First you had film: a chemical process that already distorted reality. The world went into the camera, got chemically bullied, and came out looking like reality according to film. Then they made a “film sim”. Except the simulation looks nothing like film. It is two-faced and half-hearted. But it’s perfect, because now, say, “Provia” no longer has to signify the actual film but the SIGN of Provia. You aren't getting Provia, just the marketing team’s idea of what the cultural memory of Provia is supposed to feel like. The signified has begun to evaporate.But fujislugs still weren't satisfied, so now the DIGITAL camera displays a little box end on the rear screen. If you’re a zoomer, that’s the cardboard tab you'd put in the holder on the back of the camera reminding you of the film you loaded. But there is no film, no box, no physical thing inside the camera that needs identifying. Literally a simulation of the thing that used to tell you which film was inside the camera. It’s displaying a simulation of the signifier of a nonexistent signified. You successfully reached the point where the camera says: “Here is the little square that would have told you which film you loaded into the camera.” Except you loaded a menu option instead of film, and now the camera is proudly showing you the nostalgic little fake box for the imaginary film you didn't load. There is no film, no Provia, no box. There never was. There never will be. There is only a crude mockery on the back of the camera telling you that there is. Fitting that it's X-TRANS.Reality > film > film look > film simulation > simulation of the film label > ???In the end the camera is no longer pretending to reproduce reality. It's pretending to reproduce the evidence that reality was once being reproduced. It's transfilm, and it doesn't pass. It's Baudrillard's hyperreality except instead of Disneyland it's an X-Pro3 displaying a fake Provia box while you photograph your animal companion.
>>4531183Similar concept with using the "Dehancer" plugin to turn digital snapshits into something vaguely resembling film in Lightroom. It's transgenderism for photography.
>>453118312800 iso film would be pretty sweet if it wasnt too grainy. Ha ha
>The kind of thing you write when you want to think you are intelligent when you actually aren't
>/p/hilosophy threadOh well, here we go againFunny thing, it got me thinking>woman>woman with makeup>passing tranny>drag queen (not even a proper tranny, doesn't even bother appearing to be a woman or want to be one but its own simulacrum)It kinda explains why trannies are sometimes more feminine than actual women, they're concerned with the signifier because they're unable to become the signified so they compensate like that
>>4531196>"philosophy">social studiesit's not worth calling philosophy and never has been. it's critique, or, describing things in such a way fools will think you are intelligent and the thing is bad or good (usually bad).
>>4531196Funny, your post reminded me of trannies in another way. Trannies have no periods.
>>4531201>metaphysics isn't philosophy
>>4531201Maybe Pierre Bourdieu was right and photography is after all a middlebrow art. I mean look at yourself, a complete midwit populating /p/.
>>4531204metaphysics has been evicted from philosophy in all seriousness. the only time it isn't is when philosophy is used as a catch all for pretentious shitposting, otherwise philosophy refers exclusively to empiricism - natural philosophy - and all other branches are dead and buried.
>>4531211>empiricism - natural philosophyThat's just science, if anything it's the part that got removed from philosophy
>>4531211Thanks for your input, ChatGPT
>>4531194100% thisIt just shows a lack of understanding of both the film process and the history of in camera jpg presets
>>4531183Anon, let's see your film photos.Yeah, ok.
>>4531183>But it’s perfect, because now, say, “Provia” no longer has to signify the actual film but the SIGN of Provia. You aren't getting Provia, just the marketing team’s idea of what the cultural memory of Provia is supposed to feel like.This actually explains the fujislug mentality a bit too well. I mean, it's basically a cargo cult. Not too long ago they were calling them rangefinders here on /p/. They don't care what something IS but what it looks like. In fact it wouldn't be too far fetched to think they don't actually like rangefinders or the films their cameras purport to simulate. Just like someone who likes eating fake carbonara (with cream) doesn't necessarily like eating carbonara. You could easily do a similar chain of simulacrums with viewfinders:>first, you get a literal reflection of the scene that will be projected on the medium (SLR with basic ground glass focusing screen)>then you get a distortion of the scene (split prism and aids like AF squares and such)>then the EVF shows up, masking that you don't see through the lens anymore>at last, you get complete fabrications like zebras, blinkies, fake split prisms, starless skies, fake moons, "computational photography", baked-in noise reduction, the film simulacrums you mentioned, moire. The hyperreal has killed the real.>>4531201>t. mirrorlesscuck still seething about the allegory of the cave
>>4531252It's true that film isn't a completely faithful rendition of reality though. And it's fine and part of the appeal. But it's honest about what it is, that's the big difference.
Since when did "le honesty to le akchual light and color" become more important than "do whatever is necessary to make a pretty picture" (which necessarily includes not going TOO far, before you say anything). Straight photographers are fags, contrary to the name.
>>4531261Fuji simulations produce the opposite of pretty pictures though. They had some basic color profiles and decided to name them after film stocks to make them appealing. Then after the people who never shot those stocks fell for it they came up with the rear display in the OP. It's about larping, not about the picture. The whole design of the cameras is centered about the larp, you even get a dedicated dial for the simulations because they wanted some dial in the same place as the one in some vintage camera. They even used the front LED to simulate a rangefinder window.
> Oh no, Fooji shooters get some good presets for free! Help me Adobe Man.The only reason to seethe about it is if you were selling some dogshit presets yourself and now fewer people buy them.
>>4531276>good presets
>>4531281They are pretty good and they are meaningfully different. Gradients and areas with contrast look differently with different "film sims". Also "Acros" is a good BW preset.
>>4531276Address >>4531188 then
>>4531276Yeah but they don't look like the film they're named after, you haven't disproven the OP. It's like someone says sour worms are a fourth order simulacrum that no longer signifies the original thing but itself and you say "yeah but sour worms taste good" as if it rebukes the point being made. They're not a simulation of film, they're their own thing.
>>4531283I don't know, I don't use Dehancer. But I can understand people adding noise and other "imperfections" artificially, they can definitely improve the look of digital images. Not sure why, maybe they hide sharp details from areas you shouldn't focus on, or add a bit of fake texture to where you'd expect some detail. Similar effect exists in digital audio for example.
>>4531285Ooops >>4531282
>>4531286You do realize it has nothing to do with actually simulating film don't you?Taking the drag queen example from above, you may believe it improves the entertainment factor of just having a man acting. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's a simulacrum of a simulacrum of a simulacrum of a woman.
>>4531263Fuji really does live rent free
>>4531285Well, yes "film simulations" as they are implemented by Fooji do not simulate film. They are color presets. Maybe you can argue that because you add fake grain and because autofocus misses all the time, you are having a vintage rangefinder experience.
>>4531288Ok but do we really have to talk about trannies all the time?
>>4531290I can see why. cANON's mind is in a permanent paranoid state of warfare against "the fake". Less noticeable than "reach" and "equivalence" are the countless variations of "fake" in his discourse. Search "fake", you find a cANON post on the first page. Search "dishonest", same thing. "phony", same. "poser", same. I didn't bother with any other but I suspect that Fujis trigger some sort of neurosis in him precisely because the entire appeal is how fake they are. He's obsessed with Plato.
>>4531295>he's obsessed with platoit's actually just trannies. and jewish conspiracy theories. he learned about plato by arguing about trannies and da joos on /pol/.if he were a real intellectual seeking further truth he would be into pythagoras
"discussion threads" are photo threads for nophoto tards who start 14 threads and still post no photo
>>4531295It's not neurosis but disgust. I'm not really obsessed with Plato as much as with metaphysics but the allegory of the cave is great. I'm more Aristotelian when it comes to art. Art brings us closer to the Ideal even if it doesn't accurately reflect the Material. As the great Andrei Tarkovsky once put it, art would be useless if the world were perfect. I actually agree with his take on 2001 too, especially knowing the role it had in tricking the collective unconsciousness. Without 2001, maybe there would be no Moon landing hoax. 2001 concerns itself excessively with the material precisely because it was made to drive us away from the ideal, it's the Platonic idea of art.>>4531298Wrong
*ruins the mental health of bitter pseudointellectual 30y/o virgins*
>>4531322At least that one isn't trying as hard to pass as something it isn't as the X100 and X-Pro series are
>>4531322BasedMAKE PHOTOGRAPHY FUN AGAINMAKE PHOTOGRAPHY TRIGGER RETARDS AGAINAll the best photos were taken when cameras had dials and random idiots thought they were soul stealing devil devices ruining the arts (and thought they had "philosophical" justifications for such nonsense). Since fuji is the former... and if the modern antisemitic /pol/yp thinking fuji cameras remind him of trannies is the modern equivalent of the latter... it is so!
>>4531326So it's not about photography anymore, it's about reminding you of what a camera used to look like... with none of the reasons it had to look the way it did. Enjoy the desert of the real I guess. Pure ideology.
>>4531183The xpro is based, too bad they pulled an olympus/panasonic and couldn't keep the screen cable reliableDogs are also based.>Based photos:>Dog photos>Cat photos>Bird photo>Tree photos>Leaf photos>Grass photos>Rock photos>Foidtography>Moidtography>Streetsnaps>Eggographs>Building corners>Building sides>Etc>Cringe photos:>no photos
>>4531295good rule of thumb is to always ignore moon landing truthers
Average fujichad: fun camera! almost as good as a $2000 a7cii!Average fujihater: bla bla bla trannies bla bla blade ass pulled shop talk bla bla bla the philosophical implications of every camera i dislike [repeat ad infinitum]
some people enjoy photography, some enjoy preaching what they think photography should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>4531335How much is NASA paying nowadays? Can't be much with the kind of stuff their own people publish. Remember Apollo 8 allegedly saw the far side of the Moon? Well not according to current year NASA. Rogozin is right.
>>4531335i recommend filterchads guidehttps://pastebin.com/diHque73
>>4531342>come get a cp chargehow about no
>>4531344the filter guide causes so much desperate terror and seething lmao
>>4531183who the fuck cares. when your ex-wife takes everything from you you shoot what they allowed you to keep.
>>4531345Please sir… if you filter my posts they will not pay me as much as half… my village needs each and every post!
>>4531342If the filters worked you wouldn't be in this thread
>>4531344>Sars, do not click
>>4531354i chose not to use the comment ones because i call people snoys and fujislugs
>>4531339based take
I dunno, I like my Fuji. It's nice to not have had to touch photo editing software since I started using it. I preset it to what I want it to look like then take the picture.This is not a refutation of OP, note. It's just that it literally doesn't matter at all, except it would be nice if Fuji weren't killing off their actual film production.
Question for the philosophy nerds here... suppose I create a visual manifestation of my tulpa Heather and photograph it. I could perhaps use smoke and lights and shadows or even a model. Where does this fall in simulation theory? I realize it's somewhat Blade Runner tier.
>>4531385tfw got a fuji and only shoot in provia and reala ace color profiles
>>4531183right but anything digital is inherently transsince light is not being capturedbut information of lighta simulation of light if you willand then one can argue that, attempting to simulate the real way in which we do capture light into physical structures (film) is more real than what other companies are doing
>>4531467film does not capture light in a more real way than digital does. It's still information, whether you get a physical remnant of it or not. Anyone who tries to differentiate film based on results ends up doing the same mistake than hipster posers do. It's implying there would be no point in shooting film if we were to make a perfect digital simulation (which arguably is already possible if you are highly skilled in digital post processing). The main strength of film is that it gives you a much better framework than digital to practice photography. The entry price to pro quality gear is drastically lower. Mechanical cameras forces you to learn exposure. Delayed feedback forces you to visualize what you want during the shoot and focus on adjusting the variables correctly, because you don't get to just see the result and brute force a random look. You also need to think about this visualization when you pick the film stock, and you don't get to quickly swap halfway during a session. This visualization of what you want is I think the most important skill a photographer should seek, and digital just sucks at training it. Some people will say it's cope but the price per roll is another incentive to think about what you're doing.>you can just do that with digital by turning off the viewfinder and blocking your sd card and shooting jpeg simulation and....yeah ok, well do it, if it works for you great. But chances are, the same way it's a better strategy to not buy sweets than to resist taking them on the cupboard, it's a better strategy to just buy a film camera to learn photo.
>>4531467>muh real ANALOG light capturing film>muh crystalsIt's all the same shit nigga. If you want real then go out and look with your own eyes but even then your eyes are lying to you and your brain is processing all of those crappy, blurry and disjointed visual signals and filling in the gaps on the fly. What I'm trying to say is: none of that shit matters. Snap some pics and enjoy yourself.
>>4531467>and then one can argue that, attempting to simulate the real way in which we do capture light into physical structures (film)But that's not what the OP is pointing out they're doing. They're simulating some idea of what film is.The closest thing to getting a faithful reproduction are the Panasonic organic sensors. They are basically a Judas Priest song (electric eye).
>>4531471>paying money to take fewer photos and let some kid at a 1 hr photo edit your raws is getting good at photographylol its like when redditors put timer delay locks on their weed stash
>>4531516>taking fewer photosI hope you have posted many photo thread this year to feel confident with this accusation (if yes I'm genuinely cool with it)>let some kid at a 1 hr photo edit your raws is getting good at photography I actually home develop and home scan. It is true though film photography is somewhat pointless if you rely on a shit lab. It doesn't negate the whole argument though. Find a good lab or invest in home scanning.
>>4531522Film photography is pointless if your primary purpose is digitizing it. The only reason to use analog media is to produce real photographs — not to promise that your jpeg's origin has philosophical significance.>>4531516>lol its like when redditors put timer delay locks on their weed stashShooting film to scan and saying its making you bette rreally is. Can people not stay off cont high+? It's an expensive capture one preset masked in pretentiousness.
>>4531183They want the aesthetic of bing a "film" photographer, without actually having to sue filmJust like cANON wants the aesthetic of being a photographer, while being a nophoto
>>4531528>Film is pointless if you digitize itWhy?>Real photographsWhat the fuck is that? You mean printing? Because I print my photos myself also>Saying that shooting film makes you better is pretentiousI didn't really say that though, I said it could help you improve? How is that pretentious? I'm just giving advice. If you're doing great with a digital camera then you don't need advice, that's it. Why do you feel attacked by advice?Building a constructive argument against what I said would be great, but since you are only declaring what you think is the truth with absolutely nothing to back it up (which is the mark of a very low IQ,), I feel compelled to ask: How many photos have you taken and printed this year? How many exhibitions have you taken part in? How many prints have you sold, and what part were hand made?and 0 is your answer to all of the above, which, realistically, it is, then why the fuck do you think you're so smart?
>>4531551>Why?You went through all the work and expense of analog to produced a digitally processed digital file. This is inherently hilarious. It is like engaging in organic gardening just to make tomato sauce with a fucktonne of industrially produced additives and added GMO ingredients grown in pure glyphosphate.>What the fuck is that? You mean printing?Analog prints.>I said it could help you improveAnything could do anything, but it doesn't have to, and likely won't. Everything you described on film can be done with any camera. I think the redditors putting timed locks on their weed analogy was brilliant. it implies a total lack of mindfulness and self control.My argument stands on its own.Buying film to shoot jpeg with extra steps is never, ever going to make a person with no mindfulness and self control improve. Someone with those two things can consciously use any camera. Someone who "needs help" will just blast through kodak gold and send it to a lab.
>>4531554I dont see any problem with shooting slide film, digitizing it with a high quality scanner, and making prints that way. Color negative I'm 50/50 on because you can use much higher quality paper with a digital print. B&w is a no brainer for only analog printing.Some films are designed for better scanning even.
>>4531559Film stocks were designed for scanning because digital still cameras didn't actually exceed 35mm's peak quality until around 2008-2010 and cinema cameras didn't even beat imax film until very recently.People tend to forget that digital used to be considered absolute shit instead of "sovl"
>>4531554>It is like...No, it's not like, you goddamn zoomer. Make your brain work a little, explain to me with a rational argument: why is digitizing film pointless?>Analog prints. Am I also forbidden to digitize those or is it good then?>likely won'tAny argument to back that up or...?>You could act like you are shooting film using any camera?Yes, I've actually adressed that in my post. That's my whole point. Most of the value of film is in the process it makes you go through when you shoot. If you wanna act like you shoot with film using a digital camera I guess you can, but 1. you're actually not going to, you're going to rely on the convenience line everyone else and 2. why would you larp as a film shooter with a digital camera? just shoot film.>My argument stands on its own. A comparison is a shit argument though. It's closer to a fallacy than to an actual logical thought process.>Buying film to shoot jpeg with extra steps is never, ever going to make a person with no mindfulness and self control improve. The fact that activities that are too easy and have little manual input are harder to focus on and therefore harder to improve at is a very well backed neuroscience fact though. Again, if you want to state your belief like it's universal truth, then show us your results. How many prints this year anon? How many sales? I'm easy to surpass really, I only printed about 30 and sold about 10. But maybe you have enough intellectual honesty to understand that you can lie to me but not to yourself?>what I said was brilliant nigga are you for real
>>4531560Digital still looks pretty shit for a lot of photography
>>4531561tldr. you pay a premium to shoot jpeg with extra steps>The fact that activities that are too easy and have little manual input are harder to focus on and therefore harder to improve at is a very well backed neuroscience fact thoughall neuroscience says is easy things are easy and don't necessitate improvement. not that you can not improve at things if you want to. you can turn off easy mode. you can shoot consciously with ANY camera.science worshipers are fucking pathetic.>uhm, according to THE SCIENCE, i had to buy this camera because i just cant improve with a digital one. its scientifically impossible! i'm not a consumerist who discounts his own soul and will i'm a BRAIN HACKERstop discounting your soul and willyou dont need a special camera to learn to do photographyyou dont have to give kodak and a film lab money to learn to do photographyyou can just pay attention and resolve to act purposefully. that's it.
>>4531566Cope tbqhFujifilm sims have replaced film for many, and since 40mp xtrans has the same resolution as a ~26mp bayer camera with more (luma dominant) grain and smoother rendering from being oversampled, it's indistinguishable from scanned film except in quirks like halation, and things you can only get through analog printing like films eccentric color gamuts
>>4531569Dunno man. I shoot fuji and I love the images my camera produces but they are not quite film like. I think they are way better than film but also different. Not directly comparable.I actually started by shooting film and later migrated to digital due to cost but now even if film was cheap I'd never go back.
>>4531567t. no photo thread no art project no website no prints no exhibition no salesbut comes to tell me the way I learned photography is invalid
>>4531573The way you learned isn't invalid. Presenting it as a necessity is invalid - as a "brain hack" is stupid - as the only way to escape is foolish. People should use willpower, not wallets, to become better at things. It's almost a waste of film.Film should be shot to learn film itself, not to learn the concept of photography.>nooo you arent active in the art communityI am currently permanently banned from the local gallery for refusing to wear a "free palestine" pin and reminding them the population in gaza actually increased during the "genocide", and then bringing up the 1937 peel commission report when they argued further.
>>4531569I think you're kinda right but still there is a point in saying it's not any digital camera that can seriously challenge high quality film scans. Digital cameras were built with convenience in mind, not image quality, and consumer cameras started getting strictly better only in the 2020s. When you can buy a decent 40mpx camera for 300€ then this argument will be strictly outdated but we're not there yet.
>>4531577Cheapo DSLRs technically surpassed 645 a long time ago, its just that fuji has color grades that are convincingly similar to scanned film built in and makes it very easy to achieve the same smooth look with 0 effort.
>>4531577>When you can buy a decent 40mpx camera for 300€ then this argument will be strictly outdated but we're not there yet.How much does shooting film cost you per year?In two years of owning my digital camera I shot enough photos to pay off the whole thing including lenses, memory cards and other accessories. Film is the cheapest way to get into photography but also the most expensive way to keep taking photos after you learn the basics.
>>4531498> sensor that burns out after certain number of exposuresYeah, I bet the Jap cartel is dreaming of pushing that shit on us.
>>4531581If those sensors were good for million+ exposures then I'd be fine with it.
>>4531569>thinks film only exists in 35mm formatCrazy
>>4531575I never presented it as a necessity, quoting my original post:>The main strength of film is...>digital just sucks at...I just said film was better at doing a specific set of stuff I throughly described, and made sure to emphasize you could also do it with a digital camera but probably you won't. You arguing that you could just use willpower and mindfulness just shows that you don't disagree that film offers a more effective framework to learn, you say you can create this framework by yourself on a film camera, which is super great, but then I'm asking, what is the result? Thanks to this self imposed willpower based framework, are you a fullfiling photographer with art projects, prints, etc? And of course this is the internet so you could lie to me, but if the answer is no, then don't you see your logic defeat itself? And if it's yes then again super cool for you, but why is it wrong for other people to shoot film to get this framework instead of larping as a film shooter with digital camera? And why is monkeying film on digital fine but digitizing film is a crime?>I was banned from the gallery because I was being a hateful spergMy man I wish I could say I'm surprised!
>>4531585you say you can create this framework by yourself on a DIGITAL camera***
>>4531582Imagine buying a used camera and having some vlogger's face burnt into the sensor.I actually don't know if that's what those sensors do, just going off OLED analogy.
>>4531569Laughable Fuji marketing technobabble meant for its clueless customers who don't know the difference between video and stills (hence the luma thing, video can have things like chroma subsampling), don't know metamerism and don't know how real film looks. Fuji garbage can't even replace Bayer (hence why GFX is Bayer) let alone film. Ironically the worms are a lot like poorly handled film (reticulation from bath temperature differences causing the emulsion to crack). The "simulations" are less than a glib facsimile. Like artificial banana flavor, they are nothing like the original (at least the banana flavor has the excuse of tasting similar to what the nearly extinct Gros Michel banana tasted like) )))
>>4531575>I am currently permanently banned from the local gallery for refusing to wear a "free palestine" pin and reminding them the population in gaza actually increased during the "genocide", and then bringing up the 1937 peel commission report when they argued further.Based gallery saying juden raus. 109 soon 110
My favorite thing about fuji cameras is how hard they filter clueless gearfagsThe worms thing for example is just one shitty raw processor and pixel peeping oversharpened jpegs. It doesnt affect competent gear-knowers at all. Only clueless pixel peeping gearcattle.
>>4531578>Cheapo DSLRs technically surpassed 645 a long time agowathow?>fuji has color grades that are convincingly similar to scanned filmcolors? but the highest resolution film out there by far is black and white. film quality is not just color, it's also a resolution defined by the size of clumped grain in the developped emulsion. >achieve the same smooth look ok nevermind you know nothing about film do you>>4531580It's true, it's where film sucks. I'm probably gonna switch back to digital eventually, because I just can't justify paying 20€ to get a roll of professional 35mm color film. But on the other hand I am still unsatisfied with the quality of most affordable digital cameras (below 50mp), so in the meantime Im shooting black and white self developped and self scanned and that's cool too.But even then, shooting film did make me an actual photographer, that's why I'm recommending it for learning. I would not argue a satisfied digital user has to switch to film. I do think though that digital being the default choice has had a bad influence on photography because art is mainly about intention and process to me, and it is difficult to develop that using a tool that does everything for you. But that's a personal opinion.
>>4531498I may be dumb, but is this why sometimes photos in streetlights get this vomit-inducing green tint that's impossible to remove with WB controls (without turning everything magenta instead)?
>>4531596My sony cameras all did that. IDK why but nikon is more able to fix the white balance.
>>4531585>And why is monkeying film on digital fine but digitizing film is a crime?Because digitizing film exposes that "film simulations" are nothing like the film they claim to be based on. It's screaming out loud that the emperor has no clothes. There used to be a site where the slugs would share "film recipes" and it was hilarious how off they were, especially the ones pretending to be Kodachrome.
>>4531585>And why is monkeying film on digital fine but digitizing film is a crime?Shooting jpeg vs shooting jpeg with extra steps>i made a raw file of my raw file and then edited it to make a jpeg-the film scanning and negative inversion/slide correction process
>>4531604The capture process of film is transformative in a way that makes it unique and desirable.
>>4531602Maybe lol, even using the term "film simulation" is either performative or ignorant since it's just color grading.>>4531604>Shooting film is shooting digital with extra stepI guess it's impossible for someone who is not taking photos for art purposes to understand the value of a process independently from the outcome.>because the end product is a jpg it's the sameAnyone who tries to differentiate film based on results ends up doing the same mistake than hipster posers do. That's what I wrote in my first post. that's you. Also, my end products are not jpg. I make prints myself. You should try.
>>4531609It's a bit more than color grading but very little more (some fake grain is added too).And even if your end result were JPEG instead of prints, there would be differences. Because the result of the capture itself is different. When you digitize film you're dealing with a different thing than the original scene was. The film's latitude and its different sensitivities to the different sections of the color spectrum have already changed things. Digital sensors attempt to imitate the sensitivity of the eye, not that of film. Maybe if someone created a sensor that imitated film from the get-go then it'd be closer to film (in a way that's Foveon but not quite). Now imagine trying to sell people a daylight camera, a tungsten camera, a fluorescent camera and so on and so forth. Madness to even try. Who'd buy it when the point of digital is being CHEAP?
>>4531609>to understand the value of a process independently from the outcome.I wish people felt this about the process for digital editingWouldn't need film sims if people bothered to learn how to edit
>>4531612Hot swappable sensors for your 6x6 sized databack? Do it.
>>4531612I'm not sure I understand this argument. Even if I were to print film on paper without any digitizing, it would not be really the photo that's on film, it would be the paper's rendition of the photo that's on film. Also, if you're not shooting slide film, the real image is a negative, you never see it and nobody every pretends it is the real photo. So IMO this argument that digitizing film is losing some inherent quality of the "real film image" is just the result of not understanding at all the nature of film and the process of film photography.
>>4531620>So IMO this argument that digitizing film is losing some inherent quality of the "real film image" is just the result of not understanding at all the nature of film and the process of film photography.Absolutely. It's just some dumb justification for shooting digital "simulations" instead of the real thing. IMO if one's going to shoot digital you might as well embrace the digital look without making some travesty of film.
>>4531626What is the "digital look"? Undeveloped RAWs? Please. Digital is meant to look however you want it to look. Your argument is retarded.
>>4531614Right on. But it's not people's fault. 3 years ago I also believed that film was just about magic colors and digital had been the serious way to take photo since it was invented, because it's the lie the digital industry built to become the default choice of photographers despite being vastly inferior to film at the very least until 2010, more like around 2020 if you ask me. Anyone with functioning eyes and a 3 digit IQ could see that digital pictures were dogshit for most of its existence, provided they ever bothered to learn a bit of photography culture and buy a couple photobooks. Only, that requires a little bit of curiosity and a little bit of effort, while buying expensive new gear gives an effortless instant reward that everyone can appreciate, like buying the latest iPhone. That's why film gained this aura of being the tool for soulful photography while also being scoffed at by prosumers gearfags who believed that surely there newest aps-c 26mp camera was the pinacle of photography technology since the ad said so. That's why people here are wasting their life arguing about micro details on the lineup of X brand. It's easy and comforting. You don't need to get out of the house, and you have a multimillion dollar company providing you with what to think and say.
>>4531634cont.Unfortunately the gearfags won, because everybody feels the pull of buying more, buying the latest, buying the thing the ad says is so much better, and that's much easier and more consistently rewarding than to practice art. What's more, digital cameras provide an entirely automated, baby proofed system where there is nothing to learn if you don't want to, and sell the promise that now you can make art with the click of a button, you just have to chose your flavor: turn the camera towards a mountain, you're just as good as ansel adams. Better actually, because your gear is better than ansel adams. Actually, I have seen many people argue on this very board that with a cheap digital camera you have a better tool than most masters, so why are you complaining? Just be an artist now! Click the button, click it! Turns out, if you feel like clicking a button is not a fulfilling hobby and not sufficient to make art, you're correct anf that's actually obvious to anyone who is not lying to themselves because they can't get out the dopamine loop that is digital gearfagottry. So everyone has a digital camera, but nobody takes photos, while simultaneously telling you taking photos is awesome and make you an artist to keep the lie going.So yeah that's about it. If you feel disillusioned with digital like I was, if you feel like shooting photography is actually boring and lame and just clicking a button, give film a try. It's expensive, it's clunky, people will not understand, but maybe you will understand what I mean when I say it's about the process not the result.
>>4531626I would have a different conclusion personally. If you like film color, learn color grading, you lazy bum. The digital look as you call it to me is only an unprocessed canvas made to offer you as much latitude as possible to create your own style. Film is pre processing colors because they didn't have easy access to computer processing and instead chemically engineered color grading right in the emulsion. But you can do it yourself now, so why click on presets instead of actually doing the thing if it's your hobby?
>>4531630>Digital is meant to look however you want it to lookSo is film. But film has a grain structure and digital a CFA structure, and their behave in different ways.>>4531634>>4531635They have different strengths, I wouldn't necessarily argue one is superior to the other. But digital is MUCH cheaper. That's the main advantage it has. It's also easier as you said, but even then sometimes film is the easier way to get the look you want, for example if you're into lomography.What film doesn't let you do unless you have infinite money is indulge in shooting randomly and hoping to strike gold, digislugging in other words. Digital is superior when it comes to snapshits, but loses that edge when you do real photography (art). And the emulsion works better than the sensor at being like a memory. Film photography is like a form of alchemy. Digital sensors are best for machine vision.
>>4531639And you can add grain to digital, or add different graininess to film (alt processes like bromoil (which you can also do with digital negs)). They behave in different ways, so what? All that matters is the final image. Are you into photography so you can obsess over gear like an autist or so you can take pictures?
>>4531641as repeated a bazillion time throughout the thread, you will never understand film of you only think of it in term of result. The process matters.
>>4531634I disagree. Digital is the better tool, hands down, objectively speaking. Those automated functions allow you to focus more on composition, in theory, though they can let someone as you say be less intentional with their art. But that is just a matter of discipline; don't blame the tool. Your "just pressing a button" argument falls flat because you are also "just pressing a button" with film cameras. Billions of garbage snapshots were shot on film too. Anyone disciplined and skilled can produce good work with a digital camera. They will compose right, expose right, slow down and make sure they get the best image.>>4531642Why shouldn't I think the result is more important than the process used to get there? The process isn't always the be-all end-all if you can arrive at the same result another way. The final image matters the most. People get attached too much to processes, because they make producing that final image more or less fulfilling.
>>4531643What if I specifically want the large format film look? Is digital still the better tool? I think it's stupid to say one is better than the other in all regards because the camera is simply a tool to achieve an end goal. If a huge 11x14 camera is what you need to achieve your vision then that is the best tool hands down, objectively speaking.
>>4531643That makes sense, but I'm specifically addressing how digital being the default option makes people less intentional with their art. I don't have much to say to someone who enjoy creating art with digital tools. But I can't help but notice that digital created a layer of confusion around what makes photography art, and that seem to have hurt photography in general. I think that's what we're seeing on this forum being overrun by gearfags who don't understand what photography is.>you are also "just pressing a button" with film camerasFirst I chose the film depending on the conditions and my objective, something you don't do with digital. Then, I have to pay attention to the light meter and understand how it works because of I don't, the photo won't look how I want it to look, and I have no way to brute force it, I have to know. Then I press the button, but it carries a different weight than on digital, because I can only press it a certain amount of time and I am using one. Then, I develop the film, potentially adapting the development process to how I want the image to look, again without direct feedback so I must know what I'm doing. Then digitizing forces me again to have a minimal input on how I want the final image to look. So, no, I'm not just pushing a button, I'm doing much more. Again, yeah, you can have convoluted processes with lots of intervention on digital, if you really want to. But film can teaches you the value of it, if ever you need to, which I did.>Why shouldn't I think the result is more important than the process1. It is not more important, but if one process teaches you something while the other does everything for you, then one will enable beginners to learn more.2. In art, process and result are one. I cannot logically defend it, but I do think there is value in the process in itself, even if it is apparently invisible in the end result, because the process shapes the result.
>>4531646>First, I buy my lightroom preset>Then, I use a camera>And instead of dragging a gradient mask in post, I pay for gradient filters>etcYeah it's just paying to shoot jpeg with extra steps, and many of the skills you learn are irrelevant to superior technology like pre-masking skies and using skylight/warming/fld filters (actually, a lot of artificial light filters are now irrelevant in the west because LEDs have basically random spectra)
>>4531647nigga your life is dying with extra steps
>>4531649FoolI am already immortal in the astral plane
>>4531646Your preference for the film process is valid, but when it comes to art, how art will be viewed, the result matters most, not how you make it. Process and result aren't one, they are distinct. Viewers don't care what specific camera or film or lens we use to make an image. Our preferred process can make taking pictures fulfilling for us but it doesn't makes the image artful beyond how it makes it look a certain way. Just the fact that you have to choose a certain film, pay attention to your light meter, etc. doesn't make something more an artful than something that is more beautiful but done with less intention. Ken Rockwell makes technical choices all the time and look terrible how his stuff turns out. Meanwhile PH Emerson and Frederick H Evans were retarded about never retouching their negatives, they just straight printed, and yet their art is better than anything Ken can ever make.
>>4531651The process can absolutely be a part of the art.
>>4531658Process and result are distinct. Process leads to result. The process isn't art itself, the process helps you make your art. A process has value in that it gives works of art certain characteristics but has no value beyond this.
>>4531651>Just the fact that you have to choose a certain film, pay attention to your light meter, etc. doesn't make something more an artful than something that is more beautiful but done with less intention.That's true, I simply have the belief that this care will create better art, but it's not a given at all.>how art will be viewed, the result matters most, not how you make it.That's quite an old fashioned way to view art. Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but just pointing out it's not the standard nowadays. There's a very famous photographic project by Tehching Hsieh where he took a photo of himself every hour for one year. None of the individual photos or the final result have anything beautiful or remarkable really. What matters is that those photos are the witness of a strange and extreme experience the artist imposed on himself. This is one example of art where the process is arguably more important than the result, and photo is actually a prevalent media in this kind of project because of how easy it is to setup. That's just an example to illustrate where art is at nowadays according to most artists and institutions, but maybe you will say you don't consider it art.I have another argument, again something personal I cannot quite prove. I am convinced that photography's value as an art comes from the capture of a real world scene. I wouldn't care much about most photo books I own if it were generated by AI. Not because I inherently hate AI or anything, but I just think it's neat, that those were real places and moments. I know it was shaped and interpreted by the artist's vision, but that's exactly the fine line you walk in photography, that's the edge it has over painting which allows for much deeper personnal expression but lacks the reality photo has baked into it.
>>4531660cont.I think I need to clarify: the fact photography has value as an art form that is based on the capture of a real scene illustrate how the process matters. If the photography is AI generated, it loses much of its value to me, even when it's totally possible to create an AI photo that will be indistinguishable from a real photo. The only difference is where the photo comes from, the process.
>>4531659Not completely true. If your process contributes to the message, theme, idea you're trying to say it absolutely can. Like a photograph of chickens or eggs and then the print is made with albumen printing technique.
>>4531661We are talking about something different now.First, the process: digital vs film - the chosen process doesn't matter beyond how it makes an image look. If there is something that hypothetically speaking you can only do on film, then you need to use that to make it. If it can be made on digital just as well, the final result is no more artful than if you chose another way to make it, all else being equal. The resultant image looks the same.That discussion is different from that which differentiates art made by men and "art" made by machines. It's not possible for AI to make art, because AI is not a rational living being, with a conception of Truth , Beauty, and Goodness; or emotions; that creates to communicate something of these aforesaid things to other rational beings i.e. men. It does not create art but digital soup made of real art scanned and crushed into 1s and 0s. As a rational being it is a fake. Any "art" it makes is fake.
>>4531662I'm in agreement with you though I could have chosen better wording. If your process contributes to your message, yes, it matters. Beyond that it only has value in the appearance of the final image. What I'm really trying to say is Film is no more artful to use than Digital, if they can both produce the same result visible on the paper. Which they can, if you are willing to edit digital to look that way.
>>4531664No digital can't always look like film and film cant always look like digital. Sometimes, but definitely not always.
>>4531668The manipulation you can do to either digital or film on a computer is incredible. At least with a digital photo, you 100% can make it look indistinguishable from film to a viewer. It's ridiculous to think you can't, because whatever you shoot on film you can replicate by using the same vintage lens, matching the colors 1:1, and simulating any other effects in your chosen software. It's only a matter of skill and effort. Not saying you should do this, but you can.
>>4531669Cope harder. You cannot perfectly replicate the look of film on a computer or with digital prints, especially 4x5 or larger contact prints. Are you going to say that digital can unmistakably replicate wetplates next?Prove me wrong and post your digitally captured image that looks exactly like a drum scanned 8x10 negative.
>>4531669Your point about lenses is also incorrect because you can achieve DoF shallower than is physically possible with a digital sensor.Most lenses do not look the same when shot on digital versus film as well.
>>4531669Shallow DoF on large film, specifically. An f3 lens on 8x10 has something like a f0.4 equivalent DoF on FF.
>>4531670Yes, provided the digital camera is of the right specs, with the right lens, edited correctly.Your estrogen levels, however, are not something I can replicate.
>>4531673>copes harder>projectsAppreciate the concession, bb. :) Learn a little more about photography before spewing such strong opinions. You'll come off a little less stupid sounding when you inevitably bring this exact same argument up again. KEK
Reminder that for all this talk of editing, we have almost no engagement when it comes to actual editing threadsThis is just another example of people talking about things they don't actually do
>>4531641>And you can add grain to digitalBut it's fake and looks that way too. You're copying the accidental features of film, trying to mask the fact that the Essential is not there. You don't have film, you have some added grain that reminds you of what you culturally believe film is.
>>4531643>Why shouldn't I think the result is more important than the process used to get there?Because the process leads to the result. You think you can get the same result, but the artist is influenced by the process itself. In fact when you argue >Those automated functions allow you to focus more on compositionwhat you're arguing is that the digital PROCESS is better. So you have defeated your own argument that the process doesn't matter.
>>4531645Exactly. The biggest tragedy with faux-film shooters is that they're wrestling a medium into becoming a mockery of something it's not and will never be.
>>4531676Notice most of the people pulling shit out of their ass literally never post photos and are making it about "their side" in a gear console war with a heavy focus on hating some popular brandAnd a lot of it is one guy who famously singlehandedly gearfagged /fag/ to death
>>4531681I wouldnt be suprised if he says you can simulate extremely shallow DoF with digital editing and it indistinguishable from the real deal lol
>>4531672DOF is the same for all formats, using the same theoretical lens. Format has no effect on DOF, only the perceived field of view, which leads you to make focal length/aperture choices for the same perceived FOV that affect DOF.>>4531680>So you have defeated your own argument that the process doesn't matter.Nope, you're confused. The argument is: the result is more important than the process and if two processes can theoretically produce the same result, go with the better process. To my line of thinking this is the easier process, but others have their own preferences.>>4531683Theoretically you can. I am not for or against it.
>>4531670Not with one shot no, but brenizer gets you whatever DoF and resolution you want, can go even more extreme than 4x5 much easier too
>>4531684You have no clue what you're talking about, but I'm all for you doubling down on your stupidity.The only way to achieve the large format film look is with a large format camera and film. Please show me otherwise with an image rather than your ignorant babbling.
>>4531687I don't have to, this is just the laws of optics. I'm not sure why they get you mad but you seem pretty emotional of a person.
>>4531689>DOF is the same for all formatsBut micro four thirds needs a really fucking soft, manual focus only f0.9 that costs four figures to still underperform a $75 canon ef 50mm f1.8 stm with the same fov/dof/actual equivalent expsoure (and to hit full equivalence it has to be on a panasonic camera with better sensor tech)It's like, yeah, sure, you can theoretically do what you can do on 8x10 on full frameWhere is your tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lens? is it any good?
>>4531647This is idiotic in so many levels. Film is so much more than a "lightroom preset". Only someone who has no relevant experience with it would believe such bullshit.>>4531649kek, pwnd>>4531651>Viewers don't care what specific camera or film or lens we use to make an image.They don't, but the process influenced what the image ended up being.>Our preferred process can make taking pictures fulfilling for us but it doesn't makes the image artful beyond how it makes it look a certain way.Here it depends, because developing is part of the process, enlarging is part of the process, manipulating the light before it hits the film is part of the process (and achieves different things than on digital). The other day I went to a friend's concert and recorded some on my phone. As expected from digishit, the narrow spectrum lighting made it look like hot trash at parts. And it's a Hasselblad camera my phone has, it's not some turbochink phone. If it were film, it'd be a lot more gracious.>Just the fact that you have to choose a certain film, pay attention to your light meter, etc. doesn't make something more an artful than something that is more beautiful but done with less intention.It actually does, because the beauty or lack of it isn't what makes it art but the artist's input is. When you choose what to keep and what to discard with a light meter you're already taking artistic decisions.>Ken Rockwell makes technical choices all the time and look terrible how his stuff turns out.Doesn't make it less art>Meanwhile PH Emerson and Frederick H Evans were retarded about never retouching their negatives, they just straight printed, and yet their art is betterAnsel Adams talked extensively about this, the importance of previsualizing the photograph. Ironically there's a chance these guys would have taken much more forgettable pictures if they didn't have to make the shot count.>than anything Ken can ever make.Not even worth commenting on this.
>>4531662That is so pretentious lol, that's not adding to the art but is meta-art instead which is how we got in this shit place to begin with.
>>4531689You're correct, but you're missing the obvious practical/reality, which makes you wrong in the stupidest way possible. If you're doing a headshot with a 300mm lens on 35mm you have to increase your distance from the subject substantially, so the DoF will not be the same on 35mm as it is with 300mm on 8x10. Usually with 300mm you are roughly 4 feet away from your subject for a headshot. The equivalent FL is around 42mm...>>4531686Half of the brenizer shots I see online look like garbage. Im sure you can get a great result. You can also just take 60 shots with a 300mm lens and stitch them all together to get the equivalent DoF and FoV of 8x10 lol
>>4531698The albumen print has it's own look that influences the look of the image along with having a fun meta layer. Pretentious in the best way possible.
>>4531694>you can theoretically do what you can do on 8x10 on full frameThen we are in agreement.>Where is your tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lens? is it any good?I don't have one. I don't need it for the kinds of photos I like to take.>>4531700I don't see how I'm wrong in any stupid way. I never said you >Should create FF images that look like 8x10 images, only that it's possible. You're debunking an argument that doesn't exist.
>>4531700>You can also just take 60 shots with a 300mm lensInteresting to have such a strong opinion about a technique you have no experience withThere are plenty of calculators online that can give you equivalent DoF/FL
>>4531684>Format has no effect on DOF, only the perceived field of view, which leads you to make focal length/aperture choices for the same perceived FOV that affect DOF.The thing is, the format determines the crop of said theoretical lens, in other words the framing. To fit more in the same format with the same length, you step back. That changes perspective AND DoF.>if two processes can theoreticallyThat's a massive leap. You're forgetting the artist himself is part of the process.>>4531687They're forgetting a large format camera has an uniform focal plane while the Brenizer method is almost like photographing on a section of a spherical sensor. They're also forgetting that the focal plane can be wedge-shaped on cameras with movements.>>4531694>Where is your tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lens? is it any good?This is where they can't match it. Some bizarre contraption would be required to replicate that kind of thing.
>>4531706>has never touched a view camera or seen a contact print>talks with authority about itWhy would I ever waste my time doing that? It's an example of one way you could simulate 8x10 DoF with a ff camera.>>4531706Ignoring the practical reality is remarkably stupidly or just ignorant.
>>4531709I mean, I work at a photo lab so...>It's an example of one way you could simulate 8x10 DoF with a ff camera.True>Ignoring the practical reality is remarkably stupidlyI agree it was very dumb of them
>>4531708>To fit more in the same format with the same length, you step back. That changes perspective AND DoF.Yes, I know.>You're forgetting the artist himself is part of the process.Yes, irrespective of whether he shoots digital or film. I'm just saying that ceteris paribus wrt to the final print, go with the easier process, unless you prefer film for fun etc.>They're forgettingI'm not the one advocating the Brenizer method. That's somebody else.>tilt-shift 35mm f1.1 prime lensAdmittedly I can't think of anything to match it, but I don't use these lenses and probably never will, so I don't know anything about them. Something might be adaptable.
ITT: gearfags arguing about film vs digital instead of actually shooting film or digital
>>4531714You would need an insanely huge lens to get enough projection for f1.1 and the ability for camera movements.
>>4531718I've only said it's theoretically possible to replicate 8x10 digitally, not that it's something I think should be done or can be done practically.When I wrote those first posts about replicating film digitally, I meant film and its equivalent digital format, given the context of this thread (film sims vs the real thing). I should have been clearer.In actual fact I recommendeded ITT that people use the more convenient process (digital OR film), in cases where you wouldn't be able to tell in the final print whether something was, say, 35mm or FF in origin. Of course, if people simply prefer film for personal reasons, that's perfectly fine. Go make pretentious albumin prints of eggs all you want.
>>4531714>Admittedly I can't think of anything to match it, but I don't use these lenses and probably never will, so I don't know anything about them. Something might be adaptable.You may want to look into view cameras, one of the big things about them is that the lens and the film aren't necessarily parallel. That's why the limits of the DoF become like a wedge. >Yes, irrespective of whether he shoots digital or film. I'm just saying that ceteris paribus wrt to the final print, go with the easier process, unless you prefer film for fun etc.I'm arguing the differences in the process influence the artist. Gursky wouldn't be the same without digital manipulation.
>>4531723Well I would agree with you there. I think people should just make an informed decision without slavishly saying film or digital is necessarily best. If one likes how film makes him shoot, he can shoot digital like it's film. Make more effort to previsualize, be more intentional, possibly not even review images until later. Meanwhile he would have the big benefit of no expenses for film, chemicals or sending things off to labs.
>>4531721albumen*
>>4531724>Make more effort to previsualize, be more intentionalOne should do this even if he doesn't shoot film, it's how you can abandon snapshits.>possibly not even review images until laterI don't think this one adds much, but learning to shoot without the preview definitely helps.It's when you start being dependent on crutches like exposure simulation that it really hurts the artist's eye.Not even saying one shouldn't ever use it, there's legitimate uses for it. But it should never replace the ability of previsualizing the photograph.
>>4531717Truly odd! They have conflated participating in photography accessory discussion with participating in photography itself!If one wants to talk about the signified dying at the hands of the signifier... hahahaha
>>4531726Guess my autocorrect had the pin pen merger
>>4531728>They have conflated participating in photography accessory discussion with participating in photography itself!Who has?
>>4531730You have, you idiot. Going online and making hills to die on instead of going outside and seeing hills.
>>4531732There's a pataphor to be constructed on top of your metaphor but I can't think of one right now
>>4531438>Where does this fall in simulation theory?Squarely into "glownigger shit" just like the rest of theosophy, that's where.
>>4531735>>4531739Step away from the screen and go do something else for a bit.
>>4531663I'm back>Film vs digital doesn't matter beyond how the final image lookI agree, but this statement changes meaning if you consider that if I didn't shoot film, I wouldn't have learned what enables me to do what I do nowadays. Perhaps I could obtain the same images using digital, but still shooting film, the process, influenced my output, what I'm doing today.>AI art is by definition fake artWell this is agreeing with me. Consider 2 images, 1 a real photograph, 1 an AI generated image carefully crafted so that there is no visible sign it was generated (which is possible nowadays). You're saying that knowing how it was made reveals if it is fake art or not independently or the result.
I shoot 35mm film and Fuji both. What now?
I hate reality-distorters. I use the camera's built in picture profiles to match reality with what I see in the viewfinder, maybe I boost the shadows in post, but that's it. Could I have gotten more attention and praise if I juiced up the saturation? Surely, but then I'd feel like a phony.You can make boring images look more stimulating by doing so, but this takes away from the ability to photograph interesting subjects creatively and I don't care what cope those who's creativity consists of dragging sliders in their preferred editing software have to say about it.They have gotten used to getting attention with little effort which obviously will affect how they take photos since the likes keep coming in which at the end of the day is the only metric they care about.Film may be equally gay and fake as digital in some ways, but the main appeal I feel is less ability to do so in a time where gayness is increasing all around us.Social media influencers selling their own presets is quite representative of current trends. For me it is unfathomable that there is money in to begin with.
>>4531767But isn't manipulating reality how you infuse intent in your photographs, i.e the point of art? It doesn't sound great when you call it "slider pushing" but what about creative printing processes, what about in camera manipulation using special lenses or film, and what is fundamentally weong with slider pushing if I do it to achieve the vision I have? The assumption that I am searching for attention by manipulating my images actually says a lot about your set of values, but not necessarily about what other actually feel.
>>4531767>I don't even understand what the point of editing isTrue
>>4531780>>4531781That's stage two, in a good way. A possible stage three would be doing dodge and burn on a photo and calling it a Dennis Stock or Ansel Adams. Stage four would be selling a course on dodging and burning and calling it a Dennis Stock or Ansel Adams course. Or doing like Nvidia does with its Ansel software that has nothing to do with Ansel Adams either. Or Tesla cars which run on DC. Or Apple phones which have nothing to do with apples. Or fiat money.
>>4531785This really is useless babble for miserable people who like to feel smart when they aren'tIt's somewhere between "whales are fish, birds are dinosaurs" and "actually, in *shithole culture*, ..., so its subjective" on the pseud scale
>>4531789Your post is a self preferential pure simulacrum of intelligence that you use to mask the absence of your own intelligence
>>4531794>needs 21 words to say "no u"
>>4531795It's not "no u", it's a Baudrillardian deconstruction of your train of thought
According to /lit/ the OP is a clanker and the rest of you dysgenic retarded consoomerslollmao
>>4531804canon, cinefag, go. do your thing. wreck their board. we're counting on you.>>>/lit/25562638
>>4531804You mean one salty fag that hasn't left his house in 3 months because he's reading books?
>>4531816>hasn't left his house in 3 months because he's reading booksGod I wish that were me
>>4531809Where do you imagine they got so full of themselves? They're /lit/ infiltrators like everyone else from the /film/ generals on /tv/.
>>4531766Close /p.
>>4531901>They're /lit/ infiltratorsSome of my works have been featured on /lit/ ezines but not THIS /lit/. And no, I won't tell where so you can go ruin it.>the /film/ generals on /tv/.I don't recall ever posting there
>>4531796>le Baudrillardian deconstruction of a train of thoughtThis has to be a troll, no way you're this much of a midwit
>>4531767So you prefer the mediocre prosaic to the poetic ideal. You've missed the point of ART. Sometimes the reality of a thing is best expressed by little exaggerations.
>>4531940Go back to your cell, faggot >>4531935You weren't authorized to leave
>>4531946>guy who says Baudrillardian calling others gayLol
>>4531946The direction you're taking the gear threads is making it extremely obvious you're some /mu/ /gg/ reject>inb4 i died in a motorcycle crash o algo
>>4531952He died and you can check on https://sinec.pbh.gov.br/Just write "Samuel Campos Faria" on the "nome do falecido" field. Apparently he killed himself.See https://archive.4plebs.org/o/thread/27490787/#27496730Now you can stop accusing random people of being Sam.
>>4531955kek wtf i didnt even know about thisi thought it was just more cANON larping
>>4531959>cANON>larping>>4531955Wew I thought the crash was the cause of death. Apparently the gas inhalation is from June that year so it's hard to know for sure.
>>4531183>realityLel, there's no reality independent of your mind. Political philosophy is the most braindead branch of philosophy.
>>4532001>Dude, there's like, no reality independent of your miiind, dude.I exist despite you. If not, your own mind is calling you a retard just now, and that is pathetic.
>>4531191>Buy E100>Take 36 snapshits at EI 12800>Push process +7>???>??????
>>4532016I don't think that works because the light wouldn't push the exposure past the minimum light/toe on the exposure curve. You can pull some b&w films more than 7 stops and still get good results, but that's much different than slide film.
>>4532012>I exist despite you.Prove it There's no reality, everything is relative and open to interpretation.
>>4532018This is your own mind speaking. You are the most retarded person on earth.
>>4532019Just accept that your religion is politics and stop bothering people with mumbo jumbo academic careerist dogshit masquerading as "philosophy".
>>4532017Portra could maybe do it but I'm pretty sure it'd be grain city by the time you get to 12800, even if you started with Portra 800.
>>4531295BEHOLD, PLATO'S CAMERA
>>4532021>mumbo jumbo academic careerist dogshitBut that's what relativism is. Btw you're retardedt. Your mind>inb4 responds to me even though I'm not real kek
>>4532026I cannot use this because I am not a teen
>>4532001Descartes proved you wrong centuries ago
People should shoot a wider variety of film stocksPretty interesting for all the talk of film here, how rarely specific stocks get brought upMakes one wonder
>>4532026>no OVFJust another cave shadow projector
>>4531739>theosophyLet's just call her an imaginary being and sidestep the autism you're introducing. Now where does she fall?
>>4531767Reality is in your mind. Take LSD.
Ironic how /lit/'s thread has more interesting things to say about photography than the average /p/haggot
>>4532368Wtf are you talking about. They're just saying 101 stuff about matrix and baudrillard. Even if there's a lot of retards here at least they are voicing their opinion on the media not just parroting a surface level understanding of the CCK philosophy and no-youing each other ad nauseam
>>4532370They even brought up his photography, something NO ONE here did. And like I always tell you guys, the danger lies in the blurring of the frontier between truth and untruth. When you embrace a simualtion as a reality you lose contact with reality itself. The material world is already something we perceive through an internal layer of abstraction, the challenge is being able to discern the Real shining through veil of the Fake.
>no one honestly engaged with me or talked about baudrillard they just talked about how irritatingly dumb i am for spamming an anti-fuji marketing campaign 24/7The anti-fuji shilling on the behalf of nophotos/notphotogs is a bigger deal than whatever your favorite /lit/ pseud said tbqh
>>4532449You keep saying "pseud" without knowing what it means, hilarious
/lit/ on Baudrillard doing photography:>That's a bad sign. Photographers are usually idiots.It stung more than anything /p/ has said to me for some reason :(
>>4532459People who larp as photographers are even bigger idiots. At least you’re not one of them.
>>4532473That's the thing, usually /p/ either calls me a no photo or makes dumb inaccurate criticisms about my photos just as a way to regain perceived lost izzat from me making suggestions. It has no basis in reality so it falls flat. /lit/ says because I'm a photographer I must be an idiot, and even though I don't agree it stings. Maybe it hurts to think I may come across as an idiot to some people I have respect for, just for doing photography. There's only one place on /p/ that managed to hurt me before and that's /vid/. I could care less what some streetslop poster says but when /bid/ speaks I listen.
>>4532477Ok nophoto.
>>4532478See, this idiocy is why it stings. The average idiot-photographer on /p/ can't even form a coherent statement, only say "no photo".
>>4532477>>4532491resisting the temptation to just answer "no photo", I will ask, do you have a photographic project going on, and are you sharing it on /p? I stopped caring what idiot thought about photography the moment I had something like this going on, because I love the art process so much I couldn't care less about someone saying it's not art. It's art because I am pouring my soul into it, that's all. maybe it sucks to some, but it doesn't matter, because the only way it would ever not suck, is if I go through this loving it.
>>4532459You'll realize sooner or later many MANY photo essays are made by nophotos, and half of them jewish too for some reasonOnly proven photographers or editors can make an opinion on the medium as a craft, rather than as a consumption luxury or sociocultural object and these are null anyways for the intends of expression using a camera.Ansel was right even if his chief opponents were the ones who gave him the spotlight to begin with
>>4532492I'm doing a project about the town's origins mining coal, documenting the locations. I usually try to get the same framing as some historical archive photos. My goal is to raise awareness.
>>4532494You're right but as an amateur small time photograoher on 4chan it can be risky to write an opinion piece next to your actual artworks, you could upset some retards that end up defacing your socials or whatever. It's bad because it allows gearfags who never leave they room to feel like they are as legitimate as actual photographers to share their opinion on the media, but it's also good because as a photographer you don't get special credit for your opinion and end up having to actually form one that holds up to the most common fallacies. For an art as criticized as photo is important to have a bit of a tough skin and a thorough opinon.
>>4532498Why do you care about what people say then? It's a deeper question than it seems. What would you need to do so that you wouldn't need someone else's approval to feel like what you're doing is worthwhile enough that it cannot be dismissed by someone who has not even seent it?
>>4532500Because I guess it could be argued that I'm a pseud, a hack fraud, a larper for basically trying to redo what others did many decades ago. I guess part of me agrees that it's imitation because I'm too much of an idiot to come up with something wholly original and worth shooting. I guess I'm doing more journalism than art but my idiot inflated ego wants to call it art.
>>4532494>You'll realize sooner or later many MANY photo essays are made by nophotosWrong>and half of them jewish too for some reasonBecause they are smarter on average and can afford EDCable real cameras like leica, fuji, and sony
>>4532501I really don't understand how retaking old photos today to show what changed makes you a hack or a pseud. Seems like a project where photography is a highly logical choice to me. You say it's others people opinion that hurts you, but it seems to me that other people's opinion only hurt you because they echo your own insecurities. I think what's hurting you most is that you believe:>I'm too much of an idiot to come up with something wholly original and worth shooting.But don't you see that is a self fulfilling prophecy? You're like a checkers player saying "I'm never learning chess because I know I'm too dumb to enter a ranked tournament". It's really obvious you actually want to try to do something with a more complex intent than retaking photos of the past, and you're not doing it not only because you are afraid to fail, but because just thinking you may succeed is arrogance to you? Damn, you'll never do anything in your sad life if you don't give yourself license to suck. Sucking is doing the work. Failing to come up with a worthy art project is doing art, you're just convinced otherwise because you only see the end result of successful artists.
>>4532501>>4532516cont.I've been there so here's a couple advice:1. Pursue your project. You will not figure out how to make great art just by thinking. You need to go through the process, fail, suck, feel like it's a waste of your time, adjust and try again until you find the missing pieces.2. Add contraint and make it difficult, it's a trick to make it feel meaningful. If you're just looking at an archive photo that's easy to locate, going there and pushing the button, it might feel like this is too low effort to be worthwhile. You could for example find someone who was alive at the time the old photo was taken and have a short interview, let him press the shutter himself, etc. What I did is home developing, scanning, and printing with handmade alternative processes. Makes me feel like i'm doing something valuable.3. Find community. This is not optional, nobody ever goes through extreme efforts to do something only them values. Your friends and gf don't give a shit about your project, sorry. You have to interact with people who pursue the same goal as you to be inspired, and clients that come to you because they like your stuff to be motivated. Forget about Nietzsche, there's nothing wrong with searching for a supporting environment.
>>4532477Are you one of those tripfags who has literally never demonstrated any photographic skill whatsoever and mostly just derails every thread screeching about any brands that remind you of sex-havers?
>>4532510>Because they are smarter on average and can afford EDCable real cameras like leica, fuji, and sony(Non-orthodox Ashkenazi) Jews are smarter and often wealthier, but there are very few of them so there are more people with IQs 115+ (or even 130+) and fat wallets in any given ethnicity than there are jews on earth, so it's not the whole explanation. It's because photography is very much part of Jewish culture now. Gentiles who are into photography as an art form are weird and often seen as people who failed out of "whiter" art forms like sculpture, painting, and music. Jews who do photography as an art form are a dime a dozen and there's a clear fondness for the photographic arts among Ashekanzim. And for a fascinating reason:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train>German "employees" disembarking from the ocean liner Bremen at a New York pier went to Leitz's Manhattan office, where they were helped to find jobs. Each new arrival was given a Leica camera. The refugees were paid a stipend until they could find work. Out of this migration came designers, repair technicians, salespeople, marketers, and writers for the photographic pressNoticing that there are a lot of Jewish photographers is like noticing that there are a lot of Asian violinists.>surely this is a conspiracy
>>4532529You're retconning history, Jews have been influencing photography since the 1800s and some of their most prominent were in USA since before WW2
>>4532533Jews have historically been influential, no shit. When your culture's motto is basically "you deserve to succeed", your religion doesn't shut you out of lucrative essential industries like banking, everyone is literate, and studying holy lawyers arguing with eachother (the talmud) is mandatory you're going to outdo illiterate peasants who dont ask no questions and just listen to the local priest. This effect faded with the beginning of the modern age and Jews are no longer just overrepresented, they have a closer cultural connection to art photography than anyone else. It's something Jews just do and have a cultural fondness for.A goy from the rich elite doing photography is typically seen as a pothead who couldn't even learn a respectable musical instrument. For a goy, being an art photographer is like being a poet or being a science teacher instead of an actual scientist. It's stereotyped as a loser's interest.
>>4532533>>4532539would it be to much to ask you take you crackpot theories to /pol /b or /trash? In a normal forum you'd be permabanned but since this place is essentially unmoderated for some reason i'm asking politely instead.
>>4532539Wrong, Gursky is an example of such a goy.The thing is Jewish photography is its own thing and a reflection of Jewish neuroses, as well as nepotistic. Why does Mark Cohen's photography have a place in galleries, when it's random trash? Because he's a Cohen, that's why. They're basically failed test shots.It's a racket.
>>4532540>I just wanted to say "wow for SOME REASON all these successful photographers are jews WEIRD HUH" don't add legitimate historical context i was implying they cheated their way to success and had ulterior motives i hope they permaban you reeeeeyeah sorry your little post here >>4532494 and its antisemitic implications did not standyour "for some reason" has been fleshed out. it's not "a consumption luxury or sociocultural object ... null anyways". it's art. the jews who succeedd in photography while you didn't succeeded because a lot of jews do photography, so inevitably, a lot succeed. there are a bunch of successful jewish photographers because more jews do photography. it's a bigger part of their culture than it is for you. there are also a lot that didn't succeed.its not like this generic cANON anti-fuii shilling thread is worth a fuck anywayswas OP gonna post his photos?no he's the neo-nazi nophoto cANON. he has literally never posted photos just irrelevant pseudointellectual rants about the philosophical purity of viewfinders and jpeg presets based on some schizo shit he read on /lit/.https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/username/cANON/filter/text/
>>4532546>Why does Mark Cohen's photography have fans when I myself do not like it and most importantly I hate him for being Jewish?>Doesn't the world know that anything but neo-classical wank is just Jews being crazy and evil because Jews bad?Mark Cohen's photography is in galleries because it's good. It was refreshing for the time, it's refreshing today. It's still an uncommon perspective, it still looks cool, and it's still more thought provoking (especially in the context of the broader world of art photography) than a wanker neo-nazi aping ansel adams ad infinitum.You're an intellectually dishonest antisemite. The whole of your belief system is just you constructing arbitrary standards that carefully tiptoe around justifying Jewish success. Even when you "define" art, your standards for intent are so arbitrary and purpose built for antisemitic horseshit that you will call ansel adams a real artist for waiting to press a button and spot metering trees and rocks, and then deny that Garry Winogrand ever was one when not only did he exhibit masterful timing, precise framing, and intentmaxx so hard he evaluated his lenses for their atmospheric rendering, his darkroom work was essential to crafting his signature aesthetic. Winogrand influenced cinema, adams influenced flickr. For fucks sakes.Why the fuck is a neo-nazi like you even on a board for Photography, an art form that has historically been and always will be popular with Jews, when you don't even *DO* photography?
>>4532547I have litteraly no idea what you are talking about and why you thought adequate to say it to me. Are you aware you are mentally ill?
>>4532547>was OP gonna post his photos?No, because I figured it'd be a good thread idea to lure both cANON and cinefag in. I even put some words from the filter list so that the thread wouldn't get polluted but it did anyways. It's still an engagement success.
>>4532552I'm sorry you are illiterate and butt in to conversations you have not readNothing said here should offend you. Jews are successful in photography because they actually try to be and there is a real reason they try to be. Not a conspiracy. Meanwhile non-jews have a sort of active dislike for photography, associating it with drop-outs and voyeurs. It's really no wonder there's not much competition.
>>4532556mask status: off
>>4532550>Mark Cohen's photography is in galleries because it's good.>pic related
>>4532560YesTo be fair, you need high level pattern recognition skills to appreciate photographers of his caliber, and real ones, since kids these days call swallowing /pol/ propaganda "pattern recognition" (ya'll conspiracy theorists don't even know the Rothschilds weren't important until they married into the Aldobrandinis)
>>4532563I recognize it as the slop it is, unlike you with my thread. Did you know an AI did the heavy lifting?/lit/ called it out in minutes./p/ didn't know until now.That's the difference, you can't tell slop from the real thing.
>>4532565I don't analyze your posts for AI content at all. You're so fucking retarded no one would ever be able to tell you from grok.
>>4532571>he needs an AI to tell him if a text is AIngmi
>>4532572>he thinks I was talking about using an AI, and not just paying attentionyou are so dumb i dont bother reading your posts critically. you've never said anything of value and lean heavily on cherry picked data to conjure non-facts and fulfill your agendas.
>>4532565What pathetic cope
>cANON got bullied out of using his trip
>>4532539>For a goy, being an art photographer is like being a poet or being a science teacher instead of an actual scientist. It's stereotyped as a loser's interest.i hate how true this isafter the fully DIY wet plate era passed and roll film, labs, and digital came to be, photographer has been at least two rungs below history teachers and paleontologists on the ladder of western personal achievementmost of photography today is participation trophy tier art
>>4532632No, I had to attend some matters related to Venturi.
>>4532563>To be fair, you need high level pattern recognition skills to appreciate photographers of his caliberkek'd, 10/10I like how the other guy thought you were an unironic jew, newfag needs to lurk moar.AI and the pandemic fried zoomer's brains, they lost the ability to tell when people are being sarcastic.
>>4532657I wasn't being sarcastic. Mark Cohen is a genuinely good photographer and you need to be intelligent to appreciate him.People who usually top out at "trees... sunset... pretty :)" might find themselves more challenged than usual.
>>4532659Nigger, you may fool the zoomer but you can't fool me. That's a pasta opener you used. A Rick and Morty ironic review pasta.And now again you're making another reference. A Harold Bloom reference, immortalized in the Harry Potter review pasta which combines Armond White's review of the film saga with Bloom's review of the flicks.I'm just stating this overtly so that the onlookers can see what is going on covertly.
Canon confirmed dago
>>4532664?????
>>4532665Pasta expert... Italian...
>>4532668kek
>>4532663My G*d. Dealing with you is hell for someone like myself. While you're just coming around to the idea that street photography is the art of the mundane, the cinema of life, I'm already pondering the post-szarkowskian legitimation of photography as a singular object of culture. Do you realize how frustrating it is to hear antisemitic quips from newcomers baffled by bodies of work I was appreciating before you even learned ebay had cheap DSLRs? Get a clue, MacGough. You're not even two toes deep in the kiddy pool.
>>4532672It's not even photography.
>>4532674You don't even know what photography is.
>>4532546>Because he's a Cohen, that's why.Exactly, that's the thing.It's not that a jew can't be a photographer, it's that being a jew is enough to praise their garbage for other jews and the psyopped goys.Irving Penn was a jew, do you see me claiming he wasn't an artist? He was a gifted photographer.
>>4532675You think photography is pressing a button
>>4532681>low IQ antisemite cant understand high tier photography and assumes its totally random images
>>4532550Ansel Adams is worth aping, Cohen isn't.idc about the rest of what you said.
>>4531257Truth nuke
>>4532775>>4532737saddest samefag ever
>>4532779Yeah man?
[laughs in german]
>>4532784Can u pls take cANON back kthx
>>4532516>>4532518The thing is I shoot things but later cringe at how pretentious they are. And if I show it to someone and they praise it, I feel even more disgust. Positive reactions to my stuff with nothing negative to say strike me as fake. And negative ones often hit things I was in denial of but deeply knew to be true. When /vid/ said action comedy is usually done by hacks who wanted to do action but then switched to action comedy because the result was laughable it was as if they were peaking into my soul. I make something and I don't watch the finished result even once. If I submit to some festival I can't go to the premiere, it feels as if I'm standing naked in front of everyone. True art is suffering.
>>4532796>peakingPeeking*Forgive the typo
>>4532796sounds harsh, but sounds also like it's mostly in your head? how can a photo be pretentious? only the concept can be not the image. you should post a thread so we can judge
>>4532796So you're suffering from anxiety and depression. This has nothing to do with photography. Your mental state would benefit from never visiting this website ever again. But if you want some advice then I think you should stop trying to create "art" and start using your camera to have fun and express yourself instead. This place is extremely toxic and according to some retards here every time you press the shutter button you need to be creating "real art" or otherwise you're worthless and you shouldn't own a camera. Because of that idiotic point of view those people haven't taken a single photo in years because if they can't create "real art" every time they touch their cameras then it must mean they are worthless. It's a retarded loop fueled by this toxicity and mental problems. Break out of it. If you can't do it yourself then seek professional help.
>>4532803When I'm creating I'm like a naughty kid, in one of the shorts I once even included a Wilhelm scream. I knew it was wrong, but it's almost as if it being wrong was what made me want to do it. Naturally, the result was garbage. Another time I got a prop newspaper with obviously ironic headline that broke immersion if you read it. Truffaut was right about us film lovers... there's this inclination to mischief, this sickness. There's a short I once did, 49 seconds of monologue peppered with references to noir movies, the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp drama, the Pina Colada song and more. All narrated in a very serious Mitchum style.My still photography suffers from much of the same in a different way. You know, the typical "clever" and "playful" trash that makes you chuckle at first glance and then feel a little deader inside afterwards.>>4532808I'm actually thankful I got to let it out, it's been highly therapeutic. Like confession time for my disservices to art.I make real art, I have intent. But I have this inclination to sabotage it, like an inclination to sin. Maybe I shouldn't own a camera, maybe photography and cinema would be better off without the trash I've made. But that would rob me from the chance of doing something true for once and atone. It's not that it's not real art, it's that it's not true. It's fake on the inside, but it pretends to be honest. It's art, but it's empty, vapid, glib while pretending it's deep. Even the coal mine stuff, in some of them I put a blue octopus plushie that blends with the background. A reference to Greta Thurnberg, to reference environmentalists, to reference the coal mining dying because of them. But it didn't die because of them. It died because the yields did no longer justify the needed investment. It's dishonest but the NatGeo types would praise it.
>>4532808I see no problem in telling people to put effort into their hobby. I know it can feel really bad when someone tells you your zero effort pictures are zero effort pictures.
>>4532840>I know it can feel really bad when someone tells you your zero effort pictures are zero effort pictures.Doesn't feel as bad as fake praise or worse, genuine praise for something you made and know to be garbage. Because you then know you've been cultivating an audience of cretins who enable your worst traits. It invites complacency.
>>4532717>Cohen>photographyPick one>>4532737Based>>4532775>/p/haggot in his shelter, colorized (CY+11)
>>4532827There was a guy on another board that did photography and short videos, not action-comedy but they were basically elaborate shitposts and greatly enjoyable. Sadly he got complacent with the OPSEC and he was doxed and harassed in real life by some psychopaths who thought the jokes were aimed at them, I loved his material, he was probably harsher on himself but I wouldn't know if as harsh as you.It's sad that making art makes you a target on imageboards. I went on a tangent but the Greta thing is comedy gold, I'd say it's more of a dog whistle than anti-green propaganda. With the controversy I bet you'd get screeching jews before anyone thinks you're blaming the closure on the green movement.>TruffautThe man was sharp-tongued, makes it easy to hate oneself. His critique still cuts deep to this day.
Mark Cohen was a geniusThe brainlets itt would probably want an all black background with no girl and artificial lighting>it shows more intent!
>>4532915>this one time Mark Cohen pressed the button to take a creepshot of a little girl and managed to get something that looks like a photograph, that surely rehabilitates the thousand of "photos" that didn't even get a subject in the framelet me guess, you think Japanese underskirt creeps are "artists" too
>>4532917I had genuinely no sexual thought looking at this photo of the face of a fully clothed 11yo girl. The fact you immediately went there show you are projecting your own deviances on other people, as it was repeatedly demonstrated that the most homophobic priests are most likely to be gay themselves, and that the people most irrationally hellbent on chasing pedophiles themselves were lusting on underage kids. Spewing jew nonsense on a photography forum is already a definite sign of being terminally online. But when comes the point that you are comparing an image with the face of a fully clothed 11yo little girl with an underskirt creep shot, I think it's time you take a hard look at yourself.
>>4532944>The fact you immediately went there show you are projecting your own deviances on other people>no ulol, the fact that you're acting like a surreptitious shot of a girl is okay is enough to be a self-indictment. >fully clothedYour sound like the guy who got called out as a coomer in the Terry style thread>Cohen would wander the streets of Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, invading people’s personal space just prior to shining a flash bulb in their eyes. The results represent a strange, frenetic alchemy, 1,000x more relevant given the state of citizen photography. Critics maintain Cohen straddles the line between commentary and perversion, citing images that tend to exploit young children in a manner that can only be described as sexual. And yet, it is precisely this uncertain area which renders Cohen’s work an ongoing topic for discussion. In the age of Instagram and Tumblr and Facebook and Twitter, the mainstream sexualization of minors hasn’t only become commonplace, it’s uncharacteristically rewarded.https://ifearbrooklyn.com/2014/05/22/galleria-mark-cohen-the-danziger-gallery/The linked photo the article describes sexual exploitation? https://web.archive.org/web/20151027015018/http://www.danzigergallery.com/exhibition/mark-cohen_1/31You be the judge. I didn't even know he had that kind of photo before, but knew a few key things:>jew>shoots surreptitiously, he can't even frame properly because he can't use the viewfinder>he calls his shots "stolen">focuses on extreme close-ups of body parts>had to leave 28/35mm for 50mm because he got beat up>pic related is an excerpt from his photo book Dark Knees
>>4532944More, Prodger is the curator who edited the book BTW:https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2026/02/03/sometimes-it-would-get-physical-the-photographer-who-captures-humanity-at-close-quarters>Off-guard>Due to the speed of Cohen’s practice, his photographs often appear at awkward angles, heads and limbs cropped oddly from the frame, figures often “slack-jawed or mid-blink”, writes Prodger, seeming somehow more real than if they had had an opportunity to pose—that is, compose themselves—for the camera. As such, Cohen’s accidental portraits are especially poignant, revealing figures lost in thought or caught slightly off-guard. While his “sitters” (as Prodger terms them) are strangers, Cohen’s pictures achieve surprisingly intimate results, particularly his photographs of children, who appear less wary, regarding him with curiosity or amusement, like the girl with twig-like limbs wielding a baseball bat—a strange extension of her body—or the young boy with a toy revolver, shooting the photographer right back.>“Cohen’s photographs can have a transgressive, even at times erotic, quality,” writes Prodger. Indeed, it is striking to find that several photographs include the word “flashed” in their titles, a term with connotations that extend beyond photography. The transgressive nature of their creation notwithstanding, the subtlety and pathos of Cohen’s work is undeniable, whether his photograph of bare feet resting on a plastic porch—a masterclass in art’s relationship with texture—or the blue boy offering a single, perfect blackberry, his cautious fingers lightly stained.Also if you could denounce Leo Frank, that'd be great. Just to clear the air.
>>4532946>by allah how dare you take a photo of that girl you filthy jew she is of marriageable age alhamdurkallah>>4532947Sounds like mark is just an artist with a nostalgia inducing style and its prodger and bagnall who are your fellow pedos, abdul. Mark himself was a boob guy.
>cANON is a pedophile and an antisemiteWhats next, he fucks dogs?
>>4532841Caring what other people think is anathema to art. It is impossible to create art of any kind when being rail-roaded by other people's opinions, it makes the result inherently dishonest. Make things that YOU would like and enjoy, on a personal level, even if it someone else made it.Would YOU find the Wilhelm scream in the short funny? Would YOU find the newspaper with the ironic headline amusing? Would YOU find the "mischief factor" endearing? And so on, and so forth? If not, don't do it. If yes, do it. Simple as.
>>4532955You're thinking of cinefag, but I wouldn't be surprised
>>4532946>cohen: hahaha that kid looks cool>Critics: STOP DONT YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THIS IS TURNING ME ONI don't think Mark Cohen is the pedophile here"art critic" is exactly the kind of job rich families dump their useless freaks in fyi
>>4532954>>4532955>more no u's and refusal to denounce Leo FrankThe ADL was created to defend a child rapist who then killed the girl, they tried to frame a nigger and since not even the KKK bought it they lynched him. By posting below this line, you acknowledge these facts and denounce the Talmud. _____________________________________
>>4532961He took and exhibited photos of children's camel toes, that's the cover photo of the article in the archive link
>>4532796>>4532827You have a weird way of overthinking specific details through the imagined representation of characters and entities. That's doesn't seem at all like you're depressed too me, more like some kind of manic disorder like bipolar illness. But whatever, i'm not here to diagnose you from 2 messages. Maybe it helps you being creative. However, if it gets in the way, making you demotivated, then maybe you want to get help keeping it under control.
I'm amazed that the compelled denunciation was enough to stop the pedo-defending jew
>>4532958You don't get it, I use them as brainstorming devices to aid my own judgment of myself. >Would YOU find the Wilhelm scream in the short funny? Would YOU find the newspaper with the ironic headline amusing? Would YOU find the "mischief factor" endearing? And so on, and so forth? If not, don't do it. If yes, do it. Simple as.That's the thing, it's amusing to do but jarring to watch. And I know I cringe when I see the Wilhelm scream being included in other people's work. It's like a perversion.
>>4532993>I use them as brainstorming devices to aid my own judgment of myself.Then it's not art.>I know I cringe when I see the Wilhelm scream being included in other people's work. It's like a perversion.Then don't do it.Simple as.
>>4533065I never claimed the act of judging my own art was art, it's obviously critique. >Then don't do it.Easier said than done. It's like telling the sinner to not sin, concupiscence is a horrible affliction that gets in the way of virtue.
>>4532993>>4533065>>4533070Samefag
>>4531211This is, no exaggeration, the most retarded post I have ever read on any board. Kill yourself
>>4533071Schizo.>>4533070Except in this case it's actually really easy, because in order to not do it, you don't have to do anything at all. You can win by doing literally nothing. There is, in fact, nothing easier.I will judge whether you are farming for engagement based on how you respond to this information.
>>4533082It's only easy if you don't have to fight the inclination to do it. Is giving up smoking easy for a smoker? Same idea
>>4533086It's not an addiction, retard. Cigs make your body chemically dependent on nicotine. Not the same idea at all. You don't go into withdrawal from not taking photos.You are either farming for engagement, or really fucking stupid. I will not reply any further.
>>4533065>creating devices to aid to judging/understanding yourself is not artit's actually a central tenant of many if not most good art pieces?
>>4533090It's an artist thing, you wouldn't understand. >>4533138I agree with what you're saying but what I meant I use as a brainstorming device in my judgment of my own work is other people's critiques. Sometimes not even critiques of my work but generic ones that I seebcould apply to what I've made.
>>4533296>what I meant I use as a brainstorming device in my judgment of my own work is other people's critiques.I see. Well the swaps between "is" and "in" almost gave me a strole but actually that's precisely what I noted here:>>4532965Thats a super weird way to think and thinking is not in itself art but if it has impact on what's on your photos then it's part of your art.
>>4533296I think it's a lame excuse you're using, this "temptation". From what you said about comedy it sounds to me like you're self sabotaging because you're not satisfied with the result so you add an obvious flaw to blame it for not succeeding in being what you wanted. Ironically very similar to Baudrillard's point about Disneyland. You add an intentional flaw as an scapegoat to blame for your unintentional perceived flaws. I suggest you be more honest with yourself about this and realize that maybe those flaws you want to hide might not even be noticeable by the audience. It's happened to me in the past, not the self-sabotaging thing but being too concerned with flaws only I noticed. Either edit out the flaws or don't bother, don't add worse flaws to feel better about the minor ones.
cANON is here day and night. Does he ever go out and take pictures? Does he at least take pictures of his dog?
>>4533373I sometimes go out to take pictures of my bitch, the one you call mommy
>>4533376Based bitchsnapper
>>4533376>>4533377>takes his fursona name off to samefag
>>4533396There's at least two people laughing at you now. Good job schizo.
>>4533408>still samefagging sans fursonaGot me there
>>4533413>samefaggingMeds>fursonaThat word doesn't mean what you think it means.
>>4533486No it means exactly what it means, you think other people also think sexually of bitches (female dogs) and call them mommy
>>4533500No anon, I'm saying your mother is a slave to cock
>>4533503You're only >sayingWhile we all *Know* you're a nophoto
>>4533396Lurk moar, newfag
>bestiality accusation schizo has latched on to cANONabout time
>>4533571He's probably the jew from earlier lashing out because I called out the creepiness of Cohen's pictures of kids, he made some stupid thread poorly aimed at me too with a clanker fanfic about some foid getting the ick because I question the moon landing hoax
>>4533576Drop the name, drop the trip, never use them again, return to anon, and stop talking about random shit like jews and moon landings on the photography board. I promise you'll be happier.
>>4533576>everything about schizophrenic retard is about meSure, and when there's a caricature of a conspiracy theorist neo-nazi on TV it's the jews singling out you in particular for spreading da troof. Take a nap.
>>4533583>Drop the name, drop the tripEgo is a powerful thing to fall to.
>>4531183Yes... and?
>>4533583You won't intimidate me. >>4533625>on TV>arguing in bad faithIt was a thread posted here around the same time as the bestiality claims.>>4533642>implying it's about ego
>>4533668I am not trying to intimidate you. I'm trying to help you.
