Thread 4475109

So i got a beat up point and shoot. And shot my first roll. Super nice. But thwn I opened the back, because I didn't know how to wind the film. I did this multiple times. Eventually I found out, but now I am scared of getting it "out" because it cost alot of money

WHY IS PHOTOGRAPHY SO EXPENSIVE I LIKE IT BUT TOO MUCH MONEY

>>4475109 (OP)
Expensive mistakes happen. Its all apart of learning. Just learn from it. Usually people only make your mistake once.

8x10 slide film costs around 15 dollars per sheet of film and then another 15 to get it developed.

>>4475111
Oh my God these prices are making me go insane. Don't get me wrong, i love photography, but this is wild.

>>4475207
You should get a job first before you get a hobby. It helps.

>>4475207
Just shoot fomapan or kentmere and develop it yourself. 6 or 7 bucks is not so bad for 36 shots, or get a half frame camera and you get 72 shots.

If you're actually attempting to do something more than just taking snapshits the price doesn't really matter. Getting the look you want and/or ability to make the prints you want is what matters.

>>4475211
I am new to this tho, so I would not trust myself to develop the pictures yet. But I want to do scrapbooks. That's why I initially started, because pretty pictures make me happy. I used to have an old digital camera before giving it to my friend.
>>4475209
I have a part time job :( still film making is unreasonably expensive. I like it and will continue but still. How in the world does a roll cost 10$? Its madness.

>>4475220
Don’t bother with film.
On top of actually buying the film, you have to pay again for someone to develop.
You’re better off saving up for a DSLR or mirrorless

>>4475220
Bother with digital. You have to buy the camera and then you have to pay again for a computer and then you may even have go again for an editing software! Your pics will look far worse compared to film and you'll need to spend a lot more time editing them to get anything close to film.

Youre better off saving up for a roll of film and a developing kit.

>>4475506
>Bother with digital.
freudian slip reveals the lie
>oh no, i had to spend $350 on an a6500, $150 on a samyang lens, and $200 on capture one for the computer i already owned!
>that’s as much as mailing 28 rolls of film for dev and scan, or the average ebay price for desirable film gear!
The pics look the same lmao. Anyone who thinks they like shooting film and doesnt operate a darkroom to make actual handmade prints just likes the shitty jpeg preset of a 20 year old film scanner. Have a friend take one photo of a color swatch card or test scene on his next roll and send you the lab scan to make a preset out of. Wala.

>>4475520
Overall incredibly powerful cope, but you are correct that printing is what film is mostly for, not all, but most. You still get more pleasant looking images from scanned 35mm color film.
Maybe the look you're personally going for is the "hot garbage" look, and a digishit is just great for that!

>>4475525
>dogfucker gearfag labels his post as incredibly powerful cope so everyone knows to ignore it
I’m glad you post as recognizably as cANON so your hot takes can be ignored
Go take another blurry snapshit of a pigs butt. Or go learn to clean a negative better. Whatever. Film never made you a better photographer and it never made your photos look good. You are living proof there is no magic gear. You took better looking photos on your single digit megapixel DSLR than you ever did on LF film.

Beginner photo skill, shopping expert

>>4475529
>cope
>seethe
>schizo

Wondeful post lad. Keep it up!

>>4475532
upgrade to a 16x20 your dog photo will definitely look better this time

>>4475534
Upgrade to malding your seethe and cope posts will definitely work better this time.

>>4475529
Truth nuke

Digital is as good as film. Spending more will not make you a better photographer. Its either jpegs with extra steps or a separate hobby for the dated analog workflow. The latter has some value in its scarcity and is better for selling art. That’s it really.

And only if you’re a good photographer, not like, as bad as the smelly german shepherd husky guy taking photos on his dads farm.

>>4475220
Do not listen to the sony fanboy. He was proven to be a blind nophoto when he had a giant meltdown in fgt. His claim to fame is asserting that a canon 5d classic looks better than 8x10 slide film.
This anon spends his days arguing about sony in gear threads, and as you already know you really can't trust a consolewars gearfag. Ever. He gets paid 1 cent per post to shill Sony.

>>4475545
This is the bad photographer with the german shepherd going crazy because he cant imagine multiple people disagree with him and think he sucks

To him every new critic adds on to his original nemesis, the anon in /fgt/ who said his scans were too dirty and mogged his LF film with just 35mm and a sony a7rii on a copy stand. He seriously thinks its all one guy.

>>4475567
>visually illiterate schizo anon makes shit up again

KEK. Say the husky and german shepherd guy are the same people again!

>>4475573
Why do you talk in the third person

>>4475575
Cmon brooooo. Say it.

>>4475577
Maybe you aren’t the same person as the husky faggot who buys a new camera every month and has ugly home decor. Maybe, you’re just as retarded as they are, you’re both NPCs, and people mix you up easily.

Happy?

>>4475580
>satisfied with his victory, doghair drove to his cousins house to take another photo of his cousins husky on a 1970s sofa covered in garish blankets

>>4475582
>>4475580
THANK YOU! Lmfao you guys are really great.

>>4475584
There’s been a real lack of husky pics lately. Did your cousin’s dog die or did you realize the gig was up?

Are you done testing a new digital camera every month while looking for a better escape from 8x10 before killing off your doghair negatives persona?

>>4475586
See
>>4475584

>>4475589
no one actually believes this, it just turns the schizo theory that you’re posting into a schizo reality so your hot takes and "advice" can be discarded kek

you’re too predictable.

>>4475109 (OP)
As you can see from the reactions of this thread the true answer is to stick with film. If you avoid the constant snapshitting that most digital users fall into you will find it may take you a few days or longer to finish an entire roll of 36 exposures. Your experience shooting film will be better and the prints you want to make will also look a lot better. This is a simple fact.
Notice how you get shilled an ewaste sony the moment this thread gets noticed by the gearfags. They never rest and become incredibly obsessed with anyone that has or wants more than terrible looking digital pictures.
Ask them for examples or photos they have taken to prove their point if you want to see something funny.

>>4475608
>i cant afford to shoot film as much as i’d like to, so digital is bad

>>4475608
>spending more money to make the same jpegs will make you a better photographer
But that dog hair fag is the worst photographer on /p/, and the best photographer on /p/ (ambush) uses a dslr and spends his money on travel

>>4475109 (OP)
You seeing it yet?

>a judging world each other full for of sinning sinners differently
What

>>4475615
I am waiting til muh next salary to develop it i will either send it here, if the thread is alive still. Mods plz dont archive.
>>4475608
Yeah thats what i thought too. I used to have a digicam, it looked good, but not in a warm way. Its ez to shoot on digital tho. But I'll stick to film as i am trying to get into scrapbooking.

Film just looks so cinematic, in a way that digi doesnt. Yes digi looks good, especialy the ones with like 4 megapixels. I like the way white is blown out. But it looks cold. Film looks warmer. Im using kodak gold so I think it will be fire

Plz mods keep this one alive so that I can post results

>>4475542
Op here, its not the same. I have shot digi and it is absolutely not comparable. Digi is just more available thats it