Of all the books in your possession, how much of it have you read?

E-reader then?

I load bulk classics on and it's my go-to travel reading material. I don't have to decide what to take and I can be rough without damaging the books.

>E-readers do not have screens
>E-readers are more durable than a book
I'm not sure why you need me to validate your life choices, but let's pretend you converted me and I'll go on doing things that don't really affect you.

okay buddy. you do you senpai.

I don't let my backlog be more than one book long, I have a list of books I want to read but I only ever buy a book when I've read all my books apart from 1

e ink displays are literally ink, same ink your printer uses they apply a positive or negative charge to each cell causing the ink to rise or sink, though they aren't as durable as actual books though

>Ink behind a screen stops it being a screen
I worry about this board sometimes.

the reason reading on monitors sucks is because it blasts lights in your eyes, e ink emits 0 light and is just ink, it's no different to reading on paper since both are the same type of ink

>though they aren't as durable as actual books though

how and why?

damage is more likely permanent and less likely to be something you can fix at home, though the amount I've saved from not paying for books mean if my kindle broke every 3 months I could buy a new one and I'd still be saving money

>though the amount I've saved from not paying for book

do you mean pirating or the saving from ebooks being less expense?

>the reason reading on monitors sucks is because it blasts lights in your eyes
I do believe I said the reason I dislike it is the screen: There appears to be nothing in that post about backlighting.
>it's no different to reading on paper since both are the same type of ink
Except the screen.

Why am I getting the ereader promo team?

Drop a book and an ereader out a high window.

pirating, don't buy books on kindle because you're paying for a worse product then you'd get for free, if amazon sold ebooks that I could back up and change the cover and dimensions then I'd buy them
>screen
what don't you like about the kindles screen you absolute hipster

>have unexplainable dislike for e-reader
>people try to explain why e-reader is the same as ink on paper
>hurr durr

>what don't you like about the kindles screen you absolute hipster
It's a screen.

i can submerge my ereader in water. i can't with my book without ruining it.

outdoor where it might rain my ereader is far superior

but to your eyes it's the exact same as paper, you can't justify why you don't like kindles because truth is you just don't like them because you're biased

It's very easy to explain: it has a screen and is not paper. They are different materials, with different physical properties. Does using an ereader do this to people's ability to read?

why do you prefer paper over a screen?

Of the books in the red square, I haven't read about 57. Overall in my life I've read somewhere around 2200 "real books" (nameable books aka not children's chapter books and etc.) Don't really won't to guess how many books are on all the shelves but I'd say in this particular collection probably 1000 at least.

Attached: PicsArt_06-11-03.47.18.jpg (3344x2508, 1.1M)

Just started reading for real so I don’t count books like ASOIAF and such. But according to my goodreads 18/100.
Just inherited a lot of money so just bought massive amount of books.

I’ve got about 400 and honestly read most of it. I inherited at least 300 at 11, mostly shitty fiction about knights and Roman soldiers, some fake-history both by commies (I live in ex-USSR) and post-1989 fascists. The other ~100 is what I bought for myself, it’s mostly classics like Dosto’s works, Kafka, some Hemingway, Camus and Sartre. Pretty basic.

I didn’t have money for books and I didn’t get into reading on a screen until uni so when I felt like reading I was kinda forced to read whatever I had at home.

decent lad, proud of you, invest some money into a decent home gym as well

> to your eyes it's the exact same as paper
You clearly are not acquainted with my eyes', nor my fingers', empirical sensations.
I find that dubious and have never had a book damaged beyond legibility by rain.
Because the heart wants what the heart wants. Adding to my dislike of screens for long form at the moment is also the association of such products with people who cannot abide someone liking something different.

>Just inherited a lot of money

how much and from whom?

can i have some?

plz?

oh now I get it, you like paper more because you like paper more, not becuase you think it's better

No I like paper more because I'm an edgy contrarian faggot.

If I were on /p/ I would prefer film.

I think it's better for me, as liking it more would indicate. Others seem to differ and believe that their choice is somehow not just better for them but also for me, which suggests a paucity of imagination.

I do prefer film too. I'm baffled how they managed to sell DSLRs when the only reason to have a slr is film.

Do you also prefer vinyl?

right sorry for coming off aggressive I thought you meant paper is better all round, I kind of relate a bit, I mostly read on my windowsill in the morning and in summer the sun usually is rising as I do, kind of prefer paper on those days but the practicality of a kindle still holds

No, vinyl shatters. Better to buy LPs after they stopped using vinyl.

If you don't mind reading long form on screens, I'm sure it's eminently practicable.

Do why do you prefer film besides edginess and hipsterism?

lot's of people prefer film though.

old good new bad

Lots of people prefer not answering the question but that doesn't make it good, rational, reasonable or aesthetic.

Grain/speed, negative and projection manipulations, not needing a histogram and relying on sight, you can catch shutter movements which most digital won't have, I started on film, lots of things. I like shitty old Olympuses and pinholes too, because they make pictures which would be considered errors now.

I haven't counted in a few months but I would guess something like 250/400

>Grain/speed,

easily simulable in post

>negative and projection manipulations,

ditto

> not needing a histogram and relying on sight,

you can do this with digital

>you can catch shutter movements which most digital won't have

most digitals have a focal plane mech shutter

should all painting be done on computers now

>easily simulable in post
Spend more time trying to make it look slightly more like film when you could just use film? Why?
>ditto
No, I don't think you understand what either of those processes are. Dodging in Photoshop is not the same thing as dodging over photo paper and takes way longer while also not giving the same effect.
>you can do this with digital
You can't and you shouldn't want to, because what digital captures is a different set of light reception. They are different things used for different effects, and not using your histo on a digital means you have a shitty digital or are fucking retarded.
>most digitals have a focal plane mech shutter
They don't and the ones that do are designed to limit shutter shock as it's often seen as a flaw of film (which is why a lot of film cameras will also have methods to prevent it as they get more modern)

You sound like you're shit at digital photography so I don't know why you're trying to advocate it.

computer can not simulate the effect of oil-on-canvas texture, so there are aspects of painting that is not easily reproducible.

the same cant be said for photography

>Spend more time trying to make it look slightly more like film when you could just use film? Why?

for all the benefits of digital

>Dodging in Photoshop is not the same thing as dodging over photo paper and takes way longer while also not giving the same effect.

not true

>You can't and you shouldn't want to, because what digital captures is a different set of light reception. They are different things used for different effects, and not using your histo on a digital means you have a shitty digital or are fucking retarded.

no it means youre shitty and don't know how to use the equipment appropriately

>They don't
They do

>I am unaware of the digital canvas print market
>I'll pontificate on digital photography though
Never go full retard user. Do you hate modern techniques and false flag as an advocate or something?

>for all the benefits of digital
Without the benefits of film that makes the process shorter and produces the effect I actually want? No thanks. That's extra labour for a product which does not fully emulate film.
>not true
It is true, and if you knew much about either, you'd know it's true.
>no it means youre shitty and don't know how to use the equipment appropriately
Read a photography book.
>They do
You must be excluding every smartphone camera as not digital.

>Without the benefits of film that makes the process shorter and produces the effect I actually want?

Any effect you can get with film can be simulated in digital

teh reverse is not true

>It is true, and if you knew much about either, you'd know it's true.

nope

>Read a photography book.

read many, that's why i know

>You must be excluding every smartphone camera as not digital.

or you can compare slrs to dslrs and not be a retard

same, my rule is to read as little of any book as possible

so none at all?

>Any effect you can get with film can be simulated in digital
With hours of work you can get close, but ultimately, pixels are square and grains are round. Your religious belief this is not the case is bizarre, but I hope it brings you whatever salvation you're looking for.
>nope
You can believe that, but I would not trust anyone who thought this to do digital post. People who are good at digital post know you wouldn't use dodging for the same effect in Photoshop.
>read many, that's why i know
What's it shot in then?
>or you can compare slrs to dslrs and not be a retard
Shutter shock is less of a problem than mirror slap on DSLRs though. Even mirror less camera get shutter shock, though they can't get mirror slap obviously. Slrs get both.

When I used to read physical books I had this problem but when I switched to ebooks I started reading all the books I have.

>With hours of work you can get close, but ultimately, pixels are square and grains are round.

An image is the combination of pixels. complaining about pixel shape is like complaining that a rectangle can't exist because atoms are round. it's fully pedantic retardism.

> Slrs get both.

now you are deflecting. your point was that digitals don't have mech shutters but they do.

Start reading 2-3 books for every 1 that you buy

>An image is the combination of pixels. complaining about pixel shape is like complaining that a rectangle can't exist because atoms are round. it's fully pedantic retardism.
Do you only shoot at 400 speed or something?
>now you are deflecting. your point was that digitals don't have mech shutters but they do.
I said I liked SLRs because you could get shutter shock. You said that most digital have mech shutters, and when I pointed out most digitals don't you wanted to make it about DSLRs, which would not capture the effect. You could get closer to a shutter shock with a smartphone camera, which is why mentioning that mirror less cameras get it too furthers my point.

I see you don't want to answer the question on what to shoot in for a histo. This means you're shit at digital photography basics. Most digital photographers are not as shit as you, and even with my preference for film, I would do a better job at defending digital than you can. Do you really hate digital or something? You're making people who use it look like idiots by your association and there are millions of digital users who are nowhere near as dumb and arrogant as you. I suggest pretending you're a film fan if you want to make film look bad.

Pretty much.
> download 300 books
> airplane mode for 2 years
> read and delete
Rinse and repeat

Less than a quarter

Why people don't use public libraries? I take books for 15 days at most and then I return them. If an average book costs 20 euros/30 dollars, you save a lot. Also you can find really old books that are not for sale anymore.

But what if you want to choose a book after 6pm?