After I stopped assisting and shooting fashion in NYC, I sold my D800 and went completely to film. The colors and "feel" with film is hard to get with digital. I've tried a bunch of different film systems and formats, currently settled with an F100, C330, and RZ67. The biggest pain in the ass is the cost and effort associated with developing and scanning. I currently do both myself, and it's time consuming, especially if you have more than a roll or two to dev + scan. Paying for developing and scanning can easily cost $20/roll, and I'm not fond of my local lab.I usually keep my F100 in my bag with me at all times, but I began to rethink shooting film on 35mm due to the effort vs reward. Home scans of 35mm are okay at best, so I pulled the trigger on a Fuji X-T20 with the aim of replacing my day-to-day shooting with digital. I keep remembering how boring it was to sit in Lightroom and tweak channels and apply filters to get my digital files looking good, so I'm apprehensive about the change.I'm wondering what /p/'s experience is regarding going from film to digital and if the tradeoffs are worth it.
how much does it cost to shoot 100 ISO color film like $0.50 a shot
>>3504552>I keep remembering how boring it was to sit in Lightroomdo you not do any post-processing on your film scans
>>3504594sudden thought of scam store to make them deliver and pay to send their RAW files to USBs or over the internet, and let the store edit them.
>>3504605sorry I read this sentence five times and I don't understand it
I find it easy to process film myself, I have one bathroom with no window, a Jobo rotary processor, and use replenished XTOL and digibase C41. Though perhaps for 35mm it doesn't make that much sense. I think I started doing film at home only once I started also shooting 4x5
>>3504594I do, but the colors are much closer to what I want over digital. There's also other things you need to do to digital to get it looking close to anything other than a snapshit.>>3504623I process myself but without a jobo. black and white is pretty easy but C41 is not fun due to the temperature sensitivity. Both are not hard to do but the effort and time required are not fun.
>>3504552My problem is also mainly how to scan all that old film. It's looking like that $800 strip scanner ALSO isn't fast enough and I might need a motorized MILC scanning rig for five times as much to get anywhere.Digital is a breeze, it has all the advantages over everything but medium format or larger film (where your scanner becomes an even bigger problem). Cheaper, better, faster.> I keep remembering how boring it was to sit in Lightroom and tweak channels and apply filters to get my digital files looking good, so I'm apprehensive about the change.Well if your current camera sucks then get a better camera and shoot RAW? If you do that profiles work okay to set your "baseline" corrections in almost all situations. Certainly no less than with film.
I was in a store thinking of getting back into digital about a year ago. I was tossing the idea of a second hand Leica M240 and lightly used D800. I got talked into the D800 and now it is a glorified scanner, I don't shoot with it at all. I don't know about the Fuji X-T20 but my 35mm SLR scans with a d800 beat my Coolscan 9000. 120 is lower res but still good and I don't have a way of scanning 4x5 now so the SLR works fine. Why not get into darkroom?Local labs can be a shitshow and fuckoff expensive.I soup my own colour, and run a few rolls of x-pro (what else am I going to do with my slide film?) when I'm done the c41. I don't do colour darkroom yet but hope to when I can source chemistry, I do mostly B&W and spend most of my time printing. I maybe do 2-4 photo trips a year now and spend 1-2 nights a week perfecting my printing. It's fun, play 80s metal and prog records loud in the dark and drink beers while making shit!One of the big advantages I can see for digital though, is being able to spit out a print exactly the same as one you printed 3-4 years ago right the first time .
>>3504552I went through the same evolution OP. Digital can look great, but editing does suck. However, it can be hard to differentiate a well-done "retro-edited" digital shot from a film one, unless you do a 1:1 crop and look at the grain structure. I went from shooting a bunch of 35mm to digital for my casual snapshits, because I also got tired of throwing my money away.Still, analog offers a few things that I still find valuable:Black and white just doesn't look the same, period. Yes, I know that Silver Efex Pro and VSCO exist. There's no substitute for real microcontrast, and the only way you get that is with a dedicated B+W sensor. I'm not paying Leica money for that. Developing black and white film at home is easy and cheap.Unique looks/large format stuff. I just got into pinhole photography and it's loads of fun. Yes, you can put a pinhole on a digital body, but there's nothing like the look of 4x5 or bigger formats. Toy cameras - I started out as a Lomo hipster fag, and the Holga 120N will always hold a special place in my heart. OP, I'd keep one of your medium format bodies and drop the rest. Use the subject isolation and crazy resolution when you need it, and enjoy digital convenience when you don't.
>>3504665>and the only way you get that is with a dedicated B+W sensorModern digital sensors have very well-differentiated contrast levels to the point where you can see (and measure) how almost all of your old lenses are certainly worse at this than the modern high-end glass.Plus B+W scanning doesn't generally "preserve microcontrast" better than shooting film in the first place.> editing does suckWhy though? If you don't do anything other than maybe apply your favourite profile, you're already at the point (or actually further along to "realistic" looks) where you'd be with film. You can even have a backup done automatically and so on. All without the need to develop and file negatives.
>>3504668Modern emulsions like Tmax 100 and Silvermax have spooky amounts of resolution and dynamic range, even in 35mm. You can buy plenty of modern lens designs that will work on older bodies if that's your bag. One big advantage to digital black and white is not having to deal with filters - being able to manipulate color response after the fact is sweet.Regarding editing, I'll freely admit that's a subjective preference. I have fun working with chemistry and physically manipulating things, but I find moving sliders and spending lots of time in front of a computer to be tedious.
>>3504552Why not both? They’re not mutually exclusive. I have a digital mirrorless system along with two 35mm film cameras. I shoot with them all, depending on my mood, the situation, what film I have on hand, etc. Lately I’ve been using my digital camera for super abstract work, and my film cameras for more traditional, representative photos, for example.
>>3504662>One of the big advantages I can see for digital though, is being able to spit out a print exactly the same as one you printed 3-4 years ago right the first time .There are many advantages if you ask me.If you have a good camera, you're generally working with better source material. Extremely reliable exposure metering and autofocus at this point. Never mind the review capability for shooting people, both the built-in displays and tethered to bigger displays can let you and optionally your model see what's getting captured.Then the colour information is generally simply better. There are various good films for colour, but none is really as good as current digital.Then you have the abiliy to edit/print very rapidly, and apply bulk transformations if you want.Storing the photos also only requires 1-2 nice NAS boxes (which isn't the only way to do this). You can even nearly instantly have off-site copies. And they're filed away in a meaningful way at all times, which makes retrieval faster.And it's cheaper by far for people who actually shoot a lot. You'll also generally spend less time with work other than shooting photos.Lastly, well, all the nice new lenses, TTL studio strobes and other things are basically for current digital cameras, most of this doesn't work well or at all with film bodies.
>>3504669>Modern emulsions like Tmax 100 and Silvermax have spooky amounts of resolution and dynamic rangeEven older not entirely comparable B+W was often quite good, and yes the modern emulsions are really nice.But digital sensors are now at a point where at common operating temperatures they can get fairly good accuracy across the 2^14 to 2^16 states they nominally support for each color pixel.It isn't really a huge problem to use this information in color or b+w.> I have fun working with chemistry and physically manipulating things, but I find moving sliders and spending lots of time in front of a computer to be tedious.The thing I doubt to begin with is that "lots of time in front of a computer" bit, not that you might have fun performing the old workflow.The moment your tethered or plugged in camera or storage is attached, you're basically already supposed to be at point where you have "developed" and "archived" the "negatives". [Well okay, the computer is only actually done doing this a minute or a few later, depending on how many shots there are, but if you're not working with potato and terrible software, you're looking at the shots streaming in with your profile already applied really rapidly.]And even if you have a really hot setup for enlarging photos, your own time consumption at most equal (but probably a good bit higher) than with queued print jobs.
>>3504686I'm sure a big part of this is how much you shoot, and whether you make a living doing it. I strictly take photos for fun, so I'm not terribly concerned with achieving peak efficiency or pumping out images quickly so I can move on to my next client. If I was doing photography full time or even as a side hustle my client work would be 100% digital. When I take my pinhole camera out for a walk in the woods, I don't need to have those images right away.
>>3504673better colour in terms of accuracy sure pretty much all film is/has a distortion of colour in some way. various emulsions had a different distortions and character. That's one of the things that makes film more fun, is you have to decide before you have shot, and sometimes before you know what you are going to shoot. both digital and some films can be edited to look like various (other) film stocks, but shooting digital is like shooting 1 neutral film stock for ever. now with everyone using pretty much the same CMOS sensor, differences from camera to camera are minuscule. Film forces you to plan ahead and be decisive, where digital allows you to edit forever till the picture looks neat. I have also noticed a lot of people get lazy with their photography with the "fix it in post" attitude, so many people spend countless hours polishing turds instead of getting it right in the camera.
>>3504552You are dumb, just get sigma merrill, its best of both worlds, digital but the feeling and the soul of film.
>>3504718Have fun not being able to shoot anything over iso 400
>>3504720If you have to shoot with high iso setting you are doing it wrong
>>3504717>but shooting digital is like shooting 1 neutral film stock for ever. now with everyone using pretty much the same CMOS sensor, differences from camera to camera are minusculeHm, I still can see a fair bunch of differences there. But with regards to colours, of course the default you start with in most RAW editors (if you don't have your own profiles) is either what the editor likes to do, or an imitation of what some camera by that vendor had for its default JPEG processing.In my mind, the presence of the information needed to derive the other profiles still basically means you have ALL film stock rather than just one. That said, I don't usually actually vary things much there, I generally just have my one preference.> Film forces you to plan ahead and be decisive, where digital allows you to edit forever till the picture looks neat.Theoretically? But practically speaking I'm certainly not interested into turning every image into a multi-hour long editing session with RAW processing followed by editing an a pixel/vector editor with masking and drawing over everything.Basically the idea even here is probably to just have it work "well" right when you import it into the RAW editor. When I do some post-processing like giving clouds a bit more contrast or such, that's something you wouldn't do any faster/better with film in general anyhow (the analogy with physical filters in the correct position isn't generally faster to work with either).
>>3504725Sure have fun getting usable handheld images with an f/2.8 lens and iso 400 in low light your shots will be shaky as fuck.Even film will get you better low light results than that piece of shit. Portra can get usable shots pushed up to 3200 while having access to a faster lenses
>>3504720ISO 1600 looks great on medium format, anon.
>>3504740It sure it but iso 1600 looks like trash on a Sigma Merrill
>>3504552you realize what a ETFU is right? >still shooting film in 2019only one I know still using film is Aziz Ansari and he almost went to jail for raping that young girl in NY. typical film users. not respecting woman's rights or the environment[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)55 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:07:12 15:20:25Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1250Lens Aperturef/3.2Brightness1.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width7952Image Height5304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3504593Pretty much, then slap another ten on for development. Used to develop and scan myself but way too time consuming.
>>3505249that is fucking goddamn whacked. I could literally just snap pictures until all of my money is gone
is there a DSLR out right now that sort of mimics a film camera in the way that you use it and doesn't cost 10k
>>3504745we know who you are
>>3505824what is meant by this
>>3505789i rate her a 5/10 but id still fuck the retarded shit out of her leaving her ravaged and empty
>>3504745I had a dream last night I beat the hit out of you. I hit you so hard your fat stomach burst open and a bunch of pussy poured out
>>3504552Did the reverse. It's like cooking. At first you're slow, and everything appears tedious and waste of time. Then you become faster and faster with routine kicking in. Then when you start putting some thought into it, process lengthens and you really start cooking up some masterpieces.
>>3505824Just buy a Fuji
>>3504552I'm thinking about getting a new mh25 charger and using my d800 again. I stopped using it half a year ago when the charger died and I've been exclusively shooting film since, but it's getting really fucking expensive. Even with self dev/scan the developer and film costs are stacking up fast. I'm a poorfag and I often find myself just leaving the camera at home if it's like overcast and I have 50/100 film in it or it's really sunny and I have 400/800 film in. I just can't be bothered rewinding the roll and putting a new one in because it's tedious and I feel bad about using up yet another roll.
>>3504745is there a way to filter by exif? I really don't want to see any posts by your ban evading pedo fatass anymore
>>3505889>ban evading pedo fatasswho's this guy?
>>3505952Go here https://archive.nyafuu.org/p/search/username/chosis/ use the search function and type in any buzzwords and read the disgusting comments this scum fuck says.example post here https://archive.nyafuu.org/p/thread/3319307/
>>3505955Eh, where is the problem with that?Seems rather simple: If something is a outfit okay to wear in public, it's also an outfit okay to photograph in public.
>>3505955Chosis is alright troll. The amount of butthurt he caused is hilarious.
>>3506019Shut up Chris. Trying to scam 4chan and failing so badly that you lose your real life job isn't "causing butthurt" unless the butthurt caused is to your wallet.
>>3504745Not going to lie, sometimes I go back to these screenshots and rub out a thick nut at how utterly you fucked up trying to run a Million Dollar scam scheme on /p/. You actually thought you were going to get away with it! It must have been hilarious when your manager took you aside and fired your dumb ass over 4chan shenanigans. Back to living with mummy and daddy for you. Imagine losing your minimum wage retail job because you couldn't resist being a money hungry faggot on an anonymous imageboard. That last line aged so fucking badly.
>>3506033The amount of butthurt and sociopathic behaviour encountered on this site is through the charts. Wildlife spammer, guy that accuses everyone of being Chosis, murdering N, sonygger bot, stalking janny, and Chosis himself, you all make a sweat team.
>>3506038>>3504745And then to add more hilarity, you tried to shill your lambo giveaway on reddit too... then went on to boast about how you're an unconvicted rapist and that you've diddled a kid on the same account! You couldn't make it it! The retardation is through the roof.Anyway Chris Wood living in Cranberry Township or Chosis as you like to be known by, hopefully your final act is the FBI busting in your door and raiding all the your hard drives full of CP as you try to snapshit the whole thing. I wonder what kind of creative "narratives" you can come up with in jail.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3506038>>3506048Anon, I think you've some mental problems...
Any recs for a compact with a nice long lens that isn't the Merrill DP3?
>>3506068Panasonic LX100 (first gen).
>>3506048>. I wonder what kind of creative "narratives" you can come up with in jail.I'd be down to read that blog
so has Chosis become the Godwin's law of /p/?
>>3506239>so has Chosis become the Godwin's law of /p/?Kinda I guess but not intentionally. We call him out every time he posts because he's banned and a he's an absolute awful personList of shit he's done;sexually abuse little kids, gets caught selling heroin, makes a scam crypto currency, makes a scam website where you can win a Lamborghini and have the website link to your workplace, then get fired form said workplace because they get tipped off about said scam site, lie about having bone cancer, make an ig where you steal photos from /p/, talk shit to a pro photographer though that ig account and they almost sue 4chan as a whole, constantly harass homeless people in the street to take photos of them, constantly harass regular people in the street to take photos of them, while saying you have to be a rapist to be a street photographer, get banned on /p/ but still come back even though everyone hates you, be so schizophrenia that you only think it's the one person bad mouthing you and threaten to kill said anon dogs.Oh btw please fuck off already :)
>>3506244Wtf who tried to sue 4channel?
>>3506290You guys should have goaded him into going for it, we would have had a bunch of /p/ memes out of the trial
>>3506239i just laughed out loud at this please tell me this is a chosis originalprobably not though right because of the proper use of depth of field and composition
>>3505840>not leaving her full of your seed
>>3506009Fuck off chosis. Stop trying to justify taking upskirt creepshots outside a fucking MIDDLE SCHOOL. Stop trying to justify committing mail fraud. Stop trying to justify endlessly samefagging and replying to yourself, "recommending" your 0/10 garbage insta to "people asking for advice" who are really just you samefagging, and then "thanking" yourself for the tip and typing out some word salad about how "this guy is definitely a pro, he's going to make it big in the "scene"".just fuck off, everyone knows what you're doing you 90 IQ fat fuck
>>3506884I'm not Chosis and I don't think upskirt creepshots need to be included as part of what is the public appearance of people.The post you linked had none of that though, just 3 fat girls in school uniform. No problem.
>>3506863Well you gotta feed her first
>>3504623Go to bed Willem