Why do pictures taken with digital cameras look so terrible?

#cucklife

File: 4363670-hipster.jpg (384KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1024x1024px

>>3108814
Agreed, good sir! I take it you shoot a Leeca in film! Where do you get your negatories developed?

>>3108879
Nikon f6 developed myself

Because you take shitty photos.

Photos look like shit regardless of gear

You need a good scene/subject

Sage

>>3108819
>>3108879
>>3108951
>>3109210
>>3109217
Why are people never willing to openly talk about this here?

>>3108814
Because most people who use them don't know how to post-process

>>3109220

if you wanna talk about it go to /ftg/

otherwise, nobody wants to talk about the same stupid fucking bait that's posted every day.

sage

>>3109221
But why would someone post process. Besides cropping and perspective shit film photographers never really did much besides fuck with contrast while developing. Seems like cheating to me lmao.

>>3109223
>why would you cheat by using a word processor and a printer? you too shit to use a pen and paper?

>>3109224
That's not cheating you are doing the same thing on both.

>>3109223
>photographers never really did much besides fuck with contrast while developing
fucking retard

>>3109221
Show me some examples of well processed digital images.

>>3109231
I'm not gonna hold your hand. You have the whole internet and the tools to search it at your fingertips. Go look at good photojournalism stories, especially conflict coverage from the past decade

>>3109242
Not even him, but if you claim something IS, then the burden of proof is on you.
It's basic rhetoric.

>>3109224
>why would you cheat by committing it to written form? you too shit to continue a rich oral history?

File: IMG_2824.jpg (9KB, 220x147px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x147px

>>3109252
Here's some basic rhetoric.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	220
Image Height	147
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Film is magic and perfect, and you're great. Yes, you specifically! You're great!

Is that what you wanted to hear?

File: 004-640x480.jpg (94KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x480px

>he thinks film will bring out good contrast and show the character of the subject nicely

Nice joke pleb

The real pros shoot dry plate on a large format camera

Minimum plate size of 20 inches or GTFO with your shitty low res snapshit tier pictures taken on some shitty 35mm low quality film

Or some 24mm sensor that doesn't even see the real image, it just transposes garbage

more often than not because of poor post processing

>>3109223
>shoot RAW
>have more data to work with, but no processing applied by camera
>need to open proprietary camera format in a specific software kit
>fix lens issues - distortion, vignetting and chromatic abberations
>fine tune your color balance, because even the most carefully accurate manual setting on the camera may not get it 100% right for you
>enhance sharpness, contrast, colors specifically to your liking in program of choice - the camera didn't do this for you, remember?
>export for web viewing or print use
>be able to return to file later to fix or change things

That is why people post process. It's not always about polishing a turd, but people who think flat and unexerexposed camera jpegs are superior because of "no filters" really are a fucking trip as well.

>>3109252
>the burden of proof is on you
The burden of proof is on the OP though.

What is the cancer of /p/ and why is it filmfags?

>>3109277
the same goes for people who post unedited labcuck scans or untouched fresh-off-the-flatbed trash from their negatives. there is nothing holy about autonomous processes. the author needs to have an eye and an opinion.

File: Brussel-sprouts.jpg (60KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1200x630px

I think with digital it's like with brussel sprouts. Some find them bitter and some find them tasty. Some people like me don't like the look of digital and others don't mind it.

File: aleppo-conflict-cars-header-003[1].jpg (551KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1500x1000px

Yeah you tell em OP. These faggots destroyed the vinyl as well... look at all em CD's or their digital walkies with mp3. Thats shit. Nothing compares to a good 'ol gramophone.

File: KcY68.jpg (102KB, 721x482px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 721x482px

>>3109328
>some people like me don't like the look of digital

File: 5f4.gif (1MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x270px

>>3109341
>>3109341
>be 2017
>vinyl and film resurgence

>>3109598
>be 2017
>ektachrome is back
>film strong AS FUCK
what the fuck lads, is this the best timeline or what?

>>3109270
wow youre like Sugar the village idiot, but somewhat worse.

>>3109281
filmbros are the soul of /p/. the rest is pure unadulterated garbage.

>>3109598
>2017
>vinyl resurgence
The resurgence has been going on since around 2009

>>3109879
more like 2002 really

t. post-hipster thirtysomething

>>3109341
>t. assmad pleb with shit ears who listens to 128kbps youtube rips

>>3109270
What the fuck is wrong with this board.

>>3109341
>Mac Baren Original Choice in the pocket
It smells amazing

>>3109223
>shit film photographers never really did much beside

exactly