>>4409419>MF film hasLess resolution than digital MF
Less dynamic rnage
Less color range
Worse lenses
Shot-losing reliability issues (film creasing, light leaks, stickers coming undone) requiring more upkeep and additional equipment
To an artist, all of this means obstacles to achieving their vision. Not the good kind, like "you have to be able to draw to paint". More like the "your paintbrush might randomly fall apart because it was assembled with stone age glue". Thus it is only used when they want bristles in their painting.
Film is just inferior to digital in every single domain. Most movies look better now too. Color grading film took a certain talent - the majority of movies shot on film looked awful and cheap, while the majority of movies shot on digital at least looked decent.
Film is the fixed gear bicycle of imaging. No actual benefits. Lots of irrit cunts latching on to it because they're a narcissistic consumerists who can't afford the good shit but remain desperate to purchase an identity. AKA hipsters.
Notice I didn't say photography. Most film users are not photographers. They just engage in imaging with a helping of pretentiousness. You will never see more derivative, lifeless crap than in a flickr film group. Even zach and doghair are more creative and experimental (though limited by their lacking intelligence and brain full of dog jizz respectively).
