Now something becomes more and more clear to me Theo - you did it with pocket 110....
with regards
PS : One of the very very exceptions of 110 format - this extrem nice Pentax110. I was interested to buy this Pentax in 1980 or 81 ? Because of the lenses and smal dimensions.
But it was a little expensive that time - later much more expensive because of iconic image and pure rarity
George "as realitic ", " realism " or " realistic look " is a term that might be cause more confusion here- as we see meanwhile/ up to now.
Because this all might be questions of conceptional intentions in photography - or isn´t this true.?
If you use HDR for example it is way of composition ( it is also possible with film - by the way ) - to higher technical parameters. But at the same time it is a tool of becoming a style
of artificial looks. A tool to have " unrealistic " conception in photography.
HDR is a good example from my point to cover out - NO DIFFERENCE OF DIGITAl and FILM.
with regard
PS : IF anybody uses the term " analogue HDR " now - I´ll shot him soon
"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.
dont you know real photographers don't use small cameras, not even real analog photographers ...
.... yes but what about Theo - let him hear this !
Pentax 110 is a real nice example that 110 Poket fits just a smal format on film - and obviously it is on smal film it has its own existense authority.
Just like the MINOX System.
with regards
"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.
Is digital bashing allowed in an Analog thread? Now that the subject has veered off, do we need to have the moderators move this thread?
I don't believe I have ever tooted about the resolution of digital, although I do have my opinions. Have "analog" photographers become so conditioned that the mere mention of scanning provokes these sort of responses automatically? Maybe because I shoot both film and digital I am a little less sensitive to these transgressions, particularly given how rare they are..And that is what happens when one starts tooting about resolution and digital. If you do not want that to happen, just stay away from tooting.
Faberyman - the term "analogue photograpers" makes no real sence: some find out from this thread [ most ones are knowing this - nevertheless ].I don't believe I have ever tooted about the resolution of digital, although I do have my opinions. Have "analog" photographers become so conditioned that the mere mention of scanning provokes these sort of responses automatically? Maybe because I shoot both film and digital I am a little less sensitive to these transgressions, particularly given how rare they are..
Hence the quotation marks around the word analog in my post..Faberyman - the term "analogue photograpers" makes no real sence: some find out from this thread [ most ones are knowing this - nevertheless ].
i used one of these cameras until recently when i sold it and the 4-5 lenses that went with it ..
all i know is i was a poser when i used it, and now im a real photographer.
it made some fantastic photographs, ( i had very little to do with it )..
Ähm - yes you are right - sorry pls.....Hence the quotation marks around the word analog in my post..
Now something becomes more and more clear to me Theo - you did it with pocket 110....
...
"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.
I need to give some thoughts to this new insights... Maybe my course books for film related photography are hopelesly antiquated ?Oh, but they do! Clearly, the way to become an analog photographer is to sit in internet forums, discuss resolution, and bash digital.
photography has nothing to do with reality. and reality is a philiosophic construct ...
to be an analog photographer just requires film and a camera .. no imagination
no reality, no conceptual imagery, no resolution just film and a camera and a shutter button ..
That may be fine for you, but not for me! I shoot film because of its greater realism, as well as the greater conceptual and imaginative control it affords me.
But how to compare ?
I'm referring to the information contained within the medium, be it details recorded by clusters of film grains, or data recorded within a digital file.
So to compare I am talking about looking at the film real closely (e.g. a powerful loupe or microscope, or via projection) ,and with digital, yes on a monitor is easiest.
I use "Schneider - Kreuznach" with my Rollei 66 projektor - not so bad from the lens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?