love the look on his face.
Not “nice”, it’s more like “NICE !!!”… this is film, man… it’s EPIC.
OK, OK, I could have said “told you so” I was just being NICE.
An aside: I am currently playing with a Rolleiflex 2.8f type 1. It is lovely – the touchy/feely thing. The image quality is also EPIC.
Related: Why an M3 rather than an M7? The touchy/feely thing? The look? They are lovely…..
For the type of shots you mostly take the ‘blad 2000fc with 110mm f2 would also be suitably challenging and EPIC. It also has the touchy/feely thing.
Ha,ha… thank you for understanding my answer was meant to be cheeky.
But seriously, the look in this image could not have been accomplished by digital. Some people viewing this may not realize how delicately, accurately, and beautifully the light is being depicted. It’s being “held” by the medium with such poise. It’s tears-of-joy-inducing. Seriously.
As for your questions/comments:
Thanks again for your EPIC post!
There was no misunderstanding at all.
The ‘bald is one of those things you need to have in your hand. The build and feel ….
In general black and white film has feel that digital cannot match, so we agree!
In the same vein it’s why I prefer the Noct f1.0 over the f0.95, the way it paints.
The Df paints with a subtlety that no other CMOS sensor does, it looks more analogue/less digital but thats just my opinion
On sensors: I have a feeling that all things being equal, bigger pixels are better. Also in general newer sensors are better, with a few exceptions.
Another aside, try the old scalloped barrel Nikon 55mmf1.2 on your Df. It might, just might hit the nail for you….
Keep takin the tablets doc
Yours a little cheekily
(soon the physician healed himself)
Nicely captured moment, love the expression too.
Agreed re. the feeling you’re getting from film too. I just shot several rolls of Tri-X and T-Max for my nieces 18th birthday on the aforementioned ‘blad / 110 f/2 combo, taking the trip from Canada to England without a digital camera. Initially I was a little apprehensive; I’ve become used to the immediacy of digital that not being able to review the images right away still leaves a little smidge of doubt that I got the shot / loaded the camera properly / exposed and focused correctly etc.
Without fail though, there’s a kick from seeing those images once developed that I’ve just never been able to replicate with a digital camera… it’s the whole start-to-finish process of manually creating that image with decades-old equipment that, imho, leaves you feeling more connected to it. I find the more steps of automation there are, the more removed from this I feel.
Whichever medium you choose, the images always have your signature Peter, I hope you keep sharing for a long time to come.
Thank you James.
I’ve been very close more than a few times during my photographic pursuits to abandoning digital completely. I know it can be done, as your example illustrates.
When it comes to digital, it’s always about convenience… that’s been the history of photograph really. With each iteration, the gear has been “dumbed down”. That’s okay of course, but like you, I often wish to be as connected as possible during image creation.
Thank you for kind words.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.