How is it that we as a photographic community seem to have gone backwards in terms of colour accuracy? I keep seeing posts about how the world 'used to be more colourful', however I've noticed a different trend evolve since the start of digital photography. If you look at older photos, maybe ten years ago or older, the editing styles seem to have changed drastically compared to how photographers edit today. Picrel is an example of what I'm talking about. Notice that the photo has been hit hard in terms of tonality, with really strong, mostly unnatural looking contrast. The colours saturation and hue seem to be mostly untouched, aside from a bit extra on the greens. Also notice a distinct lack of colour grading, which is my main complaint about modern editing styles. Cameras now, at least Canon and Nikon seem to have colours at least as good as they did ten to fifteen years ago, so what gives? Have we moved past the natural beauty of the world? Has the return of film given zoomers false nostalgia? I thought we loved digital for it's lifelike colours, or at least I do. It's hard to find modern photographers that don't colour grade, or try and do these sickening teal/magenta colour grades. Everything has to look le retro. I have a feeling people are going to look back on film simulations the way we look back on photos like picrel or Ken Rockwell's work. Sorry for the unorganised thoughts, wanted to get it out there.

yo anons. I saw that pic on /r9k/ and edit it, any thoughts about my edit?

Be me
>Buys a bunch of used and cheap analog cameras with something faulty or broken
>Learns how to fix them for free on Youtube
>Invests in high-quality tools to do the job and spends hours on it
>I'm finally ready to sell them to make a rpofit and repeat the cycle
>Posts on facebook for a fair price, about 80% of what they're worth
>No one buys it
Is film photography ded?
I feel like people who are into it already have a huge collection and new photographers tend to get whatever is the latest release on the market.

I clicked here instead of /o/ like a retard, so might as well ask. Never been here.
What do you guys like to photograph?
Cityscapes, vistas, nature, people, macros, art, people,...
Do you edit your photos afterwards or leave all the *essence* to the gear and ambience you are using?
Did you study it in school, or is it a hobby that you pursue and inform yourself about through guides, forums, etc. ?

I visited New Orleans over new years and shot some street. Was with family so I couldn't really lock in but I think some of these pics are decent. What do you think? Tear them apart.

All shot on my nikon f5 with 15yr expired ultramax.

My doggo. Shot on a SonyA6400 . 16 - 50 mm lenses. First try at Light Room. Any recommendations?

So now that the dust has settled and it's clear that digital photography is past it's peak. Which of these was the pinnacle of digital photography? They are both excellent cameras in their own right but who is goated with the sauce /p/?

Looking to upgrade from my 60d. Mostly shoot urban macro and landscape stills. Dont really care about asp-c vs. ff (although the crop factor on aspc is nice for macro). Preferably want something with an ef mount, to avoid fiddling with extensions. Budget around $1500 (for body only). Ok with used or refurbished. If there's any details i missed lmk. pic unrelated (and not taken by me)

If you shoot handheld video, IBIS should be almost as important to you as autofocus. I don't get why people treat IBIS like it's just a nice extra, and not a necessity.

https://old-cartages.square.site/