>>4175832Posting my stuff would distract from the discussion being had so it'd be derailing.
I'd argue that the camera is the fake plane even if it's bought instead of built. It's bought with the idea that good photos will come if one has it, pure magical thinking.
>>4175857>remainder>>4175911What do you mean by the opposite approach? Showing your pics for critique?
>>4175914Newbies asking for gear advice isn't necessarily a bad thing, the problem is they're asking on a board where a lot of people shill their meme gear to cope with buyer's remorse or out of fashion victimhood. Gear that commits the worst sin that gear can: getting in the way and wasting budget. Thousands spent towards some marginal gains, deep into diminishing returns territory in the name of bokeh or whatever, and not enough allocated where it matters: lighting, filters and getting good subjects/locations. Add to that the overreliance on tools that are perceived to be more than their are, like the silly ISO performance conclusions from using the dpreview studio shot. How many stops does that scene have? Nowhere as many to draw conclusions from, let me tell you. Even artreprofag's silly digital vs film test is more informative. Strong highlights, deep shadows and three dimensions.
>>4175916And? I didn't come here to bring photos but questions.
>>4175958Also this. It's always EXIF-less though.
>>4175983I was talking Winogrand and Moriyama lol. That's not to say I'm completely free of cargo cult sins. I nearly bought a multi image filter (5R) a while ago because I was in love with a scene that used it. Luckily I realized what I was doing before I pulIed the trigger. I was going to ape that cinematography instead of bringing something new to the table. There was nothing to say in what I would have done other than simping for a director and a DP I like a lot. Creatively bankrupt, not true art but mediocre craft. About as creative as a boomer going to Yosemite to recreate Ansel Adams' El Capitan
