>>2589545>Digital: Expose for highlight (or close to) and push shadows on face by 2-3 stops compromising details.Actually, it depends entirely on what your camera is and what you're shooting. You're too inept to do it (which is why you lack real examples), and you're attached to ideas of firm rules of how to/not do things.
Some digital cameras prefer overexposure, some prefer underexposure, you need to know your sensors architecture and means of increasing the signal to know how to properly expose them. It's not one-size-fits-all.
>Yes, technique makes a difference but in extreme situations both shadows and highlights look like shit on digital.The only "extreme situation" that film still wins out on is very long (hours) exposures. 35mm film has lesser dynamic range on average than a modern sensor, with only technical films and specific processing methods topping it.
The range of shadow recovery on a modern sensor far exceeds the range of highlight recovery in traditional films. These are both the same exposure, 200 iso, but pushed on the right.
Stop parroting information that was only half-true in 2008 in 2015. You have most likely never even shot technical film or processed with pyrocat, so the claims of DR and resolution for film are completely out of context. You're making yourself look stupid.
