Guest Posted July 5, 2014 Share #1 Posted July 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Film News: ADOX Interview | Japan Camera HunterJapan Camera Hunter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Hi Guest, Take a look here ADOX. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Steve Ash Posted July 6, 2014 Share #2 Posted July 6, 2014 A very open interview by Adox also I wish it would be a little bit more optimistic. I still love film as I get much more keepers with film. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted July 6, 2014 Share #3 Posted July 6, 2014 Adox have created some fantastic emulsions and deserve all the support they can get. I agree with most of the comments apart from this, which I disagree with: ".......If you use a digital intermediate step you are cropped down of course...." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 6, 2014 Share #4 Posted July 6, 2014 Adox have created some fantastic emulsions and deserve all the support they can get. I agree with most of the comments apart from this, which I disagree with: ".......If you use a digital intermediate step you are cropped down of course...." In my opinion, it is deviant when film is scanned in order to display an image on a monitor, or to make a digital print. Once into the digital realm, the virtue of film is lost. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 7, 2014 Share #5 Posted July 7, 2014 For the greater part of the 20th Century the virtue of film was in allowing photographers to communicate by the reproduction of images, mostly done through the imperfect medium of the printed page. Serious photographers recognised the lower quality of the printed newspaper or book was a price worth paying for the sake of communication be they artistic landscape photographs or hard war journalism. It was always the realm of the amateur to only show silver based prints, often to just their wife, mother, or camera club, essentially because it was all about the craft of photography and not expression or revelation. So getting ideas 'out there' has always involved some sort of compromise for photographers, and the certainty is that those who don't accept some level of compromise are the very same people who end up talking a good photograph rather than showing a good photograph. 'Talker' or 'doer', which do you want to be? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted August 24, 2014 Share #6 Posted August 24, 2014 The article mentioned the view that "Ektar can record about 20% more information on a 35mm film than the highest resolution 35mm Digital*Camera (Nikon D800) can capture." Anyone agree / disagree with that? My own view is that resolution is not the main difference to choose one format over the other. Digital within its megapixel comfort spot (ie, not majorly resized upwards) can often look sharper due to its high edge sharpness / acuity ..... but equally, film can be stretched to almost any massive print size you can imagine and it will still produce a "natural" and "organic" photograph albeit with more and more grain as the image gets bigger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 24, 2014 Share #7 Posted August 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) When I was a city daily news photographer in the Seventies, I knew my images would be butchered in reproduction. Today I can print the same images in my darkroom to better outcomes. (As an aside - for national press photo competitions back then we were required to make 16"x20" prints of our photos.) The web offers better rendition than we had in newspapers, but the web still sucks. Imagine the day when we have super-high resolution displays and photographers regret their decision to settle for "what works". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.