> >I sold most of my Oly stuff
> > with a good deal of nostalgia for a wonderful film camera
> and an
> > ergonomic wonder. But photography has moved on, at least in
> my opinion,
> > and I don't want to be one of those old guys mired in the
> past because
> > he is too lazy to move ahead with the technology of his
> hobby.
I understand--yet I'm not quite ready to reinvent myself. So
far, in 2004, around 1/2 of my photographic revenue has come
from B&W print sales. For portraiture, event and miscellaneous
photography, digital is best because of the quick turn-around
and the shoot till you get it right mentality. However, for
wall-art print sales, my B&W prints are selling 4:1 over the
color work--and most of those are a couple classic
OM/Velvia/100mm shots. And I've shot almost 7000 pictures with
the digital so far, and some of those shots are real doozies and
good sellers.
When the B&W print sales are no longer a viable income generator
I'll gladly return that section of the house to the status of
guest bedroom. B&W is tough to get right, takes a lot of time
and effort and is frequently very frustrating. (especially after
moving equipment around and discovering that the enlarger
alignment got screwed up).
Is digital better than film? In many ways, yes. But for me,
the proof is in the sales. Customers KNOW when something is
chemical/silver based and are willing to dish out serious money
for it. Unfortunately, it's pretty tough to get good
silver-geletin prints on fiber paper from a digital file.
"Legs" is another aspect that I fight with digital. With the
exception of ONE picture, no digital picture has survived more
than three weeks on my office wall before I'm bored with it.
One color and one B&W picture taken with the OMs have survived
almost two years! No digital print has hung in the house for
more than a couple of weeks--everything remaining is OM or LF.
What is it that puts a picture "over the edge" in this? Not
totally sure, but to me most digital pictures (both mine and
others) are too stark, cold and literal. Art isn't necessarily
literal. Yes, I can post-process a picture to get something
different, but there is something organic to the way Zuikos and
some films interact that just goes beyond what I'm capable of.
I can manipulate curves and layers until the cows come home, but
when you find something that works--and works extremely well,
you're hard pressed to change it. It took me too long to learn
how to shoot Velvia. I'm not about to abandon it quite yet. When
Fuji pulls the plug on Velvia, It will be a very sad day,
indeed.
Everybody looks at "sharpness" and "grainlessness" as the holy
grails of photography. I disagree. These are important, but
where is the color/tonal responses and toe/shoulder curves and
lateral smearing which differentiate one film above another?
It's like Bokeh--it's physical and optical, not
sensor/electronics based.
The day will come when I do abandon film. But I've got a couple
thousand negs which I haven't even PROOF printed yet--and others
which I know will be winners if I can figure out HOW to print
them.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|