Nice, an example of a forgotten photographic tool.Funny... I get some kind of 'timeless' feeling when looking at those pictures. I associate them with times long gone, but they are recently made. This shifts my expectations.Oh... and it's not about taking many pictures of the same scene to be picked out later.
Great news.I hope film will continue to exist for a long time, may it be in even smaller quantities. Film becomes more and more neglected but it's qualities are fantastic.
"2. Even if you post at low resolution, people will find the full-res image anyway"
I don't get that... if you resize the photo on you computer in 640 x 480 for instance and after that you post that file on the web, what higher resolution is there to be found? It's all a matter of what the person who uploads it does.
This sounds like the photographer doesn't really know about a digital image's dimensions in pixels.
Beautiful selection! Must have been very fulfilling.
Really like this work...
Compared to the size of film (which actually should be used here) the Sony's sensor is very small. Looks great on macro work though.
The dynamic range from the D4s is nice for a today's DSLR.But how easily I can overexpose stops with a decent negative film from Kodak.Capturing dynamic range isn't hard with those films, you just have to scan them properly to get the results (not get them printed by a lab).You need some time to scan the negatives but this works for me... and I'm glad I stopped using my DSLR because the colour rendition, way of taking pictures and the dynamic range. Exposing negative film is easy, just set the exposure right for the shadows... it will take care of the highlights.I understand it would be not so much of an option for professionals who need to deliver their work in a small amount of time.
Would like to see a higher resolution scan of that slide!Desktop backgrounds during the early 2000s were likely to be around 800 x 600 pixels so this file in Win XP is very scaled down compared to the original scan, needles to say.Always liked this background but because of the low resolution provided I never used it.
ThePhilips: > it accepts 120 roll film.
I wish makers have actually tried to build a digital camera...
I gather the sensor and the IC are the problem - but that's precisely the challenge: to try to replicate at home the expensive manufacturing processes.
I think the principle used here is what can make a cheap camera cheaper and better. Just look at the highlights for example in the samples, keep in mind the lesser quality (stray) of the lens used here.Imagine using the same film in a high quality medium format camera.Digital is for ease of use and ease of editing... also for speed!
Amazing to see moonlight can actually look like sunlight!
Strictly photographic gear in my bag, there's no room for other things... since it's small and I like it that way. I Carry it around my sholder, no backpack because I like quick access.
Usually a Canon FTb, three fixed focal Canon FD lenses, a 28mm, 50mm and a 135mm. Mostly when I'm outdoors I put some films in that bag too... some Ektar and Portras, or the Elite Chrome Extra Colour (Kodak).
It's this that will fit the bag, or my Hasselblad 501C with the usual 80mm Zeiss lens, with lens hood and a Gossen Polysix 2 light meter in a pocket. In that case I have some Fuji Reala 100 or Kodak Portra 400 medium format film at hand.
Felix E Klee: To me, the photos in the article on wired.com have a look which I remember seeing in the print edition of National Geographic about twenty years ago. (We stopped subscribing.) What's the secret of this look? Grading? Composition? Are photos with people staged?
These photo's are shot on film, cited from the article on wired.com:
"All the work is shot on film with either 4×5 or 8×10 camera. Rich says he wanted to shoot larger format work because he liked the sharpness and depth of field you get on negatives that size. But it also slowed him down and created a pace to the photos that feels similar to that of the rivers he’s photographed."