Evolution of Photography
Apr 10, 2016 07:49:58 #
Take note of the smaller print with each item in the photo. To me, that's what made this funny.
Apr 10, 2016 08:01:59 #
Apr 10, 2016 08:14:51 #
Apr 11, 2016 06:15:08 #
Apr 11, 2016 07:02:45 #
dalematt wrote:
Take note of the smaller print with each item in the photo. To me, that's what made this funny.
"6 are awesome." How true. :D
Apr 11, 2016 07:46:42 #
I still use both the left and the right ones. I'm lucky if I get 6 from left one. More like 3.
Apr 11, 2016 08:09:16 #
dalematt wrote:
Take note of the smaller print with each item in the photo. To me, that's what made this funny.
Sounds about right to me!
Apr 11, 2016 08:51:45 #
Apr 11, 2016 08:54:39 #
They could have easily added a single film container to that list or just added a hunk of glass in the background.
Apr 11, 2016 08:58:45 #
Apr 11, 2016 09:20:49 #
Apr 11, 2016 10:00:36 #
Just having this discussion between us analog shooters and our digital friends. So first love your post. It makes a great visual point to all our rhetoric. One thing I always think about is Ansel Adams was happy with one good print a month.
Apr 11, 2016 10:03:36 #
dalematt wrote:
Take note of the smaller print with each item in the photo. To me, that's what made this funny.
Ah, but where are the tintypes, daugerrotypes, glass plates, 16x20 cut sheet film, etc. :)
Apr 11, 2016 10:09:46 #
GENorkus wrote:
They could have easily added a single film container to that list or just added a hunk of glass in the background.
You are right. I shoot mostly with an 8x10 and thought about making the comment you did but my success rate is still only about 1:3. So the ratios are close for all film users. Especially now since film is not cheap anymore and it takes time to process. Also I think we are more careful in the field in the first place since we cannot see the results until we develop the film and in many cases print the negatives. I am jealous of my digital friends for being able to see the image right away.
Apr 11, 2016 10:14:58 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
GAS496 wrote:
You are right. I shoot mostly with an 8x10 and thought about making the comment you did but my success rate is still only about 1:3. So the ratios are close for all film users. Especially now since film is not cheap anymore and it takes time to process. Also I think we are more careful in the field in the first place since we cannot see the results until we develop the film and in many cases print the negatives. I am jealous of my digital friends for being able to see the image right away.
judging from the amount of exposures made by digital image making users, they may look, but i sincerely doubt they "see". that's the advantage of film.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.