So, now that the film vs digital is pretty much settled, as film

also
>film = beautiful white girl
>digital = t h o t

>>3143126
The person taking these photos was clearly trying to make digital look bad. Just look at the background

Literally
one minute
of editing

>>3143130
t. literally no proof.

File: 1504290876131.jpg (442KB, 1000x765px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1000x765px

>>3143131

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	765
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:09:01 21:53:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	765

>>3143131
>t.
Fuck you and your goofy fucking grammar that no one uses.

>be wildlife photographer
>taking pictures of two elk fighting
>take 6 photos/second for 2 minutes

Film or digital? Which one is clearly better for this exercise given that I can edit my images afterward?

>>3143155
You'd shoot mainly digital, and film while your camera disgorges its buffer. 720 exposures times 30-40 M each also requires 64G cards, or swapping smaller ones in and out. There'll be a lull when rewinding and reloading film and debuffering overlap.

You'll print the film shots and admire them forever because they're swish as fuck.

>>3143155
Video

File: Untitled-1.jpg (436KB, 1000x765px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1000x765px

You can do a lot with digital.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:09:01 22:42:33
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	765

>>3143126
The only difference between those two shots are the lighting, maybe a bit wider DoF on the left.
Film or digital does not matter when the photographer doesn't know shit about lighting.

>as film has been proven superior to digital everytime
top kek

>this is what hipsters want to believe

File: IMG_1383.jpg (166KB, 640x854px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 640x854px

>>3143126
This is some random sooc from a crop sensor. Just whack on a glow filter and you're all set.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.17.150426759
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	640
Image Height	854
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3143126
you know if you just learned how to do basic enhancements in photoshop, you could actually take advantage of the flexibility that digital offers instead of just MUHFILM wanking about the SOOC results

>>3143126
>So, now that the film vs digital is pretty much settled
So now it has been proven you are delusional, and purposely went out to screw the digital image to attempt to prove your point. Clearly you do not know how to actually use a digital camera effectively. I easily could have gotten a color rich, and better exposed image. Digital is superior as far as being able to fix errors in the image. I have no doubt I was shooting tons of film before your dad even was able to shoot your worthless seed into your mother.

>>3143161
Yeah, like making her look like a wax doll

File: 1503438373848.jpg (23KB, 480x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x276px

>>3143188

Film is forever

>>3143126
film one had the bitch smiling, better composition, better lighting and wider aperture

this is THE worst comparison

>>3143227
> and wider aperture

More likely the digital was shot on a crop sensor and the Film shot was on 135.

Also, looks like the digital version had no postprocessing done on it.

Other than that, I agree with you.

File: Troll_9c12d5_2135951.jpg (37KB, 411x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 411x500px

>>3143126

>>3143188
Calm down grandpa please jerk off about technology somewhere else

>>3143126
>different focal length
>different lighting
haha.

>>3143212
Film is for whiney bitches who can't get to grips with their own irrelevance

>>3143126
Why are the rocks in the bottom right more in focus for the Digital than the FILM version.

>>3143137
nigga what the fuck are you doing on 4chan if you don't even know basic local memes?

>>3143192
he was editing a lowres jpg

>>3143227
film cameras make people more comfortable, yeah. if it had been a TLR, girl would have been GLOWING. thats how cool film is. digislugs wont ever comprehend.

>>3143293
and youre whiteknighting a visually impaired digicuck, pretty fucking sad, isnt it?

>>3143137
t. is short for terkkuja, a Finnish word for "yours truly".

>>3143269
Yeah seriously. Exposure doesn't even match. The film is got that bright key look

File: 1.jpg (290KB, 1000x765px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1000x765px

>>3143269

File: 2.jpg (322KB, 1000x765px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1000x765px

Aльзo

File: 5f5e130d7d25b130b2fec784683a94b9.png (220KB, 460x295px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 460x295px

>>3143161
>You can do a lot with digital.

>>3143136
Now bring brick the detail in the highlights.