oldwino

I read an interview with Stephen Shore a while back where is talked about a project he did with the Hasselblad X1D (the original one). 50MP sensor. He said that he and his printer thought it was showing 8x10 level resolution.

If continuing to use film is this painful for you, there’s no reason not to stop using it. Back in the day, we had no choice, but now we do. There are plenty of fine digital cameras around that make nice black and white images, and even better color images. Many can be had for little money, as most everyone wants the “latest and greatest” to take pictures of their cats. I love using my film cameras (of which I probably have too many), but in today’s world, you only shoot film because you want to and can afford to. There’s no “need to” involved.

When Nature imitates the Large Hadron Collider Rolleiflex E3

Caples Lake, CA Rolleiflex E3

Not a lot has changed in photography in this regard!

This is an interesting discussion - it brings back memories of lugging around a Nikon F2 with a heavy motor drive and a 250 exposure back. What could that drive do, 4fps? Also reminds me that back then, all the 35mm guys wished they could shoot medium format, and all the medium format guys (weddings primarily) shot Mamiya and wished they could afford Contax. And the doctors and lawyers had Hasselblads. I still enjoy shooting film. I think the cameras were much more interesting to use back then. I do have a few digital cameras, too, because sometimes easy is better. I am pretty sure they all have the “continuous” focus and advance, and probably 100s of frames per second, but I’ve never once used that feature.

Or just shoot film in the Hassy.

The top strip:

Depends on the camera AND lens. On my Barnacks, wide angle lenses produce a slightly larger negative than normal or tele lenses.

It almost looks like the Velvia is heat damaged (bad storage?).

Well. There you go. Case closed.

A Girl and her Toys. Leica X2