>>3959359>>3959373Who cares if film autists can tell it's not real film (especially when they've literally been pre-told it's not)?
I don't believe there's any film “look” that can't be convincingly replicated to 99% of people with enough effort. So what's the point of using the film look as an excuse for shooting film? And why would you specifically want a “real” look when it's all meant to be a creative endeavor anyway?
I'm not
>>3959250 >>3959252 and I'm a filmfag myself but I don't use aesthetics I pretend are impossible to recreate as justification. I just shoot film because I want to. Take off the copium mask and smell the fresh air.
