↑ Leica M3, Leica 50mm Summicron Dual Range, Kodak Tri-X 400, and Plustek 8200i.
Thank you Sir!
Am I insane in thinking the only photos of mine I like are shot with Tri-X on a Leica M3?
It is really another world! 🙂 ..a good world! Enjoy! Have a save trip back to “digital world” whenever you choose the ticket! ..and enjoy it …..too! 🙂
Let’s face it, Peter. As the megapixels increase to the point of slickness, those of us who began with only film see the qualities of the latter that seem to evoke — what? a historical reality? Agreed. The charm of good b&w is irreplaceable. Peter Coulson does beautiful but rather dramatic work with women shooting 100 mp but does so at 800 and higher iso. Yet it can’t match the excellent tone and feel of t-x in 35mm as you are using it. Never stop, please.
Wow, Henry that’s so kind of you. I don’t deserve that but I’m glad you see what I see when looking at a B&W film image.
You know, I’ve gone through this so many times it’s embarrassing: I’ll sing the gospel of film only to abandon it when it gets too time-consuming, too frustrating, or too limiting. .. which is always! But then I keep coming back.
Re: your reply to Andreas.
Well, you’ve always, in my days anyway, shown a marked affinity for this combination, but I’d hardly say it produces the only results to like or even to love. No way to get those very special kid baseball pics with Tr-X and Mr. M3.
Is a great Cabernet Sauvignon spectacular? Yes, but sometime the meal is better with a flinty New Zealand Sauv Blanc… you know?
Another one for the C scrapbook… Dare I say my first thought was Katherine Ross (junior edition, of course) from the bicycle scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. 🙂
Greg, as always, you offer an insightful comment (two or three, actually) and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to do so. I did something tonight that I think supports what you are saying. I will be posting about it shortly.
Here it is: https://prosophos.com/2018/04/20/enlarged-prints-are-the-final-arbiter-of-image-quality/
Peter- The most interesting theory I have read regarding why film, despite being much more grainy and lower detail than high-resolution digital, may be more pleasing to the eye, is in our anatomy. Ming Thein proposes that the random circular array of “pixels“ if you will of film emulsion is similar to the way we see with the rods and cones in our retinas. Digital sensors (even extremely high megapixel sensors) are all at base level linear and organized in a grid. This may explain why your grainy, low resolution black and white negative Film enlargements are just as pleasing-if not more so pleasing-to the eye then your high-resolution digital images. Brilliant theory, and one of the most convincing reasons I have encountered for such an inexplicable preference that many of us share.
There might be truth to that theory.
I’ve always thought that it has more to do with how we invoke memories in our mind’s eye. Memories are seldom (if ever) recalled in “high definition”, especially when processed through the filter of time…
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.