digital vs film
Out of context: Reply #42
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- tc_fisher0
exactly, loaf. no one blames you. it's okay. don't listen to them. leave them be with their petty user reviews and best deal spams. there, there. we'll find our way through this somehow.
ansel adams had fucking team of people developing and printing his work later in life. it's still his work. see loaf. justification is at hand.
would have anyone really noticed or cared that lucas shot on HD if he didn't go about fucking press conference after press conference, making it a big fucking deal? no. no one would have cared. they all just wanted to see little darth vader, hooping and a-hollaring with his lightsabers and his little nano thingies in his blood.
film or digital that movie sucked. so what does it matter? you can't tell the difference.
digital is great because one, it comes pretty damn close to film these days and can only get better.
film is great because... it's film and it's great.
look! they are both great! they both do the same thing! you can put images on them! yay! rejoice!
think of it as acrylic to oils. it's still painting. and i'm sure that only the loliest of paint nerds argue between the use of oils to acrylic and whose more real of a painter for using one over the other.
c'mon. let's not be paint nerds. no one wants to be a painting nerd. lets get our collective asses out of the world of which thing should i buy to make art and just go and make some art.