>>3733800What does this have to do with film? You can use a technical camera body (arca, cambo, linhof) with a digital back.
Also the backtilt was a response to your made up rule that the photographer "shouldn't diminish the size but actually portray them as they are". This is a silly and completely made up rule. Relative size is a creative choice. You can manipulate it with perspective (wideangle vs long focal) to "diminish" or "exaggerate" background relative to foreground. You can manipulate it with backtilt, to diminish or exaggerate what lies in the top of the frame vs the bottom of the frame.
It's a creative choice through and through. Your argument is equivalent to saying you should only use a 42mm-equivalent lens for landscapes in order to "not diminish their size and portray them as they are". Don't use a wideangle, cause that'll diminish the size of the background. Similarly, don't use filters (say a red one) cause they don't present skies and clouds as they are. You see how silly that sounds? And how it goes against all common sense as proven by practice, i.e. great and famous photographs that did just that, breaking your precious "rule"?
>Illogically and without any reason or knowledge of the subject. Wrong. I said specifically what I found good in the B&W photograph: well composed, with horizon on the lower third, good contrast between foreground and snowy mountain, also between mountain and sky, also between sky and clouds. Good contrast in the foreground too, emphasising the line going from the centre to almost the lower right third.
I also mentioned what was bad in the other photos: inclusion of dirt road, lack of contrast making the sky melt into the mountaintop, bland cloudless skies, and in the first image especially just a flat image with no sense of scale and any layering of foreground vs background.
Do you have an argument about the actual pictures? Or you're gonna keep hinging on an argument about film that I never made?
