View Single Post

Old 12-11-2018   #232
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Thank you. For me, this shot would not have ďworkedĒ if there had been more shadow and highlight detail. Thatís all I am saying. I like P30 for what it is. Iím not good enough to wet print, so I scan everything. That might enter into it, but in my workflow it succeeds for me, though I am still trying to get the best out of it, for my specific purposes. It is not a film I use all the time for everything, I donít have one of those, thankfully. Can I reliably get the results I enjoy this film for by using a ďbetterĒ film, no I canít. Close, yes, but not the same.
I am ambivalent as well about the desirability of perfect lenses to the exclusion of imperfect lenses, except for studio product photography, so my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. If every emulsion was perfect, by the theoretical standards we can put numbers on, then every emulsion would yield results looking the same. Numbingly. Itís just not a goal I share as it strikes me as sterile. Thatís a personal opinion, not a judgment on others. Itís always possible I donít know what I am doing.
I too use objectively inferior lenses from time to time that I happen to love, despite weird MTF charts. I've seen some people pairing P30 with vintage cameras or lower contrast lenses, and I think they might be on to something there, allowing the film to add snap to their older glass. Matching lens to film to developer to paper is a good idea.
__________________

  Reply With Quote