>>2680022>Regardless of what you want in the end photo, with film, you want to over expose, it's far better to have that shadow detail there in the first place, then to crush your blacks later, this will prevent your shadows from blocking up and instead have nice smooth gradients, texture and detail.Lol and you still can't realize why I call you an ignorant technician.
Shoot for your end goal. If you're in a mindset where people are *wrong* when they're intentionally *avoiding* a technically correct exposure, I have nothing to say except "I totally understand why you're unwilling to show your work on an anonymous chinese cartoon board"
>Not irrelevant in the slightest, with digital it's usually best to expose for what approximates your final shot the closest due to your limited DR,No, you fucking idiot. Digital has far more recovery range (totally, the better highlight falloff of film does not disregard clean recovery range) than film and should be shot with regards to the intended outcome.
ETTR can actually mean underexposing or overexposing, depending on the totality of the scene.
Is it a night shot of a building by a lake, and are your highlights the buildings internal lighting? Well then, we'd heavily underexpose here and pull the shadows in heavily, resulting in slightly noisy shadows (still cleaner than most filmstocks) and clean highlight transitions. Are we trying to preserve the richness of clouds at sunrise? We'll overexpose here to get more information from them.
>with film you expose for the best possible image quality - as film holds loads of detail in it's more exposed areas, but can block up in the less exposed areas.Have you actually used both mediums? When was the last time you used a non-canon raw file? Film does not compete with digital in recovery except for one aspect; film is nearly impossible to overexpose, and digital is nearly impossible to underexpose. Inverses. Kinda like everything else I've mentioned.
