Hi again,
Ok, here is a laundry list of random thoughts that have been backed-up and
in desparate need of an email enema.
Olympus XA: I bought (actually traded for) this gem from Joel back in the
wintertime and finally got to see enough of the results of this camera to
know that it is a wonderful camera that nearly perfectly fits my
needs/desires in a pocket camera. Only grouse is that the left fifth of
the image is a little soft, but when making an 8x10 I can trim that side
off anyway. I've been shooting at F5.6-F11 with the camera and there is
absolutley no visible vignetting at these F-stops. I've also been shooting
at these F-stops because they are the sharpest according to the charts.
This camera is sharp enough that when I got all my rolls back that I had a
hard time determining which were shot with the XA and which were shot with
the Zuikos. The only telltail was the left corners. Sharpness is
exceptional. I shot a roll of Pan-X that is so sharp and contrasty that it
actually was better than identical images shot with my Mamiya Super-23!
Understand that I'm pretty picky about these things too! I'm going to
enjoy spending time with the enlarger with this roll.
Provia-F: Hubba, hubba. I nearly cried when I looked at the results of my
Badlands trip. This film is incredibly sharp, smooth and controlled. This
film is absolutely a direct replacement to K25 in my book. Shadow detail
held very well and saturation is moderate. I had experimented with
Provia-F previously, but wasn't overly impressed because of my shots were a
bit substandard. I am convinced that this film is better than what any
scan could show. What tickled me was that in expanses of sky that the
gradients were perfectly smooth with absolutely no visible grain. For
those who haven't tried it yet, beware, Provia-F could make a believer out
of you.
Ilford HP-5: Snooze. Compared to Kodak T400CN and Pan-X, I'm not into
grainy 400 speed films anymore.
Kodak T400CN: I'm liking this film more and more. However, it is
imperitive that you over-expose this film to maximize it. Don't worry
about the highlights burning out as the lattitude on the highlights goes on
forever. Shadow detail suffers long before highlights burn. This film
isn't overly contrasty as compared to Pan-X, but the lattitude exceeds
Pan-X by a few "octaves". Best of all--no grain. I got some doozy pics out
west that I'm just chompin at the bit to print. I found that shooting this
film at ISO 200 works out the best with occasional forays into ISO 100.
Shot at ISO 400, it looks just a hair softer than HP-5 at 400.
Ektachrome Nuclear 100: I forgot which film type it was, but Joel gave me
a role of this nifty super-saturated Kodak film that makes Disneyworld look
like an old B&W movie. I couldn't believe how much color it found in
monochromatic scenes. Think Velvia on acid! I like saturated colors, but
I think we finally reached a saturation point in my tolerance of
saturation! This is a special use film, in my book. I liked it very much,
but would use it when you desparately are in search of color--not when it
already exists.
I've had stockpiled something like 15 rolls of film and what is so exciting
is that I've got at least one world-class photograph per roll. I may not
have shot much this year, but at least the quality is high. I feel like my
artistic side is returning after a long drought. I don't want to do
anymore weddings. In fact, I'm looking at redoing my equipment list to
specifically avoid people events except maybe in digital. I account much
of this to getting back in the darkroom.
Will I stick with Olympus long-medium term? Good question. I'm at the
point where I doubt it. It is getting more difficult for me to focus and I
really need to upgrade my optics and bodies anyway. The only problem is
that I so very much like the bokeh of the Zuikos and prefer the image
smoothness to Nikkor glass. I think what camera system I settle on is
driven more by the digital revolution than anything else. Where I'd like
to get a Nikon F5 before too long there won't be enough difference between
35mm and digital to justify film anymore. But if I settle into medium
format then there will be a substantial difference for some time to come.
Hmm--maybe 4x5? Nyet.
Departing shot: I was thinking that maybe it was a flaw in the optics of
the cameras used, but I'm starting to think that National Geographic is
using some cheeseball scanner and not removing the film from the mounts.
I'm getting sick and tired of seeing blurry corners of so many of the shots
in the magazine now. Anybody else seeing this too? Or am I being too picky?
Oh, manditory SUV content: I got a great shot of my Jeep in the Bighorn
Mountains hanging on a really steep trail!
Ken Norton
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|