>>3877075imagine wasting expensive slides on a bunch of manchildren larpers
>>3877081Imagine being a nophoto cunt.
>>3877081Imagine being a nophoto larper.
>>3877081imagine thinking slides are expensive.imagine thinking taking photos with film is a waste.imagine being you.
>>3877075Looks nice, but why would you load regular 35mm film into a panoramic camera ? Just for the borders visual effect ?
>>3877075the comments in that thread are just golden.>>>/xs/41764>>>/xs/41771>>>/xs/41894
>>3877098Because its the one he had with him.
>>3877098How about you run a roll of 35mm through your panoramic camera and report back on your findings?
>>3877111>>3877098Isn't it better to load a full frame film and crop it however you like ?
>>3877117please stop posting
>>3877117Because its a bigger format than a cropped fullframe and he couldn't afford the xpan and most other panoramic camera don't have a telephoto lens.
>>3877117How about you fucking DO IT and FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF instead of QUESTIONPOSTING like a fucking RETARD?
>>3877098>Looks nice, but why would you load regular 35mm film into a panoramic camera ? Just for the borders visual effect ?Since no one else is actually explaining it:What he did was he loaded 35mm film into a medium format camera (i.e., a camera that's designed to shoot in a format larger than 35mm). So it's not a panoramic camera per se; he's just shooting panoramic photos in it by using a narrower film format than the camera is designed for.Most 35mm cameras with a "panoramic" option actually just crop in so you're getting *smaller* frames with the top and bottom cropped out. This lets you get larger frames. And some people like the aesthetic with the sprocket holes in the photo.>>3877117>Isn't it better to load a full frame film and crop it however you like ?And to this: It depends on what you're going for. If you're wanting panoramic photos like this, you're going to be wasting a lot of expensive medium format film to get cropped panoramics. Plus, by limiting yourself to the panoramic format, it forces you to think in terms of that composition rather than just falling back into the camera's native aspect ratio.
>>3877124Dude, fuck off. Just because you already know the answers to the questions he's asking doesn't mean that he's stupid for asking the questions.
>>3877126No, actually, he very much is fucking stupid for asking questions. This isn't Google; it's a fucking photography board, and the answers to his questions are totally self-evident to anyone who isn't literally fucking retarded. If he were actually curious he'd spend ten seconds thinking about it instead of being a questionpoaster. If he were actually a photographer he'd just fucking DO IT. You're a retard-enabler and providing easy answers to lazy assholes makes the world a worse place. Fuck him and fuck you.
>>3877123>couldn't afford the xpanimplying the xpan is expensive.
>>3877081Imagine wasting time, money and technology just to be toxic on the internet
>>3877127>No, actually, he very much is fucking stupid for asking questionsHe's really not.> the answers to his questions are totally self-evident to anyone who isn't literally fucking retardedThey're really not.If you've only got experience with 35mm cameras, you'll know that 35mm cameras don't generally go out to the sprockets. If you've got experience with 35mm and medium format, you'll know 35mm doesn't go out to the sprockets and that 35mm doesn't generally fit in medium format cameras. It's pretty specialized knowledge on top of pretty specialized knowledge to know that you can get a little plastic set of adapters to let you run 35mm through a 120 camera. Plus, most people in the year of our lord 2021 haven't even shot film, much less film in those old "panoramic" cameras that just crop in. And if you don't have a lot of experience shooting, you won't have first-hand experience that tells you that shooting for the specific output format you want (e.g., loading 35mm into an RB67 to get panoramics instead of just cropping down the native 6x7, or by loading black and white film to make you think in terms of light and shadow and ignore color), you might not realize why someone might want to do that. > You're a retard-enabler and providing easy answers to lazy assholes makes the world a worse place. Fuck him and fuck you.Another way to put it: I'm fostering discussions about photography on a photography board. I'm helping people become better and more knowledgable photographers. You're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. Fuck off with that bullshit.
>>3877136https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=why%20would%20you%20load%20regular%2035mm%20film%20into%20a%20panoramic%20cameraLiterally the first three links. There is no discussion to be had. What "discussion" are you going to have other than to explain the obvious? Where does a discussion go when the answer to "why would I press that button" is "in order to start the engine"? Literal 3-year-old shit. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Inane.
>>3877133Not him, but I'd get one if it was fully mechanical.
>>3877138>Literally the first three linksThe first three links that come back for me when I google that:(Videos)1. 35mm panoramic cameras, real vs fake.2. How to load a 35mm film camera.3. How to load 35mm film into a Mamiya 6MF for panoramic photos. #1 and #3 are adjacent to what he's confused about, but they don't really answer his actual question. #2 is straight up irrelevant. Actual links:A. How to take panoramic photos on a 35mm film camera without croppingB. Photographing Machu Picchu on a panorama film cameraC. How To - 35mm Panoramic Film ImagesThese go more into the *how* and not the *why*. And this guy was at a point where he doesn't seem to actually understand that there's not special panoramic film and that it's all either 35mm or 120 shot with a panoramic aspect ratio. In fact, if you don't understand that the answers to his questions were somewhat nuanced and therefore not something simple and easy to google, maybe you're not nearly as smart as you think you are?
>>3877127>If he were actually a photographer he'd just fucking DO ITwhy?>>3877117Depends. If you don't mind the part you don't expose and the sprockets, it's cheaper. And some people like the sprockets aesthetics.
>>3877133>implying the xpan is expensive.They cost thousands of dollars. Whether you personally can afford one or not, it's ridiculous to imply that that doesn't count as expensive for a film camera.
>>3877081>>3877082blown the fuck out
>>3877138>tries to be highschool snarky with lmgtfy>can't post working link
>>3877138chill out bro there's no need to sperg out this hard on a mongolian basket weaving forum lmao
>>3877138you literally failed at posting a boomer-tier troll link lol
>>3877081Oh no, 20 bucks
>>3877075what a waste of film
>>3877700Once buck would be too much. And pressing the shutter just once would be a waste of calories to be honest.
>>3878493These pictures are probably better than any picture you’ve ever taken.
>>3877075are you gonna post more?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3090Image Height2048
>>3877075This is a really cool shot, Australia guy.
>>3878509This isn't my thread, but there are more in the /fgt/ thread>>3878518Thanks
>>3877082>>3877083>>3877097>>3877135>>3877273>>3877700cry more children also samefag
>>3878660"Its one guy"
>>3877125damn thanks for the explanation anon.
>>3878540I saw them, they’re reel neeto