Digital, It's to clean and ugly. Has zero aesthetic. Anyone

>>3100567
Yes, when people don't bother to post-process, it screams "I have no aesthetic sensibility"

>>3100567
no need to put a nigger as OP photo. now i wont shitpost in your shitpost thread. do it better next time.

>>3100610
fuck off back to /pol you dumb kike

>>3100610
too late

File: IMG_2954.jpg (75KB, 1400x700px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1400x700px

It can but it's tough. Honestly I've seen it work more on films than still photos. I figure the temptation is too great to make everything over sharpened and over clear and too evenly lit. Almost like you feel unprofessional if you don't.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1400
Image Height	700
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3100617
some races are better looking than others, and some races always look like literal shit, deal with it.

>>3100619
you can always delete the OP pic, without killing the thread.

>>3100625
no, too late, as in you're already shitposting

>>3100567
Film.
>any snapshot can look aesthetic if I just overexpose by a few stops

>digital
I actually have to put effort into things like light exposure and composition as well as post processing because I can't fall back on hipster memes
Le fixer 4 u.

>Has zero aesthetic.

God damn i wish people would stop misusing that word.

>>3100643
Yeah I feel that. Digital is super gay.