Right... - get the lab to process the film, and the photographer will get less work. Digital imageing gives us a lot of work at the computer - it's really very time consuming, isn't it?
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 28. november 2004 19:48 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Speaking of Medium Format Well, we touched on medium format the other day. However, I read something interesting on the Photo.Net wedding photographer's list this morning. Marc Williams, the same chap who posted nice comments about the *istD on the Leica forum, posted some interesting observations about MF vs. digital. Marc is a wedding photographer and a studio pro. He's been shooting digital for quite some time, most recently with the Canon 1DS. He was shooting all his weddings on digital but grew weary of the digital darkroom processing. Most recently, he's gone back to shooting weddings with a 'blad and three lenses. He says he just turns his film into the lab and gets a set of proofs. He no longer has to convert every image and print them. He scans and prints his finals, but he claims it's far less work. He also feels the 6x6 results are superior to the 1DS digital images. You can find the thread on the Photo.Net wedding photographers forum if you're interested in reading the entire debate. (It drew quite a few responses.) I took out my 6x7 gear this morning and inspected it. I think I'm going to shoot some MF BW next nice day. I have an urge to get back in the darkroom with some nice, big negatives. Paul
