Quoted By:
Film and digital just look different. On one end you have an actual physical chemical reaction, on the other end a digitized interpretation of that. Also, the process of shooting film and digital is inherently different based on ease of operation and general meaningless of the exposure, as one can just erase it and make another. When you shoot film, unless your vegan like parents buy you unlimited 120, you really have to be conscious of what you're doing. Then by having to take your time you usually produce better images. However, i must say that digital is finally starting to catch up in terms of creating a very good imitation of the analog process. But no amount of pixel count can simulate the color depth and dynamic range of film for now. That being said I just bought a D810 that is pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty close. The Sony mirrorless is still a meme camera for blogger faggots. Spec, pixel peeping retard, gearfags, that never have any talent and really are dependent on thinking that more power will yield better results. However, I think that in 5-10 years time, digital will have matched and begun to get close to the quality of medium and even large format. Its crazy to see how much digital has progressed in the last 4 years, after being utter shit for the last 15. In summary, film and digital are different. Film is better for now, and always will have a unique quality that digifags and technology will always attempt to recreate. And maybe one day not too far from now it will be done. But honestly, photography is photography, and making a good image has to do with not just technical ability and gear, but most importantly, with your artistic talent. Which no-one here will ever have. Get fucked lads
