> Austin,
>
> I want to apologize for the brusque tone in my previous post.
Gee, thanks ;-)
> What I
> should have said, and am saying now, is that based on what you write
> here I doubt you would think these particular prints look great. And
> that, of course, is your choice, and it's OK with me that you probably
> wouldn't think they look great. I was being defensive:)
In all honesty, I'd LOVE to see them...but I do have 30 years of
photographic experience, both professionally and amateurly...and I am hard
pressed to believe anyone could get a 2' x 3' print that's "great" from 35mm
800 speed color film... I have done 2' x 3' prints from 100 ASA B&W 35mm
film...and I must say, they are grainy, and they look OK, but not great. I
am very careful about my development and minimizing grain (D-76 1:1 for
Plus-X)...so it's based on my experience that I am a "doubting Austin". It
is, perhaps, just a difference in the word "great", but without seeing them
my self...and only based on my experience...well, you get the idea.
> You do make valuable contributions to this list, even if you are a
> propeller head:) And photographic artists everywhere are in debt to
> the engineers who understand and design the wonderful and complex
> technological tools we all use to make the images that please us,
> however they end up looking. And there are many engineers of
> sensitivity who make wonderful photographs.
Thanks! I would like to believe I'm a heck of a lot more than a propeller
head! I won a few photographic awards when I was doing commercial work for
a living, and I'd like to believe my images are at least "decent", as I'm
sure we all would like to believe our images are decent. I do photography
because it is creative, and I have to say, I do like the technical aspect of
it. Hence, why I don't paint ;-)
> The point and shoot I referred to BTW, is an Olympus Stylus Epic, with
> a fixed 35m f/2.8 that is at least the equal of any 50 year old
> design.
That's probably a very good lense, and being a mild wide...it's probably
very sharp, even at low speed.
> And the grain structure of current 800 speed color neg film
> is about the same as 50 year old medium speed B&W films such as
> Bresson used. So you see, it's not such a stretch.
What film are you talking about? I tried some 800 speed color films, and
really wasn't happy with what I tried. Too grainy for my likes... I admit
I am a snob when it comes to image quality (I am not a grain sniffer, but I
do like detail/texture)...which is why I really love MF, and don't really
like 35mm much...there just seems to be such a quality difference in the
two, even though I have Leica and Contax glass, shoot with 100 speed super
fine grain color & B&W film...I wish I could get what I wanted out of
35mm...but I always end up going back to MF to get what I want...sigh.
BTW, what the heck did you mean by "Based on the orientation..."?
Regards,
Austin
