gt1

<p>I switched from digital to film because with slide film I do very little post-processing after scanning. Shoot, get film developed, scan, print. Overall I spend much less time processing than I ever did with digital. The only drawbacks for me with a film workflow are cost and waiting 24 hours before I can get to work on my images. </p>

<p>And I absolutely love b&w film, TMax 100 or Neopan 1600 depending on my subjects.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I get your point but with no context the following is absolutely true:</p>

<p>"- The type of camera you use (and therefore the quality of your equipment) doesn't matter."</p>

<p>Check <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00U0pA">this thread</a> <a></a> that I started awhile back, my focus is on compactness and after checking out my friend's Ricoh GR1S last Sunday that's what I would get if I had the money.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Awesome, thanks! I have a bunch of FP-100C and some FP-100C45.</p>

<p>Need to get some hypo.</p>

<p>Wow, I didn't know you could make a transparent negative even with FP100C. Do you have instructions?</p>

<p>Anyway, I love FP-3000B positives so just shoot your other pack, why worry about the negs?</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2482/3562597544_8029bd4ab0.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>A friend recently bought a Nikon D3000 with 18-55 VR zoom for less than $600. This is a much better camera than an EM or OM-1. Not to mention a Konica C35 AF, which was really a very weak camera with one snazzy feature (AF).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on what you mean by "better". I'll be using my Crown Graphic for as long as film is available for it. I can't say the same for my Rebel XT. It already feels more antiquated then my Crown Graphic.</p>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>