NSURIT wrote:
>Hmm, wonder what size film it takes? Most of my pin-hole work recently
has
>been done with film. Doubt that I'll be jumping on the e-30 band wagon
>right away, although it does have some interest. It probably won't replace
my
>Zero Image, 8banners, holga, diana,or soft focus lenses. Unlike underwear
and
>socks, camera bodies don't need to be changed regularly. Don't tell the
Nik#n
>and Can#n folks. The darkroom sink cabinet is being built this week.
I'll
>be wet soon . . . shortly after New Years. <[B^) Bill Barber
Bill, we need to schedule a digital-free Zuikofest gettogether. I
understand spring wildflowers are nice down your way. :)
I'm not minding the aspect of camera systems being changed regularly. It
makes it a bit easier to acquire classic top-dog stuff in perfect condition.
BTW, a VERY interesting thing happened. I shot a recent wedding where about
1/5 of the presented pictures in the proof book were from the OM-4Ti, shot
on Delta 400. Guess which pictures are getting the most attention? Yup,
you guessed it--film. They truely look different from the digital stuff,
and it isn't just monochrome vs color, it's "presence", 3D'ness and
"warmth". This isn't crop-factor related either--we're talking about images
shot with wide-angles, stopped down to F8-11 in many instances.
The look is distinctly different enough that I'm tempted to go film for
senior pictures for a while. Portra 160NC is so good and it scans so well
giving skintones we kill for.
AG
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|