Post

Avatar
I never want to shoot another digital portrait again. Not when film looks like this.
Avatar
Grainy AF? Plus exceptionally bad compression? Listen, color film offers no real benefits over digital. If you were shooting monochrome I might agree with you, but not this. Maybe it's the bsky app, but I don't see whatever it is in this pic that you think makes film so great.
Avatar
Thanks, John, but Mastodon is two doors down on the left. I think that’s where you’re supposed to go take a big shit on other people’s birthday cake.
Avatar
You're thinking of Xitter. I like to think this site is for honest discourse. The photo itself is fine, I just don't see how it gave you the idea that you should reject digital photography entirely. That's all I was saying. Birthday cake's bad for you anyway. ;p
Avatar
Oh goodness; I don’t think I have seen anyone sum up Mastodon better.
Avatar
I don't know which is more beautiful, your photograph or that put-down 🔥
Avatar
1. That was a brilliant response 2. WTF is wrong with that dude? There's people out there who want smooth/unblemished/perfect stuff and that...is not art. There's folks buying digital gear to recreate the look of old film....and then hate on the real thing. Jeez.
Avatar
Avatar
WTF is wrong with that dude Blocketty block block block
Avatar
Avatar
Let’s just say you have to get there quick to enjoy it.
Avatar
No that's the birdsite. There's some great posting on mastodon, as there is here. Really like your film pic.
Avatar
Avatar
“Film sucks!” * Zooms in to show the pixels *
Avatar
I think in time digital will be regarded similarly to film, both are technologies that have improved enormously and leave idiosyncrasies that reflect period, artistic choices before during and after capture. We don't have a few hundred years of training on the aesthetics of digital yet.
Avatar
A few hundred years? Photography itself is barely 200 years old. What we call film was only invented in the 1880s. 35mm film, which I'm guessing was used here, arrived in the 1930s & was very different to today's films.
Avatar
People romanticize film grain, but it is a product of cheap color films from the 1970s thru 00s, like instant Polaroids and Kodak Gold 800 found in single-use cameras. High quality films, like Kodachrome, Portra and Fuji Pro have always been fine-grained and even-toned.
Avatar
The photo in question is nothing special. It's grainy and the shadows are under-exposed. It's only slightly better than a 110 snapshot from 1987, but that makes you never want to shoot digital again? Fine. Put down the K1000 and go pick up a large-format Graflex. You have a lot to learn.
Avatar
“It’s a slippery slope, Caravaggio. You start out thinking I’ll just underexpose a shadow or two, what’s the big deal? One thing leads to another and the next thing you know you’ve stabbed a guy in the balls, you’re hiding in Rome under assumed name, and a death sentence is hanging over your head.”
Avatar
* _HasselbladDude69_ has entered the chat
Avatar
You understand you are not looking at film? you're looking at a digital screen
Avatar
There's a pretty clear difference between grain and pixels here.
Avatar
The thing about colour film is the same thing about vinyl recordings over digital - it lets your imagination fill in those microspaces, so the audience does the compression in a way that enhances the enjoyment. For some. Not you I guess.
Avatar
Oh man, don't get me started on vinyl. I want to hear the music, not have to "fill in" pops and hisses. That's the only real difference between vinyl and a CD: Noise.
Avatar
Avatar
Avatar
thanks for your stupid opinion John