ManuelVilardeMacedo

ManuelVilardeMacedo

Lives in Portugal Portugal
Joined on Mar 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 987, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)

I love film but this is not for me. Even Lomography's best efforts to sell a serious film roll are a flop. I tried Lomography Earl Grey, an ASA 100 film, and it has the grain of an ASA 400 film, no sharpness and no contrast. I won't even touch their colour films, especially this one.
However, I do sincerely admire the role Lomography and lomographers have been playing in keeping film alive. It's just that I don't share their viewpoints about how a picture should look like. Shifting colours can be nice, of course, but only occasionally. I don't dig lo-fi.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 20:26 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
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.

nerd2, you express yourself as if all film cameras were rudimentary. They aren't. By the year 2000 film cameras had all the functions and modes you can think of - including DoF preview. Even my Olympus OM-2 has a DoF preview button (which I don't use because what I see through the viewfinder is quite accurate). It's not like film shooters wear leopard skins and use spears to hunt mammoths, you know...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 22:43 UTC
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, the Tesla is another story altogether, but it is a sports car with the commodities of a luxury sedan in which the torque is delivered instantaneously. Previously you were mentioning one of the most anodyne, dull and insipid brands on the planet - Hyundai, of course -, not something as saucy as a Tesla S.
By the way, I'm glad you're not one of those opponents of electric cars... they're such *&&%$#"<!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 22:24 UTC
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.

nerd2, that will be right if you only look at the figures. However, as in most human activities, there's an ineffable quality that can only be named 'pleasure' and can make us prefer flawed (or 'obsolete') goods over brand new ones, even if the latter are loaded with the latest technology. That Ferrari will be much more thrilling to drive than the Hyundai. Of course you can be more pleased with your Hyundai, and you might even drive faster - but where's the thrill? You won't *feel* that speed.
The same with cameras. There are a few people who extract more pleasure out of a film camera than a full-fledged digital SLR. Why? Because it's fun. Or at least they think so.
And don't forget that the most pleasurable human activity has been there since the beginning of life on earth. One day they'll find a more technological way of making babies, possibly with the aid of a computer (or an app), but for now the antiquated technique will have to do.( As for me, the future can wait...)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 21:44 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: talk for yourself. I'm not trying to kid anyone. Not even myself. I got correct exposures in all but one pictures with my first film roll. You might be surprised to know, however, that I had learnt exposure with a digital camera. Even so, that knowledge was something I got because I wanted to, not because I needed to. (As you say, it's hard to make a digital shooter want to learn.) Manual exposure is an option if you shoot digital; you can take decent pictures even in auto mode with a digital camera, but you'll get nowhere with a manual film camera from the 70's or 80's if you don't know the basics of exposure.
Nerd: ever heard of 'SLR'? That 'Through-The-Lens' thing? You can actually preview depth of field with an SLR film camera. If what you care is making proper pictures, live view, the ability to delete failed pictures and LCD are mere gimmicks. You know, Leica does an LCD-less digital camera...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 20:10 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.

I subscribe every word Wye Photography wrote. As for the thinking part, what is there to think about when you can take a picture and then, if you're not satisfied with what you see, make another one immediately? Photographing by trial and error doesn't make anyone shoot better! It's like having a gun and shooting senselessly until you hit the mark. Film, on the other hand, obliges you to get it right first time. You have to master everything. There must be a reason for art students who take Photography courses to have to use a film camera. (At least that's what happens here in my hometown; don't know about the rest of the world.)
And the rewards of getting a good picture with film are much greater. With digital, results are predictable. There's no challenge. Of course you have to master exposure if you're serious about photography and shoot digital, but you never get that razor's edge feeling you get with film. (But then again maybe you don't want that feeling, which is OK too.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 18:29 UTC

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.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 12:00 UTC as 25th comment | 16 replies
In reply to:

bmcdad: Its like saying AT&T will restart production of Rotary Phones... Art does not require a time machine. You can't reminisce evolution to a halt.

Rotary phones are incompatible with digital stations, hence their obsolescence. Film can be scanned and converted to digital files. There are no compatibility issues. Your analogy is rather unfortunate.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 23:01 UTC

Am I on the right website? Wasn't this DIGITAL Photography Review? ;)
Jokes aside, last year I decided to buy a film camera after some years of digital photography. I chose an Olympus OM-2n because I had OM lenses that I used on my E-P1 via an adapter. To cut a long story short, I haven't used the E-P1 for months now.
Last June I decided to give the Ferrania Solaris 100 colour film a try. I was overwhelmed by the beauty of its colours. It's not perfect - I wouldn't advise to use it for long exposures -, but the sheer joy those colous convey make it worth it. Especially because it's so cheap. So I became quite enthusiastic about this project - especially after I learnt that those people were intending to resume production of these inexpensive, cheerful film rolls. And, as many have pointed out, you can't have too many options when it comes to film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:54 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

OBI656: As simple aquation shows shooting film is cheeper then being involved in digital.
Even I do digital if there will be film processing labs as use too I will be shooting film no question about it.

£10 for an Ilford HP5 roll? My God, did you make sure you still had your wallet after you left the shop?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: I'm trying to understand the economics and business plan.

With only $250K they plan to rescue this equipment, modify it to run smaller batches, presumably move it somewhere, lease space, hire the technicians and chemists to make all of this work, fund the materials and chemicals they need and do the testing, packaging and marketing? Thisfilm will

The reason they only need to raise $250,000 is because they have support from the regional government of Liguria for most of the expense. I've been following this Ferrania revival since day one and I know said government is supporting the project heavily. It's just that they ran into an unexpectedly bad condition of some of the machinery, which now needs restoring.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

Odyssey: Different company but I'd love it if they did a revival of Kocachrome! Some of the last rolls I shot of Kodachrome were of the fall colors and they great. I actually like the wait during the picture taking and when you see the result. It lets you savor the moment a bit longer. Finally, by being less instantaneous you are more careful about how and what you shoot.

If you liked the saturated, vivid colours of Kodachrome, Ferrania will have the Solaris 100 film available for you. (Provided they succeed in continuing its production, that is.) With the added bonus of an insanely low price!
And you're so right: film photography obliges you to think more.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:09 UTC

Hollywood, your days are numbered.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2014 at 08:59 UTC as 2nd comment
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I voted "full frame or nothing", though I don't really appreciate the implication of fanaticism that sentence contains. Having used 4/3 for years and dipped a toe or two in APS-C, and having a substancial experience with the real full frame (135 film), I believe full frame is the only way for digital to go. It's better at everything compared to smaller formats. As demand increases, chances are we'll see truly affordable full frame systems very soon.
Of course one could go over the top and vote for medium format, but are our computers up to handling such large files? Full frame is actually more sensible than it appears to 1", 4/3 and APS-C users - as long as one doesn't go bananas and buys 36 MP cameras.
Some months ago I had the chance to sort a Nikon Df. I fell in love even before holding it. It's such a capable camera! I wish people would look at it without prejudice.

AFishEye: it's clear you've got a lot of time on your hands. Shame you waste it in such a stupid way. Browsing my comments the way you did makes you look like a troll or a stalker, not like someone who has a point and is trying to demonstrate it. I really feel sorry for you.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 16:49 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I voted "full frame or nothing", though I don't really appreciate the implication of fanaticism that sentence contains. Having used 4/3 for years and dipped a toe or two in APS-C, and having a substancial experience with the real full frame (135 film), I believe full frame is the only way for digital to go. It's better at everything compared to smaller formats. As demand increases, chances are we'll see truly affordable full frame systems very soon.
Of course one could go over the top and vote for medium format, but are our computers up to handling such large files? Full frame is actually more sensible than it appears to 1", 4/3 and APS-C users - as long as one doesn't go bananas and buys 36 MP cameras.
Some months ago I had the chance to sort a Nikon Df. I fell in love even before holding it. It's such a capable camera! I wish people would look at it without prejudice.

AFishEye: stop embarrassing yourself. Your arguments are ridiculous. My "consistent style" is the expression of opinions. If you feel offended because my opinions don't match yours, it's your problem, not mine.
Now go take some nice pictures of tripod plates.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 16:24 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I voted "full frame or nothing", though I don't really appreciate the implication of fanaticism that sentence contains. Having used 4/3 for years and dipped a toe or two in APS-C, and having a substancial experience with the real full frame (135 film), I believe full frame is the only way for digital to go. It's better at everything compared to smaller formats. As demand increases, chances are we'll see truly affordable full frame systems very soon.
Of course one could go over the top and vote for medium format, but are our computers up to handling such large files? Full frame is actually more sensible than it appears to 1", 4/3 and APS-C users - as long as one doesn't go bananas and buys 36 MP cameras.
Some months ago I had the chance to sort a Nikon Df. I fell in love even before holding it. It's such a capable camera! I wish people would look at it without prejudice.

Violation? It is a copyright-free picture.
By the way, the pictures at your gallery really showcase your photographic priorities and your skills.To say they're pathetic is an understatement. They're, well... hilarious!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 14:13 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I voted "full frame or nothing", though I don't really appreciate the implication of fanaticism that sentence contains. Having used 4/3 for years and dipped a toe or two in APS-C, and having a substancial experience with the real full frame (135 film), I believe full frame is the only way for digital to go. It's better at everything compared to smaller formats. As demand increases, chances are we'll see truly affordable full frame systems very soon.
Of course one could go over the top and vote for medium format, but are our computers up to handling such large files? Full frame is actually more sensible than it appears to 1", 4/3 and APS-C users - as long as one doesn't go bananas and buys 36 MP cameras.
Some months ago I had the chance to sort a Nikon Df. I fell in love even before holding it. It's such a capable camera! I wish people would look at it without prejudice.

Oh, yes, of course! Your opinion, on the other hand, is richly substantiated. I particularly liked the bibliography you cite and the measurements you've shown to prove the superiority of APS-C over full frame. My opinion, however, is 'biased'... yours isn't, of course.
You're hilarious.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 13:47 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I voted "full frame or nothing", though I don't really appreciate the implication of fanaticism that sentence contains. Having used 4/3 for years and dipped a toe or two in APS-C, and having a substancial experience with the real full frame (135 film), I believe full frame is the only way for digital to go. It's better at everything compared to smaller formats. As demand increases, chances are we'll see truly affordable full frame systems very soon.
Of course one could go over the top and vote for medium format, but are our computers up to handling such large files? Full frame is actually more sensible than it appears to 1", 4/3 and APS-C users - as long as one doesn't go bananas and buys 36 MP cameras.
Some months ago I had the chance to sort a Nikon Df. I fell in love even before holding it. It's such a capable camera! I wish people would look at it without prejudice.

AFishEye: yes, I did print. Micro 4/3 looks very good on prints up to 40x30 cm, but you need to have optimal light conditions. There are noise and dynamic range issues that smaller sensors can't quite solve. One thing is having acceptable noise levels at ISO 1600, another is keeping noise down low up to 6400. Smaller sensors don't do that. Another problem of the latter is the way they handle highlights: most of them suck. Of course you can always expose to the right, but then you'll have trouble depicting shadows... need I go on? My opinion (and I believe I'm entitled to have one - is not based on those trollish "equivalent aperture" rubbish some people like to spread around: it's all about my experience and the results obtained.
Rais3d: sorry to disappoint you, but your reply doesn't really deserve any further elaboration.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 13:17 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)

I voted "full frame or nothing", though I don't really appreciate the implication of fanaticism that sentence contains. Having used 4/3 for years and dipped a toe or two in APS-C, and having a substancial experience with the real full frame (135 film), I believe full frame is the only way for digital to go. It's better at everything compared to smaller formats. As demand increases, chances are we'll see truly affordable full frame systems very soon.
Of course one could go over the top and vote for medium format, but are our computers up to handling such large files? Full frame is actually more sensible than it appears to 1", 4/3 and APS-C users - as long as one doesn't go bananas and buys 36 MP cameras.
Some months ago I had the chance to sort a Nikon Df. I fell in love even before holding it. It's such a capable camera! I wish people would look at it without prejudice.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 12:03 UTC as 68th comment | 19 replies

We've had a similar case in my country. It's an unjustified restriction to individual freedom and, therefore, unacceptable. The difference is that ours was a generic prohibition, but apparently in the US they want to impede "...any independent photographer who takes an image while on federal land with the intention to later sell it as a print." Q: How do guards know about the independent photographer's intention? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 07:45 UTC as 67th comment
Total: 987, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »