I think you have hit the nail on the head, Vieri. I spoke to the founder of Valoi earlier this year at a Leica Academy event (Valoi make the Easy35 scanning attachment that is the most convenient way to scan 35 mm film, in my opinion). I raised the question of "why not make a new Hasselblad / Imacon scanner version, now with new LED light sources available that could provide for a faster scanning experience". I was told that there was a group somewhere (in Europe presumably) working on a project like this. Even if I don't have high hopes for a new high-end scanner, it is not so difficult to scan 4x5 film with a high res digital camera & macro lens, using a Kaiser LED panel and a frame from Negative Supply (for example). Conversion via Negative Lab Pro. The results are pretty good. Many film tech cameras around, old and new.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Phase One IQ5 – Sony 247 MPX – 3:2 – will you get it?
- Thread starter Paul Spinnler
- Start date
guphotography
Well-known member
I'm glad I'm not the only one turning to analogue film after reaching the digital peak. IQ4 has seen much less action compared to my film back, and I've assembled a valoi kit, about to trial the digitising process with analogue tool box for capture one.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
I think everyone at one point has an analogue phase. The IQ4 with the 105 Rodenstock is a formidable scanning solution!
mristuccia
Well-known member
I take great care of my Imacon 848. 
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Another point - it is a pendulum. You go into the analogue phase because of the colours, the analogue nature in a digital (AI) world, etc. , but then the pendulum swings back again ...
guphotography
Well-known member
It'll be IQ4 with 120 asph for me
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
You'll come back to digital after you've developed a few dozen sheets and then all of a sudden the IQ4's immediacy is nice again
Getting a development machine can accelerate the pendulum swing!
Getting a development machine can accelerate the pendulum swing!
I am not an owner, nor will I be. Somethings we just have to accept. My photography isn’t good enough to merit an IQ5. I’ve never sold a print, but here are my two cents as a former large format user.
I am never going back to film. Leaky film holders, scratched negatives, uneven development, the cost of film… I can’t see how anyone would want to go back to that inconvenience. There will be a market for a new back.
I am never going back to film. Leaky film holders, scratched negatives, uneven development, the cost of film… I can’t see how anyone would want to go back to that inconvenience. There will be a market for a new back.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
It is part of the "journey" of fine art photographers, commercial photographers to have a yearning for analog.
Like with vinyl records, the analog photography experience resurges as people seek the tactile and sensory experiences these mediums offer, which digital lacks. This cyclical return is influenced by cultural, psychological, and social dynamics that drive collective preferences toward familiar or "authentic" experiences. This pendulum between analog and digital exists in music listening (vinyl), music production (analog synths and modular vs. soft synths) and photography.
You can see it on instagram or youtube with all the influencers, but funny enough they at one point all admit trying a digital camera.
https://www.youtube.com/@WillemVerb -> regularly falls back to Fuji and also tried Hasselblad
-> recently also tried the Hassy as well.
Sometimes the fallback to analog is also a try at differentiating oneself with clients or the art community in a world where digital photography is commodified. Meaning - selling a 4x5 scanned image printed in a traditional process rather than a retouched IQ4 file printed on inkjet.
Buuut ..at one point everyone appreciates their tech cam and the formidable tech cam glass and digital backs again and from a fine art perspective its debatable whether it makes a difference nowadays, there's also a lot you can do in digital in post - so I am saying, its cool for a while, then again it is a hassle.
I am going back and forth the two sides every now and then, its cool!
Like with vinyl records, the analog photography experience resurges as people seek the tactile and sensory experiences these mediums offer, which digital lacks. This cyclical return is influenced by cultural, psychological, and social dynamics that drive collective preferences toward familiar or "authentic" experiences. This pendulum between analog and digital exists in music listening (vinyl), music production (analog synths and modular vs. soft synths) and photography.
You can see it on instagram or youtube with all the influencers, but funny enough they at one point all admit trying a digital camera.
https://www.youtube.com/@WillemVerb -> regularly falls back to Fuji and also tried Hasselblad
Sometimes the fallback to analog is also a try at differentiating oneself with clients or the art community in a world where digital photography is commodified. Meaning - selling a 4x5 scanned image printed in a traditional process rather than a retouched IQ4 file printed on inkjet.
Buuut ..at one point everyone appreciates their tech cam and the formidable tech cam glass and digital backs again
and from a fine art perspective its debatable whether it makes a difference nowadays, there's also a lot you can do in digital in post - so I am saying, its cool for a while, then again it is a hassle.I am going back and forth the two sides every now and then, its cool!
Last edited:
vieri
Well-known member
Sure, some (or even most) photographers go through phases where they want to try analogue. I think it's absolutely understandable, if you have a passion for photography.
But, not every photographer that decides to go back to analogue, or perhaps to try analogue for the first time, is doing so because they are going through some kind of phase or the like, or for purely commercial reasons like try and differentiate themselves from the "digital shooting masses", or something. Granted, there surely is some - or even many - falling in those categories.
But, that said, I think it's important to consider that some people actually have a real understanding of aesthetics and of what they want out of their images and they decide to use a medium over another because of that, not on a passing whim from which they will eventually recover, or because they are chasing some fad, or anything like that.
There is no argument from me against the fact that digital is more convenient and immediate, and I am pretty sure we are all ready to agree on that. But convenience and immediacy alone are neither the point nor the reason for me to chose a camera system over another - they never have been, or I wouldn't be using an IQ4 Achro on an Alpa 12 STC, and a Rm3di before that, and an XT before that. Since I was coming from a X1D before the P1, and a Leica SL before the X1D, when you think about it, it looks like over the last decade I have actually moved from more convenience to less convenience, to gain other things (more camera movement, less bulk and weight, dedicated Achro MF sensor, and so on).
For me, reasons to choose a system are aesthetics, first and foremost; then, XT -> Rm3di -> STC 12 -> 4x5" film being the case in point, the power of a full fledged camera with all movements, a power that is actually a game changer when you try and get used to it; the control over B&W contrast and tonal range that using single negatives offer; and so on.
As always, there are two sides to a coin. Pushing the "convenience and immediacy" argument, one could argue that digital small MF is more convenient than a P1 and a tech camera; then, that 135 is more convenient than small MF; then, that iPhones are more convenient than 135 digital... and so on. Conversely, pushing the aesthetics argument, one could find themselves using glass plates...
So, I think the point for each of us is to find the best compromise (gear choice always is) to suit our need and requirements. I am currently on the Dolomites leading a Workshop and shooting film, but that doesn't mean I don't love my IQ4 150 Achro anymore. I do, and I am not even remotely thinking about selling it, since both have a place in my Workflow.
More, during my Workshops I enjoy the extremely interesting and fun byproduct of seeing all sorts of equipment, used in all sorts of ways, producing all sorts of results. However small a sample this can be, after 87 Workshops and 130+ Alumni I can safely say that I never noticed any trend in terms of "xx camera system = better work". As trite as this may sound, is always "better photographer = better work", and often those who produce great work with "lesser" cameras choose to photograph with these cameras because they are comfortable with their tools, not because they could not afford a digital MF or a P1.
In the end, I am system agnostic: for me personally, any system one uses that one is happy with, in terms of what one is getting, is fine by me. But I wouldn't consider all people moving to large format analogue B&W, or already using such systems, as if they were a single entity, all doing that on a whim and all bound to go back to digital once they "saw the light" of digital... most of them (or of us, in the case of 4x5" B&W) already know what digital can do, and simply choose to use something else.
Best regards,
Vieri
But, not every photographer that decides to go back to analogue, or perhaps to try analogue for the first time, is doing so because they are going through some kind of phase or the like, or for purely commercial reasons like try and differentiate themselves from the "digital shooting masses", or something. Granted, there surely is some - or even many - falling in those categories.
But, that said, I think it's important to consider that some people actually have a real understanding of aesthetics and of what they want out of their images and they decide to use a medium over another because of that, not on a passing whim from which they will eventually recover, or because they are chasing some fad, or anything like that.
There is no argument from me against the fact that digital is more convenient and immediate, and I am pretty sure we are all ready to agree on that. But convenience and immediacy alone are neither the point nor the reason for me to chose a camera system over another - they never have been, or I wouldn't be using an IQ4 Achro on an Alpa 12 STC, and a Rm3di before that, and an XT before that. Since I was coming from a X1D before the P1, and a Leica SL before the X1D, when you think about it, it looks like over the last decade I have actually moved from more convenience to less convenience, to gain other things (more camera movement, less bulk and weight, dedicated Achro MF sensor, and so on).
For me, reasons to choose a system are aesthetics, first and foremost; then, XT -> Rm3di -> STC 12 -> 4x5" film being the case in point, the power of a full fledged camera with all movements, a power that is actually a game changer when you try and get used to it; the control over B&W contrast and tonal range that using single negatives offer; and so on.
As always, there are two sides to a coin. Pushing the "convenience and immediacy" argument, one could argue that digital small MF is more convenient than a P1 and a tech camera; then, that 135 is more convenient than small MF; then, that iPhones are more convenient than 135 digital... and so on. Conversely, pushing the aesthetics argument, one could find themselves using glass plates...
So, I think the point for each of us is to find the best compromise (gear choice always is) to suit our need and requirements. I am currently on the Dolomites leading a Workshop and shooting film, but that doesn't mean I don't love my IQ4 150 Achro anymore. I do, and I am not even remotely thinking about selling it, since both have a place in my Workflow.
More, during my Workshops I enjoy the extremely interesting and fun byproduct of seeing all sorts of equipment, used in all sorts of ways, producing all sorts of results. However small a sample this can be, after 87 Workshops and 130+ Alumni I can safely say that I never noticed any trend in terms of "xx camera system = better work". As trite as this may sound, is always "better photographer = better work", and often those who produce great work with "lesser" cameras choose to photograph with these cameras because they are comfortable with their tools, not because they could not afford a digital MF or a P1.
In the end, I am system agnostic: for me personally, any system one uses that one is happy with, in terms of what one is getting, is fine by me. But I wouldn't consider all people moving to large format analogue B&W, or already using such systems, as if they were a single entity, all doing that on a whim and all bound to go back to digital once they "saw the light" of digital... most of them (or of us, in the case of 4x5" B&W) already know what digital can do, and simply choose to use something else.
Best regards,
Vieri
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Hi Vieri
I appreciate your perspective on the choice between analog and digital photography. However, I believe that for many photographers, the attraction to analog photography can be part of a cyclical journey—a pendulum swing influencd by various factors in our evolving digital landscape (for example owning an IQ4 for many years with no innovation) and the cultural impression through (social) media, incl. fashion ads, Instagram and Youtube and wish to emulate peers.
Analog photography does offer distinctive characteristics like halation, grain, a natural organic level of sharpness, and the unique tones and saturation of different film stocks, which contribute to its particular aesthetic appeal. Process satisfaction aside for a moment.
However, it's important to consider that our own aesthetic preferences are often a reflection of cultural imprints on us, which social media can heighten. Our preferences for certain looks or styles can be significantly influenced by trends and the images we are exposed to regularly. I love the film look and regularly scout IG to see new 4x5 shots, both in B&W and colour. There's something about Pentax 6x7 portraiture with Kodak, for example.
From a cultural science perspectiv, an artist's aesthetic perception is deeply linked to the culture they are immersed in. Pierre Bourdieu already elaborates in his oevre: "Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste" (40 years ago) that our visual, ie aesthetic taste preferences are shaped by societal norms, media consumption and the prevalent owners of cultural capital, in the photographic context for example other commercially succesful or respected photographers, and therefore are a mirror of the prevailing artistic movements of our time. This cultural exposure can subconsciously influence the mediums and styles we are drawn to in our own work. And right now shooting film again is a big movement, as can be seen also in galleries and I only imagine that AI will reinforce the longing from art buyers for something they know an artist spent a little more effort on than pressing a shutter and running an action in PS.
As mentioned above when touching on music production or listening, it is broad trend and there has been a notable resurgence of analog aesthetics in various creative fields. The prices of 35mm and medium format film cameras have surged due to increased demand, an ecosystems of startups is catering to it on the LF equipment (intrepid is one example just) and scanning front and Imacon/Flextight scanner prices skyrocketed because of their look. At one point the Mamiya 7 cost 5k from previously 2k, then it dropped and it is now up again a bit. A good indicator of the hype level.
Leica's reintroduction of the M6 rangefinder to much fanfare is a testament to this renewed interest. Additionally, companies like Kodak Alaris, as well as new film stock companies, have reported increased film stock sales, reflecting a growing fascination with film photography which is only hampered if they do too many price hikes - I remember they did a few and then it became really expensive again. Within such a cultural context, aesthetics becomes a relative reflection of what we are exposed to, rather than an innate preference we possess from birth.
As a result, many photographers are now hopping onto analog photography, and it has almost become common, especially with new young photographers and in the photography teaching practice of academic institutions. In Paris, if you are a fashion photographer, you must sometimes be able to deliver some tasty Mamiya RZ negs in 6x7. Its quite common for brands to ask for film. This overarching trend is influenced by cultural and societal factors, and while it offers unique experiences, it's essential to recognize that what one deems one's aesthetic vision is part of a response to a broader movement rather than an innate artistic revelation.
Ultimately, whether one chooses analog or digital, it's essential to focus on what best serves our creative vision and makes us happy. Both mediums have their merits, and the choice often comes down to personal preference (aesthetic preference based on our cultural response) and the specific demands of a project.
BR
Paul
I appreciate your perspective on the choice between analog and digital photography. However, I believe that for many photographers, the attraction to analog photography can be part of a cyclical journey—a pendulum swing influencd by various factors in our evolving digital landscape (for example owning an IQ4 for many years with no innovation) and the cultural impression through (social) media, incl. fashion ads, Instagram and Youtube and wish to emulate peers.
Analog photography does offer distinctive characteristics like halation, grain, a natural organic level of sharpness, and the unique tones and saturation of different film stocks, which contribute to its particular aesthetic appeal. Process satisfaction aside for a moment.
However, it's important to consider that our own aesthetic preferences are often a reflection of cultural imprints on us, which social media can heighten. Our preferences for certain looks or styles can be significantly influenced by trends and the images we are exposed to regularly. I love the film look and regularly scout IG to see new 4x5 shots, both in B&W and colour. There's something about Pentax 6x7 portraiture with Kodak, for example.
From a cultural science perspectiv, an artist's aesthetic perception is deeply linked to the culture they are immersed in. Pierre Bourdieu already elaborates in his oevre: "Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste" (40 years ago) that our visual, ie aesthetic taste preferences are shaped by societal norms, media consumption and the prevalent owners of cultural capital, in the photographic context for example other commercially succesful or respected photographers, and therefore are a mirror of the prevailing artistic movements of our time. This cultural exposure can subconsciously influence the mediums and styles we are drawn to in our own work. And right now shooting film again is a big movement, as can be seen also in galleries and I only imagine that AI will reinforce the longing from art buyers for something they know an artist spent a little more effort on than pressing a shutter and running an action in PS.
As mentioned above when touching on music production or listening, it is broad trend and there has been a notable resurgence of analog aesthetics in various creative fields. The prices of 35mm and medium format film cameras have surged due to increased demand, an ecosystems of startups is catering to it on the LF equipment (intrepid is one example just) and scanning front and Imacon/Flextight scanner prices skyrocketed because of their look. At one point the Mamiya 7 cost 5k from previously 2k, then it dropped and it is now up again a bit. A good indicator of the hype level.
Leica's reintroduction of the M6 rangefinder to much fanfare is a testament to this renewed interest. Additionally, companies like Kodak Alaris, as well as new film stock companies, have reported increased film stock sales, reflecting a growing fascination with film photography which is only hampered if they do too many price hikes - I remember they did a few and then it became really expensive again. Within such a cultural context, aesthetics becomes a relative reflection of what we are exposed to, rather than an innate preference we possess from birth.
As a result, many photographers are now hopping onto analog photography, and it has almost become common, especially with new young photographers and in the photography teaching practice of academic institutions. In Paris, if you are a fashion photographer, you must sometimes be able to deliver some tasty Mamiya RZ negs in 6x7. Its quite common for brands to ask for film. This overarching trend is influenced by cultural and societal factors, and while it offers unique experiences, it's essential to recognize that what one deems one's aesthetic vision is part of a response to a broader movement rather than an innate artistic revelation.
Ultimately, whether one chooses analog or digital, it's essential to focus on what best serves our creative vision and makes us happy. Both mediums have their merits, and the choice often comes down to personal preference (aesthetic preference based on our cultural response) and the specific demands of a project.
BR
Paul
Last edited:
^^^ this for sure. And let us not forget the sense of freedom provided by a camera that does not need its battery charged, does not beep and does not make you experience your holiday through the LCD screen on its back (aka the "Epidemic of the Electronic Eye", in Umberto Eco's words).
Last edited:
vieri
Well-known member
Hello Paul,
thank you for your reply. A few points.
First, it seems to me that all you so eloquently said can just as easily equally apply to people working with digital. After all, an overwhelmingly vast majority of "photographic influencers" do use digital, and a vast (perhaps too vast, but this is a topic for another day) number of photographers produce unoriginal digital works that replicate the post-processing fad of the moment, the compositional fad of the moment, and so on, rather than being creative or original.
You mention the resurgence of film photography and of many analogue ways of create and / or appreciate art, outside of photography, and credit them as a response to a broader movement and to societal pressure, or commercial ones. But, isn't it mainstream - call it pair pressure on social media, pressure by economic interests (gear makers etc), ads, etc - a different kind of societal pressure? Isn't it mainstream pressure the very thing that moves people to shoot digital rather than film and / or listen to Spotify rather than vinyl?
And, if it's true that our aesthetics are the result of some socio-cultural imprint, why should that not be true for people shooting digital as well, given the amount of digital work, digital art, digital photography etc people is exposed to, which is nowadays overwhelmingly more preponderant than film?
Basically, you credit the choice of people going (back) to film to the hype film photography is enjoying, but the numbers of the so-called "analogue resurgence" are so small compared to the digital mainstream that "hype" is hardly the word I'd choose for it - to me, hype rather applies to any of the digital fads I mentioned above, rather than to the use of film, and while Intrepid et.a. are doing a good job in promoting LF photography, they sort of preach in the desert if you compare their weight and ability to invest and promote their gear against that of any mainstream digital player.
On aesthetics. Clearly, we are not born with "built-in" aesthetics. Aesthetics are developed throughout our lives according to what we are exposed to. I am old enough to have first known photography as something analogue that was created with film and enjoyed in the form of physical prints. I was born and raised in Italy, in an art-loving family, and therefore I have been exposed all my life, and from an early age, to all sort of arts, visual and otherwise. I started photographing in my early teens, then trained as a musician and worked as a classical music concert and recoding artist for ages before turning to full-time professional photography. Digital (both photography and music) came relatively late in my life, and one thing I can say for sure is that digital did not form my aesthetics - e.g., when I started working with digital, for my digital B&W I went and recreated the look I was used to when shooting film, not the other way round.
I believe that many are like me, and I am not just talking about people my age or thereabouts - I am talking about people whose aesthetics developed the same way as mine did, due to the way they have been raised and learned to appreciate art, regardless of when they were born. Perhaps, for them, working with analogue photography is a sort of "aesthetic going home" of sorts, even if they actually started with digital and never worked with film, rather than the result of some socio-cultural pressure of the day.
I appreciate your deterministic / environmental vision of why mankind does what it does, but I'd rather believe that individuals - at least some of them - have the singular ability to study whatever they like regardless of environmental pressure, absorb what they study and form their own personal aesthetic opinions and conclusions. While clearly digital is the medium of choice of the vast majority of photographers, professional and otherwise, I believe that in some cases this learning and growing process can bring them to choose the aesthetics of film as those most representing their vision. This, at any age and even if they weren't raised with some sort of "analogue aesthetic imprinting" as, for instance, I did.
Best regards,
Vieri
thank you for your reply. A few points.
First, it seems to me that all you so eloquently said can just as easily equally apply to people working with digital. After all, an overwhelmingly vast majority of "photographic influencers" do use digital, and a vast (perhaps too vast, but this is a topic for another day) number of photographers produce unoriginal digital works that replicate the post-processing fad of the moment, the compositional fad of the moment, and so on, rather than being creative or original.
You mention the resurgence of film photography and of many analogue ways of create and / or appreciate art, outside of photography, and credit them as a response to a broader movement and to societal pressure, or commercial ones. But, isn't it mainstream - call it pair pressure on social media, pressure by economic interests (gear makers etc), ads, etc - a different kind of societal pressure? Isn't it mainstream pressure the very thing that moves people to shoot digital rather than film and / or listen to Spotify rather than vinyl?
And, if it's true that our aesthetics are the result of some socio-cultural imprint, why should that not be true for people shooting digital as well, given the amount of digital work, digital art, digital photography etc people is exposed to, which is nowadays overwhelmingly more preponderant than film?
Basically, you credit the choice of people going (back) to film to the hype film photography is enjoying, but the numbers of the so-called "analogue resurgence" are so small compared to the digital mainstream that "hype" is hardly the word I'd choose for it - to me, hype rather applies to any of the digital fads I mentioned above, rather than to the use of film, and while Intrepid et.a. are doing a good job in promoting LF photography, they sort of preach in the desert if you compare their weight and ability to invest and promote their gear against that of any mainstream digital player.
On aesthetics. Clearly, we are not born with "built-in" aesthetics. Aesthetics are developed throughout our lives according to what we are exposed to. I am old enough to have first known photography as something analogue that was created with film and enjoyed in the form of physical prints. I was born and raised in Italy, in an art-loving family, and therefore I have been exposed all my life, and from an early age, to all sort of arts, visual and otherwise. I started photographing in my early teens, then trained as a musician and worked as a classical music concert and recoding artist for ages before turning to full-time professional photography. Digital (both photography and music) came relatively late in my life, and one thing I can say for sure is that digital did not form my aesthetics - e.g., when I started working with digital, for my digital B&W I went and recreated the look I was used to when shooting film, not the other way round.
I believe that many are like me, and I am not just talking about people my age or thereabouts - I am talking about people whose aesthetics developed the same way as mine did, due to the way they have been raised and learned to appreciate art, regardless of when they were born. Perhaps, for them, working with analogue photography is a sort of "aesthetic going home" of sorts, even if they actually started with digital and never worked with film, rather than the result of some socio-cultural pressure of the day.
I appreciate your deterministic / environmental vision of why mankind does what it does, but I'd rather believe that individuals - at least some of them - have the singular ability to study whatever they like regardless of environmental pressure, absorb what they study and form their own personal aesthetic opinions and conclusions. While clearly digital is the medium of choice of the vast majority of photographers, professional and otherwise, I believe that in some cases this learning and growing process can bring them to choose the aesthetics of film as those most representing their vision. This, at any age and even if they weren't raised with some sort of "analogue aesthetic imprinting" as, for instance, I did.
Best regards,
Vieri
One has to ask, what is actual what one wants/needs/likes: The idea (of something) or the actual thing?
It looks that many here like the idea of using film but when one actually gets down to using film, the drawbacks of film will become very quickly apparent. Especially when compared to digital.
IMHO if one has extensive B&W darkroom experience and actual still has a (working) photographic darkroom, large-format B&W film may still be practical and enjoyable. But if not, I doubt it's worth the hassle even to try. Perhaps even just a question of expectations. Just forgetting to turn off the light when developing film can seriously ruin one's day.
Exceptions thereto may be an artistic decision to use older photographic processes or the photographic process itself being part of the artistic process.
(Yes, there are color film development kits and also color enlargement paper, but this is a whole nother story.)
It looks that many here like the idea of using film but when one actually gets down to using film, the drawbacks of film will become very quickly apparent. Especially when compared to digital.
IMHO if one has extensive B&W darkroom experience and actual still has a (working) photographic darkroom, large-format B&W film may still be practical and enjoyable. But if not, I doubt it's worth the hassle even to try. Perhaps even just a question of expectations. Just forgetting to turn off the light when developing film can seriously ruin one's day.
Exceptions thereto may be an artistic decision to use older photographic processes or the photographic process itself being part of the artistic process.
(Yes, there are color film development kits and also color enlargement paper, but this is a whole nother story.)
Last edited:
Yes, the "aesthetic going home" is it for me. It is vastly more convenient to work with the XT and IQ4150. The superior dynamic range provides dramatically greater flexibility in pp. Yet, when I look at images from the 1980s (e.g. the early works of Thomas Struth or Gabriele Basilico) I see the cityscapes of my teenage years and feel "at home" again. The modern digitally captured and processed looks are always more polished and perfect but they don't always elicit the same emotional response in me. So, boomer nostalgia in my case, I am afraid.
Sure there must a preset or digital filter that adds all those good goodies from the film days like dust spots, negative scratches, newton rings, fingerprints. X-ray fogging etc.
mristuccia
Well-known member
Organic imperfection is the very nature of man, which is why we always long for it and feel anything that goes in the opposite direction as an alien thing.Sure there must a preset or digital filter that adds all those good goodies from the film days like dust spots, negative scratches, newton rings, fingerprints. X-ray fogging etc.
Embrace imperfection, you cannot fight it, you'll live more peacefully.
Now, let's try to convince our clients...
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
So ... what counteracts the 3:2 problem a bit in my view is the fact that the 54:40 crop is 220 MPX; you could have an import preset in C1 set to that crop and not notice that you moved to IQ5 from IQ4 if you are fine with moving down one notch lens focal length wise.
So the 43XL and 40HR are the new old stars!
So the 43XL and 40HR are the new old stars!
vieri
Well-known member
That's a good idea, but besides the fact that not everyone would be happy with the new FOV equivalences since using one lens wider than before on a cropped 3:2 sensor wouldn't give the exact coverage a lens one step wider would on the 54 x 40mm sensor, and many people are particular when it comes to that, that simply wouldn't work for people who love to work with the 23mm Rodie - as I do, for instance. There just aren't any wider alternatives for the 23mm to use on the 3:2 sensor once you cropped, if you want to retain the 4:3 ratio.
I still hope for a 4:3 sensor, and I still feel that a 3:2 sensor would alienate a large part of the current user base, regardless of the possibilities of cropping etc.
Best regards,
Vieri