I'm on your side. Digital sensors are so small that even a full frame DSLR looks weird, like a cell phone camera, thus the popularity of f 1.4 lenses.
I have 5 enlargers setup, I am inept at Photoshop. I love black and white fiber printing, and color negative printing. The few little inkjet prints I've made from my little Fuji camera are charming as can be, straight prints, no adjustment post processing. Most digital work is so flogged with PS it's just nonsense.
People here don't have money. Thus not much film left professionally. I just bought 25 rolls of Velvia 120, I love film.
>> Even the new Natl Geo magazine images look like crap since digital with all its blatant trickery took over. That's not really the fault of the technology itself, but of the usual "let-it-all-hang-out" new toy mentality, devoid of tasteful restraint.
Not to disagree with the above assessment but to make it less biased I wish there was a method to measure all the crap that was and still being produced on and with film since film was invented.
Some of it even comes prepackaged nowadays : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...e_400_iso.html
I agree. New toy syndrome came along long before digital photography. I remember when Cibachrome first came out, and galleries wanted every picture to be a Ciba with something bright red dominant in it, just like Natl Geo decades before wanted someone in a red sweater or red swimsuit in each published shot. Now it's gotta be some artsy "cobweb inside the lens" digital app.
Just got my test roll back. Seems to be true 5500K "daylight" balanced, finer-grained than any previous Ektachrome. As they claim, white whites; in other words, damn little latitude at the top end (a doubtful "improvement" in my mind). No recip correction needed 10 sec or under. Clean color balance, but not as neutral as Astia.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks