Wye Photography

Wye Photography

Lives in United Kingdom Chepstow, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer Designer
Has a website at www.wyephotography.com
Joined on Feb 16, 2009

Comments

Total: 417, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

audijam: All i want to say is I cherish every moment I press the shutter and hear the motor advances my film to the next I don't need to be reminded that film is DEAD (well it is not completely dead yet) and digital DSLR is much better blah blah blah. I use 5D3 for work and family and believe me I love it because it's perfect for what I need it to serve. HOWEVER, it doesn't eliminate or replace my love for film SLR.

I took my EOS 3 out last night just to look at it. It's so beautiful. Too bad I let go of my AE1 years ago to a teen who wants to learn photography. I hope he hasn't given up yet.

Well said.

I love the results my Pro DSLR gives me, but often I find more satisfaction with film because I put more effort into it. Neither am I supported by hordes of faceless software writers. It's me, my film and my chemistry. It's all down to me. That is a thrill I don't get from digital.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

justinwonnacott: Films made specifically for scanning would make sense and probably find a lot of buyers.

The end use of the film they make - if it gets made at all - will usually involve a scanner . Very few people project slides today, colour enlarging has passed into history and the use of BW darkroom tools has become severely crippled by the diminished availability of chemistry and papers. Scanning BW film produces excellent prints.

Films designed to take advantage of the dynamic range of scanners and that are optimized for the colour receptors of the scanner would make a lot of sense. I believe Agfa once made a BW film with this in mind.

You should have a go with Kodak Portra 400, the dynamic range (as well as its organic colour) is amazing. All you need is a reasonable scanner. Portra was re-engineered a few years ago with scanning negs in mind.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I can see a war between film and digital drawing here, but it needn't be that way. Film is not threatening digital. On the other hand, refusing to see the advantages of digital - there are some, you know... - is a bit narrow-minded.
The revival of film is in no way a step back into the past. Most of us who shoot film don't care about typewriters or rotary phones (or tall ships and steam locomotives, for all that matters). That's stupid clichés. Digitalists need to accept that some people actually love shooting film and some film shooters have to realize life has moved on, but a lot of us shoot both film and digital. They're not incompatible.
What I like about shooting film is the challenge: I need to know how to expose properly, calculate how development will affect the general look of the picture and think very carefully about the subjects I choose. I must be aware that every frame has a cost and must not waste it. It's a completely different experience from digital.

@Joseph Black,

Instant gratification is for impatient lazy people.

That camera does it all because the user can't.

You no longer have to think or pre-visualise the result.

Those who criticise film and rushed to digital are either sloppy workers or just poor photographers. There is no element of "getting it right first time" because you can take hundreds and one of them has to be good doesn't it?

In my film days when I went on a two weeks holiday I took with me four or five rolls of film (144 to 180 frames) max. It was enough.

Nowadays I come back with 600 odd digital and 24 film.

People want good pictures with minimal effort and that's because they are lazy.

Didn't some old dead dude say "your first 10,000 pictures are your worst" I think with digital that is your first 100,000 (that's 1,000,000,000 for me!)

To become a great photographer takes time and skill and not gear and money.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I can see a war between film and digital drawing here, but it needn't be that way. Film is not threatening digital. On the other hand, refusing to see the advantages of digital - there are some, you know... - is a bit narrow-minded.
The revival of film is in no way a step back into the past. Most of us who shoot film don't care about typewriters or rotary phones (or tall ships and steam locomotives, for all that matters). That's stupid clichés. Digitalists need to accept that some people actually love shooting film and some film shooters have to realize life has moved on, but a lot of us shoot both film and digital. They're not incompatible.
What I like about shooting film is the challenge: I need to know how to expose properly, calculate how development will affect the general look of the picture and think very carefully about the subjects I choose. I must be aware that every frame has a cost and must not waste it. It's a completely different experience from digital.

OK Eric,

Sorry to confuse you.

I use film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I can see a war between film and digital drawing here, but it needn't be that way. Film is not threatening digital. On the other hand, refusing to see the advantages of digital - there are some, you know... - is a bit narrow-minded.
The revival of film is in no way a step back into the past. Most of us who shoot film don't care about typewriters or rotary phones (or tall ships and steam locomotives, for all that matters). That's stupid clichés. Digitalists need to accept that some people actually love shooting film and some film shooters have to realize life has moved on, but a lot of us shoot both film and digital. They're not incompatible.
What I like about shooting film is the challenge: I need to know how to expose properly, calculate how development will affect the general look of the picture and think very carefully about the subjects I choose. I must be aware that every frame has a cost and must not waste it. It's a completely different experience from digital.

Technology moves on, but should you slavishly move with it?

Technology moves on not because they are thinking of you, not because it is a charitable institution! No, but it wants to sell you their latest "thing".

Technology moves on to make money from you.

Technology moves on because it wants your money.

...and you feed the beast.

I love my film cameras, I love my digital. I love shooting both. Each has its own character and I am delighted by the results from both. No conflict.

If your work flow is all of one and none of the other please don't waste your time slagging off the other system, one you don't even use. That is beyond stupidity! You wanna waste your life?

And don't worry my dear digital users, what you say about film today, photographers of your future will say about digital. Digital will go the same way as film. One day digital will be gone, old tech, retro. Will you be nostalgic about your D850/1Ds/5D?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

JohnEwing: Woo hooooo!!!! I must get in a sack of brown coal to power my Weston Hyper IV.

But seriously though, while a hard core will keep at it I think that for most nostalgics initial delight will pall after the first couple of shots, when the pictures fail to appear on the LCD the camera doesn't have. Retro look is great, retro tech maybe not so attractive.

I love retro tech.

My favourite is a pre-war Leica IIIc. The smell, the feel of the hand machined metal knobs, the whole experience is a tonic. Next on the list is my 1950's Busch Pressman Model D 5x4, pretty rare. In beautiful condition, there's something about the hand crafted American aluminium. A wonderful camera. Both of course pre-date me, its nothing to do with nostalgia but the use of beautifully hand crafted machines. Then there's my Russian collection, that's a laugh, but the Kiev IV is actually pretty good. Have a go!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 14:04 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Guba: Just delaying the inevitable.

The inevitable what?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

TylerQ: I guess some people have no understanding how great film is. Given it's so called limitations, it's a wonder anyone ever took great photographs before the invention of digital sensors.
I remember shooting and not worrying about changing the iso, checking for image quality after each shot, doing a time lapse, 10-20 fps, etc. All those are just gimmicks.
Real photographers knew how to shoot photographs without all the so called "advantages" of digital cameras. You all should try it some time.

@Hugo808

If that's your bag Hugo I'm OK with that. I don't think digital is better.

Digital is convenient, faster, it's also lazy. Some people just don't want to put in the effort. Just too much hard work. Lazy!

They sit on there ass and go click, click, click done. Lazy.

They buy filters to get totally fake "film" looks because they are lazy.

I have recently started shooting Kodak Portra 400, I am amazed at the dynamic range. Superior to the silicon stuff by a long margin.

No amount of stupid film packs is going to simulate Ilford Delta 100 in dilute Rodinal because that is a different look than Illford Delta 100 in HC-110.

If Digital personally suits YOU, that's just fine by me. I shoot more digi than film, but I think film is better for what I want to do.

I think that's the point, do what you want and accept what others prefer. Then we'll all get on swell with none of these stupid arguments.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.

I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'

With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.

Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.

With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.

No one can stop the relentless march of technology.

@misha

Digital has opened up "photography" to the millions like never before. All that comes at a cost.

The cost of manufacturing plants that make millions of digital cameras and the hardware needed to support them dwarfs any environmental impact film ever had. Mainly by virtue of the sheer numbers involved. All this gear over which you croon does not have a very good environmental foot print. Not to mention terrible working conditions for many.

Not to mention the use of chemicals hazardous to health in PC components.

So, you buy a new one: what happens to the old? Recycled or landfill?

To this day I do better than 2 keepers out of 36 mainly because the economics forces me to make the exposures I REALLY want to make instead of shots that you know in your heart are just not good enough.

I think you should have chosen your repair shop better!

I use very dilute Rodinal an alkali fixer and a water stop is just fine. I shoot much more selectively than I do with digital.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 12:03 UTC
In reply to:

TylerQ: I guess some people have no understanding how great film is. Given it's so called limitations, it's a wonder anyone ever took great photographs before the invention of digital sensors.
I remember shooting and not worrying about changing the iso, checking for image quality after each shot, doing a time lapse, 10-20 fps, etc. All those are just gimmicks.
Real photographers knew how to shoot photographs without all the so called "advantages" of digital cameras. You all should try it some time.

A comment that has cropped up a few times reading all this stuff is "I can't recommend film in 2014 because it's just too much fuss"

What this really means is...

"I can't recommend film in 2014 coz I can't be bothered and I am lazy".

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

Battersea: Wonderful news. There is no downside to this, nobody is taking your cell phone or DSLR away. It's great to have options. Film is an excellent learning and creative tool.

@Ontario Gone

Considering most digital cameras are in fact crap. You have to spend some serious money to get decent results.

The dynamic range of Kodak Portra 400 is so huge it make the vast majority of digital cameras look pretty crappy.

Film old technology! Piffle! For certain applications it's the best technology that people just don't realise because they have swallowed hook, line and sinker the digital fantasy and panacea.

I shoot a lot of digital, but Portra 400 is amazing. I don't have to worry about blown highlights, checking the histogram or even concentrate much on the exposure. I just shoot and I KNOW the highlights are going to be there. Amazing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 11:27 UTC

I shoot much more digital than film about a 10:1 ratio. I love shooting film and nothing quite compares to Delta 100 or FP4+ in Rodinal. Nothing is more satisfying than pulling your negatives from the developing tank. I shoot half-frame, 35mm, 645 and 66 in colour and BW and develop it myself.

I also love my digital camera and the results it gives me. For too long I spent a lot of time trying to simulate film on a digital camera when I realised it is a waste of time and money and both have their own distinct character. Don't get me started on those crappy film packs.

I would love to use Ferrania film, I love experimenting with film, it is actually fun. So I hope this project is realised. Welcome back Ferrania!

Foma film is pretty good also, and a £2.60 a roll, good value too.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 10:16 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.

I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'

With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.

Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.

With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.

No one can stop the relentless march of technology.

@ misha marinsky4

First let me say I shoot a lot of digital. But is isn't free.

So, misha it's free to press the shutter eh! Sure. What then?

Oh! you need a computer - cost money, or did you get yours free? How much did it cost?

After you have bought the computer, then there's the cost of the OS (if any) anti-virus and firewall and all that stuff. Free?

You need the internet don't you so you can post all your pix all over the place. Yours Free?

Then you need power to make all the things work. Yours Free?

Then, and here's the insidious bit, all the upgrades, OS upgrades (mainly free) an new computer to run all the upgraded software. Is it Free?

Since digital started, how many times have you "upgraded" your camera? How many digital cameras have you bought in comparison to the number of film cameras? (if you're old enough that is).

Add it all up now! Is it Free?

A digital camera needs a lot of support and money just to work. Now lets talk about the environmental impact...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:44 UTC
On HTC introduces the RE digital camera article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Everyone is being mercilessly rude about the SHAPE of this device, and sure, the smutty-minded can suggests its relationship to various devices from certain shops with shaded windows ...

... but THINK about it for a moment. If you want an informal POV camera which you WON'T spend time looking into (instead of at your environment), which you want to HOLD comfortably without risk of dropping, then this is a PERFECT shape. Just GRIP and CLICK. The wide-angle lens will ensure that you get something interesting in-frame.

If ONLY this was fully waterproof, I'd choose it over the GoPro, because the latter is a pain to hold and operate one-handed.

Brian

I wonder if HTC will sell this in Ann Summers?

I dread to think of the uploaded Youtube vids that follows.

As unpalatable as it is, I think HTC deserve the merciless leg pull.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 11:28 UTC
On HTC introduces the RE digital camera article (102 comments in total)

Good job they are not doing one in pink, that may confuse some!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2014 at 12:16 UTC as 9th comment
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.

lacikuss,

True, but I think you have too compare all cameras against each other in order to accurately assess your needs. It's not just about IQ and sensor size, but, as you'll appreciate, its the whole package.

It's Human nature to categorise things and put them into nice neat little pigeon holes, sometimes this can be unhelpful. It may sound dim to compare an RX100 with a D850, but people do it, albeit subconsciously. There is value in comparing a 1" sensor and a full frame sensor even if it is just to appreciate what a full frame one can do.

All the best!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 19:37 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.

@lacikuss,

Probably not the answer you are expecting, but, here goes…

You say “On the contrary, it is the very reason why Sony is winning with their RX100 series”.

I say, I don’t care! I don’t give a toss! I don’t care if Sony are “winning”, I don’t care who follows, I don’t care if Sony or anybody else starts a new trend, creates a niche, developes whatever, is unique, creates a new class, is big, small, pocketable, has integrated lens, has EVF, has interchagable lenses, MFT, APS-C, High noise, low noise, no noise, black, white, pink, or whatever!

I simply don’t care.

Whether a camera is suited to your purpose, everyones purpose, fits in your pocket, fits in a bag, fits up your backside, turns you on, off, has 4K, cost 4K or whatever just isn’t my concern.

The only thing I care about when parting with MY hard earned money is…

..Does the camera suit my purposes? End of!

Small camera? I have one, it’s my phone.

Buy whatever makes you happy, the rest is unimportant :-)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 18:16 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.

@triplight

lol. You think that's sexy? I stuff a Canon 200-400mm f4 L down my jeans!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 11:39 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

piratejabez: Interesting "cross-hatch" or watercolor noise-reduction pattern in very fine detail (foliage, sand, rocks). Anyone else notice it? Makes it look slightly unnatural at 100% (in that those patterns aren't actually there), but not necessary unpleasant, especially when zoomed out. Has kindof a smooth and organic feel. It's somewhat reminiscent of some X-trans interpretations. A very different approach than the LX100.

Will you even notice the water colour pattern effect on a print? A3?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.

@lacikuss

Whether or not you think the LX100 is in the same league is irrelevant. I don't care if the camera fits in ones pocket or not. Just not an issue for me. I said "IF I had to choose..." So for my purposes the LX100 IS in the same league. The pocket-ability may be an issue and huge difference for others, but, that is just not my concern nor care.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:03 UTC
Total: 417, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »