>>3278075>global isn't globalOh, so you can do gradient filters and shit on fuji like you can on sony?
>fuji digi greens = fuji film greens1. No, they look nothing alike
2. I still prefer kodaks greens
>fuji have those greens because of NANo, fuji are proudly asian and the slightly jade greens were made to look good next to cherry blossom and asian skin you dumb yank cunt, read a fucking book once in a while. Their greens are as they are on digi thanks to them inventing xtrans to discourage their users from editing their shots, this is common knowledge, why do you live in your own little fantasy world?
>>3278082>mf isn't relevant because it's not as popular as 135we may as well stop talking about gear and only talk about phone cameras, as they are a far more popular format than anything else. It doesn't matter that it's completely irrelevant to any professional or even hobbyist
>a middle iso value is importantNo it's not, film overexposed 4 stops comes out almost indistinguishable from a "correct" exposure, you don't have this wiggle room on digital, hence why a more exact iso value could be desirable (not that you should ever shoot in anything other than a full iso stop on digi)
>if you don't shoot at correct exposure you have to make notesYou've never shot film huh, scanners will auto correct exposure and decent ones capture the full dynamic range of the emulsion. If you do it in the darkroom you're going to run a test strip for exposure anyway
>not as freeing as digitalTrue, digital is wonderful for shooting in the dark
>darkrooms were rented outAnd they still are, but now it's 3 or 4 people at any one time in the 2 darkrooms in my town, there used to be about a dozen and they would be rammed. Most users here are over 24 pal, thanks for giving your age though, i was cocksure and wrong frequently at your age too.
>i live in sfSo you are presented with a huge bias towards "hipsters" in your local area.
Ok, but what about the rest of the world?
