unfortunately, i have to start out by saying something about digital manipulation. seems i have to keep answering for
everyone else's lack of discretion in that department.
i make the greatest effort to show you an honest rendition of what i saw or what the film captured (sometimes these things don't match because of the nature of slide film and light). there is no benefit to me to digitally 'manipulate' my images. i want to show you what i saw as i saw it, not an editorialized version of nature. my photos have to be honest, i'm trying to showcase and preserve shrinking habitats.
no content is added or removed and i usually only make global adjustments to the image (such as color cast or contrast). despite this i often spend hours or days working on an image because there is a huge difference between what the slide looks like and how it arrives in the computer after a scan. if anyone ever has any concerns about this, you are welcome to come look at my originals.
i use film
and i intend to keep it that way.
i have used a 35mm nikon f3, a large format toyo 4 x 5, and now happily use a medium format pentax 67.
why? you might ask. because for many years i have searched for the perfect camera system and only found it recently in the pentax. it's the perfect compromise between portability and image quality. just slightly heavier than my 35mm system, the image size is about 4 times larger. the coatings on the lenses are superb with the film i use (fuji velvia and kodak e100vs) and scan very nicely. with scanning technology, i can get nearly large format resolution from medium format film. i don't advocate film over digital or digital over film, the photographer makes the choice they are happiest with and that what gets them better photos.
that's right, i shoot film then scan it because in the computer i have ultimate control over every nuance and adjustment in the final output. so i can give you the best image that i know how.
i make the greatest effort to show you an honest rendition of what i saw or what the film captured (sometimes these things don't match because of the nature of slide film and light). there is no benefit to me to digitally 'manipulate' my images. i want to show you what i saw as i saw it, not an editorialized version of nature. my photos have to be honest, i'm trying to showcase and preserve shrinking habitats.
no content is added or removed and i usually only make global adjustments to the image (such as color cast or contrast). despite this i often spend hours or days working on an image because there is a huge difference between what the slide looks like and how it arrives in the computer after a scan. if anyone ever has any concerns about this, you are welcome to come look at my originals.
i use film
and i intend to keep it that way.
i have used a 35mm nikon f3, a large format toyo 4 x 5, and now happily use a medium format pentax 67.
why? you might ask. because for many years i have searched for the perfect camera system and only found it recently in the pentax. it's the perfect compromise between portability and image quality. just slightly heavier than my 35mm system, the image size is about 4 times larger. the coatings on the lenses are superb with the film i use (fuji velvia and kodak e100vs) and scan very nicely. with scanning technology, i can get nearly large format resolution from medium format film. i don't advocate film over digital or digital over film, the photographer makes the choice they are happiest with and that what gets them better photos.
that's right, i shoot film then scan it because in the computer i have ultimate control over every nuance and adjustment in the final output. so i can give you the best image that i know how.
