Anyone second guess move to full frame?

Started 4 months ago | Questions thread
DenWil
DenWil Veteran Member • Posts: 4,458
Yes, but 67 MF film was becoming counterproductive.

I was not some dilettante shooting one roll  for a YouTube video. I could easily shoot a dozen rolls  +  of 120  an afternoon  for work  and all would require timely processing  and individual scanning  and the return on investment - particularly with significantly increased costs-  lessened.

If I had gone directly from 67 film  to 16MP  fifteen years ago  the story may have played out differently  but I waited  and when the only thing noticeably  different about the work is a 50MP native file  versus a 50MP scanned file  the clients  don't care.

New clients hold no emotional romantic connection to analog tech. It'a a whatever issue. Adaptation is both pragmatic and logical...and cost efficient ...although all the costs upfront still bites.

Since moving to  full frame  does not in any way preclude shooting  with the 67s for any specific content  second guessing over the expense or possible loss of image character has become a moot point.

-- hide signature --

dw

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow