What's the point of using expensive film, if you're going to digitally scan it and color correct it in post? Is it just for the grain size?

So you get film's color science, then slap digital filter from camera/scanner, then you tweak this again to your liking?

Why not just use cheapest possible film if you're post processing anyway?

>>4438341 (OP)
>Why not just use cheapest possible film if you're post processing anyway?
Literally why I tell people no point spending more and just use kentmere. But I will say op don’t pretend like printing didn’t involve subjective adjustment of tones either, if you’re going to be a colour purist or whatever, slides is probably the way to go.

>>4438341 (OP)
1. better film takes over/underexposure better
2. manipulating colors and other stuff has been a thing since the dawn of film photography
3. getting stuff right as early as possible in the processing chain will always look better (it's the same in audio and probably in a lot of other things ass well)

>>4438357
idk why I wrote 'ass' but I do like a nice, tight butt on a girl

>>4438357
>3.
I think this is important no matter what your processing, even digital. The closer you can achieve your satisfactory results, the less you have to process overall.

>>4438341 (OP)

because it's fun stupid

let people enjoy things

Because I can and you can't stop me
nanner nanner boo boo