>>4200013Oldfag here to second.
>>4200030This bullshit argument is destroyed by 0.2 seconds of processing required for any RAW to look like any type of film color and/or grain. Just because you don't know how to use your software doesn't mean X brand's color science is at fault. Nobody worth their salt shoots in jpeg.
I don't care what Ken says. Film can't deliver more than ~24mp resolution in a 35mm format, but digital can, and has, for more than a decade (and at much higher speeds than ISO 100).
Is film good? Sure as shit. It's an impressive technical achievement for its time. So is vinyl. Neither is objectively better, or even comparable to the quality achieved by current technology. But sure, be my guest. Be a hipster luddite and waste your time. I'll be busy making images.
Feel free to jerk off to this photo I took 22 years ago on a Canon AE1 with a light leak.
