Why do amateur photographers worry so much about burnt highlights yet their work never gets shown at the MoMA?
Museum of Modern "art"
>>4324662Huh? I showed my work to your moma and she spanked me twice as hard for burning the highlights. After that I blew out her highlights, and smashed her shadows if you catch my drift. ;)
>>4324680Having some troubles catching your drift, care to elaborate?
>>4324680yeah I don't really get what this guy means too
>>4324683>>4324711samefag
>>4324683>>4324711It means he's a foreigner who visited the US to show his photos to a curator (identifies as she/her) at our Museum of Modern Art. He was rejected harshly twice on account of lost highlight detail. Then he promised he could take a non-shitty photo and proceeded to take out his X100VI but ended up blowing the highlights and crushing the shadows on account of framelet dynamic range.
>>4324680What did he mean by this?
My name jeff
>>4324662when amateur shoots digital in raw format, there are multiple options how highlights are rendered, they can be clipped white, pink, film like and maybe some other highlight restore options depending programgetting work to museum display probably take time
moma leaning film is so mid
>>4326309More proof of the objective superiority of film. At least you can be the contrarian by shooting digicucks now!
>>4324910Weird, your name is showing as AnonymousDid you forget to put your name in the name field?I took the liberty of demonstrating for you, but of course I will remove it after this post so that you are able to post as Jeff without anons getting confused.
