Это Кен Роквелл
May. 1st, 2008 04:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
birdwatcherhttp://kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
No one wants these film cameras anymore, but I'm astounded that this is true. I think they're great. Do any of you read magazines? Reading the past few months worth of Outdoor Photographer and Popular Photography last weekend, I'm also amused that the only cameras these magazines ever talk about, review and push, are the forgettable and expensive new digital crap. Look at the featured photos and photographers (not the reader contests), and the guys who matter are shooting film — today.
Page 82 of the April 2008 issue of Pop Photo points out that 35mm ISO 100 print film has better resolution (3,000 lines) than even the $8,000 21 MP Canon 1DS Mk III (2,830 lines), and 35mm and ISO 100 print film is for amateurs! The inside back cover? Shot on film in a Hasselblad.
Cover of May 2008 issue of Outdoor Photographer? 4x5 film as usual. Article on Carr Clifton? Shoots Velvia — today. Article on Anne Laird? She shoots the indomitable Nikon F4.
May/June 2008 issue of American Photo? Article on William Abranowicz? Shoots Contax 645. Martin Parr? Shoots a Nikon N90 (not even the newer N90s). Alec Soth? 8x10" film. Luca Trovato? Pentax 67. Francesco Lagnese? Contax 645. Stephanie Stylander? Mamiya 645 - and these are travel photographers. What is every article in the magazine pushing? Forgettable digital stuff.
May 2008 Pop Photo? Page 20 article on a guy who shoots Hawaiian volcanoes? Shoots a Nikon N8008s and Pentax 6x7. Why? Because he says (page 21) that Velvia looks better than digital. You can't even give away a N8008s today! Page 30: Mike McNamara confirms what I've been telling you: raw converters can give worse results than JPG.
