The world was better and felt more significant when you captured the moment on even cheap rolls of film.SOUL was kept intact in the image. Better dynamic range than digital, beautiful imperfections. The limited stock made taking photos a novelty and forced you to treat each photo with reverence and consideration. Digital makes things too easy, and it looks like DOGSHIT.
Disposables are still sold. Go buy one and come back with some photos (you won't, gearfag)
>shit image quality>expensive for what they were>comparatively long turnaround on photoscompared to>shit quality>but>instantly shareable with everyone you know and then some>free for as many photos as you wanna takego figure.
>>4153953except they haven't... lol what shithole do you live in?
>>4153953i charge people $25 + tax & tip to develop and scan their disposables, then take it to the indian lab downtown and pay them $10 to do it for me.
recently bought one
They took decent pictures
I have one from the late 90s that I never got developed. I should probably try to find a way to get it done...
Is this a trick question, we have phones now.Wide standard on a phone does same thing for free, as many exposures as you want, and you get "scans" instantly.
>>4154218lol I hope you kept it in the freezer>>4154271and no one ever looks at them again
>>4154312>lol I hope you kept it in the freezerI feel like shot film with a latent image stores better in terms of color over virgin unshot film but maybe I’m wrong
>>4154312>lol I hope you kept it in the freezerlol, nope. Found it in a drawer next to my minidisc player, Nintendo gameboy & my Fuji Finepix™ A330 (with 3x optical zoom!!1!!11!).I dug it out and it turns out my old brain misremembered. It's not from the 90s, that's the roll of 110 film I have that I never got developed. The disposable is from the 00s and seems to have never been used. Think I got it for a holiday & forgot to bring it or something. Pic related.>develop before 12-2006I assume it's fucked now...
>>4153953It's true, you need to be a much better photographer to shoot digital well. With film you can hide behind muh aesthetic to mask your snapshits. From children anyway.Imagine being so shit at photography that you have to let the medium be the art rather than your own efforts of simply taking a good photograph. Yikes.
>>4154508i don't think it's about being better technically, its about being more disciplined... when I shoot film, i don't want to waste shots as it's a finite resource, so i am much more thoughtful in my composure and trigger finger...with digital i dont give a shit and just go nuts, being able to apply that thoughtful mentality and scene discrimination to digital is challenging when there's no real consequences except shitty photos
>>4154523>cliche platitudesYes, everyone knows the flim mantra. The fact is this is how you should shoot digital as well.
>>4154523>The thing I bought will force me to be a better photographer because... I can barely afford film!The real effect is you do not practice and you do not experiment. You take safe photos of safe subjects and think you're a baller for "choosing the light" by just not going out too early or too late for your ISO 100 film and more creative for bringing a little 12 section tripod in a coat pocket and taking photos of gas stations and folding chairs left next to dumpsters. Sadly, you're a genuine nick carver.Great photographers of the 20th century were mostly rich and operated home darkrooms. They went through a FUCKLOAD of film playing around to see what they could do with a camera and all of them had undeveloped sheets and rolls from experimentation days they never developed because they figured they didn't get anything. They would finish off rolls with junk just to change films when they wanted to. They would play around. Yes, even ansel adams. Someone found a box of his throwaway negs, experimentation and test shots, at a garage sale and proceeded to sell them based on the name alone but adams didn't consider them worth printing lol. Ansel Adams himself said he would only take about 12 good photos a year.
>>4154573>the chad "the one you have with you"/"just take a fucking photo">the virgin "i didn't bring it with me because the light isn't right to finish off my ektachrome today"
>>4154573N-NOOOOOOO!The brotherhood of flimfags is perfect in every way! We are super artistic and selective, always getting the right shot because we are so DISCIPLINED! Also my photo may look like a boring snapshit but it is actually ART because I posted the whole scan! Don't you see the little holes?! You just wouldn't understand!
>>4154573nta but I don't personally care what the famous photographers used to do.I shoot film because it's fun, I think it looks cool and you can't stop me[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 11.5 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2023:03:13 15:32:53Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4154586That's a more based take than this >>4154523 retard who thinks rationing out film like rolls of gold is going to make him less of an artistic wasteland
>>4154586>it looks coolKek. There is just less information to discern a snapshit, thus masking it from zoomer casuals. Film in 2023 is cope for taking boring photos.The b&w film shots people post on this board are terrible, and would only look worse as color digital. It's pure copium.
>>4154589If you want more information you could always shoot tmax or tri-x or whatever ilford equivalent there is.You could also shoot medium or large format if you are desperate for resolution.Alternatively, quit being a faggot and post photos[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.50.007 (151023)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationLeft-Hand, BottomHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1545Image Height1024
>>4154562yes yes we should all be ultra disciplines, only eat eggs whites, no sugar, no alcohol, no masturbation, eat our veggies, do our exercise and shoot digital with discrimination, but unfortunately we live in the real world huh? or are you one of those basement dwelling fantasy fags?
>>4154710>I live in the real world where I can't take good photos unless I can't afford to take bad onesYour real world sounds sad.
>>4154573>>4154587>>4154718lol such cope, it has nothing to do with affording it, there are many other factors, for one I don't feel like carry 10 rolls with me everywhere I go, deteriorating in 30+ heat and constant heat to cool to heat cycles of unused rolls back in the fridge, at most the roll that's in the camera, and an additional if I'm planning something specific, so I'd rather not burn it in the first 5 mins of the day and be bored out of my mind or have to pay retail sharks triple what it's worth, sure i can afford it, but that's a matter of principal. Plus there's the effort of deving and scanning, i'm not going to be assed going through that for garbage shots and so far I haven't had to, every roll has been at least 30/36 frames of absolute perfection. >just get the lab to do ityeah nah imagine taking good photos and letting some monkey getting paid minimum wage or less to butcher it out of spite, plus lab scans are always way overcooked, I'll take my RAWS anyday>inb4 nophoto postem blaehnah get fucked they're for me and the client not you faggots
>>4154791>cope preschool tier responselol, lmao even
>>4154496should be fine if you take it out on some very bright days
>take picture with my snoy A7III>come back home and dump my sd card>open Lightroom and sort the good looking ones>make light adjustments on the overall image and maybe some details on the faces if I shot some portraits>apply a Kodak porta 800 profile>export>get them printed for 0,20€ per photo on some nice paper>life is good[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotImage Width1102Image Height1726
>>4154899this guy gets it
>>4153953go to camera settings- turn down saturation to almost lowest setting- turn down contrast to about half way to lowest setting- turn down sharpness to about half way to lowest setting- adjust wb towards green and amber'soul' restored
>>4154899best part is, this workflow works for any digital photo, even shitty phone jpgs
>>4154904I tried with my S21 and an iPhone 12 Pro, the pictures are ok, but the ones from an actual camera are miles ahead.
Film in general should be phased out immediately. It has a much larger carbon footprint compared to digital, and requires the production of a lot of harmful chemicals. It's time for progress... it's time for change.
Why is everyone on this board like angry, mean and defensive at all times? Why can’t you guys chill and be nice?
>>4155297I find there's 3 main reasons>1. someone criticised their work negatively and they're sour>2. someone posted a throw away photo that's a million times better than their entire catalogue>3. someone owns a better camera and/or more gear than themit's basic human condition really
>>4155564if you're familiar with the term 'bench-racing' it's the same thing as car culture. people adopt an identity but not the associated practices and so all they actually can do to engage in their identity is argue. there's folks on this board who post pictures from 14 year old fuji bridge cameras that crush most of the work I see posted as examples in the gear thread.
>>4154710>only eat eggs whitesyolks are good for you>no alcoholalcohol is based>shoot digital digital is sovlless. why not have fun? eat your eggs, get big, get buzzed, shoot film, and HAVE FUN
>>4155568I have yet to see this crushing going on outside of alex burke and isi threadsThe fuji shit you speak of is just amateur snapping: hobos instead of random snapping: cats. But photographers are conditioned to like elliot erwitt and I’ve avoided photobooks for that reason.
>>4155598>elliot erwitt>random snapshits of pedestrians and pets>birds in the city>lamppostsHoly fucking shit he’s /p/
>>4155594tell that to the other guy
>>4155297for saint patricks day I am gonna chill and be nice and shoot some film downtown and then get wastedit should be fun
>>4153953>Before I was born the world was better and felt more significant when you captured the moment on even cheap rolls of film.stfu kid
>>4153953They may be making a return. Walked past an audio video store today and they had them in the front. They were fucking $30 though...
Because your fucking smart phone takes infinitely higher quality images
>>4154312>and no one ever looks at them againBut your Instagram friends will, and give you updoots. Will not happen in your physical album.:^)
>>4153953They sold out a bunch of these like 10 years ago for 2.5€ each. If only I had bought a bunch and kept them in thw fridge I could have made a good profit from suckers on eBay thinking it will automatically give their snaps "soul"...
>>4154002>disposable>$30No wonder nobody buys these anymore.
>>4156318soulless>>4154002souleveryone is buying these, these things are replacing wedding photographers and all my local labs are 2 week wait on dev because of these things
>>4154794>>4154791you booth seem assmad>>4154589>muh information >>4154718memes aside the real answer is that actually having to work against and within the material restriction of film will always be different than trying to impose an artificial one on yourself.
>>4156474>everyone is buying these, these things are replacing wedding photographers and all my local labs are 2 week wait on dev because of these thingsnice fanficpeople don't pay a wedding photographer because of the quality/look of the images delivered, they're paying him to get the shot while everyone is enjoying themselves instead of focusing on TAKING PICS
>>4156657lol have you ever been to a wedding since like 2010? god have you even left the house? lolPic very fucking related, you can't stop this mentality cause most people are retarded, but you can substitute the phone with a film p&s and at least get some good quality pics out of it[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2015:11:07 09:21:13Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
>>4153953theyre still around but people dont care so much. me i like empicrel
>>4156657Cool so we know you don’t have friends
>>4156657Sometimes I forget how out of touch a lot of photogs are.
>>4156990The last wedding I went to, I managed to get a great spot right at the edge of the floor for first dance (I like to get into the whole thing), and I grabbed a couple snaps up against some heavy backlighting with my iPhone. Friend says one of her favourite photos of the whole day was one of my cellphone snaps lol. I don’t know how the paid photog didn’t get right up on the floor for the dance, seems like a real miss.>picrel. Never said it was good, but she loved it.So disposable cams can definitely be a great thing to give to people.
>>4153957Just like you digi niggers are taking the same fucking flicks since 2001 after canon dropped the D1 cope seeth and dilate nigger,toast some bread in a tub nigger