Thread 4448856

There really is something about using 35mm film, especially black and white, that cannot be replicated digitally. It is just a more honest medium of expression in this era of AI. I do believe film will outlive digital photography and digital will simply be replaced by AI. No wonder my Contax G1 is worth triple what I paid for it two years ago now.

Anyone else shooting more and more film this year? My Fuji X-Pro 2 is just gathering dust.

>>4448856 (OP)
you can't replace photography with AI because AI can't make a photograph. It cannot capture light that actually existed in real life and display it.
If you can't articulate what this special mojo is that film has I will just call it bullshit

>>4448856 (OP)
>Contax G1
HAHAHAHAHA RETAAAAAAAAAARD
>>4448857
this

>>4448856 (OP)
What a great opportunity for you to share some of the b+w you've been shooting

>>4448860
Nice cope, you seem threatened by other people actually earning money from their investments in the hobby.
>>4448857
I did articulate it. You are the one who could not read, it seems.
>>4448861
Maybe this could be the black and white film general?

>>4448856 (OP)
Any interface between the physical and digital world is cursed, see for example printers. Using film is removing the curse from your hands but then the scanning becomes the cursed part. In fact is that actually a film photograph that's shared here, or a photograph of a film photograph? Or maybe even a photograph of a negative, that was then """developed""" through a computer program? Is it genuinely more honest to try to keep your hands clean and push the problem elsewhere?

>Anyone else shooting more and more film this year?
Yeah, last time was ages ago with disposable cameras during trips. I have a relative that was really into film and black and white too, I'm looking forward to talking with them about that. I think they have still their old equipment somewhere, this whole thing could be a lot of fun. Just waiting for the camera now

here’s your shot on Portra 100 1-
say thank you chatgpt

>>4448878
wtf? it's fucking over

>>4448856 (OP)
There isn't actually

This is a social media trend feeding peoples shopping addictions and their desire to buy their way into legitimacy, which is, believe it or not, a gen Z thing. They call it something like "Sigma rizz" or "You are what you signal".

That's a film frame scanned by a digital camera. You need about 45mp to duplicate the shading/detail separation due to the differences between bayer and grain but it's not unattainable. Film gets more unique with color.

I know reality "sucks the soul out of things" but that's because the soul is a demon that you allowed to inhabit those things for its promises of wealth and fame.

>>4448871
>muh cursed muh satanic
Sorry schizo bullshitter, you got out-schizo'd. The soul in film is actually a demon that eats human spirit essence and promises you empty insta likes.

>>4448869
>There really is something about using 35mm film, especially black and white, that cannot be replicated digitally.
what about this is a specific explanation to you you stupid fuck

Shooting photos is a pretty silly hobby and I don't really even care about the image after I take a photo. Only shooting bw film keeps it fun because it takes a silly hobby and makes it sillier. Shoot whatever seems interesting, develop the film days weeks or months later, scan the film days weeks or months later after that. Remember all those moments you forgot about and smile. Picrel roll I developed last night from the fall.

>>4448885
he specified its phenomenal nature, disclouding noumenal ontology.

>>4448893
>it's just magic because I say so
>if you don't agree I will associate you with (insert people you don't like here)

>>4448856 (OP)
pretentious faggot

>>4448888
based and witnessed

>>4448856 (OP)
Film seems romantic when you pile on enough bullshit to make "there's no way it could be AI" sound plausible, but after using it, you realize it literally looks the same as mildly edited digital. Black and white especially.

All of the "literal magic" film stocks that veer so far off course digital cameras literally, measurably can not capture the same colors are either discontinued or $50 for a roll of 35mm.

There's no real reason to shoot film unless
>[ ] You want to burn money to get specific and status-signaling color science
>[ ] You are exhibiting film as shot, or otherwise making novel use of the medium itself
>[ ] You are an extreme pixel peeper, and nothing satisfies you more than stitching 5x100mp camera scans of your 6x9 and 4x5 negatives that were shot on high end technical cameras with the worlds best lenses at their ideal apertures
>[ ] You actually do "film photography", the WHOLE hobby, and print your shit in the darkroom

>>4448956
*6x100mp

Typo, and we all know a real pixel peeper would never settle for a mere 500mp. Some set their minimum at 800mp, out in 8x10 lithography film land.

>>4448956
I would add also “because it’s the only way to use cool cameras” but I’m prepared for you to save that off as some variation of gearfagging

>>4448962
it is

>>4448963
Don’t care gonna keep using my gx680

>>4448878
Crazy. I feel like a retard spending so much time editing now...

>>4448856 (OP)
I shoot both and yes, you can replicate it, 95%.
Except those shitty ones on film that are underexposed and looks like what an amateur tourist would take.

You are not especial because you sjoot film, you are just a snapshitter who uses archaic technology to try to prove someone you have skill in photography.
Photography is, in fact, very easy to learn.

>>4448965
cope
>>4448956
Just annihilated the /fgt/

>>4448974
yeah
beware the black box, anon

>no filters just emotion
Why are film users so damn pretentious not everything is art just because you shot it with outdated methods

>>4448989
>not everything is art just because you shot it with outdated methods
gonna need some sauce on that bro

I shot both and I cannot justify not having unlimited ammo. It was fun and I recommend it once.

>>4448989
>the last real music was Led Zeppelin
>the only real painters use canvas
>real cars are made of metal
>people were so much smarter before cell phones
>real cameras use film

The sins of the boomer are the sins of the zoomer, it'll never end.

>>4449006
Post your best digital photo.

The exalted realm of 35mm black and white film photography stands as a bastion of artistic integrity against the soullessness of digital technology. Each frame is a meticulously crafted masterpiece, celebrating the beauty of imperfection and the fleeting nature of existence. Embracing film is to reject the banalities of the digital age and champion the unique, visceral experience that only analog can provide.

>>4448878
Pretty impressive upscale from a stamp sized ig picture. But it made the model's shirt, hands (especially the nails) look super weird. Totally ruined the image.

>>4448857
>It cannot capture light that actually existed in real life and display it.
You can just give AI control of a DJI drone and have it take pictures checkmate redditor

>>4448856 (OP)
B&W is the easiest to replicate kek

>>4448956
This is why /p/ hates doghair so much

Heshe’s an awful photographer incapable of improvement and an annoying cluster b narcissist tranny who definitely did it with a dog, yes, but also literally one of two or three on the board that actually shoots film for it being film instead of theoretical conspiracy shit about fake AI photos, gearfagging about how film is real photography and digital is fake photography, not being able to edit, etc. they actually do film photography instead of scans of fuji 400 and kentmere. that alone means shehe shows up half the board.

>>4449097
film looks like garbage bro
>buh muh pretentiousness

>>4449098
Film photography is a different hobby bro. Go back to snapping useless building corners on your canon rebel in jpeg.

>>4449099
Taking pictures without a live subject is just pretentious wankery
Animals are ugly and stupid so it's gay to take pictures of them
If a picture doesn't contain human beings it's slop

>>4449100
Bad trolling attempt but I’ll bite

It depends on the people.
Non jews are not people and are interchangeable. If you’re photographing goyim its a waste of time. Better to photograph dogs. Unlike goyim they sometimes think for themselves and have unique personalities.
If you photograph jews only then do you have an interesting photo.

>>4449102
You have posted the absolute truth

>>4449103
I know. I’m a leica street photohrapher so I know what’s up.

>>4449102
My dog is smarter than atleast a handful of people that post on this board.

>>4449097
Definition of rent free. Thank you.

>>4449105
>My dog is smarter than atleast a handful of people that post on this board.
Yeah, smarter than you and the other dog fuckers

>>4448956
I just like it and I'm gonna keep doing it

>>4449105
Is your dog actually so good in bed you feel important and accomplished 24/7 or is it just the high from losing your virginity at 30

>>4449110
>disgusting freak projects his sick fantasy for the 1000th time.
Well... thanks for proving my point. I was talking about you.

More obsessed too! Lmao

>>4449112
>ohhhh nooooo he's saying wrong things and projecting!

You suck at this, kid.

>>4448856 (OP)
If you want to see what 35mm b&w is really about you should print it in a darkroom.
It really helps you improve as a photographer if you internalize the entire photographic process culminating in a framed print rather than just an edited scan stored on your computer.

>>4449113
>>4449116
We already know you frequent /ff/ tho

>>4448956
I enjoy it and it will survive the EMP apocalypse

>>4449012
I liked this one enough to have it as my desktop wallpaper for awhile. I have my BW film stuff in another thread.

>>4449145
Digital looks so fucking sterile lol

>>4449145
never change /p/ee

>>4449146
>>4449147
Post yours.

>>4449145
Canon rebel, shoot with the kit lens at f16 surely.

>>4449149
im sorry for laughing at the photo. it takes balls to uploads a photo which i clearly lack.

There's lots of emotion in your pic. A lonely person reading a book while lying on the bench under the shade of a tree and a drink on her side. I don't like the colors though. They are too muddy and contrasty.

>>4449146
>Low dynamic range camera obliterates colored tectures anywhere light hits
>low resolution camera reduces fine hair and foliage to a sheet of plastic
>texture on jeans reduced to a sheet of plastic
>sweater could be finely knit yarn or velvet or something but the surface texture is GONE and you cant tell
>-enhanced-nr smooths everything over and makes it even worse
behold, the end result of the "good enough" gearfag cult that bases their entire theory off line charts and noise measurements

>>4449145
>>4449152
It's a really soulful photo anon. But can you please change the color grading?

>>4449150
f9.
I've changed how I edit since then, I stay away from the saturation slider now.

>>4449155
thats nice m8, f8 and f5.6 would surely look better when speaking about kit lenses

>>4448856 (OP)
>there is something
Yeah, you are getting pictures with tried and true color science. That's literally it LMAO
Anal-og shooters are just jpeg-only fujislugs

>>4449155
What are you trying to say with photo? I don't get it.

>>4449155
It still has the digital plastic/mush thing going on where shit looks like it's going to be awesome in the thumbnail and then it looks like AI

>>4449153
Anon, this was taken on a 13 year old DSLR with 90s era glass.
>>4449154
>>4449152
Sure.

>>4449170
>Anon, this was taken on a 13 year old DSLR with 90s era glass.
Obviously, it looks like fuckin plastic

People who can't afford "good" digital should shoot film. 35mm film is way less reductive than digital. It doesn't go "oops that's sub-pixel, cant see it", it's not as colorblind, it still hints at what was really there instead of averaging it into a lifeless dead zone.

>>4449158
On digital when detail is smaller than a pixel it doesn't exist

On film when detail is smaller than the camera can resolve it's still a faint blurry something that adds texture

>>4449172
and you have to buy a fuckexpensive camera and print ~300dpi instead of uploading huge files and hoping people have ~300dpi screens to actually get digital in the same ballpark as film

i know people wank to this many megapixels equals this big print with absurd numbers like "10mp can do a 2ft wide print" but that has never, ever, ever EVER looked good. it looks plastic and would fit in with frutiger aero shite. the actual resolution of a digital camera is 2/3s its megapixel count. ergo it takes a 36mp camera to equal good 35mm film. common 24mp cameras are about on par with consumer film stocks like kodak gold if shot with equally good glass.

>inb4 black and white test chart faggotry
yes, digital cameras dont shit themselves as hard on things that are black and white irl, thats because there's more green pixels

>>4448979
>NO! YOU CANT JUST DO THINGS FOR FUN, THATS…..THAT COPE!!!!!

>>4449171
When you handle darkroom prints it looks and feels plastic.

>>4449170
now it's a real analog photo

>>4449170
Don't like this color grading at all.

>>4449178
looks like a low quality 8 bit ccd lab scan but the grain does do a half decent job at disrupting the uncanny plastic look

>>4449175
>his idea of fun is shooting digital with extra steps

>>4449178
I like that.

>>4449173
>how to digital according to /p/
>resize to 2/3s output size, this is as large as a photo can be
>add grain
>avoid using ISOs over 400

>>4449175
>I have fun gearfagging
it's still gearfagging, lol

>>4449179
I tried to turn down the greens but it ended up killing her sweater too much.

>>4449172
that would be true if we were still shooting at 5MP, but since you can't see the individual pixels nowadays, you also can't see the missing "analog" interpolation

>>4449190
Oh god, you're one of those retards who lives on a screen and actually believes the garbage ken rockwell spouts has any veracity to it aren't you

Maybe you're just low IQ and literally can't notice higher order patterns

>>4449191
kek. ken rockwell is literally an engineer he doesn't understand color and texture, only the simplest and cheapest to measure hard metrics like viewing distance, circle of confusion, lp/mm, and SNR. much like most gearfags.

high level gearfags and artists both converge on caring about color resolution hence every artist and every turbo-gearfag ends up with a MF/LF camera (if they're poor they get a Z7 and shoot at ISO 50, and then add grain)

>>4449191
>talks about microscoping """""detail""""" between pixels
>higher order patterns
if you see patterns at the micron size you might be schizophrenic

>>4449194
Again, you might be stupid. I can see the difference between 600, 300, and 250dpi prints. You are either stupid, or an autistic engineer-brain who says "NO YOURE OUT OF THE DESIGN PARAMETERS STAND FURTHER BACK YOU HAVE TO REEE!"

>>4449192
And people on here still think a 5d classic looks better than 8x10 slide film.

>>4449196
People on here are viewing shit on 1920x1080 lelnovo stinkpad screens. They're what jews would call cattle whilst laundering money and trading in extremely finely detailed photos of riverbanks.

>>4449195
It's so easy to tell the difference between a real photographer that has actually made prints and someone that just read a few sentences online then regurgites that information.

>>4449195
nobody was talking about noticing better dpi you fucking retard why are you pivoting lmao

>>4449198
>nonstatement

>>4449201
I can notice dpi, i can notice aliasing, i can tell 100mp and 24mp apart when both are distilled down to 3000x2400. Get on my level. You are visually illiterate and can't tell fine art from a mcdonalds ad. Stick to commercial photogaphy like weddings, realestate, headshots, and the news, pleb.

>>4449202
>fine art = muh specs
whatever you say gearfag

>>4449203
>aspects of aesthetics are objectively measurable
>NOOO THIS IS GEARFAG! MATERIAL REALITY BAD! COSTING MONEY BAD!
lol just wait until you learn about paint

>>4449202
Do you think you could pick out images by brand when given a blind collage?

>>4449212
>it's 200px-each collage fag
I think I could punt a corgi halfway across a football field and hit a husky in the face but such digital disgraces are below my notice

>>4449214
On most collages I've made for that, images are often at least 1000-2000px, people like you complain so I ask for what size they need to be able to tell a difference, and then they just cope in a different way
I'll take it as a no then

>>4449182
the TRUE and HONEST m43 experience

Absolutely booty blasted. Lmaoing hard rn. Ong

>>4449209
>there is only one aesthetic

>>4449202
>i can tell 100mp and 24mp apart when both are distilled down to 3000x2400
Even if you have 20/40 vision you can't see any difference above 7MP at that resolution if you're two feet away. Do images taken at higher resolution with larger sensors tend to look better when downscaled? Sure. But you're schizo.

>>4449219
Yes, and?

>>4448956
Film photography is the only true escape from gearfagging which is the hobby's most unbearable aspect in anno domini 2025. Bugmen sperging about m43 vs whatever latest tech is not photography but a consumerism contest. 35mm film is 35mm film. A shutter opens and closes. You have the same result on 80 year old cameras as modern film cameras. Film cameras are cheap as fuck (<$150) and development isn't very expensive either (spergs will tell me I'm wasting money when they fork out 3-5k on a digital camera every few years lmao). Photography is taking photos meaningfully and with intentionality. A well composed shot is worth a million shitty snaps - regardless of whether it is the latest digital tech or film.

>>4449234
No, film is the ultimate gearfag.

Digital was a huge regression in image rendering and a descent into caring about resolving b/w line charts and charting "SNR" while ignoring the implications for tonality and texture (bayer wrecks these).

Start shooting 6x6 and you are in territory that is unachievable on digital and you dont even know it. You know it looks better. But is it not gearfagging because you're low IQ and uncaring, and dont know the numbers? No, it's still gearfagging, as in, better gear, equals nicer looking photo.

>>4449234
a well composed shot on a canon rebel will always be relegated to the recycle bin if a better photo is available

thousands of photos of vintage americana were taken
of those, thousands were well composed and had good content
and yet only stephen shore's "matter"
reason? da jooz? no. 8x10 film, and good ass prints.

believe this for it is fact
if every normie carried a good camera everywhere they went, professional photography would collapse overnight.

>>4449242
>everyone in the 20th century: *randomly snapping*
>garry winogrand: *randomly snapping, but sharp because leica and good glass*
>garry winogrand: has the wing of a museum named after him
Woah

>>4448856 (OP)
Obvious ragebait. How do you retards fall for this.

>>4448956
I actually just like film because I'm a luddite and I like old stuff. Using an old Zeiss ikon is fun, using old equipment in any hobby/sport is fun. Digital cameras are obviously superior in essentially every way.

I also don't care much for editing and obsessing over the digital side of photography.

>>4449248
editing is essential to film even if you shoot slides, and even though some of it (GNDs etc) has to be done pre-capture

>>4449249
I give it all over to a lab to do it for me.
I'm well aware what I get back is digital and edited, but it doesn't have me doing the editing which I have zero interest in.

The fun for me is using old cameras and getting nice photos out of it. If it became this technical pursuit of perfection or spending hours editing photos to be just right I'd just stop enjoying it.

>>4448856 (OP)
>35mm
why not shoot in a larger format?
if you're going to go through all the homosexual rigmarole of shooting film you might as well do it for negatives that actually have some resolution in them. that's where the real kino is.

>>4449242
Stephen Shore is literally a Jew, so yes it's the Jews. Look, film photography is not gearfagging in the sense it is ordinarily used. This is old technology that nobody really gives a shit about. Bugmen software developers and accountants aren't shilling medium format like they do mirrorless cameras 24/7 on reddit, it's just you and a handful of other nerds. Medium format is still just an image and the compositional elements of the pic is more important than the fidelity of the image.

>>4449251
>i don't enjoy photography, i enjoy cameras
you will never be incel adams
you will never spend hours alone in the woods and then hours alone in the darkroom because you're autistic
you are a normal person more interested in hanging out with people and having sex than creating perfect images of rocks and leaves
sad

>>4449254
>It has to be the jews, not the quality
I hate to break it to you, but it's not the jews, it's the quality. The fidelity. Color, texture, shading - tonality. The visual difference between "every lens is sharp, just move this slider" and "unsharp mask is for hacks".

The difference between a photo worth saving, and a photo that's neat to look at for 5 seconds before moving on, is in the immersion and the supreme communication of the emotion of experiencing that moment. That is what it is about. Richness, experience, and feeling.

While gearfags and artists land on superior cameras for different reasons, superior cameras and the facts backing them up are not exclusive to "bugmen" (you are also a bugman and don't know it - being non-technical doesn't exclude you from being a bug). What sets them apart is the artist also uses inferior and more tonally reductive cameras for harsh, trashy, high contrast novelty work.

Im new to film/photography

>>4449255
Broadly yes, but that makes me sound like I obsessively gearfag and hoard equipment.
The interest is the fun of the process of going out and taking photos and enjoying using the tools to do it. I don't think that makes it any better or worse than digital, just different.

>>4449253
/thread

>>4449253
If your film isn't at least this big why bother

>>4449258
Cunt, every man and his dog in first world countries has an expensive as fuck camera and nobody gives a shit about the slop they post every day online. Pure cope. The only bugman here is you pal. Have sex, touch grass, etc.

>>4449266
>nobody gives a shit
Those "nobodies" have more followers that basically know where they live than people visited art galleries in the 50s lol

Nothing says bugman more than "i dont matter, no one matters". True bug thought is all are drones, tallest poppy, etc. Oh and calling people schizo for having artistic inclinations when schizo is just another word for creative and passionate.

>>4449266
>Cunt, every man and his dog in first world countries has an expensive as fuck camera
if a $1000 iphone/android flagship is an expensive as fuck camera but those shitters maybe reach okay quality with 24mm and bright light, static subject relatively low contrast photography only

even if you live in a bigger city like ny/la/sf/seattle/chicago there's less than a few hundred people really using decent cameras and most camera sales, growing as they are, are vlogging compacts. if you live in a smaller more flyovery place you can end up being one of a dozen photographers.

>>4449268
I take back my original argument. Gearfagging is a disease which spares nobody with a sub-100 IQ. So yeah now I'm just calling you a retard. Enjoy those followers, don't forget to follow back!

>>4449279
Your post is a lot of nonsense which actually reads "you're right, it's not the jews, quality in photography does matter, so i'm just going to call everyone who cares about nice cameras retarded to feel better about my poverty and laziness while some brainless humanist-feminist retard makes it into galleries just for shooting dams and hedges on 8x10"

the right is absent from art because they find the investment abhorrent, and call others jews while shekel clutching like none others, lol

>>4449283
>the right is absent from art because they find the investment abhorrent, and call others jews while shekel clutching like none others, lol
unironically true

>where are all the right wing artists?
>the right wing artists: ART? bro, that shit doesn't matter. read this self help book you schizo. who cares how "good" a painting is when bitcoin is going to hit a new high next week!

>left wing artists: yeah so i capture like, my perspective, the whole thing dude, like, you can feel how i felt to be there. its awesome. money? lol my dad has that

Right wing artists have to hide their politics to not get their careers snipped in the bud, but nowadays that's not enough. You have to be a deranged leftist and outwardly so to even have a chance in the art world. And the state of "art" nowadays reflects that.
Give the "right" free reign and you get the likes of queen Riefenstahl.
Give the left free reign and you get... what you're getting nowadays

>>4449283
I didn't need to call Stephen Shore a Jew. He calls himself that. He could have taken the same pics on 35mm and gotten into a gallery. Meritocracy is not real, just in case you're suggesting that it is. Quality is secondary and having the right opinions/connections is primary. The art world runs like any other system - there are gatekeepers and people in positions of power. Taking pics on large film formats will not give you a free ticket to fame. Sorry if this hurts to hear.

>>4449292
Right wing artists just don't make art because very few people can profit off art even though anyone can make great art. That's it. It's the materialistic side of politics and the present right wing culture is insanely against spending money over feelings. In right wing circles if you buy a nice camera you'll be laughed at UNLESS you use it to make money, but if you buy a nice gun they'll clap because in theory it might be practical eventually.

>>4449293
>it's the jews!
The jews are wealthier on average which gives them more free time and access to quality photographic mediums like MF digital and LF film, but that's the extent of it. Tons of non-jews get into galleries. You just focus on the jews because you're jealous of your fellow europeans.
>white supremacy for me, not for thee! -european infighting

>>4449295
ironically shooting LF film isn't expensive
it's just shooting LF film with a 1/36 keeper rate is expensive and in any case the right wing mindset causes neuroticism because it's an investment sitting there that will never appreciate and doesn't get used often

>>4449295
Never said it was just Jews that get into galleries. Blacks, browns, arabs, gays and women do too; all too easily unfortunately.

>My fellow Europeans

I don't envy the success of people who achieve artistic success in 2025. It's a red-flag, if anything.

>>4449297
Wealthy people who want to get into galleries get into galleries

You're complaining on 4chan probably while researching crypto getrichquick shit and pondering side hustles

>>4449292
>>4449294
Right wingers are bunch of monkeys. Yes art is in fucked state right now but this >>4449294 anon is right on the money. Contemporary right wingers are bunch of artless materialistic golems who keep repeating retarded slogans like
>art is jewish
>art is gay
>art is for women
>stem over art

Right wingers also shill shit like trades and anti-college narrative and then they wonder why liberals are in power.

>>4449303
>Art is in a fucked state, and thank goodness that it is

Are you people real

>>4449304
Who said thank goodness

Stop minmaxing your shekels and contribute to culture, you fucking buttcoin monkey. No you don't "need" the nice camera "because you're not a professional", but it anyways and make something nice instead of something "good enough for ~just a hobby~".

>>4449300
>Wealthy people who want to get into galleries get into galleries
I fucking hate this

>>4449304
Where I said that? Art is in fucked state. My critique is towards Right Wingers because they're a bunch of meat headed retards who hate art and beauty.
>bro art is in rotten state man
>so what's our plan?
>DO NOTHING. keep working in a peasant trade job and keep going to gym like REAL men.
Defeatist unaesthetic pussies.

>>4449306
Its because the right is controlled opposition. They have been since they bought ayn rand capitalism without noticing that 1: ayn rand is a jew 2: "real capitalism" was invented as a strawman foil for all communism and the red scare was a means of control.

>>4449305
If you're going to samefag the whole thread at least mix up the vocab and weird obsessions to make it look like a different person

>Monkey
>Crypto
>Schizo

Thanks for conceding on every point I made btw. You don't like the art world yet you don't want people giving reasons for the poor state of affairs. Why is it fucked? Because of all those white men not shooting on large formats?

>>4449308
>Why is it fucked? Because of all those white men not shooting on large formats?
>Half the culture refuses to participate in art because it's not enough of a "hustle" and "need over want" (and yet, they drive trucks they dont need)
Yes

The right wing "you dont need that for a hobby, thats for professionals" attitude. The term "gearfag" is almost exclusively right wing. Left wingers see it for what it is. yes better cameras have better quality and yes that has value even if you dont profit.

>>4449309
its almost like corporate america engineered this divide because predictable consumers are easier to milk for profit

you need a homogenous sector of easily marketed to people who consoom "practical" things like guns and trucks and a homogenous sector of easily marketed to people who consoom "enjoyable" things like art supplies and collectibles

just like how capitalism was invented as a foil for communism and no one normal gave a shit about being maximally capitalist until ayn rand's name echoed through history

>>4449308
>Why is it fucked?
Because it is nepotistic, woke and institutionalized. Today art is made by sheltered upper class kids who know jackshit about life. They have only seen educational institutions, online dating app relationships, woke internet drama and trendy cafes. Doesn't matters if it is a tranny, a brown, a gay, a white, a jew etc. they're all from the same sheltered backgrounds.

>Because of all those white men not shooting on large formats?
There are plenty of White dudes with large format cameras. Alec Soth is a major example.

>>4449306
I offered 5 reasons why art sucks. Power is real, gatekeeping is real. Leftists who achieve success in 2025 don't do so out of sheer effort and dedication; they achieve success despite their lack of effort and skill. I'm not saying do nothing. Most serious right wingers I know are very much involved in creative art and put their livelihoods on the line for their work. I don't know what circles you frequent but this isn't Bush-era conservatism we're talking about.

>>4449311
>>4449312
It's not gatekept woke or institutionalized. The right just doesn't make art. That's it. The right is the side that invented the term gearfag, the right is the poverty cult, the right is the "learn a trade" side, the right is the "that's for professionals, practice before you deserve it" side adhering to what they believe are traditional values.

The left just buys a nice fucking camera, photographs bullshit, and woweee they have NO competition whatsoever.

>>4449312
>power and gatekeeping!
you don't even try you just blame the jews and then when it comes down to getting the tools to make the art you say "you dont need that stop pixel peeping and stand further back" instead of recognizing that to paint finer lines you need a finer brush instead of a crayon

>>4449312
>Leftists
Those are woke libs from expensive art schools.

>I don't know what circles you frequent but this isn't Bush-era conservatism we're talking about.
Visit /pol/ or right wing twitter circle sometime. In my country the right wing religious people are bunch of low iq artless ugly retards same as american right wingers. Something has happened to global right wing which has made them so unaesthetic.

>>4449314
>>It's not gatekept woke or institutionalized.
I am a socialist but this is a straight lie. Fuck you.
>he right is the side that invented the term gearfag,
Go back to plebbit, newfaggot.

>>4449316
It's not gatekept. You can be an artist if you want. There are lots of right wing people who have a sense of aesthetics and have ideals.

But your first reaction to the idea of buying a finer brush to paint finer lines is "go back to plebbit" and that says it all. It's a culture of shaming people for impractical purchases and non-profitable activities. What's next, "consoom product soiboy numale"? Almost an engineered one because the same people that say consoom product will often walk out of their mcmansion and hop in their spotless pickup sans tow hitch (if it has one it's also spotless).

>>4449317
Yes, you are a shallow gearfaggot. I don't give a damn about gear. Gear is what help you achieve what you want to achieve. If you need a 20,000$ dollar for a project then do it you're justified to do it. BUT thinking gear matter more than your skills or aesthetic sensibilities then that's plain retarded and that's gearfaggotory.

>"consoom product soiboy numale"
Yes, most of socialists agree so what's your issue. This is the critique of late stage capitalism.

>>4449316
It's less left vs right that affects the quality of art, but how important politics are to them in general. Politics are incredibly low-brow bootlicking, it's like porn for pseudo-intellectuals. Anyone obsessing over policy stances, lib or cuck, is going to have a huge creative deficiency and no meaningfully unique vision.

>>4449317
>>It's not gatekept. You can be an artist if you want.
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Point isn't "you can be an "artist". Point is getting publishing deals, exhibitions and gallery space. If you don't push woke/status quo approved narratives and do art on their terms then you are fucked. If you don't have a rich background you're fucked. If you don't suck up to rich bastards you're fucked. You will remain a disenfranchised powerless nobody.

>>4449317
>>4449321
And last but not the least: if you never went to an expensive art school for sheltered rich retards then you're UTTERLY fucked.

>>4449320
Fucking true. I very often forget about this that politics is a religion. I'm off of this thread

>>4449321
There's an entire rightwing media ecosystem that has a ton of money behind it, why do you think lefties have a monopoly on culture? Is it because you recognize that the right leaning stuff is all trash and wish your based side of the culture war was as good as the cringe enemy?

>>4449325
>why do you think lefties have a monopoly on culture?
Kek, leftist haven't been in power since the fall of soviet union. What you have in US is a neo-liberal abomination and yes all of the US pop culture is gross trash.

>>4449321
>Point is
>MAKING MONEY
My fucking point. The right abhors something that does not justify itself on the balance sheet.

Do you know why art is packed with lefties? Because they do things that are 0% justified on the balance sheet. The majority of artists never make a dime, dude.

>>4449325
The left leaning stuff is trash too, it's just that the stuff that isn't trash or leaning in any political direction (and could be spun in either actually) is naturally made by left leaning people, because right leaning people... simply do not try. Right wing culture is
"but could that feed ur famiy? volk vaith vaterland"

>>4449324
Politics is close to a religion. It is a culture. It has churches, written and unwritten rules, clubhouses, restaurants, news channels, books, all that.

it just so happens that one of these cultures abhors hobbies that aren't a "hustle" and the other encourages hobbies that aren't a "hustle" which results in more monkeys at the typewriters. i mean it, "gearfag" is a right wing word.
>oh so you buy nice things as if you need them, but you arent a professional and that doesnt matter just learn to deal with it why back in my day we had worse -right wing westerner
>the new thing is awesome, im gonna buy it -left wing westerner

>>4449294
>It's the materialistic side of politics
The left is the most materialistic thing out there, kek
According to the left everyone will be happy when everyone has the same things.

>>4449330
>No I'm not materialistic for refusing to buy nice art supplies if I won't make money, you're materialistic for buying nice things because they're nice
Ah yes those damn left wingers they want a world where everyone has nice stuff

>>4449328
>The majority of artists never make a dime, dude.
I will only shut the fuck up when I'll get published and have a say in the conversation because I deserve it. I don't give a shit about money beyond basic survival. So far it's only the rich motherfuckers who have the say and get published. Also you're wrong I have seen art school kids getting grants and selling their shows. That is another sickness that they make art their careers so to survive they can't say or do anything that is deemed "wrong think".

>>4449329
>i mean it, "gearfag" is a right wing word.
You are a manchild who is in love with toys. Go buy photobooks or prints or paintings you stupid consoomer soulless retard.

>>4449332
No matter where you set your goalpost you want to see the trophy before you run, and that's why you're not in the game.
>Sir, where is the dividends before i buy this stock

99.9% of those left wing kids getting into art go absolutely nowhere. Maybe a furry convention. You have no say in the narrative because you don't even try to contribute to it and neither do most people with right leaning views. You all find every excuse not to. It's the number of monkeys at the typewriters, not a jewish conspiracy.

>>4449333
I'll say it again. "gearfag" is a right wing word.
>muh trad, muh hard labor, muh practice, muh earning things, muh deserving things... we're so moral bros!
And then some left wing "soi numale consoomer manchild star wars watcher" whatever blows past you because they were all buying their hasselblads and Z8s and making noteworthy art.

>>4449335
Daido Moriyama is maybe the most well know photographer alive and he shot photos on these shitty little digital cameras all his life. You're a machild gearfaggot who is never going to make any worthwhile thing in his life.

Fuck off back to plebbit.

>>4449332
>public figures can't insult huge groups or they lose popularity
>"help, jewish conspiracy"
jej

>>4449337
I am a socialist. Go talk shit about evil corporations which sponsor festivals and see how that will turn out you stupid fucking cunt.

>>4449336
Daido moriyama is one standout guy and just because his cameras were cheap doesn't mean the gear didn't play a role. He was very particular about how shitty his cameras had to be to maintain visual consistency. And this girl is really not a standout, a lot of people get recognition just for doing it with better gear because that does have value, and yet, she has recognition.

You just hate the idea of buying something and being better for it. It's a very anti-right-wing phenomenon and flies in the face of truisms typical of right wing activites. You can't buy your way into being good with racing cars, shooting guns, carving bears with chainsaws, playing sports, etc, so how can it be possible with photos? Well, you see, it just is. Sorry. Not everything is weight lifting.

You just don't like photography. Try letting go of the right-wing ideology where people who buy nice stuff because they want it and they think it will make their life better are "reddit numale liberals" and you might enjoy it more.

>>4449334
>leftists
kek, I am talking shit about sheltered art school kids from rich families. Learn to read fag.

>>4449339
>I am a socialist
National no doubt
>Go talk shit about evil corporations
People do this all the time and it's why corps pay lip service to ideology. Face it, you're not in the running because you never ran.

>>4449340
I have already told you that if you need a 20,000$ lens for a particular shot then I have no issues with it.

>>4449342
>National no doubt
Let me tell you what you are. kill yourself

>>4449343
And I'm telling you that simply using a $20,000 lens whether it was needed or not does, in fact, add value. It's just part of photography and it's very against right wing ideology.

You must buy
Even though you do not strictly, logically need

yes, just like the glasses wearing caricature with the macbook and the funko pops

>>4449345
>>And I'm telling you that simply using a $20,000 lens whether it was needed or not does, in fact, add value.
Congrats on solving photography. You are the next Walker Evans. Goodluck, big guy.

>>4449346
Photography was solved ages ago. This isn't news. Alec Soth took the same shitty photos as a million "all you need is a canon rebel" fucks did last decade and all he did was do it on 8x10 film. That's photography. And it's not the jews. It's "why would anyone want to look at your canon rebel shots with a bunch of dont look at this and stand over there rules when mr. soth did a better job". I know buying nice things to be good at things hurts the right wing brain that's used to sports and shit and reminds you of the reddit numale boogerman but it's an actual fact that doesn't care about your feelings.

>>4449347
You're a champ dude, I'm tellin ya. You are next Walker Evans with your glorious 8x10 camera. Go grab photography world by the balls Gearking.

>>4449348
Now for the part that also hurts

If you buy an 8x10 camera and take photos as good as alec soth there's almost no chance you will get any fame, recognition, or money. No matter what your political leanings are. This is the biggest thing scaring people used to the hustle/make it count/win friends and influence people/etc tryhard sector of culture and keeping them out of the running, and making them view buying nice cameras with disdain.
>No one cares, no one will ever care, you wasted your money! -R
>But I like it :3 -L
>MANCHILD OBSESSED WITH TOYS -R

>>4449349
Go on Gearking. I am rooting for ya. May no one ever see your photos.

>>4449350
And your last word is... essentially admitting that you're eyebrows deep in the swamp of hustle bro/justify it! culture and will never leave.

>>4449340
The car you drive in many racing categories has a bigger impact on how well you do in racing than the camera you shoot has in photography. Some types of photography require certain specs but it's far from the norm, especially when it comes to art.

>>4449352
Unfortunately this is not entirely true. Quality is the defining, delineating factor in most fine art photography. I'm sorry but it's just facts. That includes low quality which is basically the category you're working in and which looks you can and can't go for.

>>4449351
Go on pure vanityfree™ Gearking. Please accept my (You).

>>4449353
No, globalism is.

>>4449353
And the end result of the "gear doesn't matter, practiiiice, skiiiiiilll, that's what matters" of the right (and their visceral reaction to the left just buying the nicest thing there is to enjoy it - "MANCHILD!!!!!!!!") is....

There are no good right wing photographers because there are no right wing photographers period. Any that could be good, are shooting landscapes on crap and being passed over because people would rather look at the photos shot on good shit. So much for skill.

>>4449355
>its globalism, it's a conspiracy, that's why I can't succeed
Photography is heavily influenced by the quality of the camera you use. There are more left wing photographers because buying nice things you don't need and probably won't ever benefit from beyond fun is a left wing activity that the right wing, with all its preppers and tradebros, abhors as pretentious and childish behavior.

>>4449357
>Photography is heavily influenced by the quality of the camera you use.
The bar where it stops mattering is really low. Ken Rockwell shot award-winning pictures on a broken Sony diskette camera.

A bad artist blames their tools. If your camera can't make good shots, you don't know your camera and you don't know your shots.

>>4449358
Ken Rockwell was handed a single award after the actual winner was disqualified, 30 years ago, and that was it.

Again every year someone rises to prominence entirely because the gear they used makes their photos look different enough. It raises the skill ceiling, it highlights excellence.
And 100000 other equally skilled people with the same great gear don't make it but they don't care

Your inability to accept this and do photography because you like it keeps you out of the running

>>4449359
Unless of course it's actively fucking with the image like mirrorless cameras do.
>oi, why does this photo have that landing site that the telescope doesn't see?

>>4449359
>A bad ___ blames their tools
Blue collar (right wing) truisms like this are why there are no right wing photographers.

Especially because it's not actually true.

>>4449361
Then you're using it for the wrong photos. Stop hitting screws with a hammer, dingus

>>4449356
>>There are no good right wing photographers
Leni Riefenstahl, Dieter Keller, August Sander, William Eggleston

>>4449361
Aaaaaand the right wing retard, unable to accept the truth, delves into some conspiracy bullshit russian intelligence agencies planted in his granddads head and forgot about.

The truth is gear matters and art as a career has a low success rate. Simultaneously.
You must be willing to waste that bit of money and own that useless thing that will never rocket you to the next step on the socioeconomic ladder. And so must one million others. For your type to be represented by just a handful of people in the arts.

>>4449365
>muh Russians!!!
>Russia bad!!!!
Somehow I'm the propagandized one

>>4449364
I want you to note how many of these people shot large format and were remembered in lieu of plenty of equally skilled, but lower quality 35mm/half frame photographers ;^)

that was back when being right wing wasn't synonymous with being practical to an extreme fault, abhorring the premium paints and yet driving the pickup

>>4449365
Poopco is bootyblasted

To all the newfags. This man is a mentally ill plebbitor who has never taken a single good photo in his life. Politics is his religion and he gargles cum, that is a fact.

>>4449369
You're not really losing the argument until you start accusing Anonymous of being random discord trannies.

>>4449368
>I want you to note how many of these people shot large format and were remembered in lieu of plenty of equally skilled, but lower quality 35mm/half frame photographers ;^)
Anon, the vast majority of famous photographers (regardless of their merits) shot 35mm.

>>4449368
Nibba that's not the point
Point is:
>>>There are no good right wing photographers

>>4449370
>trannies
I am starting a campaign right now to heckin cancel this bigot pig

I have a little joke for you guys
>What do you call a famous right wing photographer?
>Apolitical
))))

>>4449372
>>There are no good right wing photographers
Yeah are, were is another story. The cultural leanings of today inform us as to why.

>>4449371
35mm film, mostly slide and B&W, which is, back to the OP...

Better looking than a lot of digishit because it is actually pretty high resolution and holds on to highlight detail quite well. It's kind of like shooting everything on a D810 or Z7II instead of an OM5 or T2i. Yep, it looks better. That alone gives the photos more value.

>>4449374
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fucking based. This is exactly what I was tryna say

>>4449375
>Yeah are, were is another story.
Literally moving the goalposts. Slimy bastard.

>>4449374
How can we truly know when you fucks don't even try? Surely it is possible to be right wing positively instead of as a negative reactionary and there would be no social issues to be found.

>>4449378
You try it and you'll see how your work is deemed "not diverse enough". FFS, have you seen the winner of the "All About Photo Photographer of the Year" this year?

>>4449378
>Surely it is possible to be right wing positively instead of as a negative reactionary and there would be no social issues to be found.
What I like is wholesome and what I don't like is not heckin wholesome.

Here's this bastard's whole religion.

>>4449378
If we're being honest, moderates are primarily conservative, they're just not retarded as fuck about it. Anyone who deliberately labels themselves as 'right wing' (or leftist for that matter) is going to be a massive retard full stop.

>>4449378
but to try you have to waste money as if gear matters as much if not more than practice, skill, guts, and grit to have a chance in the most accessible genres so alas...

>>4449381
New Topographics crew brutally critiqued your "progressive" religion and its effects on the environment. Yet people would consider them leftist.

Gear matters more than skill and less than subject.

>>4449259
immersive

trvly tonally rich

itt hacks arguing with never weres about why they're all stuck shitposting on a kenyan bowmaking forum instead of being shown in galleries
Here's a hint: if you're obsessed with what other people have done/are doing you'll never have the clarity to do something that's yours.

>>4449393
even tho many are outwardly subjectivists reality is objective and what works and doesnt matters

>>4449394
taste is subjective, the best you can ever hope to do is make something you're proud of that you like and ideally you enjoyed the process of doing. If you're trying to meet standards others have set (whether you frame them as objective reality or something else) you're just setting yourself up for failure.

>>4449398
Taste being subjective does not mean that all tastes are equal. Good taste is a cultivated skill.

>>4449393
This is why "just look at photobooks bro" is such terrible advice.

>>4448856 (OP)
>My Fuji X-Pro 2 is just gathering dust.
If my digital camera were a can of worms too it'd be just gathering dust too, believe me.

>>4449422
no offense but no one is tryna be you bruh

>>4449429
This should be the default response every time cinefag, doghair, and cANON attempt to dispense advice/"wisdom". think of how many people tried and quit photography ultimately because of the nophotos/badphotos ewaste and film shilling… they would still be having fun if they bought a fuji bros ;_;

should I get a mamiya 645 or rb67

>>4449442
Whichever one Walmart carries, so you can return it when you decide to step into the future.

>>4449436
Wtf? I usually help people with the technical aspects of film photography, view cameras and darkroom printing. Im pretty knowledgeable on the subject.
My main advice I usually give out is that any camera can be used to make art, and that making prints improves your photography.

It's really weird to blame some random guy that takes pics of his dog for you quitting photography. Just really weak willed and a strange sort of cop out for your own quitter behavior. There are people that spend their entire life trolling me and I'm not quitting photography because of it.

trip fags are always wrong. I won't even reply to one

>>4449378
I have applied to one of the galleries in my city twice, although I probably don't have that good of a "concept" I know my photos are pretty decent compared to what I see around. The winner of the most recent one has photos of men bending over in underwear in nature, one of them you can even see his asshole and they had to censor it when promoting it on Instagram. One of their previous exhibitions was of a lesbian couple and the photos were them hugging, holding hands, all done on a point and shoot with flash. Something anyone can do with a $200 camera and maybe 3 rolls of film. You can obviously guess my gender and sexuality due to me being rejected.

>>4449448
Calling me a tripfag is one of the most offensive things anyone has ever said to me. Well done.

I don't know anything about film or gear mentioned in OP, but I checked the op pic on IG on a big screen. The lighting is pretty nice and I think she has beautiful nails. I'm a bit shallow like that but just love girls who like to wear their nails long.

>>4449374
>slavshit "humor"

>>4449424
All your cameras gather dust because you a nophoto

>>4449517
Hi isi

>>4449491
>an american finds our style of jokes unfunny
Oh no, how will I cope now? Maybe we should joke about genitalia so that you can approve of our humor

>>4449583
What do you call a Russian with a small penis? A russian))))))

>>4449585
Okay, let me try
>What do you call a man with unmutilated parts in America? A tourist

>>4449588
>even when he's trying to make a dick joke it's some variation of le jews run murica

>>4449595
You said it, not me)

>>4449595
>references circumcision alone
>"YOU ANTISEMITE!"
On edge, are we?

lol

>>4448956
I like film photography because it's a unique approach that challenges me creatively in different ways.
>every shot costs money so there's incentive to think about every shot more
>can't see results right away, forcing me to think about the potential result more instead of relying on trial and error
>tend to use older, more manual cameras, that encourage me to think more about focus, DoF, exposure, and other technical impacts on my photo
>no instant gratification, slows the entire hobby down and activates more long-term reward satisfaction
>tactile experience that's pleasing and satisfying
>can be more zen -- focus, compose, meter, snap, wind, repeat, nice and slow and thoughtfully
>development process is different, more limited than just editing in light room, that changes my approach
It's a whole process thing. Just overall a different way to doing things that's a nice break from digital photography. And there's a lot more to learn. Doing film photography is when photographers who've always shot digital learn to really utilize contrast to make a strong photo. Film usually has like 6-9 stops of easily accessible dynamic range between white and black. You learn to use it.