Let's talk more about the film. Quality, depth, colors, atmosphere? All of the above there are not. The only thing the smartphone loses in is the depth of field.
He gives out decent colors, he can convey the atmosphere, the quality is even better...and now a smart processor does background blurring no worse than a physical lens.
But what about the film grain? Did you even know that grain is like noise in digital photography, that is, defect?
Grain has always been considered a disadvantage of the film by professionals.
And we're talking about professionals.
And for those to whom grain is important and creates a certain lampiness, please return above – this is about the technique and physics of creating a frame, and not about the result.
If you need grain, apply a layer in Photoshop and you will not distinguish it from a real film!
I checked, I did a survey among both ordinary people and photographers – a couple of people guessed it, and then one most likely by accident.
Oh, I forgot about the drawing of Soviet optics and bokeh!
And this is all nostalgia for the lack of better photographic equipment on the market, as well as technical engineering.
Show me the picture! I don't care what ways you did it, the main thing is the result!
If there's a cool plot or an interesting composition, then I don't care if it's made on a smartphone or on Zenith.
If the picture is empty, then no lamp grain will save, neither the transfer to bw, nor the film colors.
Once upon a time, I was also on such a frequency, which I call techno-masturbating.
I dabbled in everything I could: Soviet optics through an adapter to a digital mirror, neutral gray filters for long exposure during the day (still interesting, by the way), various bw and color films, scanning, processing, working with color, layers, retouching.
I even wanted to assemble an ultra-wide-angle pinhole.
And then they sobered me up with a reportage photo and all of the above seemed like child's play to me. Have you played enough? Now to serious things, to the physics of the frame content and to metaphysics!!!
No, of course, any hobby is a hundred times better than drinking beer with friends in the garage and driving around the city with loud music, paying attention to the girls.
Although I was on such a frequency, I got off it in time, that is, I went further. And someone is stuck there for a long time.
Many people laughed at me when I photographed by the Zenith already in the digital age. in general, many people did not understand me: I preferred a bicycle, having a car and did not hang out in the city, but went to nature alone and took pictures.
I liked to collect stones. I'm still collecting them! But when they laughed at me, it affected me and I stopped for a while.
And where are all those who laughed now? They still drive cars, drink beer in the garage and discuss who cheated on whom or who got into a fight in a nightclub.
And already at that time I began to gradually move away from this old frequency.
I bought myself a camera. I started cycling, designed a custom fatbike, and met new creative people.
And if among these creative people there are those who shoot on film, who love Soviet lenses, who apply grain in Photoshop, then these are still creative people and they are well done!
But if we take the entire photographic layer as a whole, then there will be both high and low frequencies among them.
It's the same everywhere. If you are engaged in music, then this is already good and you are well done that you are creative, and not a yard bully.
But if the music is mediocre, then it is no longer very good among those who have the best.
That is, there are sub-frequencies on each frequency.
I have already written somewhere that one rock lover will not understand another...although they are both rock lovers.
To be continued...
Congratulations, your post has been upvoted by @dsc-r2cornell, which is the curating account for @R2cornell's Discord Community.