>>4409454>Less resolution than digital MFdon't care
>Less dynamic rnagebetter contrast is better than muh gay flat gay shit
>Less color rangecool, film colors are still better and have better tonal transitions
>Worse lenseswhich is why everyone always ties to adapt film lenses?
>Shot-losing reliability issues (film creasing, light leaks, stickers coming undone) requiring more upkeep and additional equipmentthe single advantage of digishit, all for a worse image
>To an artist, all of this means obstacles to achieving their vision. nah, you are just a gay, retard. it produces better images
>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.top fucking kek, lol. digishit looks so bad no one goes to movie theaters anymore and everyone bitches about how slop from the 90s like parent trap looks superior to modern blockbusters
>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.nah, film looks better and you are just seething because you are too retarded to use it
>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).you are so fucking mad right now that film mogs your snoy its unreal
