----- Original Message -----
From: "Tris Schuler" <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Look, Steve, I've had hard a night on the road. so I'll give you the short
> version.
>
> I don't use Velvia. In fact it's been years since I shot any chromes at
> all.
Please refer to my previous correspondence re. uninformed comments.
I use negative emulsions for the reason I prefer to work primarily in
> the street and there's no way that suits slide film--I need film that can
> take it, film that has wide latitude. I don't have time to worry about
> critical exposure when I'm jostling through crowds, in and out of shade
and
> light, on the road at night and all that.
Personally, I care more about getting the image right on the right medium
rather than what is the most convienient or user friendly. If it's ease of
use you want, ever tried using a Kodak disposable?
>
> As for underexposing and whatnot: I suspect many (if not most) Velvia
> images were underexposed somewhat, an old story for chromes.
>
> >Velvia is probably the very best film for colour reproduction work in
> >magazines for all subjects, but particularly nature, landscape and fine
> >detail work.
>
> I don't care what is and what is not used in magazines any more than I
care
> what network television is doing these days (whatever that could be--I
> never watch it)
You seem to care enough to make your rather bold statements about it.
any more than I care what Mrs. Smith in Omaha thinks or
> likes and wants to drive with four wheels tomorrow. The opinion I offered
> was mine and it has nothing (necessarily) to do with mass media or mass
> markets or the same-same Smiths of this world who make those other things
go.
>
> >To describe this fine film as 'mediocre' probably says more about the
user
> >than the film.
>
> Maybe it does at that. My opinion often walks alone.
>
> >All films from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford and most of Agfa are truly excellent,
but
> >it is a case of horses for courses, you must use the right product for
the
> >job.
>
> All films from Fuji, Kodak are Ilford are _not_ excellent.
Would you like to tell us which of the Fuji, Kodak and Ilford products you
do not consider to be excellent?
I doubt if most
> films from Agfa are, but then I steer clear of that manufacturer based on
> the results I've seen . . . which have not been mostly excellent.
Agfa make some superb 120 negative film.
>
> >Do yourself a favour, get a roll of Velvia, load it in your camera, set
the
> >ISO to the box speed, get a tripod and go and take some pictures,
> >landscapes, flowers, street scenes etc. Get it processed _properly_ and
then
> >bung them into your projector and make them big, I mean really BIG, then
> >come back and tell us what you think.
>
> Not interested. I admit that I have my eye on Provia (I think I can see a
> limited use for it) and I would also like to shoot a few special scenes I
> have in mind in and around San Francisco on Kodachrome. but that's about
it
> for me and slide film. For the rest, like I said I require a film that's
> hearty and can go all day. For me that bill is filled either with Tri-X or
> a handful of fast and slow color emulsions I could name. I play around
with
> other stuff from time to time as I'm curious and like to experiment, but
if
> you want to know for general purpose work Kodak Gold functions for me
about
> as ably as anything else. (Actually, for all the heat Kodak takes for it's
> so-called consumer film that's a pretty good emulsion in its own right for
> just walking around.)
>
> Tris
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|