>>4160779>Film looks terrible when you shoot it because you're not a good photographer. I've taken lots of great shots on film, especially in b/w. I've probably shot more film than you. Film simply got in the way of my vision. I've posted dozens of great photos here, lets see some of your work?
>That's why you're a scanner now.I'm a "scanner" bc it pays very well. "Scanning" isn't even half of the job. Printing and color correction take up a majority of the time. You say it like its an easy thing to do, its not. If I gave you all the equipment I have and asked you reproduce a painting, you couldn't get anywhere close.
>>4160783>You have to then add grain and halation.Most films don't have halation, grain is pretty easy to simulate, its just normal distribution of noise.
>>4160873I pushed the absolute hell out of both files to show digital superior DR.
>>4160875Based. The film industry realized this 20 years ago and hasn't looked back since.
>- absence of artifacts introduced by demosaicing, to this day the DSP just fucking keeps doing it, no anti-aliasing filters seem to help and that makes "resolution" difficult to even define because most digital photos are presented essentially in upscale.I'm sick of hearing this myth. Adobe's demosaicing sucks dick, and Amaze with 5 steps of false color suppression virtually eliminates all artifacts.
>>4160882>it compresses a high-DR scene into a digitally-manageable dynamic range.It simply doesn't dude. Digital holds more information, more DR, and has less noise. You just don't know how to ETTR without blowing your highlights, then edit it to bring out the shadow detail. If the scene has a super extreme dynamic range, bracketing then generating a HDR file is stupid simple.
