Decades ago I carried with me two OM-1 bodies. One (silver) was loaded
with Kodacolor 200, and the other (black) was loaded with a fine grain B&W
film. Having read Ansel Adams and understanding his reasons for using B&W, I
wanted to try my hand at it with a camera better than the Kodak Retina II that
I had used earlier.
Since I didn't have access to a darkroom or enlarger, I had to rely on
commercial processors, and to get the results I wanted I had to learn how to
use a wider range of Wratten filters than I had been using with the Retina II.
I did have to take some "exploratory" photos at first, but once I got the hang
of it the use of those filters became second nature.
Now, of course, I can take colour and B&W with the same camera, but to use
the filters I'm forced to use RAW recording format, which takes up a lot of
storage capacity.
>
>> One big difference between film and digital is that with film, you
>> try to make every shot count, whereas with digital, you just fire
>> away and sort it out later.
>> In looking over my archive, I see that I literally took 1/10th as
>> many photos when it was film.
>> I think that if you had been shooting film, you would have been much
>> more deliberate, and would have taken no more than a tenth as many
>> photos... but what do I know?
>
>That is absolutely true. However, on the flip side of this, I know
>that I wouldn't have gotten many of the shots with film because of
>they required numerous attempts to get. A couple years ago I did a
>write-up called "The Gotcha of the Great".
>
>http://zone-10.com/d1/node/205
>
<<SNIP>>
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|