Fuji GSW690III and Kodak 160
Who says film is dead?
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 2K
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Fantastic.
I can't wait for digital to be dead.
I can't wait for digital to be dead.
Ronald M
Veteran
That looks like a digi print with blown highlites. There is not a spec of detail in the snow anywhere.
rool
Well-known
You could have avoided the digital frame then...
R
rich815
Guest
Ronald M said:
Really? There is on my monitor.
While I agree perhaps that the white is slightly over-exposed, especially the immediate foreground patches, I see texture, light blue "shadows", light greys, a lot of detail in the snow, especially up on the mountain.
Is your monitor profiled? Not that mine is, in fact I'm viewing it on my work-provided crappy Dell Latitude laptop, but yes, I see detail in the snow.
R
rich815
Guest
solaris10 said:Fuji GSW690III and Kodak 160
Really nice Solaris. Consider posting over at The Fuji Rangefinder Pages? Link below in my signature....
Ah, film...
Ah, film...
Chocolate christ in heaven film is NOT dead. But be QUIET ABOUT IT. In the meantime, we can buy film gear with f'ing pocket change.
And not that you asked, but I was APPALLED that Leica spec'd out their CCD to Kodak (that's good) but are somehow blissfully making themselves look stupid in pedaling the greatness of a 1.3-something crap factor oops my bad.
Frankly, if someone's going to take a second mortgage on their house for an M8, Leitz/Leica/Kodak could at least offer a full frame sensor. I think Joe Ferrari with his Breitling and McMansion mortgage can swing it.
I don't care about how 24x36 came about, but for BARNACK'S MOM'S SAKE, cover the WHOLE FRAME. Assuming I would have the money for a digital M, I have no interest in having my 50mm Elmar/Serenar/Nikkor-? whatever pumped up to 65mm (worse for the wider lenses).
The fact is that 24x36 got there first, and almost every lens mf'd after was made for that frame. There. We're stuck with it. If I'm going to pay oodles of money for the canonical "one hell of a box brownie", I want the real-estate.
BTW, I'm not a purist: I love my D70 and it's 1.5 factor. I think SLR aficionados who are delaying a purchase and waiting for a full frame sensor are wasting their time. But yeesh. This is a Leica.
Yow sry rant. But I don't kid.
-CJ
----
"...on a tiny negative
capable of infinite enlargement.
You see, your American lads,
you came up with a new film emulsion...
...very hush-hush,
but 100 times more sensitive...
...than anything previously available.
And the negative is miraculously developed
within the satellite itself.
You put our film in your camera
and you had a hell of a box Brownie.
No, the Russians had.
We lent it to you fellows, and you lost it. "
Ah, film...
Chocolate christ in heaven film is NOT dead. But be QUIET ABOUT IT. In the meantime, we can buy film gear with f'ing pocket change.
And not that you asked, but I was APPALLED that Leica spec'd out their CCD to Kodak (that's good) but are somehow blissfully making themselves look stupid in pedaling the greatness of a 1.3-something crap factor oops my bad.
Frankly, if someone's going to take a second mortgage on their house for an M8, Leitz/Leica/Kodak could at least offer a full frame sensor. I think Joe Ferrari with his Breitling and McMansion mortgage can swing it.
I don't care about how 24x36 came about, but for BARNACK'S MOM'S SAKE, cover the WHOLE FRAME. Assuming I would have the money for a digital M, I have no interest in having my 50mm Elmar/Serenar/Nikkor-? whatever pumped up to 65mm (worse for the wider lenses).
The fact is that 24x36 got there first, and almost every lens mf'd after was made for that frame. There. We're stuck with it. If I'm going to pay oodles of money for the canonical "one hell of a box brownie", I want the real-estate.
BTW, I'm not a purist: I love my D70 and it's 1.5 factor. I think SLR aficionados who are delaying a purchase and waiting for a full frame sensor are wasting their time. But yeesh. This is a Leica.
Yow sry rant. But I don't kid.
-CJ
----
"...on a tiny negative
capable of infinite enlargement.
You see, your American lads,
you came up with a new film emulsion...
...very hush-hush,
but 100 times more sensitive...
...than anything previously available.
And the negative is miraculously developed
within the satellite itself.
You put our film in your camera
and you had a hell of a box Brownie.
No, the Russians had.
We lent it to you fellows, and you lost it. "
R
rich815
Guest
solaris10 said:
Really nice Solaris. Consider posting over at The Fuji Rangefinder Pages? Link below in my signature, then click Register to sign up and create an image folder. Would love to see it there too!
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidH
Overweight and over here
Fabulous shot - well done! Really a stunning shot...
But thank whatever god(s) you pray to for digital. Without it, MF gear would still be expensive....
😉
But thank whatever god(s) you pray to for digital. Without it, MF gear would still be expensive....
😉
Trawlerman
Member
Holy crap that it amazing!
Digital, 35mm, RF or whatever that is really nice. This is what it's all about in the end, the images.
Sure, the gear is nice to drool over but is only a small part of the process. Whatever you're doing tou're doing right and keep it up!
Digital, 35mm, RF or whatever that is really nice. This is what it's all about in the end, the images.
Sure, the gear is nice to drool over but is only a small part of the process. Whatever you're doing tou're doing right and keep it up!
Tuolumne
Veteran
Can we axe Mr. Xpan? He seems to be spamming all of the posts with the same message. Sure hope there wasn't any malicious code on his Web page because I clicked the link.
/T
/T
R
rich815
Guest
Tuolumne said:
Click on his name, the View Public Profile, then Add to Ignore List. I did that after his first post.
Tuolumne said:
The ax has fallen.
sooner
Well-known
Beautiful photo, makes me drool even harder for a 6x9 camera and the Fujis. I'm thinking of going Koni Omega for now to save money, but I'm heading there, and pictures like yours don't help with the GAS! Thanks for sharing.
S
Socke
Guest
It's a shame that a small JPEG is a small JPEG, no matter what it was scanned from. But I can imagine what a real print might look.
Similar threads
- Article
