>>4120094I'm not talking about art repro, I'm talking about my own fine art abstract stuff. The reason my photography works is bc its extremely representational, but compositionally abstract.
Burke gets good results in spite of using film, not bc of it. We could ask him, but I'm willing to be he does lots of color range edits to get the colors and tones right where he wants them. The main reason film is key to his work isn't the actual film, its the grand look LF gives due to optical compression with the wide FOV. He's also workflow guy.
>I care very little about people photography, but genuinely don't mind the deep shadows of film and think they look good. I don't really bother with photoshop layers, more effort than it's worth.This is how you know you're a pseud. You don't have vision. Even my least edited shots have pretty complex global contrast/color adjust layers. My more complex edits usually have several colors/tones edited to get just the effect I want. This has always been the case. The old masters would slave over test strips and chemicals using multiple dodges, burns, masks, and split toning to achieve their goal. Only the methods have changed.
>The results are tangibly nicer though.Have you actually seen/held an RA4 print? They're literally made out of shitty plastic that cracks in dry climates. The dyes aren't super saturated or lightfast. They look and feel cheap.
>inb4 no photoI'm not at home rn, but I'd be happy to show my process and all the adjustments I make to execute my vision.