 folding 6x4.5 rangefinder for 300 euro, get in touch - I don't use it enough.
>>
>>3402611
Absolutely not true.
>>
>>3402609
The 45mm lens is sublime. I am envious. My dream when L mount Foveon comes out is to adapt it. Hopefully Techart come out with an AF adaptor.
>>
>>3402613
show me a good quality image from a 35mm film camera that:

a.) wasn't scanned on an expensive consumer scanner

b.) cost less than $0.50/frame after accounting for film, developing, and scanning cost if scanned at a lab
>>
>>3402617
There are plenty scanners which will give you a more than satisfactory ~6mp (i.e. 2000x3000) output from 35mm film at consumer prices - sufficient for medium size prints and desktop backgrounds or other such digital use. When I started out I had an Epson 3490 Photo scanner which would automatically spool in 35mm film and could do up to 1600 dpi pretty well. If you buy B/W film at something like 3 dollars 50, dev yourself with rodinal 1:100 and reuse the fixative you can come in at 10 cents a frame after you pay 25 dollars for the chemicals and perhaps 50 for a disused office scanner which will do transparent media.
>>
>>3402622
>inb4 BuT whAT aBoUt MUHHHH CoLoUr fLiM??/????/???
>>
>>3402622
>If you buy B/W film at something like 3 dollars 50, dev yourself with rodinal 1:100 and reuse the fixative you can come in at 10 cents a frame after you pay 25 dollars for the chemicals and perhaps 50 for a disused office scanner which will do transparent media.

>is it worth it
>>
>>3402540
>Are film cameras really worth it?
>AE-1 and FE cost almost nothing
>>
#minoltagang
>>
I enjoy using them. So yes!
>>
>>3402622
This is a lot of math to do for someone who can't afford to shoot film regularly. If you can afford to shoot regularly you really don't need any of this math.

I'd say the answer to ops question is no
>>
>>3402702
Based and Redpilled
>>
>>3402617
>cost less than $0.50/frame after accounting for film, developing, and scanning cost if scanned at a lab
That’s kinda expensive. 19$/roll, dev and scan included is not hard to find. A high quality film, like Portra 160, is 7$, around 3$ for dev and 7-10$ for high res scans, usually 16MP with a Noritsu or Frontier...
>>
>>3402643
>#minoltagang
This reminded me of that Asian faggot on youtube who's only been shooting film for like a year but is giving tips like he's some protege
>>
I found someone nearby who is selling a Nikon FM10, a Canon T70, and Minolta X-370. Would any of those be good for a starter film camera?
How much should I offer, assuming they're in decent shape?
>>
>>3402726
$3 for dev is a rarity. you're lucky to have a lab that reasonable. the $0.50/frame is quite normal for most people to pay. hell, everyone jerks off to The Darkroom and you're at $15/roll for dev + "enhanced* scans and we haven't factored in buying the film or mailing costs to the lab and back yet.

>>3402640
the cost of the camera is the lowest cost aside from the film itself. a $50 camera will (depending what you get) take great images. if you're just wanting to digitize them...you're going to spend another $15-$20 easily on each roll you shoot. 3 rolls and you've exceeded the cost of your camera.

hurrrr self dev and scan. well ya, that's what i do. but op's question is

>Is it worth it?

and to be honest, it's quite a pain in the ass deving and scanning yourself and costs a lot more money in one time purchases to start getting good results

>$50 camera
>$100 in dev supplies
>minimum $350 for a dedicated 35mm scanner (no shatbeds)

already sunk $500 and you haven't even bought film yet
>>
File: utzTCyo.png (200 KB, 490x355)
200 KB
200 KB PNG
>>3402744
>>
>>3402779
Not that I disagree with you but
>minimum $350 for a dedicated 35mm scanner
Often you can find used Reflecta RPS 7200 going for around 250€ on ebay, and those will give you the highest effective resolution on the market.

That said, you're completely right: film is either for people with too much money, or for people that don't shoot very much.
>>
>>3402617
lol he scans instead of prints.
>>
It's a hipster trend that is booming right now due to rising 90s nostalgia (just like people jerking off to Blockbuster VHS tapes), but a lot of people tend to give up on film within a few weeks once they get the first sticker shock of dev/scan costs, either doing it yourself or through a lab it's still going to be a shock.

That's just in my experience though. I attend a local photography club and we had a small influx of hipsters with old film cameras who didn't come back after a month when their first development happened. I'm sure those cameras are back on eBay now.

Film isn't for casuals so it being worth it is entirely up to how into photography you are.
>>
>>3402876
Its pretty much this. Alot of people will see a film camera and they will get grand
delusions of becoming the next greatest photog in their country, only to find out that :
> They suck at taking photos and the only reason that they took OK ones on a digital camera is that it can do everything for you
> They don't have the patience to learn how to meter properly or develop properly
> They can't afford to develop from a lab
> They are so used to instant gratification that they don't understand that (specially with anything analogue) you have to constantly practice to get better with it and not to get discouraged if out of an entire roll, there is only maybe 4 good photos if any the first time they shoot film.
>>
>>3402758
>Minolta X-370
That one is such a sweet camera and a joy to shoot. Simple controls, nice viewfinder with an intuitive exposure meter (match blinking LED to solid LED for correct exposure and you know exaclty in which speed you're shooting), aperture priority mode and full manual. runs on two SR44 button cells that last forever and are easy to get.
Minolta lenses are also top notch and rather cheap. standard lens was the awesome 50mm f1.7.
They go for around $35 to $60 tops if they're in mint condition.

the nikon FM10 is another pretty good starter camera but nowhere near as good in features as the minolta x-370, and the price is quite step up just because of the nikon name.
>>
>>3403425
>and they will get grand delusions of becoming the next greatest photog in their country
has anyone accomplished that with a film camera recently?
>>
>>3403435
>>3402643
>>
>>3403436
do I want to know more?
>>
>>3403437
Not unless you want to contract luekime-aids from an asian faggot
>>
>>3403437
lel probably no, but either way go to youtube and look for kingjvpes
>>
>>3402574
My local lab develops rolls of 120 C-41 for $2.
>>
>>3402607
Motion Blur, lens has soft corners, color correction is off, needs to be cropped, boringpicture of a sidewalk with no interest...
>>
>>3402540
No, long time experienced film user here.

>>3402576
This might be the only practical reason, along with "There's no film in the camera, baby"
>>
>>3402607
>shoots a blurry lens at one sixtieth a sec while walking and looks like an accidental shot

yeah mate film cameras are shit.
>>
>>3402540
yup.

film cameras are a good hobby.

I only buy film cameras secound hand in charity shops or off classified ads for cheap.

got an amzing f301 nikon with a nikon 35mm to 105mm lens that is sharp as a razor and blows the 200 quid lenses for my digital out of the water.

kicker was I got it for 15 euros as there was corrosion in the battery compartment. (vinegar fixes this if its only a little lads)

then to get 6 mega pickle scans and development and prints costs 10 quid a roll.

(if you need more mega pickles than that you are doing something wrong and obviously didn't get the shot you wanted)

if i shot 2 rolls a week for a year each of 36 exposures that would be 10*2*52 = 1040

cheaper to run for a year than to buy a digital camera with a comparable lens.

so yeah they are cheaper than a dslr. they have good colours. they are harder to use so you feel good about that. nobody is going to stab you for a film camera. if you drop a film camera you bought on the cheap you wont feel bad. you will make new friends down the local dev lab you will have random autists asking about your camera, film, your photo philosophy in parks.


IN GENERAL ITS FUN CHEAP AND FUN. AND YOU TAKE LESS BUT BETTER PHOTOS AND ITS FUN AND CHEAP.

been into film cameras for 3 or 4 years now always have at least one camera on me. plus its great when you go on holidays and you can pick up a camera as a keepsake.

have about 6 film cameras.
>>
>>3403713

also love when I get a roll back I took like a few months before and all the photos of the event/place come back.
>>
File: Superia 400.jpg (341 KB, 2048x1332)
341 KB
341 KB JPG
>>3402617
Pic related, Film stock is expired Fuji Superia 400 shot at 200, shot on a Canon AE-1 that I got for free with a 50mm 1.4 I got for $10 at a flea market, developed at a local Drug Mart for $4.50, and scanned on an Epson v600 that I got for $100 on craigslist.

>Color Film (Superia 400):
Film Cost: $3.33 per 36 shot roll in 3 pack(B&H Photo), $4.33 (Amazon)
Dev Cost: $4.50 per roll
Cost Per Frame: $0.21 (B&H), $0.25 (Amazon)

>B&W Film (Kodak Tri-X 400):
Film Cost: $5.79 per 36 shot roll (B&H Photo)
Dev Cost: Basically nothing, I do stand dev in 1/100th diluted rodinal for an hour for films 400 and under, two hours for Kodak P3200 or Delta 3200. It's like $100 the first time to get all the stuff you need to dev at home, and you need to buy TF-5 once a year at $15 per bottle.
Cost Per Frame: $0.16 (You can technically get this down to $0.09 if you dev superia as B&W or even lower if you shoot expired film like I do)
>>
>>3403736
either you missed the focus or your scanner is shite.
>>
File: house.jpg (421 KB, 2048x1274)
421 KB
421 KB JPG
This was shot with a Nikon FG and an E series 50 1.8 that I got for $15 and again Superia 400.
>>
File: Ektar.jpg (425 KB, 2048x1289)
425 KB
425 KB JPG
Kodak Ektar 100 shot on the AE-1 again with the 50.
>>
>>3403738
>>3403739
not bad mate.

love the secound. weird light there. was there a break or the sun was behind you or the buildings paint was just brighter ?
>>
File: Kodak Tri-X.jpg (649 KB, 2048x1365)
649 KB
649 KB JPG
Tri-X on the AE-1 with a Vivitar Series 1 70-200mm that I got for $5.
>>
>tfw upgraded to the canon p and its too hard to shoot with

it's just the distance thing, i've wasted too much film trying to figure out. Feels badman.
>>
>>3403742
what you mean distance thing ?

you mean focus ????

jesus dude if you are shooting blanks all you do is stick it on f8 or f16 and lower the shitter speed.

plus the canon p is a rangefinder should be easier than a slr to focus.
>>
File: TMAX100.jpg (462 KB, 2048x1365)
462 KB
462 KB JPG
T-Max 100 shot in a Contax T2 that I traded some guy a nintendo switch for.

>>3403740
Big storm front was moving out direct sun on the buildings with dark clouds right behind.

>>3403742
Personally, I prefer Cheap SLRs becuase I can actually see exactly what I'll get and I can knock them around without fear.
>>
>>3403744
Correction: I traded the guy the switch and got the T2. That made it sound like the opposite.
>>
File: _MG_0492.jpg (469 KB, 1000x667)
469 KB
469 KB JPG
>>3402617
>>3402617

Developed at home. Scanned with cheap old DSLR and lightbox.

Film $ 3.50 per roll Fomapan 100
Chemicals are so cheap its not a factor. Its just time spent doing all the fiddly shit that counts

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 600D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:11:25 18:03:10
Exposure Time1/60 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3402612
>If money's not an object then film can absolutely outstrip digital in terms of what is possible given careful choice and preparation of equipment.
Only by going 4x5 or larger. Hi rez 35mm sensors (42mp and up) can easily challenge 6x9.

>Some properties of film are of course completely unavailable to digital sensors, such as double exposures and printing B/W completely analog.
There are cameras which literally have multi-exposure modes, and you can always blend in PS.

You can print to B&W paper at better labs. But pro ink jets with gray inks can out perform lab prints any way. And before you talk shit, I spent years in the darkroom, still enjoy it from time to time, but my Epson 3880 on good paper will demolish analog prints.

That said: grabbing a 35mm or MF film body and taking a local class in B&W film, developing, and printing is a lot of fun and the lessons learn will help you with your digital shots as well.
>>
>>3403763
>doing a class in photography

are people this retarded ? what is wrong with this generation like seriously.
>>
>>3403765
How is this in anyway a bad thing?
>>
>>3403765
Yeah, how is it possible these people are not born with photography in their DNA, right? I mean, fucking zoomers, they're so cucked that when they start using a camera for the first time they don't even take world class photos from the get go! The absolute state of this onions generation they can't even /p/ LMAO.
>>
>>3403736
you just proved that it's all a waste of your goal is to digitize and you don't spend the money in a good scanner. my phone makes better image files than that

>>3403737
>v600
yes, it's shit
>>
>>3403742
That's interesting. Of all my MF cameras my Canon P has the most consistently correct focus. Basically never lost a shot to it.

Maybe the rangefinder needs recalibration? What lens are you using?
>>
>>3403782
If the v600 is shit then what scanner would you recommend?
>>
File: Superia800-0010.jpg (1.26 MB, 1500x1019)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
>>3403782
>>3402617
>you just proved that it's all a waste of your goal is to digitize
You literally asked us to show you a cheap setup to digitize film.
>and you don't spend the money in a good scanner.
Excuse me? You set one of your criteria's as "wasn't scanned on an expensive consumer scanner".
>yes, its shit
Of course it is it's a flatbed they're dogshit for scanning 35mm and you know it. Your whole part about showing you a good quality image SOULY relying on having a good scanner. spending an extra $80 for a Plustek 8100 over the V600 will completely solve this "issue". Or you could save money and go for one of the older Plustek version like the 7200 on the second hand market place for around $150. Which both scanners have the same specs but the 8100 comes with newer software which doesn't affect the IQ.

Anyway I'll crunch some number for you developing C41 at home, using a Tetenal 1L powder kit, Fuji C200. (All pricing is from BnH)
Tetenal press 1L powder kit is $32.50 (I've managed to get up to 18 rolls out of a single kit buy pushing the times)
18 rolls of Fuji C200 is $54 ($3 per roll) (648 frames total)
So thats 32.50 divided by 648 which is $0.051, Completely blowing all the previous examples out of the water with cost and Image quality.

>pic related is expired Superia 800 scanned with a Plustek 8100
>I've never shot Fuji C200 so can't give example with that film
Can post more examples if you want

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3403782
My goal isn't to digitize.

My goal is to find a workflow that works for me that allows me to both digitize and, for shots I really like, send the negatives off to a lab to get prints made.

The v600 is good enough for my purposes. I don't need a barrel scanner that I wet mount everything to.

I think your attitude towards this is formed by you pre-deciding that not only is film useless but that there is no circumstance under which anyone could possibly enjoy the results from film unless they spend a lot of money.
>>
File: Img0036.jpg (879 KB, 767x1121)
879 KB
879 KB JPG
>>3402617
>>
>>3402540
Do you enjoy it? The process and the results you get? Or do you prefer something more instant?

You decide if it's worth it anon.
>>
>>3402611
Quality of photographer is shit though
>>
Even about 5 years ago it was sort of viable to make money shooting film if you worked through a local lab, but it's all too expensive now, not to mention cumbersome.
>>
>>3402643
this

#stsimaxxumgang
>>
>>3404016
just dev at home?
>>
>>3403817
where are you getting c200 for $3 a roll and is it 36exp?
>>
>>3403885
Why did you post an image in response to my comment if your goal isn't to digitize in the first place?
>>
>>3402547
A good roll of 35mm is $5-10, dev to CD is $10-ish, you’ll spend $25-50 for good 4x6” prints. You can by a decent used DSLR pretty quickly instead if you actually shoot film. But it’s fun.
>>
File: Gold400-0045-2.jpg (1.77 MB, 1500x1003)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
>>3404714
B&H
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1440705-USA/fujifilm_1564949_135_36_fujicolor_200_exp.html
It's actually $2.66 if you buy the 3 pack
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1413155-REG/fujifilm_600018966_135_fujifilm_200_us.html

>>3404717
Not them but you asked us to post photos you buffoon. I see you still haven't commented on my response >>3403817. Probably shouldn't of used an expense film as an example so here's a shot from el cheapo Kodak Gold 400.

>>3404732
>you’ll spend $25-50 for good 4x6” prints
This is a given no matter the format. I doubt many people these days even get there work printed, tis a shame.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3404717
I proved with my posts that you can in fact have a film workflow that costs less than $0.50 per frame and produces good results. You're just pissy trying to say "This isn't as sharp as my 42mp smart phone" as if I care.

If you don't want to shoot film, don't. But don't keep pretending your blurry snapshit of the sidewalk is what all 35mm film photographs look like.
>>
It depends on how you wish to do it. If you want to digatize them, what you can do, is get them developed, then photo copy them, in B&W all you have to do is renvert them, in colour they come out with all the write colours. The taking of pictures is the cheapest part.
>>
I found a Minolta SRT101b at work and took it home

cfb actually using it and dealing with film
>>
>>3403817
>>3404756

I didn't respond to my post because you didn't respond properly to mine.

>You literally asked us to show you a cheap setup to digitize film.

I asked to show me a cheap setup THAT GIVES GOOD QUALITY digitized film photos. You didn't. You posted a potato from a V600.

>Excuse me? You set one of your criteria's as "wasn't scanned on an expensive consumer scanner".

That's my point. Cheap or good quality, pick one. You can't have both unless you get lucky with a random deal. Minimum $350 to get a scanner that gives good quality. Plustek 7200 still won't give great quality.

So yeah, like I originally said. $500 minimum in purchases (film camera, dev equipment + chems, and good quality scanner) to get reasonable quality out of digitized film photos that IMO, makes shooting film worth it.

If you're a darkroomfag you obviously none of this matters. But most people aren't darkroomfags anymore unfortunately.

Not interested in seeing more potato examples, as I already know what the V600 is capable of having owned one. It made me stop shooting 35mm.
>>
File: pastagem-para-alejandro.jpg (201 KB, 1600x1280)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
>>3402540
>Are film cameras really worth it?
135 film cameras are a meme, as well as anything below that. They're cute and handles nicely but image-wise you'd be better using some digital Fuji Pentax etc.

120 and above are incredibly worth it though. A 6:7 frame has 4.5x the area of a FF digital sensor. Even though digital can pair it and even surpass it regarding resolution and (managing of) chromatic aberrations, it lags far behind when it comes DR and contrast. Ofc, supposing you're after life-like pictures, not highly stylized editing and processing etc.

You get more range on daylight on a MF camera than any DSLR (though not at night), even though is usually smaller than DSLR. Lenses are much cheaper as well. My first MF kit (old Pentax 6x7, 105mm, portra) costed less than 150 bucks.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: IMG_20170514_201617_183.jpg (404 KB, 1264x1580)
404 KB
404 KB JPG
>>3405016
You are a very stupid person that tautologically will see whatever they want to see regardless of what the reality is. Are you really saying that this >>3403741 and this >>3403739 are terrible quality, unusable scans? Like get a fucking grip, man. I demand to see a good photo you have taken. Literally any good photo you have taken because your knowledge here is awful.

This is a constant problem with 4chan, these little fucking subject matter tyrants that try to speak with authority but probably started researching last week.

Here's my guess, you thought about getting a film camera and shooting film sometime last week, then you looked up the prices of everything and found it intimidating to start so now you have convinced yourself that it not only is costly to start but also stupid. Or, even better, maybe you actually bought a bunch of stuff to do film photography but weren't pleased with the results you got so now you're a wounded dog out for blood in the 4chan threads wanting to let everyone know that "If I can't do it, then there must be a problem with the very idea of doing it!"

Pic related: Ektar 100 scanned with the "unusable garbage potato" scanner Epson v600
>>
>>3405062
I've been shooting exclusively film since 2006, nice try though
>>
>>3402540
>worth
If worth=efficient, then no. Digital is way, way cheaper and better to learn on the long run. Camera will cost more, but then next 30 000 photos are virtually free if you compare it to negatives, developing and printing/scanning.
If worth=fun, then yes. It's about the process and the different pace. Rent one and shoot few rolls. It's not easy for me to talk about it, because I feel I sound like a shitty hipster, but you should try it by yourself to understand and feel it. Like meditation.
>>
>>3405158
>I've been shooting exclusively film since 2006, nice try though
Yikes, no actual response, just an empty claim that you are actually super experienced in shooting film and have been doing it for more than a decade.

Maybe you remember a certain phrase attributable to 4chan, "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
>>
>>3405176
lol

Yes, those images you linked are terrible quality photos. I can't believe I have to even say that.

If someone's goal is to have digital copies of film photos to post around, those are abysmal ending points.

Again, the point of this thread is asking 'if film cameras are worth it'. I'm saying there's a lot more cost involved, much more than a memey AE-1, if the goal is good quality digital images. Your posts haven't proved that otherwise yet.
>>
>>3404756
Yeah, the more that I think of it that’s a lot of why I like film more than digital, with film I’ll actually get prints made, I maybe get 3 prints a year from digital.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: Gold400-0020.jpg (2.92 MB, 1366x2000)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB JPG
>>3405016
>I asked to show me a cheap setup THAT GIVES GOOD QUALITY digitized film photos. You didn't. You posted a potato from a V600.
The v600 bro is a different anon that ain't me chief.

>That's my point. Cheap or good quality, pick one.
>Plustek 7200 still won't give great quality.
How stupid are you? I gave you both, the Plustek 7200 has the same specs as the 8100 which I bloody use in all examples I posted, the 8100 comes with newer software that's all. You can get a 7200 for $150 used.

>Not interested in seeing more potato examples,
Look at >>3404756 >>3403817 (You) and pic related (more el cheapo Gold 400) tell me they ain't good fucking quality.

>as I already know what the V600 is capable of having owned one. It made me stop shooting 35mm.
>gets into film
>buys shitty shatbed
>throws a tantrum when the results are shit
Imagine being (You)

>So yeah, like I originally said. $500 minimum in purchases
That was never in your original post but whatever lets do this, all prices from B&H besides camera/scanner arefrom second hand markets:
>$50 camera
>$150 used Plustek 7200
>$32.50 Tetenal 1L C41 kit
>$28.50 Paterson tank
>$47.94 for 18 rolls Fuji c200 36 exp. (the amount I can dev from the 1L C41 kit)
$308.95 total.
With the left over cash I can buy 2 more c41 kits and 36 more rolls of c200 and still have $30 left.

Seriously can't tell if you're just being a ignorant fuck or just straight up trolling at this point

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3402607
quality bait
>>
>>3405402
Oh my god, dude. Calm the fuck down. The scans are fine. Normal people aren't looking at online photos with a loupe for clarity. Strong images are not made in the scanner. You're obsessed with the wrong part of a photography workflow, my man.

>>3405557
>Plustek 7200
I had one of these but the scanning took forever compared to the epson. There is an image quality loss for sure between the two but the gap isn't that crazy and the time saved makes it more than worth it for me. I have been considering upgrading to the v800 though so I can scan large format.
>>
>>3405048
>120 and above are incredibly worth it though. A 6:7 frame has 4.5x the area of a FF digital sensor. Even though digital can pair it and even surpass it regarding resolution and (managing of) chromatic aberrations, it lags far behind when it comes DR and contrast.
The only way you're getting more DR out of film is to shoot specific B&W films then develop them for maximum DR/minimum contrast. No color film, or B&W film developed normally, is going to beat a modern DSLR. Not even Portra versus an off-chip ADC Canon. (On-chip ADC Canons are within 1ev of Sony.)

You would have to define "contrast" because that's baked into color film (absent post processing) yet can be adjusted on any DSLR. I suspect you meant something else.

That said, if you can spend the money for MF and a decent scanner setup (which can be a DSLR+macro+lightbox) Velvia and Provia provide a beautiful view of the world. And B&W + darkroom is the fastest way to learn how to do good looking B&W digital conversions.
>>
>>3405557
you're falling really hard for that bait my dude
>>
File: 1544125025046.jpg (144 KB, 1600x1600)
144 KB
144 KB JPG
>>3404770
That's the biggest pile of misinformation I've seen in one single post here.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.