Thread 4469575

Film photography is better due to low sensitivity in dark areas. No one needs to see what is in dark areas most of the time. Just imagine this photo with unnecessary crap in shadows.

It's light that brings to attention the main focus of the scene. Just expose for bright area to cull off crap that tells no story about the scene.

Just look how she is well separated against the background

>>4469575 (OP)
There's already a lot of unnecessary crap.
>>4469576
Everything here is bright
>>4469577
It's a headshot against a clear blue sky

idk mang sounds like you're cooked

>>4469579
Stop doing ganja before posting

>>4469575 (OP)
>>4469576
>>4469577
these have nothing that couldn't be done with digital what are you talking about? have you ever actually used a digital camera?

>>4469587
As a matter of fact I did as early as 2001 or '02

>>4469579
>Everything here is bright
Nope. Plus on digital it would be overblown in several areas.

>>4469579
>t. Visually illiterate retard

>>4469599
I see you are a man of culture.

>>4469575 (OP)
Film is too much of a hassle for me now
I've shot and developed and scanned so much that it's lost all the appeal of the "process"

>>4469601
I'm not saying "shot everything on film". But that film is automatically filtering out stuff that we would not miss normally if we understand how to expose for brightness.

>>4469598
What. No it wouldn't, what the fuck are you smoking. ETTR (so don't clip) and bring the gamma curve down, up the black point. It's a low-contrast shot so that's that. Digital wins again so long as you have the slightest idea of how to process.

None of these photos posted actually have anything a digital camera couldn't replicate somehow except the grain (grain sims are gay).

>>4469609
Dafaq r u on? U did LSD or wut?

>>4469609
Can we see and example??

>>4469609
>it's low contrast shot
R U on crack?

>>4469609
See
>>4469599

>>4469609
Example where? I bet u ave some RAW files you can use for demonstration. Don't you?

>>4469615
>>4469613
>>4469612
>>4469610
>fell for the bait award

>>4469619
>Im not a complete and utter retard! I was simply BAITING YOU.

Cope

>>4469623
>everyone named anon is one person
Yeah im nta bro. Even if it wasn't bait, why feed the trolls?

>>4469624
Because its funny to call a retard retarded.

>>4469575 (OP)
Are you sure this is a property of film? It looks more a limitation of the scanner, or maybe the person who scanned it just didn't edit the file properly.

>>4469647
yeah, they honestly dont really have a "film vibe" as much as a printed and scanned photo "vibe". you could get a very similiar look by just soft proofing using an icc profile of a somewhat shitty printer/paper

>>4469613
The scene isn't low contrast, but the blacks are washed out giving it a low contrast look. I think that's what he means.

>>4469647
Film has lower response to shadow and dark regions than digital, and digital goes fuck itself in highlights where film is just fine. Of course you can increase "darkness" of dark in printing (But also in developing). But slide films could produce such dark regions out of the box. Some negative films too. But nowadays you would see that mostly in old black and white formulas like Fomapan.

So...

>>4469577
I know exactly where that shot was taken

>>4469648
I hurd all ya gotta do to make a piccure look like film is desaturat it and kill the blacks bc digital sensers can haz such bedur dynamic range they capsher 13 stops of evertang HEEEEHAWWWWW

>>4470768
What the fuck

Meds

>>4470758
heyo burt
which blue grip is closest to tiffany blue? preferably in 9mm, it's for my niece

Film is great in many ways but this is not one of them.

>>4470937
This is the sheepshagger, fish and chips eating burt not the deerfucker burgermunching burt. He doesn’t even own a knoife.

>>4469575 (OP)
>film is better because its underexposed
What?

>>4473324
Don't do shrooms before posting

>>4473613
That's literally what you're saying. Film is not 'less sensitive to areas with less light'. The only way you would make those areas clipped on film is if you massively underexposed. Film has better dynamic range than most digitals, ergo you're a retard.

>>4473620
Yes it has wider range but that range is shifted differently.

Dynamic range is a spectrum and has no limits on both sides other than maybe absolute lack of photons on dark side. Film and digital can register only limited range of that spectrum.

Digital is king in shadows, film blows digital away in strong light. Deal with it.

>>4473637
No clue where you heard this but it's wrong. Film stores more detail in shadows, if that's not the result you're getting then you need learn how to shoot.

>>4473683
from experience and tests, film sux in shadows
take a look at officialy published curves by producents of film

>>4474103
It isn't that film sucks in shadows. You can just use higher iso film, or extend exposure. It is that film can struggle when resolving low contrast detail.
Sometimes the effect can be mitigated, but not always. On the opposite end of that film is great at resolving high contrast details and does not suffer from moire like digital.
Negative film has very high exposure latitude, so a good photographer can expose for shadows, maintain detail in as much of the shadow areas as they want, and still retain highlight detail.

Finally if we are being real you don't often need 100% detail in the shadow areas, and sometimes it looks better without.

>>4474111
You are literally writing the same that was stated but in a form for aurists

>>4474111
You are literally writing the same that was stated but in a form for autists

>>4474111
>Finally if we are being real you don't often need 100% detail in the shadow areas, and sometimes it looks better without.

Literally what OP stated, so Q.E.D.

>>4474157
>>4474156
Well yes sort of, but understanding why "film sux in shadows" is useful while simply stating it is not, and he is not technically correct either. If you want shadow detail in film increase your exposure and if the scene is very high contrast pull your film so you reduce contrast/density. This is not autism, it is one step more advanced than simply exposing your film correctly. Film doesn't have sliders, so you have to get it right in exposure+development or you'll be in a world of hurt when you try making prints.

>>4474111
Film does suck in shadows, exposing for the shadows is compensating for that. You can't recover shadows as well as you could in digital, but you can recover highlights a lot better than digital can. Because while digital clips, film has a softer rolloff.

>>4474169
Correct exposure on film is when expose for the shadows, and correct development is when you develop for the highlights. There is no compensating for anything because film is what it is just like digital is what it is.

>>4474172
Have you even read Ansel Adams, anon?
>I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds in the west, and shadow would soon dim the white crosses ... I suddenly realized that I knew the luminance of the Moon – 250 cd/ft2. Using the Exposure Formula, I placed this value on Zone VII ... Realizing as I released the shutter that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a duplicate negative, I quickly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide, the sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late! The lone negative suddenly became precious.

>>4474174
He didn't need a light meter because he knew where he wanted to place the moon. Expose for shadows and develop for highlights is the basic idea before you really understand what exposure and development does in relation to producing density/contrast on film, which is then translated onto photographic paper when making a print.

>>4474179
The moon was one of the lower highlights, anon.

>>4474282
Can you read, anon?

cool photos