Joel Wilcox said:
> Tim,
>
> I hate to say this, in some ways, but I think the difference between your
> friend's rich colors and yours is not the film but the lenses. You
mentioned
> he shoots Nikons. This is my "other" system as well and there is a
certain
> priority with that line on the kind of contrast I suspect you are
discerning.
Yeah, I have a Nikon (FE-2) too, but I hardly ever, ever, use it. It feels
like a tank compaired to my 4T. I must admit I do like the 250 sync and the
multiple exposures but I don't do that kind of stuff very much anyway. I've
put probably 100-150 rolls thru my OM's and maybe 10 thru the Nikon in the
last year.
> For my taste, however, there is a very pleasing refinement and subtlety
to
> Olympus optics, for which I am grateful and pleased, and which comes from
a
> greater latitude or softer contrast range in the lenses (that I have at
> least -- couple of zooms only and a couple of primes). The results are
often
> more natural and easier to work with when scanning and that sort of
thing. I
> guess these are subjective preferences. I'm glad I have both. But if you
> want to make his results, get a Nikon. Personally, however, in high
contrast
> situations, I would probably prefer your results to his, all other things
> being equal. And if you can equal his results with a different film,
doesn't
> that just go to show you can do it all but perhaps from within a greater
> range of choices?
Nicely put. I agree, the Oly is more subtle and better suited in certain
situations. In my own case, the "street" portraiture I'm managed is nothing
to be ashamed about. Do you have any techniques that bring out and
illustrate that latitude you mention?
But it's mostly the ergonomics that keeps the OM's within my grasp. Danny
Lyons is reputed to have said that he enjoyed using a Leica because "...it
feels like I've got a gun in my pocket." I wouldn't go that far, but I do
like the way the 4T fits my hand (and to a lessor degree, the heavier OM1).
I bought the Nikon a year ago in a weak moment because I was unhappy with
the Oly... my photos just weren't sharp and lacked snap. I later discovered
that the main problem wasn't the camera body but my technique, or lack of,
and the fact that the three Zuiko's I owned (past tense) aren't the three
the reputation was built on, i.e., 35-70 3.5/4.5; 75-150, and 50 1.4.
Now I use a tripod, shutter lockup (on the OM1 and self-timer on the 4T),
and prime glass and my work has taken an enormous leap in improvement.
> And thanks for the great discussion of Sensia and Provia.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joel
Anybody still use Kodachrome? If so is there a time of day or a situation
that it works best in? I like the vividness of the Fuji products but not
all the time. And I would take exception to using Fuji in the desert
Southwest, favoring Lumiere and it's earth-toned bias.
I'm still looking for the film/lens combination that excels. Or is that a
dumb and fruitless search and rather should be "film and situation and
processor" combination?
Thanks for the feedback,
Tim
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|