>>2680166My last reply in this thread was 3 days ago.
Look how fucking desperate you are for it only to be me that sees through your bullshit as to how bad your photos are technically.
Look how angry and desperate you are to be right
>>2680030. When multiple people are telling you, you're wrong
>>2680022,
>>2680009Look at how you tanked yet another thread desperately trying to migrate a conversation away from how fucking awful your photos are, if someone says your photo is less appealing to look at than your dad's puckered arsehole, be a fucking adult and accept it, your excuses
>>2680152 are pathetic and expose how little knowledge you have
>>2680047Here's a few choice excerts from the thread from you.
"ettr can mean underexposed" - no it can't, it literally means overexpose.
You claim that "the extra DR of film over digi is irrelevant" yet also bad mouth canon sensors for having too little DR compared to sony sensors. So 12 eV is significantly worse than 14ev, but 25ev is irrelevant. Nice one.
"digital files can be wet printed" (after being told wet prints have much more DR than your screen), sweetie, wet printing a digital file isn't going to magically give it more dynamic range.
"I'm intentionally avoiding a technically correct exposure" well that's one way to mitigate people telling you you're doing it wrong, and a great way to avoid learning or improving - which shows in your work.
Get the fucking picture you dumb bitch, the vast majority of the people here dislike you and think your photos suck. No amount of "muh artistic intention" is going to sway anyone's mind. You're just a Talentless, angry, lanky streak of piss and most depressingly, this place is the closest you have to friends.
Your a neet, that lives with their parents, who spends most of her life on a hobby image board where no one likes you and you suck at the hobby. Do you never look in the mirror and think "what the fuck am I doing with my life".
