Why do digital photos look so shit and lifeless compared to film? Why haven't digital cameras caught up to film yet? What's taking so long.
>>3114102
Wow, that is really some very, very bland background. You know... a shot of black in their trim paint would have changed it just enough to be more interesting.
>>3114102
Because film is objectively better, in all situations, than digital. Anyone who says otherwise is objectively stupid.
>>3114102
are you really this dumb or is this another summer troll thread?
Because unedited digital captures what the scene looks like, while film captures what you wanted the scene to look like.
>>3114228
That's not true. You can't control film. Meanwhile, if you shoot RAW, you can do whatever you want to the file (without even damaging the original)
>>3114418
Yeah but then it looks all fake and gay and stuff.
>>3114420
You're gay
>>3114102
It is intentional. With digital you get a more flat image so you can fuck around with it in post processing. It is why marvel movies objectively look like shit, because it is shot on digital and they don't do very good luts. Digital images are supposed to look like shit and then you are supposed to fix them in light room.
>>3114124
>objectively
>objectively
Being so illiterate he can't express himself without using redundant words
>>3114625
No, legitimately the way to get the most information in a digital image is to make it as flat as possible. That is why out of camera raws look flat and ugly. The whole point is to give you as much info to use in light room as possible
>>3114418
most people don't even know what a .raw, .dng, or .nef file is.