Olympus UK E-System User Group

Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php)
-   The lounge (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Kodak Ektachrome 100 Revival (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43911)

mm500 11th January 2017 07:25 PM

Re: Kodak Ektachrome 100 Revival
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel (Post 403624)

However, by the time digital came along many wedding togs were using 35 mm to save cost; but rather than taking 36 or 48 well composed shots they were using their cameras like machine guns, so the bar was actually set very low when it came to digital quality.

I agree. When I used 6x7 transparency film in the studio (Mamiya RB67) I used to aim for a "keeper rate" of as close to 100% as possible.

With 8 shots on a roll (allowing for a clip test if anyone knows what that is: if you do you really were a film user) every shot had to count.

There seem to be a lot of people now that shoot hundreds of images of no consequence.

To this day I am still quite brutal about "wasting images" and if I'm shooting anything of value (like travel shots) I only like to press the shutter button if I think I have a decent shot. This is a direct influence of my film days.

This thread made me look at some of my old transparencies. There's still a magic to looking at film. 35mm looks good but 120 still makes a real impression.

I keep intending to shoot film now and again but my inherent laziness stops me.

Mal.

Naughty Nigel 11th January 2017 08:47 PM

Re: Kodak Ektachrome 100 Revival
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mm500 (Post 403662)
I agree. When I used 6x7 transparency film in the studio (Mamiya RB67) I used to aim for a "keeper rate" of as close to 100% as possible.

With 8 shots on a roll (allowing for a clip test if anyone knows what that is: if you do you really were a film user) every shot had to count.

There seem to be a lot of people now that shoot hundreds of images of no consequence.

To this day I am still quite brutal about "wasting images" and if I'm shooting anything of value (like travel shots) I only like to press the shutter button if I think I have a decent shot. This is a direct influence of my film days.

This thread made me look at some of my old transparencies. There's still a magic to looking at film. 35mm looks good but 120 still makes a real impression.

I keep intending to shoot film now and again but my inherent laziness stops me.

Mal.

I was thinking more of 645 or 6 x 6 for wedding work, but the same principle applies.

When my wife and I got married, almost 25 years ago now (in 1992) we 'interviewed' half a dozen or so potential wedding photographers for our big day.

All but two brought along huge portfolios from recent weddings, and boasted of taking 200 plus photographs in all manner of locations and poses - all on 35 mm.

When I asked why they were not using medium format all said that 35 mm was "just as good", and that "nobody can tell the difference". Needless to say they didn't get the job.

(It was all a bit like the car salesman who says you don't need a spare wheel any more.)

However, what really persuaded us, (and is very telling), was that our Priest mentioned a recent wedding reception which in his words was 'completely ruined by the photographer', who 'took so many photographs that the guests were nearly two hours late for their meal'.

To me this speaks volumes about the lack of professionalism shown by far too many wedding photographers nowadays, who seem to think the wedding is staged for their benefit alone.

I fully agree about 120 roll film transparencies too; there is nothing quite like pulling a roll of freshly developed Velvia out of the tank and holding it up to the light for the first time. *yes


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:26 PM.


The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger