>>3567243You're in the right place at least. Care to share why you feel that or are you just shitposting?
>>3569533Cuckoldry by definition have less power in the relationship and typically don't get anything out of it. Shills are literally just paid advertisers exploiting a market of suggestible idiots
>>3570719I had to read this a few times to figure out what retarded point you were actually making. Translation: People who think shooting is art and snapshotting isn't, aren't artists or photographers
Your opinion is as retarded as your sentence structure
>>3571837Most people buy FF because many professional requirements are almost exclusively limited to them. The rest buy them because they start off with too much money but if they eventually reach the stage where they need those things then they've saved money. Either way FF or bigger is almost exclusively a better choice for anyone aiming to make a living at photography. This is particularly true of APS-C where even basics like dual card slots don't exist
>>3573558I often wonder if people like you are self aware. It makes me cringe even thinking about it so I always choose to assume you're shitposting
>>3573868Except by extraction of logic he didn't- he's ultimately suggesting all the artistic photographers are somehow so rich and famous and successful from simply pressing a button or "witnessing reality", meaning he's actually giving them extra credit over other forms of art without realising it
>>3574173>just as good for most peopleI agree for the most part but would say film is just as good for most people since digital has all the benefits of film but obviously none of the drawbacks (other than arguably price). I think this also explains why there's a lot of assumed, and often genuine, pretence in film- because it's artificially limiting what you're capable of, thus it gets seen as hipster or tryhard
Like you said, it doesn't matter, especially if you're doing photography as a hobby
