OP
OP
Large format photography
-
- Thread starter Dave Miller
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
Forum statistics
I've got a minox.
I don't need to prove anything
I don't need to prove anything
OP
OP
I've got a minox.
I don't need to prove anything
And its so economical for contact prints.
It`s not the fault of UK citizens if the rest of the World are content with driving on the wrong side of the Road.
I use all formats. Does that mean I'm sexually healthy?
But I must argue the point and do see a big difference between 35mm, 645 and 4x5. I'm a colour landscape photographer so spontaneity is of little importance.
I can squeeze out a pretty good looking 20"x30" for 35mm. It is not as sharp or tonally pure as it could be but, yes, I'm impressed. All my fine art work is taken with 4x5 and filled in with 645 when the need arises. I have made some fine lookin' 30"x40"s from the 645's but a 4x5 at 30"x40" is much sharper and finer. Most of my 4x5's are printed to 40"x50" and look fantastic.
I use a digital printing workflow with a consumer grade scanner, can you believe it?
I look forward to building my 8x10 this fall. Ok...Ok...there might be some sexual repression after all.
David
David S. Nardi Photography
www.davidnardi.com
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
35mm Photo-Camera and View-Camera only together makes endless possibilities in photography, very essential atribute in any form of art activity. Without each other photography as a form of art will be questinable, just because creativity of photographer be be limited to possibility of equipment.
This is valid today more than ever in past, just because to photography is left only what belongs to it, artworks (as documentary,...) while many other branches as sport, news. war,... are shifted to digital imaging.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com
This is valid today more than ever in past, just because to photography is left only what belongs to it, artworks (as documentary,...) while many other branches as sport, news. war,... are shifted to digital imaging.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
Dave Miller
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
---------------
Dave you actually made very valid question. The best photographers never use large format. Even more, what they did with small format is what photography at all revolves around nowadays and in future too, art photography.
And also, no format counts as long as it takes the shot. In that way large format is all around shooting stationary scenes that does not change/move a long time. But it is not all about photography but rather only a small fraction.
As a painter I use mostly 35 mm, and large format is replaced by my brushes, so I have both of the world, even much better (and financially too).
That image quality is better with 8x10 than with even 35 mm no one should care at all. What for is that extra TECHNICAL quality? It has no artistical place anywhere. Phorographs are so accurate and enlarging lenses so good that 16x20 from 35 mm film can show most of important details enough clearly.
All that posts above I think are more emotional and technical side of 8x10 (even 4x5") than actual negating Dane's question.
www.Leica-R.com
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
---------------
Dave you actually made very valid question. The best photographers never use large format. Even more, what they did with small format is what photography at all revolves around nowadays and in future too, art photography.
And also, no format counts as long as it takes the shot. In that way large format is all around shooting stationary scenes that does not change/move a long time. But it is not all about photography but rather only a small fraction.
As a painter I use mostly 35 mm, and large format is replaced by my brushes, so I have both of the world, even much better (and financially too).
That image quality is better with 8x10 than with even 35 mm no one should care at all. What for is that extra TECHNICAL quality? It has no artistical place anywhere. Phorographs are so accurate and enlarging lenses so good that 16x20 from 35 mm film can show most of important details enough clearly.
All that posts above I think are more emotional and technical side of 8x10 (even 4x5") than actual negating Dane's question.
www.Leica-R.com
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 928
- Format
- Multi Format
To a point true, I guess, as long as you discount Adams, Weston, Karsh and thousands of other "artists". The tool is less important than a clear interpretation of the concept, and with some concepts, technical quality counts. One of the most valuable strengths of large format cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus, as well as control geometric accuracy (or inaccuracy, if desired)
The relative quality is easily judged, even by non photographers, while a 35mm enlargement can show "most" of the important details, one thing to remember is that "most" to many artists isn't enough, and once detail is never recorded, it can't be created out of thin air. How about if we only let you use most of the colors of paint, but today, we'll skip the blues. To many, myself included, the comparison is a valid one. Where LF has the upper hand is in the tonality range and smoothness thereof, no small format can replicate it, not with any super/hyper/whatsis latest and greatest filim.
In a less artistic vein, the HABS/HAER program only accepts LF negatives, preferably 5x7, though 4x5 and 8x10 are acceptable. As an archival/ documentary medium, LF excells, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
For me, at least, 8x10 is where LF begins, now 16x20, or 20x24 there's some silver halide real estate...
Ah... I guess by real estate you mean you have to sell your house to afford the film?
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 928
- Format
- Multi Format
There are inexpensive, less than $2.25 a sheet for16x20 .007" lith film from ultrafineonline.com, available, take a look at some of what Jim Galli has been posting, he uses Freestyle's APHS lith film. A low contrast fliim developer, ideally Soemarko LC-1 or even Dektol 1:5, and an EI of around 6-10 will get you in the ball park. for 8x10 film, $50 for 100 sheets.
erie
erie
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
Epatsellis
To a point true, I guess, as long as you discount Adams, Weston, Karsh and thousands of other "artists".
This does nothing with artistical representation. They all are still short to H.C.Bresson, means format is of less importance, and to shoot at THE moment is more important. Things around us change fast.
The tool is less important than a clear interpretation of the concept,
So and format is of no importance
and with some concepts, technical quality counts.
counts for what. Techical quality counts where only that quality is present. Find some work of art and you will like it even not noticing how many details are in it.
One of the most valuable strengths of large format cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus, as well as control geometric accuracy (or inaccuracy, if desired)
true, but I skip the images I need this and nothing change in my life, I still have a lot of photographs on the walls
The relative quality is easily judged, even by non photographers, while a 35mm enlargement can show "most" of the important details, one thing to remember is that "most" to many artists isn't enough, and once detail is never recorded, it can't be created out of thin air.
Details that good 35 mm cannot record are of no importance to the history, interpretation, learning... At very end, going into small details we can say that 8x10 can not record details of the much larger format, and this one cannot come close to electronic microscope,... Even the most important work of art in the history cannot come close to details 35 mm can capture. So "overdetailing" is of absolutely no importance to say this is work of art. If you learn Pope Gregory's principle in art you will be very disappointed.
How about if we only let you use most of the colors of paint, but today, we'll skip the blues.
Does nothing with detailing of large format.
To many, myself included, the comparison is a valid one. Where LF has the upper hand is in the tonality range and smoothness thereof, no small format can replicate it, not with any super/hyper/whatsis latest and greatest filim.
It is only technicality and does nothing with artistical value, and only depend where one want to stop.
In a less artistic vein, the HABS/HAER program only accepts LF negatives, preferably 5x7, though 4x5 and 8x10 are acceptable.
????
As an archival/ documentary medium, LF excells, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
documenting mostly works with people's life, which require oortability. It is possible to do it with 8x10 but one picture neccesarily made with LF can be as a document much more succesfuly replaced with several 35 mm capturing smaller areas next to each other (scanning the scene). This way interconnection between details can be lost, but new interconnection between details on 35mm will be introduced, due to details isolation from the environment. Look at some famous painting and concentrate on detailing.
There was and are some movement in art where small details and their large number are not welcomed. It is actually not known to me that any work of art consist of so large number of details 8x10 can capture. It make viewer tired.
This all is also valid even for 4x5". I use it only in my studio for commercial photography.
www.Leica-R.com
To a point true, I guess, as long as you discount Adams, Weston, Karsh and thousands of other "artists".
This does nothing with artistical representation. They all are still short to H.C.Bresson, means format is of less importance, and to shoot at THE moment is more important. Things around us change fast.
The tool is less important than a clear interpretation of the concept,
So and format is of no importance
and with some concepts, technical quality counts.
counts for what. Techical quality counts where only that quality is present. Find some work of art and you will like it even not noticing how many details are in it.
One of the most valuable strengths of large format cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus, as well as control geometric accuracy (or inaccuracy, if desired)
true, but I skip the images I need this and nothing change in my life, I still have a lot of photographs on the walls
The relative quality is easily judged, even by non photographers, while a 35mm enlargement can show "most" of the important details, one thing to remember is that "most" to many artists isn't enough, and once detail is never recorded, it can't be created out of thin air.
Details that good 35 mm cannot record are of no importance to the history, interpretation, learning... At very end, going into small details we can say that 8x10 can not record details of the much larger format, and this one cannot come close to electronic microscope,... Even the most important work of art in the history cannot come close to details 35 mm can capture. So "overdetailing" is of absolutely no importance to say this is work of art. If you learn Pope Gregory's principle in art you will be very disappointed.
How about if we only let you use most of the colors of paint, but today, we'll skip the blues.
Does nothing with detailing of large format.
To many, myself included, the comparison is a valid one. Where LF has the upper hand is in the tonality range and smoothness thereof, no small format can replicate it, not with any super/hyper/whatsis latest and greatest filim.
It is only technicality and does nothing with artistical value, and only depend where one want to stop.
In a less artistic vein, the HABS/HAER program only accepts LF negatives, preferably 5x7, though 4x5 and 8x10 are acceptable.
????
As an archival/ documentary medium, LF excells, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
documenting mostly works with people's life, which require oortability. It is possible to do it with 8x10 but one picture neccesarily made with LF can be as a document much more succesfuly replaced with several 35 mm capturing smaller areas next to each other (scanning the scene). This way interconnection between details can be lost, but new interconnection between details on 35mm will be introduced, due to details isolation from the environment. Look at some famous painting and concentrate on detailing.
There was and are some movement in art where small details and their large number are not welcomed. It is actually not known to me that any work of art consist of so large number of details 8x10 can capture. It make viewer tired.
This all is also valid even for 4x5". I use it only in my studio for commercial photography.
www.Leica-R.com
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose I fit this description. I like to use longer lenses on 4x5 and on the periodic occasions I am overcome with lust for larger formats I reign in my enthusiasm with the brutal fact that my arms are simply too short for what i want to achieve.
Is there a support group I can join?
Daniel,
Your position on art is subjective. While I like HCB, I personally hold Weston, and several others in higher regard. That doesn't make one of us wrong.
The form the print takes and how it gets there are an intrinsic part of the artists job. A print is the sum of all of the effort and time that has been put into it. Arguing detail and tone regarding LF is like arguing megapixels. It says nothing really. The arguments you make for 35mm are the same that can be made for a cell phone camera. Tools are tools. You use the appropriate tool for the job. 35mm has it's place and I enjoy using it. The postulation that 35mm trumps LF is that of a man who says a screwdriver is better than a spanner.
Your position on art is subjective. While I like HCB, I personally hold Weston, and several others in higher regard. That doesn't make one of us wrong.
The form the print takes and how it gets there are an intrinsic part of the artists job. A print is the sum of all of the effort and time that has been put into it. Arguing detail and tone regarding LF is like arguing megapixels. It says nothing really. The arguments you make for 35mm are the same that can be made for a cell phone camera. Tools are tools. You use the appropriate tool for the job. 35mm has it's place and I enjoy using it. The postulation that 35mm trumps LF is that of a man who says a screwdriver is better than a spanner.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
Bruner
Art is not subjective, as medicine, engineering, … are not too. In art there are people responsible to carry on the matter, as curators, art historians, critics,… And I do not write what I think at the moment, but what I have learned over past from enough responsible people. In photography art photographer communicate a moment that coincides with photogs vision of the same. This has absolutely nothing with which camera size is used, or how many details are captured. When you open any serious history of art (e.g. Janson) you will find a plenty of photographs and below none of them is format of negative. Photogs in long past used large format because it was only available. Photographs made at that time (with large format) are much esthetically better than nearly any made in the “modern” time. That fact tells me review of art history. The quality of today good film and lenses in 35 mm yields far more details than that past photographs made with large view cameras. So from that technical side, no problem to make technically better photographs with 35 mm today than they are made with large format in the long past (say even 80 years ago).
My point is that what 8x10” camera (even 4x5”) can capture with good lens and film is sooooo far overkill over any technical requirement for a good art photograph. So what is enough? How we can figure it out? Look at photographs and paintings that are classified as work of art, it is so simple.
“A print is the sum of all of the effort and time that has been put into it.”
Not even close. To be with you I will just rephrase it with art photography in head (just because art photography is a main attribute for photography today and long future)
“A print is the sum of all of the artistical efforts and time that has been put into it.”
Again, large format is a technical matter and nothing more.
What you gain with 35 mm camera is a shot and a photograph as a work of art. What you can get with any large format is overdetailing, or might you can add something?
Nothing is wrong to work with large view camera, as you said it matter of choice, but also it has no advantages over 35 mm, even opposite.
www.Leica-R.com
Art is not subjective, as medicine, engineering, … are not too. In art there are people responsible to carry on the matter, as curators, art historians, critics,… And I do not write what I think at the moment, but what I have learned over past from enough responsible people. In photography art photographer communicate a moment that coincides with photogs vision of the same. This has absolutely nothing with which camera size is used, or how many details are captured. When you open any serious history of art (e.g. Janson) you will find a plenty of photographs and below none of them is format of negative. Photogs in long past used large format because it was only available. Photographs made at that time (with large format) are much esthetically better than nearly any made in the “modern” time. That fact tells me review of art history. The quality of today good film and lenses in 35 mm yields far more details than that past photographs made with large view cameras. So from that technical side, no problem to make technically better photographs with 35 mm today than they are made with large format in the long past (say even 80 years ago).
My point is that what 8x10” camera (even 4x5”) can capture with good lens and film is sooooo far overkill over any technical requirement for a good art photograph. So what is enough? How we can figure it out? Look at photographs and paintings that are classified as work of art, it is so simple.
“A print is the sum of all of the effort and time that has been put into it.”
Not even close. To be with you I will just rephrase it with art photography in head (just because art photography is a main attribute for photography today and long future)
“A print is the sum of all of the artistical efforts and time that has been put into it.”
Again, large format is a technical matter and nothing more.
What you gain with 35 mm camera is a shot and a photograph as a work of art. What you can get with any large format is overdetailing, or might you can add something?
Nothing is wrong to work with large view camera, as you said it matter of choice, but also it has no advantages over 35 mm, even opposite.
www.Leica-R.com
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you should do some serious reading. Try Gerry, Badger, Peter Turner, Peter Bunnell, Nancy Newhall, Liz Wells etc etc they all write extremely well and are highly respected. You will find that they put a proper perspective on the historical issues of Large Format & Miniature format, as 35mm & 120 were once called, in an accurate and unbiased way.
Yes there was contempt in the 30's from many European photographers of note for what they perceived as American photographers like Adams and Weston taking pretty landscapes, but that was because of what they were seeing in happening in European cities. It has impacted modern photography where many European photographers /artist tend to focus more on issue based work, often with some socio-political statement or theme in their work.
Please don't try and force your views on us when quite clearly you haver little or no grasp of the subject. How on earth can you state that Art is not subjective.
By the way it is very impolite to call someone by their surnam like that "Bruner" especially misspelt. Either use his online name correctly as in "JBrunner" or use his first name or better still quote him.
Ian
Yes there was contempt in the 30's from many European photographers of note for what they perceived as American photographers like Adams and Weston taking pretty landscapes, but that was because of what they were seeing in happening in European cities. It has impacted modern photography where many European photographers /artist tend to focus more on issue based work, often with some socio-political statement or theme in their work.
Please don't try and force your views on us when quite clearly you haver little or no grasp of the subject. How on earth can you state that Art is not subjective.
By the way it is very impolite to call someone by their surnam like that "Bruner" especially misspelt. Either use his online name correctly as in "JBrunner" or use his first name or better still quote him.
Ian
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. There isn't even any way to counter the above statement.
I've been astounded by some statements I've read on the internet.... this ranks up there with the best (worst?) of them.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
ian Grant
I think you should do some serious reading.
When that comes, I still can call you my little pupil, even I do not know you.
Yes there was contempt in the 30's from many European photographers of note for what they perceived as American photographers like Adams and Weston taking pretty landscapes, but thta was because of what they were seing in European cities. It has impacted modern photography where many European photographers /artist tend to focus more on issue based work, often with some socio-political statement or theme in their work.
How about Eugen W. Smith? to mention only one. What A. Adams and like did has nothing to do with the topic, and you just cannot find proper words. Your tepmet at this moment will not get you anywhere. To "get pretty lanscape" you can and could even better with other means too, and for that matter photography is somehow short, but yes it can do it. For example, oil paintings is much better way to do it. But there are also things that photography can and painting cannot. That field is to explore a litlle more.
Please don't try and force your views on us when quite clearly you haver little or no grasp of the subject.
Are you sure?
How on earth can you state that Art is not subjective.
Are you taking about making work of art or reviewing potential work of art. And in either case word subjective is quit wrong. Also there is a big difference between Art and art, but I know what you think about. To avoid that in future someone make fun of you get at least Gombrich's story about art to find out that difference.
Are you sure his real name is Brunner? This is internet, virtual person to virtual person.
And the last, all you put above has nothing to do with large format cameras. So if you have something usefull you are welcome.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com
I think you should do some serious reading.
When that comes, I still can call you my little pupil, even I do not know you.
Yes there was contempt in the 30's from many European photographers of note for what they perceived as American photographers like Adams and Weston taking pretty landscapes, but thta was because of what they were seing in European cities. It has impacted modern photography where many European photographers /artist tend to focus more on issue based work, often with some socio-political statement or theme in their work.
How about Eugen W. Smith? to mention only one. What A. Adams and like did has nothing to do with the topic, and you just cannot find proper words. Your tepmet at this moment will not get you anywhere. To "get pretty lanscape" you can and could even better with other means too, and for that matter photography is somehow short, but yes it can do it. For example, oil paintings is much better way to do it. But there are also things that photography can and painting cannot. That field is to explore a litlle more.
Please don't try and force your views on us when quite clearly you haver little or no grasp of the subject.
Are you sure?
How on earth can you state that Art is not subjective.
Are you taking about making work of art or reviewing potential work of art. And in either case word subjective is quit wrong. Also there is a big difference between Art and art, but I know what you think about. To avoid that in future someone make fun of you get at least Gombrich's story about art to find out that difference.
Are you sure his real name is Brunner? This is internet, virtual person to virtual person.
And the last, all you put above has nothing to do with large format cameras. So if you have something usefull you are welcome.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 139
- Format
- 35mm
Here are some points why I use view camera even I see no artistical advantage over 35mm. I think that many other photographers will list the same.
1. It makes high commitment impression on of the customer.
2. The customers are not art curators, but they like to get involved and play that they understand work of art assuming it is suppose to be something very complicated requiring high intelligence to understand its message. All they can comment are technical things on the photograph. So I give it to them. This is enough for them to pay even and high price.
3. it works shot by shot and I can develop films right now.
4. it is very reliable photo system
Again, these points are technical and has nothing to do with art.
1. it is good for still life because of shift/tilt. This artistical fail of 35mm can be accommodated with painting or view camera, just to get out of the frame, or can be simple skiped.
No other advantages of large view camera over 35 mm. So what are advantages of 35 mm over view camera. Well I have to do and do something else today.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com
1. It makes high commitment impression on of the customer.
2. The customers are not art curators, but they like to get involved and play that they understand work of art assuming it is suppose to be something very complicated requiring high intelligence to understand its message. All they can comment are technical things on the photograph. So I give it to them. This is enough for them to pay even and high price.
3. it works shot by shot and I can develop films right now.
4. it is very reliable photo system
Again, these points are technical and has nothing to do with art.
1. it is good for still life because of shift/tilt. This artistical fail of 35mm can be accommodated with painting or view camera, just to get out of the frame, or can be simple skiped.
No other advantages of large view camera over 35 mm. So what are advantages of 35 mm over view camera. Well I have to do and do something else today.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com
I use a view camera because, as a tool, it allows me to get the images I want to make onto paper. Recently I have also used a Diana camera to get another type of image onto paper. The relationship between image and tool is an important one...as is the relationship between the image and the process/form the image finally takes on so that others can see/react with it. It becomes a matter of personal opinion as to what is more important...the image (or concept), the final print, or the marriage of the image and process (tools and materials, and their use).
I agree with DanielOB in that there is no artisitical advantage of one format over another. It is just a matter of using the best tool (camera, format, film or pixels) to express what one wants to express.
I find LF to be spontanious. For me the spontinatity comes from realizing/finding the light I wish to work with, and making the immeadiate/spotanious decision to set up the 8x10 and work with that light. How long it takes me after that to capture that light is, to me, immaterial.
Vaughn
I agree with DanielOB in that there is no artisitical advantage of one format over another. It is just a matter of using the best tool (camera, format, film or pixels) to express what one wants to express.
I find LF to be spontanious. For me the spontinatity comes from realizing/finding the light I wish to work with, and making the immeadiate/spotanious decision to set up the 8x10 and work with that light. How long it takes me after that to capture that light is, to me, immaterial.
Vaughn
Last edited by a moderator:
You either get it or you don't. That's about all she wrote. You can make art or Art with or out of anything. It doesn't restrict or limit, but the choices of process, format and otherwise, made by the artist have a direct affect on the artifact. To deny that is to deny the print as physical.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
LMAO.
Excuuuuusse me. I love HCB. But to say his work is more important than Weston????
Are you freaking crazy to make that comparison? Two different worlds, two different results. One mastered the art of the decisive moment, the other captured the world of total mastery of the photographic process. Which is more important?
What you mostly gain with a 135 camera is crap. It is to HCB's credit that he pulled a large body of work out of that format (thanks to Magnum and 777). What you gain from LF is the true depth of what photography can deliver. To accept anything less... well you decide.
tim in san jose
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 277
- Format
- 35mm
To re-phrase that only slightly:
What you gain from 35 mm is the ability to capture the decisive moment, catch the lightning in the bottle - if you can't, or have nothing to say, or have a poor grasp of technique, 35 mm will expose you mercilessly.
What you gain, or rather lose, from LF is an in-built tendency to obsess about technique and an intrinsically slower working tempo, which in many situations (such as photographing in the typically changing weather conditions of the UK) can lead to a fatal failure to deliver results. If you can rise above this, and express yourself artistically on a level where rendition of detail and plasticity of tone are part of your creative vocabulary and not ends in themselves, then LF work can be sublime - otherwise, it's a total blind alley!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
i don't know nemo ..
i shoot 4x5 and larger without slowing down.
i don't obsess about technique,
and i shoot my slr ( 4x5 ) like it is a 35mm camera ...
the only things that large format offers that smaller than 4x5 formats don't
is the ability to process one film at a time
( if there was something special in exposure ),
a large negative to do contact printing
( without the hassle of enlarging a small negative onto larger film )
and the ability to look cool
(something big on a tripod to fiddle around with,
cause a scene, be famous for 15 seconds, look like a film maker with the loupe and light meter,
an antiquarian with the dark cloth, or a surveyor with a theodalite or astrolabe ) ...
this thread reminds me that we are not all one big happy snapper family
that some people resent others who use bigger or smaller cameras,
because they don't use a leica or a ebony ...
who cares what it was taken with it's the image that counts anyways ...
if you can't see ... it won't matter what you are shooting with ....
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |