huang_shao_hui

May 28, 2013

If someone said that it is his opinion that "novels written with a word processor cannot effectively convey humor, triumph, and tragedy the way that novels written with a typewriter can," is it unfair to challenge that assertion? Or how about "it's my opinion that film users are all a bunch of bitter old guys afraid of change"? Should that go unchallenged because it's stated as an opinion, even though there's tons of evidence that it's complete nonsense?

</blockquote>

Mike, to make it easier for you I've copied and pasted a paragraph from Steve.

I've done my share of digital photography. I've looked at my stuff and other people's stuff. Whenever I see a good film photo, there is something that communicates deeply to me on an emotional level. Digital capture doesn't do that. No digital image I've ever printed or looked at has ever done that, and why that is is really beside the point. Maybe it's the grain. Who knows? It would be like trying to dissect a great poem. What's the point? It is not relevant. Film has something magical about it.

</blockquote>

Did he ever say that this is a new found science and whoever that can't see it were either blind or stupid or anything like that? HE feels strongly about something and therefore he wrote the above. Simple as that. You don't agree with him, fine, but there's no need to say it as if your OPINION can counter his. Talking about mixing opinion with facts... Worse, shouting out just another OPINION from high horse.

May 27, 2013

Film has something magical about it.

Why not show us that magic? Or show us some of your digital shots that are "too clean"? Until you do that, it's just web yakking.

</blockquote>

Pitty you don't know what Steve Mareno said represents his OPINION only. You mean it is so hard to understand that?

Apart from that why not you show some proper attitude in replying to others that has a different OPINION than yours!? Your's is just web 'farXing' with no meaning at all!

January 25, 2013

For critical sharpness, use known good equipment, good technique and a target with sufficient detail to allow you to assess your results for the target audience. Good enough film or sensor as appropriate as everyone has a ceiling of what they can achieve.

</blockquote>

Hi Les:

From your test it looks like the film has a lot more details than the 4000 dpi scanner could dig out. In fact your K20D "scan" shows that it's about double the linear resolution of the K20D itself. That's scary... That means it takes a 4x14.6=58.4MP KXXXD to deliver the kind of resolution. But didn't plenty of tests showed that 135 can 'never' deliver anything meaningful above 20MP? Or is there something that's defying some physics here?

January 23, 2013

I use an Olympus Stylus Epic (mju-2) all the time. I actually prefer the Stylus Infinity (mju-1) but don't use it much since it is "mint-in-box. (kind of like poor Prospector Pete).

</blockquote>

Oh, speaking of mju-2. That's an eternal pain for me. I don't own one. Rather my sister passed it to me after she 'upgraded' to powershot. I always like the mju-2, being super accurate in exposure and focus, on top of the very sharp 35 f/2.8 lens. Heck, it even has a spot meter! One fine day it was dunk (by accident it went into the laundry) into the washing machine and have a 3 hour dive+spin+swim. That's it. Too bad it wasn't an Olumpus Tough something... :-(

December 8, 2012

"Interesting about that post from Europe in regards to the young ones embracing film for the first time.I'm getting a lot of that (questions about film) from the under 30 generation here in the USA when I'm shooting one of my film bodies.Maybe some of them are starting to question why they have burned through 50% of their young life on a computer or smart phone and for what good reason?I work in engineering and many of the young ones coming right out of school really want to know what life was like before the technology transformation of the 70's & 80's.Boredom or just curious,I can't figure them out.My standard answer is "cars sure have come a long way from the so called good old days !".

</blockquote>

Here in South East Asia, everyone is dumping their film cameras and embracing the latest super duper do it all digital cameras. Nobody, I mean not a single person that carries a camera that I bumped into in my city is with a film camera, be it young or old! This is true for at least the past 2 years! It's scary to think that I'm the only dinosaur living in town... Isn't it ironic that this is happening in a reverse way where people(youngsters) of the 3rd world nations are adopting the latest gadget at a real fast rate whereas (some) youngsters in the developed nations are starting to 'discover' film? I think this is especially true in Japan where so many people are modifying their film cameras(with some digital bodies as well) to take in all sort of fancy/obsolete lenses from totally incompatible systems. Or maybe the "trend" is running too fast that it has gone out steam in the developed nations that it has no other better ways to push forward, causing some momentum inevitably run backwards? :-)

November 15, 2012

FM2n + 50 f/1.4 + 24 f/2.8 + 35 f/2 + 135 f/2.8 + 200 f/2.8, all manual focus. That would cost around 2K. Use the rest for darkroom set. If there's spare, then MD-12.

November 14, 2012

Jeff Spirer said the below: >>Also, you seem to have avoided my point that Salgado changed gear and people didn't notice. That's because people care about his photographs. The equipment is irrelevant if he is successful, because as one can easily tell from his statements (and similarly from most other photographers who have something to say), it's about his photographs. I feel like I have somehow failed in my efforts if someone asks me about equipment when they see my photographs.

It's really funny as I NEVER KNEW Salgado used Leica! Why are you paying so much attention to his PREVIOUS equipment? It didn't turn out like you're what you wished you were...

November 14, 2012

Jeff Spirer said the below: >>That begs the question of why it was so important to put the medium in the title. If it's not important, just talk about the photos.

I always feel funny, why is it that EVERY SINGLE THREAD that has the title FILM on it will draw the attention of Jeff? Any explanation that your put so much attention to this kind of thread might have just explained why other could put such importance to put the medium in the title. But if you could make that out, then you won't ask, so I guess it's nonsensical... >>I watched an incredible documentary last night on a photojournalist who was shooting in Juarez, the most violent city in the Western Hemisphere. The only time he talked about equipment, it was about his body armor. He never once mentioned his camera(s), or anything other than what he was shooting and what he was trying to show with his photos. If people let go of the equipment and medium when they present their photos, it comes across as someone more interested in the photographs than the technicals.

If you are as 'mediumless' as you try to claim, then you won't even bother to participate in this thread. Leave this to the super arrogant gearhead or 'film head'. But I guess you replies just reflected so badly of status you try to portray. Too bad! >>However, good that you showed their photos, and thanks for that. I like the last two. There are plenty that talk about it all the time without ever showing a photo. Out of the hundreds of words you said, the 2nd last line DO make sense! But for your last line, I just can't stop laughing! hahaha, that's why I never bother to submit a single photo here! To show some 'real' photo can justify one's status as a real photographer or bring more weight to one has to say? Wow, superlogic! If Ansel Adam say 1+1=3 is true, your logic will concur. Brilliant!

June 1, 2012

Ouch, since Jeff's question with a very high level of wisdom went unanswered for quite sometime, I'll try something else.

"Can anyone explain how the photos accompanying the article prove anything? Is there anything there that can't be done with a digital point and shoot?"

Jeff, can you answer this question of mine?

"Can anyone explain how a 36MP D800 shot can't be done with stitching 100000000 of my Motorola V3 VGA shots"

Maybe now you should know why it went unanswered. :( Too bad.

January 3, 2012

Larry, let's hope the 'spirit' lingers around in photo.net after 2020... :)

March 21, 2011

I have a few points to make before trying to provide my pov to Susan on her needs

@Scott Ferris,

While I think your landscape stitch is very good, I don't think you beach shot is of an equal high standard. When you rebuke Andy's point by pointing there's people and waves in it, I thought I could have myself appearing in both sides of the photo for the kind of stitch job :) Furthermore, this sort of stitch job is really limiting as you can't even have fast moving cloud taking up prominent frame space, at least without heavily editing the result. I know very well because I made this mistake in believing stitching is a poor man's medium format back, a solution for wide angle, high resolution and a bit of medium format perspective (isn't it nice to think that 2 x your 1DsIII frame is equal to a Hassy H3D39 36mm x 48mm sensor?) This couldn't be farther from the truth. On top of that Andy made a very valid point about the inability to use stitching to shoot 'anything that moves'. Your people in the above example is considered static!

On your reply to my query, I was a bit disappointed to find that your landscape shot (being very good) was created by the 17mm superwide. I thought it was a very well planned stitch done with at most a 28mm. As you've mentioned, the right way to do it is to fix the lens but move the camera to create the perfect stitch. In your example the only plus side that I can see is in increasing the pixel count from 21 to 42, with not much increase in FOV. With a 17 mm superwide all you need might be 5 steps backwards rather than go through all the hassle. Under the circumstances I can settle with 21 MP... Furthermore, your example of using SHIFTING on a rolling yacht is really puzzling, if not an over exaggeration to show that shifting does indeed work. Why on earth do you want to shift the lens rather than move the camera considering you're not even on a tripod (means accuracy in framing is so much a secondary factor)?

The last point that I want to bring up is, from the various threads it showed your tendency on mixing facts (objective) with your personal opinion (subjective) and package it as another fact. Just look at your statement for the above beach shot.

It will print effortlessly with high quality to 24"x 50"

Mind you, you can print it effortlessly to whatever dimension, key point here is high quality according to your standard only. I certainly don't consider, or don't even want to print as big with only approx. 3700 pixel (1DsIII short end) to 24" (155 real px per inch ?!). That is no where near 'high quality', to me. I know it's not high quality for me, but I'd not want to force it to everyone.

What'd be a true disservice to Susan is if she choose the stitching path and be limited in especially time and responsiveness towards a photographic opportunity. Furthermore, I think along the thread Susan did mention about her concern with the 'digital' look, which will not get away if she're to take the digital approach.

@Susan

Sorry for the above, but I can assure you that I'm really tired, out of steam and won't repeat it again. It's just a habit to debunk some of the pseudo science always show up in cyberspace.

My opinion on your situation is that, you should keep the Mamiya 7. Since you can't cash in much with it, why not keep it as an option, at least for B+W work Then, invest the time and effort in darkroom work. I always find scanning very taxing and if I've enough $$$ I'd buy a minilab to do colour print up to 12x18! While plenty of people look down on minilab prints ( I think it's more towards the operator than the equipment), I can consistently get very good result from the pro shop at my place. Sad fact is that the very rich old man discard the machine due to lack of business and he now runs a durst laser printer for big prints :( For B+W, if you want 24x30 or smaller I'd think that the Mamiya 7 + wet print is hard to beat. As for colour, buy any digicam that suits you, although I still shoot plenty of colour 135, positive and negative. If you want 50" enlargement you do not have much option but send it out for scanning, B+W or otherwise.

March 18, 2011

While I try to remain silent for this thread I fail to understand how a shift lens could be used to caputre what Scott Ferris stitched landscape shot without having to at least extending the tripod head significantly. Unless there's a shift lens with a 100cm image circle AND a special camera that allow a movement as big, how, by shifting alone could produce the stitched picture is really beyond me.

Scott, care to share with us what shift lens and body did you use? :) I'm keen to invest in one.

March 2, 2011

Mauro, are you keen to create a 'Mauro filter/Mauro colour profile/PN colour profile' in PS? :-) I'm thinking of on the permission of the winner, we get his/her methodology and post it somewhere in the net as a guide, albeit being limited to Canon or 40D and nikonscan only. Something like a "40D default jpeg to Velvia, portra, Tmax" conversion.

March 2, 2011

Edward, my experience with a low end scanner does somehow matches what you showed (the 'ugly' scan :-)). I also found that the different software versions do have a lot of impact on how 'ugly' it looks, with the older version gaining more detail but poor colour. However, as scanning with that scanner is taking too much of my time, I don't even bother to scan now. It's either optical print or let the shop do it.

I've no experience with Nikonscan so can't comment on whether Mauro being lucky. I guess he is because if he can consistently get good results right out from the box he wastes minimum amount of time adjusting the scanning outputs.

March 1, 2011

Scott Ferris, Please pardon my rudimentary English as that's certainly my 3rd language, a distant 3rd by the way. If you do not understand what I say, then I'll just put it in point form. Btw, do you not understand the above 2 points about scanning that I ask you? Really? If you need further explanation please do not hesitate to ask for it. Is the answer 'a' or 'b'?

Now in order not to let my meaning engulf in the sea of advance English that I've yet to master, here are the points.

-I don't think you must be a bad person or wrong, I don't even know you. I'm replying to what you said earlier

-You have your right to voice out your disagreement and experience in any thread

-When you voiced it out, you say the other must be wrong because it doesn't match your own experience

-When, Mauro or anyone say the reverse, you say he's biased

-Doing so, aren't you biased as well (that is if I've an equally closed mind)? Unless you're the ABSOLUTE standard?

-What does it mean when you say "I would hate readers who don't have our experience to believe that digital is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads."?

-Can I put it to you that when you say you can't get better result with film, that your digital result is lightyears better than film result, then the above statement of yours can be changed to "I would hate readers who don't have OUR EXPERIENCE to believe that FILM is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads." ?

-You said "I will accept and embrace others viewpoints. What I find difficult to accept is other peoples results that are vastly different from mine and many others."

-So if other peoples results are 'vastly different' from "yours and many others", they must be WRONG, and err, lying? Could it be that you're wrong?

-Last time I read a little bit of history of modern physics. When Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity which gives a result 'vastly different' from Newtonian laws, 'many others' think he's absolutely wrong, because it's 'vastly different' from the day to day findings of 'many others', and he's not a 'professional'. He's just a CLERK! :-)

-This is what you said in an earlier reply To infer better results could be achieved than by the pros I use is misguided at best, but truthfully, smacks of arrogance and bluster.

-It was lucky that Einstein didn't get labeled as a 'misguided' person 'smacks of arrogance and bluster' by the 'pros' then :-) LOL The 'pros' embraced his theory with an 'open mind'. But I guess it's different to talk about science as it applies logic, and photography is more of art than science, hence logic has no place.

-As for this competition 'set up by a biased individual and judged in part by another one', any kid who never shot a single frame of film in their lifetime, who knows basic colour tweaking in photo editing software, can participate.

-Why must it be digital vs film? Why can't you see it with 'open mind' that who best guess the outcome wins?

-Isn't it simple as that? You formed an opinion that Mauro has a secret agenda to give the digital worst possible 'look'. If that's the case don't you think Mauro should just tweaked the 40D shots first before letting us use them as a starting point?

-Or Mauro tweaked the film scans so that they look so much better than the digital shots, and whoever that can 'praise the film' better wins?

March 1, 2011

Scott Ferris,

I assume most of us here are mature enough so I'll skip all the sarcasms as those are again, useless noise.

Let us just concentrate on your point of how to 'contribute' to a thread like this, whether it's to make useful suggestions on methodology, or to point out what method is flawed, or even to participate. The least relevant would be "my experience count more than yours because I earn 100 Million from selling my digital photo or 1000 magazines used my digital photo" kind of silly statement as you could throw credentials however you like, it still won't change the fact that my experience tell me what I know and I believe plenty of us do agree on this point.

Isn't it silly to have an argument as you mentioned when you have your points countered by the others claiming how they use their standard to measure against yours, and yet you use your own benchmark or experience as the ultimate to say what other have to say as 'utter rubbish'? Isn't that equally condescending? To me, your experience could very much be 'utter rubbish' (I'm not saying it literally, but use it as an example how it'd sound like with role reversed) because you can't extract more than what a 21MP digital camera can from a medium format film. I certainly can. Many of us can. But you don't see me (I don't know about Mauro, Les, Dave or anyone. Do you guys do that?) jumping into a digital forum and announce to everyone there that Medium Format film has a higher resolution than 5DII as if Christopher Colombus found America, and tell them to shut up since all their experience is 'utter rubbish'. Remember how LL say 3MP D30 is better than 135, 6MP D60 is close or better than Medium Format, and latest, 80MP better than 8x10? And many think of LL as the point of reference in photography so what they say MUST BE TRUE! If you can do better with digital, fine, but it's not the gold standard. So does anyone who can get better result with film.

I can't show you my film images as a digital file and even if I could the method of their digitization becomes the sticking point, that is a classic reply by Mauro, anybody that agrees with my observations is told they don't know how to scan properly and send a few slides to him and he will scan them and show you how wrong you are, how presumptuous! When I compare my 20x30 and 24x36 prints from digital and film side by side, the digital is markedly better.

When you brought up the point of scanning as mentioned by Mauro, could you explain how on earth did he extract the level of detail that he showed in many of the previous thread? Anyone with the slightest background of scientific theory would have formulated an outcome that it's either:

a. There is really that much detail in film, you and many other can't extract it out.

b. Mauro is lying, he crop the digital file so much as to use 1 MP against the full area of 35mm maybe?

So which one is true? Or a combination of many other factors, like none equal playing ground as many have cried foul on the previous thread of "high ISO film vs digital", now with the handicap on the film?

At one point you say

I don't doubt Mauro's integrity, I do doubt his digital post processing abilities, his methodology and his inclination to present fair and repeatable comparisons particularly in light of his very provocative threads.

Latter on you say

I am sorry, rubbish like that needs to be held up and exposed as the utter nonsense it is.

Sounds very much to me you're questioning Mauro's integrity.... And "How presumptuous" were your words, but use against your own line of "doubt his post processing abilities". Ouch...

Lastly, just in case you do not understand this thread being a competition, there's no such thing as "digital wins" or "film wins". The result is solely base on how closely the participants could adjust the colour from the digital sample to match with Mauro's original scans. You seemed to have a preset mind on this must be a 'digital sucks, viva la film' thread since it's started by the (in)famous Mauro. You also seemed to form a very biased opinion about Mauro's 'evil intention' that even before the match is started you already cry foul (isn't that the 'completely closed mind' you said?) This part you should pick up. Notice here the results is based on how close it matches the original file, not how much better it looks than the 'crappy digital files'... Who cares if you change green to red or blue to yellow, as long as it matches the ORIGINAL the best! Even you could participate. So the question about Dave being a judge is just a none issue raised by you.

That is the kind of silliness, unfairness and bias that these threads present as OK! It is laughable, don't moan at me because I laugh at it :-)

Now does all these sound silly, unfair and bias when the so call point of contentions were never there to start with? Now that is what makes me laugh... :-)

February 28, 2011

Scott Ferris says

At the moment yes, but I know how you and Les continue these threads, if somebody gets close then you will look deeper, if they get closer again after actually showing them what they are trying to copy then you will look ever closer, you are very happy to compare pixel level posts, well you have been before.

Just as an example, we know Dave can't be considered impartial and how in the hell could he enter a competition that he is judging? Even if you say he won't judge his own work that means he is not judged as the others were! Amazing........

I always feel amazing how people like Scott Ferris have such a deep passion in this sort of threads which they themselves criticized till the end of the day. If when challenge for facts, the standard tag line would be

For my work my 135 format digital camera vastly outperforms my film use up to and including 6x7, I still drag the 6x9 out every now and again but more for the fun of it than the outright detail or colour or "feel".

Yeah, very true, because the above statement your 'digital camera vastly outperform YOUR film' And from what I know you do not represent anyone but yourself. Remember always, your experience is, well your experience ONLY... I don't think Mauro forces you to accept his experience as THE ultimate experience for mankind? :)

To Scott et al. If you're not interested and if you feel so much unfairness and outright silly or whatever, then just ignore it. Let those who want to have the fun participate rather than fill up this thread with useless noise. Why not start your OWN TEST, comparison blah blah blah at your DIGITAL forum, and whack film however you like. Show to the world how impartial you are by hiring MR from LL (why am I even talking about this joke material?) and his gang be the judges. Won't that make your day? Why bother to create endless amount of noise in here? Last time I check, the competition was set up Mauro, so if you think it's not fair, don't enter. In fact, don't even bother since he's a 'track record' with his accomplice to make digital look bad.

Go get a life.

February 27, 2011

Arrrgghhhhh Mauro, not again! :) Please take away the forbidden word from this thread and this FILM forum! Else you be very weary of what the xxx lurkers and xxx crusaders are going to do to you! This is warning no. 1!

February 25, 2011

Dave, Did you just address the above post to the wrong person, as I think I'm the only 'Huang' in this thread... Which part on which of my post did give you the impression that I'm talking nonsense? The one in italic is what I quoted from Jamie's replies. Steve, You just said whatever I wanted to say to Jamie's reply.

A challenge for 8x10 film users · February 25, 2011

Funny how Jeff didn't leave the above remark to ALL the equipment vs equipment threads in ALL the forums, digital or otherwise? :) Materials and Equipment yield no photograph, but it certainly HELPS to produce higher quality photographs. Granted a great photo is a great photo, but if Ansel Adam were to shoot his B+W masterpiece with my 640x480 VGA camera phone, it won't be that 'great'... Or in that case I'll just wish he shot it with 4x5, isn't it that easy to understand?

A challenge for 8x10 film users · February 24, 2011

Or how about the so call 'experienced photographers' are incompetent enough to obtain the max out of 8 x 10? Do you seriously think it is even, err, remotely possible? My limited experience in 4x5 showed to me that HD39 can only smell the smoke trail left behind by it. I don't know how good the IQ180 is when you have 2 x the pixel count of HD39. 8x10 does have 4 times the surface of a 4x5... Funny how the HD39 (not mine) consistently produced 'plasticky' prints when printed with a Dursk printer (again not mine but an ultra rich studio owner who said he can never recover the cost of the printer from his photographic business) on true photographic paper(not any low end Epson ink jet). When shooting landscape it fared much worse due to the extra high resolution needed on leaves and fern. LL is a sponsored site, remember?

OTH, I do agree that Mauro picked a wrong title in the other thread. It should have been 'High ISO performance of various FILMS' or something to avoid over reaction from digital crusaders.

February 24, 2011

"Even after these examples I am sure you film fanboys will still no doubt say 35mm film can compete. I even know what's coming next from you... pictures of coloured pencils and crayons taken at different exposures, talk of dynamic range blah blah blah..."

"Don't you realise you are all a laughing stock in photographic circles? You're still clinging on to this insane belief after all this time. Sure, 35mm film is better than digital. That's why emulsions are getting dropped all the time and film sales are through the floor compared to 10 years ago."

" I'm not going to waste hours of my time digging through my archive to try and find shots for you to shoot to pieces. I know the truth, the vast majority of professional photographers know the truth and so do most people on photo.net. It's just the small handful of die-hard film fanboys that will fight to the death for something they know was outdated years ago."

Now this just prove my earlier point on the 'digital fanboys' having plenty of attitude problem! Sorry I only call you that because you seemed to like this sort of derogatory remark on others. Can't you just save your breath if you really think that we the 'film fanboys' a laughing stock in the photographic circles? Why even bother to participate, if you don't even bother to 'waste your time digging blah blah...' Just to show your superiority (which in any case has yet to be proven AT ALL)? Please, have some sense When you want to disprove a point then show prove it with actual proof.

You know what, we 'film fanboys' would not even bother to go into any of the digital only forum just to pick a fight like you did because, sorry to say, it is either we behave better, or know better, or in the worst case, we're all silly but stick to ourselves and don't behave like someone who's short of medication.

Further to that, apart from the convenience factor, the hyperbole of DIGITAL superiority by the margin described by you is the clear fact of blind leading the blind, well sorry to say in the digital fanboys world.

February 24, 2011

So Jamie, you're showing us a high ISO comparison of 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV ? Does that make your 'test' any more valid than Mauro's test? At least in Mauro's test there are photo from 5DII and various films... :) Is this how you unqualified Mauro's test by showing what you can get with 1dMKIV only? This is real puzzling ...

Also, from your previous statement, is it restricted to what latest dslr can do on HIGH ISO only, or is it applicable to all situations? If it's the latter, then I'm afraid what ever you said 3 posts earlier can be applied to you, with the change of digital to film and vice versa from many other's perspective.

A challenge for 8x10 film users · February 23, 2011

Seriously I think LL just want to throw out ridiculous head lines everytime a new digital back was introduced. Isn't it the best way to draw the most attention without any investment in publicity? Still remember the (in)famous "D30 3MP is greater than 135 provia 'test'" done by them? I remember he did mentioned something like on a larger print the 135 wins, while at lower print size the D30 wins, which means 135 provia certainly contain more than what a 3MP can capture when viewing in larger size. Judging from that, and we extrapolate the potential outcome of the result of IQ180 vs 8x10, (we 'enlarged' the 135 size to 1.5 square inch to give him some handicap) (8x10/1.5)x3=160MP! This is assuming the IQ 180 is PERFECT where all 80Million pixels translate to actual 80 million pieces of correct information! In retrospect, the D30 can NEVER capture more than 1.5MP of useful pixel. Does anyone seriously think either of this is true? I thought there are plenty of his followers say D30 was a god send and again must be near perfect. How could it only capture less than 1.5 MP? Or maybe the IQ180 80MP is a miracle tool that 1 pixel can behave like 2? LOL When you do not have a solid background and just throw out claims after claims, one day you'll find that many of them are just, well, unqualified 'claims' and some will even bite you back... I think MR is just fooling himself and his loyal cult followers.... :) LOL Or is he just trying come out with the same silly conclusion like " in a 'small' print size the IQ180 wins, and in larger print size the 8x10 wins"? Shooting himself in the foot for the 'n'th time...

A challenge for 8x10 film users · February 21, 2011

Mauro, care to tell us what LL guy has to say when you want to 'challenge' with the puny 6x7 :) ? Did you get shoved to one side and been asked to save your breath since he and 1 million other with 1000 millennium worth of 'professional' experience confirmed his finding?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by huang_shao_hui