My kodachrome recipe on my x100vi annihilates that photo

>fujiworm pretends to know anything about photo
el oh el

Unless you need portability. Or fast follow-up shots. Or the ability to physically carry the necessary equipment to take more than a few shots. Or, in 2025, the ability to take a photo and process it. You take your large format camera and your kodachrome, and then pick any idiot kid with a 5 year old smartphone, and we'll see who can produce the nicest photo today.

>>4487924
>ultimate snapshitters cope

>>4487921

Very nice, show us.

>>4487927
It ain't cope if you can't produce.

thinly veiled feminist thread, do not reply

>>4487930
Outside of fast moving subjects what worthwhile pictures could a phone take that a big camera on a tripod couldn't? If we are talking about good photography almost none.
The only thing "fast" cameras are better at is taking snapshits and sports.

>>4487934
Take a picture in 2025 with large format kodachrome, process the negative, and print it. Any picture whatsoever. I'll wait.

>>4487935
No.
Take a worthwhile picture with your phone that couldn't be taken with a large format camera and print it out. I'll wait.

>>4487936
Hey retard, the point is that kodachrome vanished fifteen fucking years ago, it doesn't fucking exist anymore. A smartphone photo, ANY smartphone photo, is better than no fucking photo at all. Don't move the fucking goalposts.

>>4487941
>Saying large format is too big and inconvenient for me was not my point! It was only about a film we all know is impossible to get or develop!
Hey retard, no shit.
You can still get fresh e6 for large format and it will still mog a cellphone when making any worthwhile photograph.

>>4487942
And if the thread was about large format film in general, I wouldn't have said shit. Because it is absolutely true that large format film cameras are capable of producing work that smartphones aren't. That's not in fucking dispute. What is in dispute is that in Current Year, kodachrome is better than anything, because kodachrome is now just a song by Paul Simon. That doesnt mean that there aren't advantages to smaller formats, or smaller formats wouldn't exist, and if you think there are no advantages to smaller formats you are even dumber than you seem as someone defending kodachrome in 2025. I hope your final exam in your intro to film photography class goes well this week, kid.

>>4487944
>goalposts CHANGED
KEK. Seethe harder snapshitter.

Fucking zoomers. Kodachrome was pretty shit by the end of its life. Ektachrome and fujichrome far surpassed it in every metric INCLUDING film stability. Id reluctantly use Kodachrome in a pinch if I couldn't find Fujichrome anywhere. Fucking Kodachrome 64 was grainier than Provia 400.

>>4487931
K3k

>>4487928
>>4487922
I was just joking... I do have an x100vi though and I like it, but I'm pretty disappointed in the whole recipe thing.

Wise up tardo, they're all valid formats with different strengths/weaknesses. Most of these are aesthetic differences anyway. This Sanguinetti photo could be taken with any format, but presenting it with higher resolution gives it style like painted realism.

>angrily defending cell phone image quality
/p/ is dead.

>>4487987
Ya nobody should be arguing that. Misunderstanding of photogrfy

>>4487935
FYI, you can actually do that.
It'll just be B&W.

>>4487946
>be insufferable
>people get mad at you
>seethe

This is what these niggas do all day, sit on their computer trying to le ebin trole people trying to have a conversation.

>>4487920
Pixels are more expensive to develop than chemicals

>>4487987
Any photo is better than nophoto, that's the point

>>4488038
sometimes zero photo is better, just see the RPT

>>4488038
False.

>>4488062
Correct.

>>4488062
Fake and gay

>>4487924
>who can produce the nicest photo
>nicest
>you know, that certain "thingness" all photos have, that makes them... "nice" or not.
>argument relies on undefined subjective fluffword

Yep, there's your problem.

Only ai can do it

>>4487956
I have slides going on 45 years old on Kodachrome, and the colour show no shift or fading compared to internegatives produced of them. Took great shots of Pink Floyd in 87 on K200

File: kkkk.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4487920
the old kodachrome was basically iso 10, so most of these large format shots have like kilowatts of lights blasting the subjects.
anyway i do agree, nothing looks quite like it, even the 60s/70s 35mm koadchrome photos just have something special about them - no "preset" will ever capture that, and definitely no fuji recipe lol...

File: kkkkk.jpg (333.6 KB)

333.6 KB JPG

>>4493602
>https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=mrg&st=gallery

Yet another Kodachrome thread where nobody realizes there is artificial light and reflectors that are contributing to muh Kodachrome look.

Dumbasses

>>4493618
literally one post above

>>4493603
you can tell how bright that was from the shadow edges