anyone still use film?

>35mm film
try expensive novelty race... any modern entry level dslr clubs the crap out of the stuff in every measureable benchmark.

>>1576871
>any modern entry level dslr clubs the crap out of the stuff in every measureable benchmark.

When you troll, (like, for example, when you try to respond to this comment and act like you're not being a total ass), don't try so hard. Subtlety is the key to good trolling.

>>1576873
not trolling, 35mm is a joke novelty now

>>1576882
hang on . . . i've got to dig around in my /b/ folder for this one . . . ah ha! there it is!

>>1576882

film makes my DICK HARD

what are /p/'s preferred 35mm slrs?

pic related, hasn't let me down yet

>>1576899
No slr but rangefinder here
I just started shooting with my Nikkormat FT2. The light meter is pretty messed up but it works great otherwise.

I have a rather beat up lolympus om-G. Metering sucks, but it becomes easier.

Shot my first two rolls of velvia also, waiting on the slides back. Can't wait.

>>1576868
only faggots shoot digital
Pros develop and print in the darkroom ;3

>>1576910
what lenses son?

Mah waifu. Should've never sold it.

>>1576899
OM-2

>>1576899
SLR: Nikon F100
Rangefinder: M3

>>1576899

Nikon F100.

I'm going to try hard not to troll but I really don't see the point in 35mm film anymore. I've probably shot 10 rolls of 35mm in the last year. Digital is just way more flexible when it comes to 35mm.

Now, I think film is still the king when it comes to 120 and LF.

LOL 35mm

enjoy your amateur format inferior to things over a hundred years old
enjoy your grain
enjoy your costs
enjoy your 4 megapickles equivalent resolution
enjoy your reciprocity failure
enjoy your shit velvia ken rockwell colors

>>1576976
>enjoy your amateur format inferior to things over a hundred years old
35mm was made international standard in 1909.

>enjoy your grain
New emulsions are clean as fuck

>enjoy your costs
>implying large format isn't one of the most expensive mediums

>enjoy your 4 megapickles equivalent resolution
40

>enjoy your reciprocity failure
Only applies on exposures longer than 2-5 seconds and in low light.

>enjoy your shit velvia ken rockwell colors
>implying velvia is not made in every format

>>1576976
>>1576976
>LF
>well i guess i will enjoy traveling around the world with my camera around my neck... oh shit

>>1576976
enjoy back problems from carrying that thing

enjoy missing that once in a lifetime shot

enjoy loading each piece of film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Brian
Image-Specific Properties:

Best camera Nikon has made.

>>1577007

Wrong. F6 is best Nikon.

>>1576976
>wooden monorail camera

oh god my sides

unless you were trolling, why would anyone claim that either large format or 35mm is better than the other? they are for two completely different things.

anyway, as someone who spent years shooting with a 5D and now doesnt even own a digital camera, ill be the first to admit that digital usually has higher resolution when factoring in the use of consumer film scanners, which is what 99% of film shooters use. (full frame anyway, compared to 35mm. 645 is probably about on par with ff, and anything larger is better) unfortunately, that and convenience are the only two things it has going for it. everything else, from grain, tonality, dynamic range, to overall general aesthetics, film just does it for me.

>>1577013
this just in, things are subjective. more at 11.

cmon, as a film shooter you should know this.

>>1577044

I know. Just playing around. We like to have fun here.

>>1577049
Shitposting sure is just a grand ol' time lolz

>>1577051

Time of your life, huh kid?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>1577066

fuckin' LOL. You helped me with chemicals earlier and now you're making me lulz. only good tripfag on this fucking board

>>1576871
Velvia can beat the 5DII at low contrast resolution and exceed it by over 2x (linear, over 4x in two dimensional area) at maximum contrast (though no one uses maximum contast for pictorial photography).

E-6 has advantages of digital, so does colour neg, so does B&W.

Resolution isn't everything, but, you can get films that have 300 lp/mm at low contrast resolution, that's equivalent to a fully detailed 300mp+ image (assuming you have a lens that can put that there (some of those zeiss ones), and a way to get that off the film).

But what that is good for is getting 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm lens, or over 100 lp/mm with over 100 lp/mm lenses.

Digital can't handle saturation levels colour film can either. There are other benefits, 35mm isn't to be sneezed at in the right hands it can blow people away.

>>1576899
Just bought an F80 with lenses, I do like manual stuff, but I want one good convenient camera in film.. had a F100 I got for $20 at a market tha twas in perfect con.. had no lenses for it.. but sold it.. regret now as I want to use 80s in 35mm.
Cant in the F80.
OP: I prefer colour neg for my landscapes actually.

>>1577084
Not a single thing you said is true.

Wrong.

Velvia 50 is the master race. Velvia 100 is an abomination. Unless it's Velvia 100F, which is acceptable.

I shoot medium format almost exclusively in my RB67 (and hopefully soon, a C330).

However, I sometimes shoot 4x5 and even the rare roll of 135.

When I shoot small format, I usually use a Konica Auto-Reflex (picture not mine). I also have a Nikon FM2 but am planning on selling that since I never use it. If anyone's interested, shoot me an email.

>>1577084
I normally don't get sucked into stuff like this, but I am probably the only dumbass that got trolled hard enough to drumscan a bunch of 35mm velvia 100f (the highest resolution slide film currently out) and it had, at most, 10mp of data. there simply aren't as many photosensitive grains as you're implying. I did a 5d2 vs. velvia 100f test with the same 50mm f/1.4 and found the 5d2 had more detail in every situation, including the resolution test chart - which the velvia shot woefully failed at.

e-6 is going obsolete because every digital camera's sooc jpeg is designed to look just like slide film - and it does an execellent job at doing just that. it's also clearer and has a higher dynamic range than slide film and it's possible to save bad exposures - not so on velvia. you under/overexpose by even 1 stop and you're toast. color negative film was designed for snapshitting idiots who use program mode and can't into exposure. it's not meant to be "HDR film." when you go to print, compared to the more desirable and superior look of slide film, the image will typically be very low contrast and washed out and nowhere near as saturated or vibrant.

your comments about digital saturation are also ill-informed. if you expose correctly and know how to post process, you can achieve the exact same saturation, color, and white balance as any film.
.

(cont.)
>35mm isn't to be sneezed at in the right hands it can blow people away
the people with the right hands all shoot full frame digital now, because 35mm film is expensive and inferior to modern digital cameras. I will grant two points though:
1. occasionally, some strange magic will happen and regardless of resolution, exposure, etc... film shots can just be magical for some reason. this is not the case most of the time, but every now and then, you do get an actual case of "dem tones." you don't really ever accidentally get this on digital, you have to post process the file and it's never as good as straight analog.
2. digital 35mm still hasn't caught up in terms of image quality to medium and large format films

I use film, but sadly I must agree with
>>1577109

In a laboratory, maybe. But not in any camera in any practical shooting scenario.

I shoot 120 film and it blows the living shit out of the best possible results I can get with digital gear five times the price of my camera. That's why when I want really nice (or really big) pictures, I pull out the analog equipment. And.. I enjoy processing and printing my own B&W which my digital does nothing for.

I also use 135 a lot, and I disagree with the statement that 35 is pointless/useless/dead/a joke. There are places I'll readily take my K1000 but won't risk my DSLR, because in 9/10 situations the two cameras perform identically, and as stated, when I want extraordinary image quality I have a camera specifically for that.

>>1577141
your opinions on the quality and usefulness of print film are just that, opinions. and poorly-formed ones at that.

>>1577146
seconded

>>1577141
>color negative film was designed for snapshitting idiots who use program mode and can't into exposure.

That might be the single worst comment I've ever read on /p/. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

>>1577146
>>1577149
you guys are both snapshitting idiots, then. why don't you post links to your stunning print film photographs if you think otherwise. >>1577159
>If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.
it's really the truth. unless you're shooting portra, 35mm color negative film is garbage. even then, you're still better off with a digital camera.

itt: 35mm-negative-hipster-$10-film-slr-fags in denial

also leica rangefinder fags

>>1577162
Sure thing, here it is: >>1573743

Nice attempt at trying to cover your ass by omitting Portra too, by the way.

>>1577162
why dont you buy an old slr and some provia and try out by yourself?

>>1577165
not bad, I like your work. but is that 35mm film? the aspect ratio says otherwise, looks like you're using a 645. and indeed, you have a picture of your 645 on the front page (like a typical hipster gearfag) ...I've been talking about 35mm film the entire time, i've mentioned at several points that mf and lf are still superior ...when not cumbersome and limiting. and yes, portra is decent, but only ties full frame 35mm digital at best.

pic related, btw, is, in my opinion, washed out and cloudy. like the rest of your shots to some degree, and all print film.

>>1577178
did you miss the post where I talked about drum scanning velvia 100f? provia 400 is my favorite because it's all grainy and shit and there's no pretense of image quality so you can have fun with it and not give a shit when your photos look terribad.

i've been meaning to give velvia a second chance for awhile now. e100vs will always be close to my heart though. RIP

also, print film kills it these days. i pretty much only use portra

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	117 dpi
Vertical Resolution	117 dpi
Image Created	2008:07:19 01:28:36
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	702
Image Height	702

>>1577181
Well not everyone is all about saturation and vibrance like you. Obviously you'd be better off with slide film or digital if you want all your pictures to look like they just came off the Ken Rockwell express.

Like I said before, the things you continue to try to pass off as objective truths are nothing more than subjective opinions. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse. Whichever medium happens to suit the artist's subjective vision is the correct one in that particular instance.

And yes, most of the pictures on my front page are 645. For examples of my 35mm print film work, check out the City Documentary set, or just go forward a page or two.

>>1577109
Everything I said is true.

>>1577141
People do not understand how drum scanners work, they are often not high resolving in many cases. Plus you may be lens limited among other things. Getting a x "dpi" scan out of a drum scanner does not guarantee you that much resolving power.

High saturation is not the point. Your level of knowledge is quite poor in this area as you didn't even comprehend what I was saying.

Digital cannot cope well with a high saturated subject like colour film can, producing high saturation isn't the point here, but being able to still record differences in high intensity saturation, which doesnt necessarily lead to making a high saturation image.

In fact there is a recent Kodak post on this topic.

You obviously don't know shit about colour neg, careful exposure produces the best results.

I process my own E-6, I pulled Velvia 50 4 stops as it was overexposed 4 stops, you can save gross exposure error like that on even slide film, you cannot on digital, overexpose 4 stops and it's fucken gone.

The high saturation look is gone and it's more 'normal' with full shadow detail, no blown highlights, point is you can do something about it after exposure.

Digital doesn't look like E-6.

Colour neg is not washed out and low saturation, that's dumb shit. Colour is the most accurate colour media available, period, the mask is not simply a filter, it is variable in nature, and changes in density according to the image itself, it's self-masking, to account for the fact there is no such thing as a perfect dye, to offset by masking colour-crossover and other effects.

You do not get that benefit on digital or E-6, it's somewhat minimised by being high saturation on E-6.


Resolution on film is variable, also the MTF 50% of Velvia 100f is only 48 lp/mm, in case you didn't know contrast is key to resolution, Velvia 50 is likely going to be sharper than 100f even though it has the same rated 1.6:1 and 1000:1 resolution figures, and the same MTF50, but it has a higher contrast boost in the MTF.

Also there is the matter of you taking the photo with the right technique, lens etc for sharpness, and focus, but also the problem of your subject, if there are no spatial frequencies in the 54 - 80 lp/mm domain, then you're hardly going to record anything in that range, though there maybe in the 200 lp/mm range, but that's going to completely lost on that lower range. I say that specific range, as you said the limit was ~10mo which is going to be 53.8 lp/mm, or about 2700-2800 dpi range (of resolved detail).

I've definately seen much more detail than that out of a coolscan.

FYI the currently highest, and has been for a long time colour slide film resolution is Vision Print Film, it's a negative process but produces a slide, retardedly fine grain and low contrast resolutions starts at over 200 lp/mm iirc, which is over 100mp over a 36x24mm frame. But that's for making movie prints, which is like that so you don't have generation loss, and get everything from the printing optics, and not contribute to the graininess itself.

The Kodak post
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/In_Camera/Focus_on_Film/loveIsInTheAir.htm

l' with full shadow detail, no blown highlights, point is you can do something about it after exposure.

>People do not understand how drum scanners work, they are often not high resolving in many cases. Plus you may be lens limited among other things. Getting a x "dpi" scan out of a drum scanner does not guarantee you that much resolving power.
I got the very best scan available, and I used the ef 50mm f/1.4 stopped to f/7.1 on a tripod with mirror lock up and cable/wireless release.
>I process my own E-6, I pulled Velvia 50 4 stops
you pulled a whole roll of velvia 50 4 stops? ...or are you talking about large format again.?
>Digital doesn't look like E-6.
...what planet do you live on? but yea, maybe now that the dynamic range of entry level digital cameras surpasses the very best slide film, you're probably right.
>Colour neg is not washed out and low saturation
post some color negative photos that aren't foggy and have muted colors? subjectively, you may like that look. but's it's not as clear, colorful or contrasty as slide film or digital.
>also the problem of your subject
I spent several months taking duplicate shots on film and digital of everything from cityscapes, street photography and portraits to black silouhettes and resolution charts. like I said, the 5d2 won in every situation. if nothing else, when the shots are a toss-up - the 5d2 still has way more resolution.
>in case you didn't know contrast is key to resolution
...yes. that's part of the reason color print film is so shitty.

so, I'm not a gearfagging math nerd...
>2700-2800 dpi
>dots per inch
35mm is ...one inch? by my math, that's about 8 megapixels.
>http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/In_Camera/Focus_on_Film/loveIsInTheAir.htm
that looks like ken rockwell made a movie.

>>1577221
>>1577222
>>1577223

Paragraphs, you stupid jew. If you're going to assault me with a wall of useless text you could at least make it easily readable. All of these goofy, disconnected sentence fragments make it sound like you're reading a book report on your own lobotomy. Jesus christ..

>>1577240

You cannot reduce the complexities of drum scanning to sampling resolution.

You're an idiot. I guess you've never seen a movie shot on film (hint shit loads shot on film, which happens to be colour neg, ECN-2 film, which I also process is lower contrast than C-41 film), which are then printed back to film again.

For starters, 35mm is 36x24mm the same as you're god damn 5DII get a clue. Regardless, the problem is with something you've done, or your scan, etc. Again, drum scan doesn't mean high resolving power.

Washed out shitty images are your fault, not the films. It just means you fail at everything.

Colour neg is high resolution, fine grain, clean, colour accurate, and self-masking. It is very clear, and not lacking in either contrast or saturation.

It's pretty clear you're an idiot, again, because Portra is made to be the softer lower contrast film, for you know, Portraits. The other films are contrastier and punchier, and consumer films are usually contrastier and punchier even again.

>>1577251
>I guess you've never seen a movie shot on film
I guess you've never been on a movie set and seen the lighting set-ups? it has nothing to do with film.
>35mm is 36x24mm the same as you're god damn 5DII get a clue.
whoa, I hadn't realized that.
>Regardless, the problem is with something you've done, or your scan, etc.
what I did was shoot film.
>Again, drum scan doesn't mean high resolving power
...so I should've used a coolscan?
>Washed out shitty images are your fault, not the films
post some examples and I'll highlight the foggy and low contrast areas for you
>Colour neg is high resolution, fine grain, clean, colour accurate, and self-masking. It is very clear, and not lacking in either contrast or saturation
this is pure film faggotry. at any rate, digital is all of these things as well - sans film and developing costs
>It's pretty clear you're an idiot, again, because Portra is made to be the softer lower contrast film, for you know, Portraits. The other films are contrastier and punchier, and consumer films are usually contrastier and punchier even again.
did I just get trolled by filmfags again? you don't seriously beleive drugstore film is redeemable in any way, do you?

Dan you autistic son of a bitch, you know your shit. But why oh why do people feel need to argue about the technical qualities of a subjective medium? It drives me insane. I mean, can you imagine Michelangelo arguing with DaVinci over brush types, or painting techniques?

"Pantone 284 is better because it gives a softer, more impressionistic view of the heavens."

"No you idiot, Pantone 2935 is better for painting biblical scenes because it better represents the true color of the midday sky."

"Get fucked, DaVinci. Go munge some more corpses in your super secret labratory, some of us have a Sistine Chapel to paint."

"Whatever dude, you'll be all jelly and shit when I'm gettin mad bitches up in my fuckin helicopter."

>>1577259
>I'm gettin mad bitches up in my fuckin helicopter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:08:17 12:50:25
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	333

>>1577259
>Dan you autistic son of a bitch, you know your shit.
except for the part where he thinks velvia 50 is superior to the new 100f which is designed to be the highest resolution slide film specifically so you can scan it...

>>1577256
Okay so low contrast foggy areas... nothing to do with the film and all about the principle photography, so again, it's your own dumb fault it's shitty, not the film.


You shouldn't because you'll never be satisified and you do not like film, and a coolscan will only pick up whatever resolution are on your slides.

Not "drug store" film (off brand happy snaps or ferrania bullshit in random canisters) but Kodak or Fuji consumer film, they are made to be higher contrast and punchier colours than pro films, or even the grainy Agfa stuff.

Do not try to change the subject. The fact is you point out the -lowest- of contrast films and call that as an exception to negs being low contrast, just proves your idiocy.

You don't need examples, you just admitted it's not the film but the photography. Again which puts it back on your own fault.

Nobody brought up costs, but people generally spend more on digital cameras due to obsolesence.

>>1577276
>You don't need examples
>Dan
>D
is that because your flickr is full of low contrast, foggy snapshits?

>>1577268
Lol. Do you know why there is 3 flavours of Velvia?

Because Fuji discontinued Velvia 50 (due to a raw material problem they had at the iirc) and then replaced it. Velvia 50 was brought back, because landscape photographers and slide film fans got pissed off, because as far as wild colour and saturation go, Velvia 50 pisses all over the other two.

>>1577278
It's because you think somehow Portra is an exception to that, when it's the lowest contrast of the colour neg range.

On top of being dumb bullshit, you lost the argument logically when you said it has nothin to do with the film and everything to do with the photography.

So how can it possibly have anything to do with the film. Duhhhhhhh.

>>1577279
>wild colour and saturation go, Velvia 50 pisses all over the other two
we were talking resolution, you pulled a bunch of numbers out of your ass, remember? now you're talking about color and saturation... if I want my photos to have that "fresh off teh ken rockwell express" look, I'll shoot digital.

>>1577278
Lolol thats not d faggot

Sage for a terrible thread

>>1577285
You brought up the difference between Velvia, saying Velvia 50 is shit, Velvia will appear sharper because of it's increased contrast, and it has a MTF contrast boost which Velvia 100f does not in a certain section.

Velvia 100f is most certainly not sharper than Velvia 50.

Anything I stated about Velvia series comes from Fuji's technical data.

MTF50 - 48 lp/mm, but film is enhanced contrast, with boosted MTF contrast (Velvia 50), both are rated at 80 lp/mm at the low contrast end and 160 lp/mm at the high contrast end.

Now you keep changing the subject and presenting straw men, but you are failing.


You, are the idiot, that decalared colour neg film is low contrast and foggy, then said Porta is the exception. When Portra is the lowest contrast in that range.

You then declared that it has nothing to do with the film, but the way it is photographed.

Therefore you automatically destroyed your own argument, that was already logically flawed to begin with.

post anything, it doesn't have to be your own oc if you're worried about the butthurt. I will point out the flaws of teh film for you, so you can understand.

>>1577305

You fail to comprehend many things, you have nothing of value to add by attempting to analyse a digital image of a piece of film.

Anything you have to say on the matter is going to be more worthless garbage.

itt: a buttravaged rabal owner gets destroyed over and over and over again.

YEP, YOU FAGGETS WILL ARGUE ABOUT ANYTHING YOU FUCKING TURDS, FUCK OFF TO FAGGETVILLE WITH YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT YOU ARE RUINING THIS FUCKING BOARD

really, this is exactly what I was getting at in my original post. I had a 5d2 but after repeated filmfaggotry on /p/, I went out and bought an eos 3 and a fuckton of every kind of film, and had a ball with it. honestly, I learned alot about exposure, etc. in the process. looking at a slide with your own eyes, it looks so delicious, it's hard to argue. but in reality, there are only 10mp at the most in a 35mm frame of film. the magical tones of film - either slide, negative, or b+w - can easily be emulated in post processing. color negative film does look washed out and low contrast compared to digital and slide film, regardless of whether it's fuji 800nz or whether it's portra 160.

Dan, I asked a number of questions of you, none of which you answered. you just kept continuing on the typical filmfag glory rant that we've all seen before, picking apart my "argument" as if it were me arguing and not simply pointing out the reality of the application of film in the modern day.

newguy, your shit completely sucks. if it weren't for the fact that you take pictures of hot chicks, there would be nothing redeemable about your photography. not to mention every picture of yours that i've seen has an awkward cut off subject, but that's neither film nor digital - that's just shitty photography.

NOBODY FUCKIN CARES GO OUT AND SHOOT SOME PHOTOS

>>1577352
Colour neg isn't low contrast and washed out. You already said it has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with the photography.

All flavours of Velvia are capable of capturing much more than 10mp at the low contrast end. You need to be capable of delivering that and getting it off the film.

You cannot emulate shit, everything has different spectral range response, one of Agfa's selling points is it has big gaps in it's spectral range to be similar to the spectral response of a normal eye.

You didn't ask anything meaningful, you stated bullshit, and provided a straw man argument, then repeatedly asked for a target you could attack. But in reality you're full of crap.

You've repeated yourself ad-nauseum.

If you don't like grain, don't shoot 35mm (or at least mainstream 35mm films). If you don't like film don't shoot it. That is pretty simple.

I have 35 rolls of 120 velvia 100 in my fridge. Feels pretty good.

>>1577368
digifags will never know dat feel

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	Droid
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1936
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2012:04:04 20:35:06
Exposure Time	66667/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	199
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-0.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	4.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	747
Flash Energy	100
Exposure Index	199
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Latitude	S 0� 0'
Longitude	W 0� 0'
Time (UTC)	03:04:57
Date (UTC)	2011:12:26

>>1577368
this is a 35mm hate thread. nobody's talking about MF but butthurt filmfags.

the other dude deleted his ragetard picture of portra, I guess. you could have bought a nice lens for the price of all that crap

>>1577377
sorry, posted the unresized version by accident

>implying i have to choose between film and nice lenses and cant afford both

>>1577376
>>1577376
I only have 1 roll of portra left, but I have a combined 50 rolls of e100 and e200 in there as well. As well as 40 more miscellanious rolls. It's a little embarassing sometimes trying to explain why I have nothing but beer and film in my fridge.

>>1577377
>implying you wont spend more than the cost of film to archive your 1s and 0s from digital storage medium to digital storage medium in the long run

>implying youll even still have your digital files 10 or 20 years from now

>implying the feeling of creating a real, tangible image that you can hold in your hand isnt completely worth it

>implying it doesnt take 10x more skill to take a film image of equivalent quality compared to a digital image

>>1577377
Nope, I got most of it from a photographer who was getting rid of his gear for next to nothing still shrinkwrapped and everything. I tend to scavenger for all of my gear and film. I have probably spent less on my film equipment than most people spend on one lens. This also includes enlargers and developing equipment. My digital equipment is another story.

>>1577407
what the fuck l0l,
seriously, for a film fag you're pretty retarded.

>implying digital files won't become far more safe and secure and basically indestructible as technology advances

>>1577431
l0l good luck with that

>>1577407
>>1577407

lol. fullretard?

let's say an image in raw is about 50mb so 20/gb. a TB harddrive is about $100 or 0.1/gb i.e. 1 dollar gives you 200 images

film is definitely more expensive than that

not to mention your film will degrade overtime while digital files can be replicated perfectly when the medium degrades.

you can print your digital file and hold it in your hand

your last point is retarded. it takes 10000000000000000000000000x more skill to take a dirt image of equivalent quality compared to film, why don't you go take dirt image?

>>1577453
>why don't you go take dirt image?
thats way too much skill, even for me. ill stick with 10x more. im comfortable with that.

>1 dollar gives you 200 images
and youll be replacing that hard drive every 4 years. and thats how big raw files are now, imagine how big theyll be in 5, 10, 20 years. my film is paid for. barring a house fire, my negatives will outlive me for no additional cost.

>>1577458

yo bro let me inform you that digital storage is becoming cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and your points are invalid bro because they're based in a context that is stupid/unreliable/not based on the reality of things.

>>1577461
current tech keeps getting cheaper. soon well switch to solid state, and youll be paying out the ass for 100gb. then when a 1tb ssd is $100, fuckin, photon drives or some shit will come out and raise the bar again.

>>1577465
>>1577465
all my photos will be photonic
fuck that give me a lady boner

>mfw $80 lens on free camera

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	AgfaPhoto GmbH
Camera Model	d-lab.2/3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Photographer	Only the Best :-))
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2996
Image Height	2000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi
Image Created	2012:04:04 19:15:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	647
Image Height	1000