>>3909591You're actually insane.
>>3909584>>3909582>>3909571>>3909567>>3909563>>3909508None of those people were me. Only you, me and them will know for sure. But holy shit I bet they think you're fucking crazy now. One of the dudes even reacted to me BEFORE you went megaSperg. I don't blame you for thinking I'd be samefagging it is 4chan but none of those dudes even type like I do.
Your pic is cool. The light and tonal reproduction of films like Ektar (especially when you nail lowish contrast with slide film) is impressive. Don't you think that's just bringing a few too many variables in the mix tho? MF film (scanned and uploaded) vs FF digital tonality? What were we even arguing about?
Your photo is tonally cool but you're actually handicapped if you don't see that the dudes face is a tad OoF. Those other anons pointed it out first, not me. Then again it was the cabal of samefags against you I'm sure.
My point is more a matter of terms. You can achieve similar dramatic DoF falloff with smaller subjects on smaller cameras (pic related). How much smaller? Was that my S20 in portrait mode? 1/1.7" compact? A sweet EM1 with a 300 f/4? Nikon PC lens? How big is an egret? How far away was I? Hurr durr physiuks.
Under other circumstances with differing subject sizes, you can achieve much of a similar effect. Its a bit of a misnomer to call the DoF aspect (compression and the whole shebang) the 'medium format look' when its more a matter of relative focal lengths, subject size, distance, sensor size etc etc.
