>>4399705
It was just too expensive for ugly people to do photoshoots. Ugly people are ugly because they are poor. Lesser nutrition, untreated dental issues, neglected allergies, all deform the face and distort the body. Even if you’re skinny. Basically all recessed chins are caused by a lack of premium whole food meals or untreated allergies for example.

File: despair.jpg (640 KB, 821x1550)

640 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2025:01:14 15:55:45
Image Width	821
Image Height	1550

>>4399711
funnier without the frog

>>4399711
>noo stop posting threads I don't like
>ohnooooo now you made me post in them
>when will the horror end omgplsno

File: Color_Science.jpg (883 KB, 1955x1095)

883 KB JPG

>>4399705
No, its not just you. Digital was a mistake.

>>4399788
Based Sony showing them for what the really are!

>>4399705
I think it's a mixture of things:

1) Film hid imperfections that hi-res digital cameras reveal. A similar dynamic played out when TV switched from 480i to 1080P resolution. Anchors all of a sudden had a lot more wrinkles and such, except not really, we just couldn't notice them before.
2) Analog photography triggers a different response in the viewer. It's not as clinical and "accurate" as digital, or so we are accustomed to believing, and so we become conditioned to look at the subject with a more forgiving eye.
3) Women, in general terms, have been getting less and less feminine and frankly more trashy and less attractive over time. This has nothing to do with technology, and a similar downward trajectory is happening with men, too (again, talking in general terms for both). But if the subjects of the photos are of declining average attractiveness over time, then as time goes by and new technology comes along, that new tech is still capturing less attractive subjects, no matter how good it may be. Look at the cover of a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition from the 80's-90's, then look at one from the last few years, and you'll see what I mean here.

>>4399788
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/o6DbpG8vK6safxN0Ucgv4Q/
Jesus christ, talk about paid shilling

Here's the mandatory debunk, because fuck your employer
1: She got a free s9 for this video. All honesty is off.
2: No one else has this problem with the a7cii. The opposite is actually true, sony auto white balance adds too much magenta outdoors, not too much green.
3: You can clearly see the white shirt is turning green. The white wall is green. This is because a green tint was manually added in the camera settings.

My personal preference is canon. But panasonic is just unusable trash with auto defocus and a desolate lens mount of oversized, overpriced, underperforming garbage so I'm obligated to defend snoy over it.

>>4399956
based anything but panasonicer
>official /p/ camera rankings ahead
>CANON, OUR LORD IN TOKYO
God tier colors, god tier lenses, god tier autofocus, god tier specs, if you think you need more you've never shot professionally in your life. Best pancake lens, compact retro coming up. Snoy BTFO.
>SNOY
Ok colors, at least now, at least the lenses are small, second best autofocus, good specs on charts but disappoints REAL professionals every time, ass ergonomics designed for whiny little "hobbyists" that should fuck off back to fujifilm already and leave the four figure cameras to people that regularly mount a speedlight and trinity zoom. Cameras made before the a7iv are essentially unusable and should be thrown away. Lenses not badged G or GM are trash.
>NIGGON
Overly vibrant and bright version of sony colors, oversized lenses, even their best camera can't focus as well as snoy's entry level FF, lenses are excessively sterile and overweight, just not as good as canon ever, only liked by low budget wildlife photographers
>FUJIFILM
Basically just worse nikon now
>PANASONIC
Essentially unusable except as a second rate cinema camera with a manual focus lens made by someone other than panasonic
>OM SYSTEM, PENTAX
Lol. Let's teleport back to 2010, and maybe you'll find something that's "good for the money".

>>4399959
Actually kinda true tho, as far as the last 20 years goes.

>>4399959
>when shills collide
but its true

if canon could make their lenses as good as they used to but smaller, sony would fucking die

>>4399940
People arent getting uglier. More content needs to be made and it needs to be cheap so they are hiring uglier people. The majority of people are ugly so hot people are in high demand. Society literally pays them to exist.

So, basically, islam was right. Burkas now.

>>4399705

You just need to download a photo editing app on your mobile phone and try it out to see what girls are doing.
They are all making their eyes bigger, blurring their skin, messing with their nose and jawline.
Its so easy too, you just slide some sliders.

Also the phones today bake in tons of editing by default.

Everything has a kind of plastic look. Then add in the massive supply of photos now, every girl puts up a photo every day, vs in the past it was rare photoshoots, heavily planned and controlled ie quality over quantity.

Anyway to sum up I shoot girls and bring a film and digital camera to every shoot and take photos of the same girl in the same setup with both. Film is basically done with zero editing, it somehow edits skin by itself and looks nice.
Digital shows tons of flaws and i feel like 90% of my editing time goes to the skin editing on the digital shots and 10% to the film of just colour correction and dust removal. I almost never retouch skin on film shots.

Film is amazing like that, it really does make peoples skin look naturally nice. Sadly no girl is going to bother with film for her daily selfies, as you cant slide all those editing sliders to make yourself way better looking. Therefore they are all locked to their iphone only.

>>4399788
This is why film will ALWAYS be better

>>4399788
>smiling nervous squint
>hair covering wide face
>not leaning forward (look at necklace)

vs

>open dead eyes
>hair moved wide face
>necklace dangling

it's a shit picture taken on purpose

>>4399959
OM-S has god tier colors too, to the point of making tards believe the Kodak CCD have better colors than CMOS, when it's just olympus color processing