>>4450553 (OP)
>based filmic saturated smooth silky wallpaper yumyums
>crunchy digital snapshit icky grapefield

>>4450584
wait, was bliss taken on film? Digicucks btfo once again

>>4450586
>1996
>Wait was that film?
Anon...

>>4450586
It was taken on ISO 50 6x9 slide film.

Its the technical equivalent of a GFX100S if you, ironically, scan it with a GFX100S. So nothing special really. High end landscape photography has gotten way more accessible since then.

Back in 1996, people had to pay hundreds per frame to have their stuff drum scanned which was actually slightly lower quality than scanning with a camera.

>>4450553 (OP)
The only reason the guy took the pictures was because the grape vines got a disease and had to be completely replaced. He noticed how nice the vineless vineyard looked.

>>4450605
>adding bayer artifacts to film
why
you know drum scanners exist don't you?

>>4450726
>what is pixel shift

>>4450553 (OP)
The highlights look like he was using a Canon RP lol

>>4450727
A sad cope that doesn't fully address the issue.
Never once have I looked at a pixel shifted pic and thought "wow this is just like Foveon". Plus it produces some weird artifacts.
https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2023/02/the-fujifilm-pixel-shift-multi-shot.html

>>4450730
>I then decided to try Topaz Sharpen AI and the result was much better.
Pixelshitters rest easy, you can safely ignore this retard's opinions.

>>4450605
>retarded irrelevant gearfagging nonsense
>inb4: elaborate
no

>>4450849
In fairness those were X-Trans pixel shifts too, not a GFX like what was actually talked about

>>4450850
>its retarded, irrelevant, gearfagging, and nonsense!
It's facts. No, it's not just facts it's the most optimistic facts based on the most ideal scenarios

In most real use 6x9 is good for <60mp scans and 35mm got mogged by the canon 5d classic.

>>4450863
Nobody asked.

>>4450866
>how it started: digicucks btfo! photography used to be good!
>how it's going: NOBODY ASKED >:(
lol a canon 5ds will outdo 6x9 film for most shooters

you could shoot bliss on a <$1000 budget whats your excuse really

>>4450886
I'm not the anon that said that but you're still wrong because you can't load slide film into a digital camera and it still wasn't a question so nobody asked or wanted to hear an ad about fujifilm digital gsxr1000's

Film sucks digital looks better

There should be a stat shown for every thread
"Posts to gearwars/gearfagging"
In this case I think the thread survived...5 comments until it got turned into a gear thread.

>>4450924
The culprit? Fujislugs, as usual.

>>4450863
>and 35mm got mogged by the canon 5d classic

Not from the best commercial grade scanners.

>>4450918
>Film sucks digital looks better

That's because you haven't seen what film is capable of.

Pre-chemtrail the skies looked better.

>>4450924
The first podt was already gearfagging

No cloud detail

>>4450924
does /diy/ suffer similar gearfaggotry with threads that descend into arguments over a wooden table potentially being better if it were built with milwaukee power tools instead of makita? Gearfaggotry is relentless and perennial on /p/. Is it like this anywhere else? Do painters argue about the quality of brushstrokes from synthetic fibres versus organic fibres? Or do people who draw debate the superiority of graphite pencils against charcoal? Do graphic designers call anything made on a digital tablet shit and insist it needs to be made with “real” materials?

Do cyclists call out people riding on hardtail frames when they “need” rear suspension? Or do gymrats insist the only way to make “real” gains is from dumbbell overhead press and that barbell overhead press is for newbs and retards?

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, they say. A hammer and a few nails do the same job as a nailgun.

>>4451266
The difference is that eventually people will just post their table they make and say "idk works for me" and that's the end of it.

>>4451268
Yep. If it’s “good,” if people like it or use it, it doesn’t matter if it was shot on film or digital. They don’t like it or use it? No amount of explanations will convince them to like it. “De gustibus non est disputandum.”

>>4451266
People brandfag fastfood chains on ck. Very similar to p actually. I wonder if it is because of the incredibly low barrier to entry.

>>4451266
>"Nice table, I like the lacquer you used. What kind?"
would be the entirity of it. Benign, useful infermation and zero fagging.
>>4451279
>People brandfag fastfood
>I wonder if it is because of the incredibly low barrier to entry
Yet somehow the phone threads here still produce more interesting snapshits than the dedicated MFTurd / fgt threads so I think there's a bit more to it

>>4451283
Where are the m43 and phone generals? I suppose you may be right depending on your definition of interesting.

Is phone and m43 the fast food of photography? Homecooked meals can be a lot worse than fast food if you suck at cooking, but the potential for greatness will always be significantly higher.

>Digislug
Hahahaha I said that.

>>4451299
Unsure if you're a newfag or just baiting but, M43 generals come and go and are normally dominated by tier-1 gearfagging and photos that look no better than a phone, except the user is normally an insufferable tool who can't cope with the lack of quality they get for such expensive shit.
Phone threads are actually rather consistent and of course you get a similar level of unimpressive smeary nonsense, but thanks to it being so accessible, the user need not be a retarded shill as M43 requires. A nice byproduct is that a fair amount of anons with phone cameras actually have an ounce of talent or skill and the result is some nice photos regardless of the high noise or low DR.
In fairness, the /fgt/ thread does produce some bangers, but the most recent ones were literally snapshits of a pond or whatever and that skewed my opinion.

In honestly, I dont give a fuck about what gear anyone uses. I like photos and the processes used to get them. The unfortunate reality is that stereotypes exist for a reason and it's fun to poke the bear here at times.

>>4450605
>Back in 1996, people had to pay hundreds per frame to have their stuff drum scanned

That's fucking not true you knob. I was paying $10 frame for drum scanning in the mid early 2000s.