>>3972914I know some software, like RNI, does random dust and scratch generation, but there's still a bit of "fakeness" to it. I think until these companies start using machine learning to randomize, the software still struggles with making it look truly random.
Of course, I've fucked up plenty of film, and I don't really understand why someone would want there's shots looking like pic rel in the first place. It looks like this because I rushed through the development, not because of some cool film aesthetic.
>>3973902thanks anon, but I didn't mean I need someone to look at my pictures, I just meant its a stupid personal obsession. I'm not doing this for work, so I don't need to be doing this at all. As far as B+W, I guess I never really saw the point. I dome some B+W about a decade ago, but I couldn't understand why the pictures wouldn't look better in color. I'll see if I can dig some up; maybe my mind will change since so much time has past. (I'm still stuck in MD for at least another year, but I'm way too poor to live here.)
>>3973903I don't understand; I said "here are some film snapshits" and then posted some film snapshits. They are snapshits; they are not supposed to be good, and I wasn't asking anyone to check them. I was just posting examples of some film to compare aesthetics. That is not a fake timecode, it is from the Canon t90's Command Back.
