>>4199947Simply not true. Film is inferior to digital in just about everyway, including cost.
>>4200047>thread/>>4200052Film looks like shit enlarged and even MF and LF struggle to keep up with modern digital cameras when printing large.
>phones are good nowif you print phone photos larger than 8x10 they look like total shit.
>>4200074This. Film is easier to get decent results if you don't know what you're doing, ie, a well exposed film shot look better than SOOC jpg. However, anyone that knows how to work digital properly and has vision can get the results they want digitally, with higher IQ and lower cost, faster turn around time, etc.
>>4200093Yes, but its 24-36mp at best.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about film's "better DR". This is very high DR scene, about 14 stops. Portra 400 vs D610, same lens. The digital clearly has more shadow detail.
>inb4 but the digital shot looks cooked!! the highlights look terrible! I like the film shot much better.I could edit the digital shot to have softer highlight roll off, I did it this way to show maximum shadow detail.
