>>3093984>>using a high end scanner to scan in $5 rolls of film>Yeah nah m8.You only have yourself to blame then. Also one, we already established that film is superior to APS-C. Two, film price doesn't matter, most of my B&W materials cost $1 or less per roll because I cut from bulk, and for $5 you can get a roll of pro-level slide if you get a good deal. And three, dedicated 35mm scanners are medium-tier, you can talk about high-end once you move to wet-scanning on drum scanners. But almost all flatbeds aren't even low-tier, they're objectively shit. It's like watching a 4K movie on a portable 6" CRT, or some other cool analogy.
>And if you're scanning film rather than printing it you're missing half the pointAgreed that film should be printed on paper in a darkroom, however in this age if you want to publish on web and even in 99% of printed media then you need to digitize at some stage. Ideally from an analog print that already has all the post-processing on it, but even a scan straight from film (on a proper film scanner) is still superior to digital any time.
>"Muh feels" is not a solid argument worth any serious discourse.Being blind is seriously worth having your eyes checked though.
>esoteric nonsenseBuzzwords.
>Not all of us are unimpressed by what modern technology providesI guess you missed the paragraph where I said that digital has its applications as well.
>Chasing good light, composition and subject matter has always been infinitely more important to me and many others than chasing a certain "look", unless that "look" has anything to do with the things I just listed.But "the look" is inseparably tied with the photo as a whole (and absolutely directly related to the plasticity of how the light is rendered). This is the main problem with you digifags, you masturbate over the specs and numbers and all so much that you become blind to the bigger picture that is the resulting photograph.
