ALRIGHT LET'S END THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL. What's be

It doesn't get any more legit than a slow board on a japanimation forum. Every photographer worldwide will have to bow to these results.

>>3127666
digital is more practical, film looks nicer

no matter how many times his board will argue about it, those two things will remain the same

File: [HorribleSubs] One Piece - 786 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_09.46_[2017.04.30_20.39.53].jpg (518KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1920x1080px

>>3127681
This

File: 1487286386888.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>3127666
Voted both because they're both useful for different things.

>mfw digital large format is affordable

>>3127666
fuck you. how many of these threads do we need at the same time?

>>3127681
>film looks nicer
Oh yeah, love the look of film grain, way better than my spotless HDR digital shots.

digital is for niggers

>>3128012
Yeah if you’re shooting 1600. Good low-ISO film has no noticeable grain. 120 even more so.

>>3128332
135 film certainly has noticable grain even at low iso, unless you view a 6x9 postcard

That said, film grain does look nicer than digital noise

fuck film

>>3128346
This. Definetely this.

>>3129006
Yeah. Fuck film. I love to put my NAKED SWOLLEN DICK right into a HOT SEXY FILM ROLL and BRUSH IT AROUND until I CUM and HOT STICKY LIQUID pours out of my THROBBING SHAFT

>>3127666
Every photo ever posted on the internet has been a digital photo.

Digital wins.

>>3127681
Agreed.

>>3128012
>HDR

Stopped reading there

File: IP73r.gif (491KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 500x333px

They both have their purpose. I like film for the look and digital for the convenience.

Film is fucking tedious to use, and you have so many points of failure you need to cover.

But done right it can look magnificent, better than any preset, and after you've got the prints, that's it, results are there. Also, given a larger print you can put it up somewhere and photos always look better under natural light.

Relative to this, digital is just a piece of cake, but it's a double edged sword meaning that you can happily snap 1000 frames, and all of them can be dogshit.

Then there is the incredible amount of time you can spend at a PC doing them up, only for some shit-chucking pedestrian to say "oh you put that through a computer? It's not really a photo then."

>>3127666
In 7th grade I went on a weeklong school-sponsored trip to Washington, DC. I shot about 30 rolls of 110 film. I brought it all back, spent what was my life savings having it all developed, and EVREY LAST ROLL HAD BEEN DESTROYED BY AIRPORT X-RAYS.

They said it was safe for film. They lied.

>>3128012
B-but muh vintage a e s t h e t i c s .....

>>3129948
How is this possible? I have put film through x-rays and if it's not 800 speed then it's fine. I think you're bullshitting.

>>3129846
Can't argue with that mate.

>>3129955
Because the blast of radiation is set by the operator. If they jack it up to get a closer look at the dildo in the luggage of the woman in front then any film following it through will get an unfair blast. And if you are in the US they probably just ramp it up to be dicks

>>3129948
>4 rolls of film per day for a week
>7th grader
And nothing of value was lost.