>mfw faggots on this board don't even use a Hasselblad

weak bait

File: 9004918026_26f4c808e7_b.jpg (300KB, 828x1024px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 828x1024px

>>3104586
>mfw faggots on this board don't even use a 4x5

Like how do you even get depth of field with your shitty "digital" toy camera bullshit? You might as well just use you cell phone

>>3104586
>chink shit general

Sticking with my PhaseOne.

>>3104595

>4x5
>not 11x14 patrician format

>they don't shoot daguerreotypes

File: k.jpg (22KB, 203x70px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 203x70px

i literally cant believe photography was invented in the early 1800s. camera obscura and photo sensitive substances were known since a fucklot of time, why did no one put those together earlier?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:29 20:42:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	203
Image Height	70

>>3104674
photo sensitive materials were known to science since the 1600s. i wonder that if analog photography had gotten a 200 year headstart, if that would've translated into the golden age of film photography being that much longer.

>>3104689
i would have fucked art history hard.

>>3104691
*it

>>3104691
This. We would of seen abstract, cubism and post modern much sooner and faster. Oil painting might have never became a thing..

It's funny how digital medium format basically looks the same as any other digital sensor. I looked at some samples expecting to be amazed but nope the images could have come out of an entry level DSLR. It's all about resolution.