You might not believe it but I started out shooting B&W and doing my own
processing in an army post darkroom. But I never enjoyed it very much.
I even had my own darkroom in my house for 10 years along with a
Beseler 23C enlarger. But I never enjoyed it very much. I abandoned
the darkroom after a move to our first Florida house... a place where
one would have to cool the "cold" tap water if you wanted to process the
film at 68 degrees F.
I've never been concerned about exploiting color shifts between UV and
IR. I don't even know what it means and don't expect to. I don't own
an OM-3Ti but I do own an OM-4. I might even use it in a week or so.
Nice camera but it has a lousy histogram display.
I also have a pretty nice scanner, an Epson V700. But I don't enjoy
using it. I consider it a necessary evil.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/13/2012 7:06 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> The Chuck wrote:
>> Unlike Ken I'm unimpressed by the "magic" of film. I like nice, clean
>> images.
>
> Well, if you like nice clean images in the world of film, you better
> be shooting at least 6x7cm. Digital walks the dog in that regard.
>
> The "magic" of film pretty much comes down to these factors:
>
> 1. B&W. Chemical prints. Still no comparison. Digital output? Doesn't
> matter which capture medium you use. SfX makes every hack photographer
> into Ansel Adams.
>
> 2. Exploiting the color shifts for dusk/dawn shooting as well as for
> UV/IR response which alters how the film "sees". (northern hardwoods -
> gray or brown bark?).
>
> 3. Ability to use non-digital cameras of choice. The "magic of film"
> for me is called the OM-3Ti and OM-4T.
>
> It helps that I have my own excellent scanner and the experience of
> tweeking. For people who don't have the patience of Moose or AG, I
> wouldn't expect them to get anything anywhere near what the technology
> is capable of delivering. Getting maximum dynamic range from a scan
> isn't easy work and getting proper color curves response is even
> harder.
>
> So, to the above points:
>
> 1. Do you have your own B&W darkroom with enlarger, decent timer and
> the chops to use it? No? Then digital is probably better.
>
> 2. Do you exploit the color shifts of Provia? Do you ever have the
> need to warm the tree bark of northern hardwoods? No? Then digital is
> probably better.
>
> 3. Do you have an OM-3Ti? How about a lovely OM-4T or two? No? Then
> digital is probably better.
>
> I'm reminded of an argument I occasionally have with my wife over
> pianos. Me? I absolutely love a GOOD grand piano. A Yamaha C7 remains
> my favorite recording piano, for instance. But there are some really
> really good digital samples of a bunch of pianos, including the C7
> which are available in her Yamaha S90 keyboard. I can patch in the
> latest updated sounds with a push of a button. (Midi controlling the
> latest samples loaded into a computer sampler/sequencer). She's
> perfectly content with the Keyboard, but I'd much rather take the time
> to mike and record the performance in a studio with a few thousand
> dollars in microphones on an $90,000 piano that has to be retuned
> every hour.
>
> Why?
>
> Because there is something unique and orginal about each recording.
> The room temperature, humidity, exact placement of baffles and even
> the lighting changes the sound. Lighting? Sure! The musician is
> reacting to how he/she feels, hears and sees the piano. Change ANY
> element in the room and the musican plays differently. Subtle, but
> real. No two performance at two different times in even the same room
> will be the same. But with a keyboard, the performance starts to
> stabilize and become similar, if not identical, no matter the
> environment.
>
> Might as well just use autotune on everything.
>
> Film photography is like this. There is just something imperfect about
> film photography that allows for unique performances that take on
> their own life. If you want to use autotune on everything, there are
> plenty of effects presets in Lightroom to satisfy most everybody. But
> if you like to develop your own images in an organic fashion, film has
> its place. This is especially true in darkroom photography where
> dodging and burning takes on an artform unlike anything you can do in
> the computer.
>
> Film photography isn't about perfection, it's about managing the
> imperfections and exploiting them to create something far greater than
> the sum of the parts.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|