Rob, love the 'tonality' of the two shipyard shots.
Hey, who needs a Blad and film?
Thank you, Keith.
Obviously, these crops from 2x3 work - when they do - because apart from the odd time that I've actually looked for something square to catch with the Nikon, framing luck just happened to be on my side.
As your own experience tells you from all those years of real 'blads, the camera both does the framing in real time and educates the eye before the camera is even pulled out of the case. I'm certain that's how I worked - I hated having to use two formats on one job.
Yes, film was nice, but I have to confess that age has caught up even with Peter Pan, here in Mallorca. I realise that I'm now too impatient to wait after shooting... and the money - yes, the money I'd be wasting!
Also, and here we get into what Walter claims: the small looken-peepers do not permit you to see the subject well enough (I only use the rear screen - when I do - for the histogram) and the boat-lift pic is a great example of that: hand-held, I thought I'd managed to square up the lift in the frame, but on cropping the shot (never intended), it's amazing how off-square it turned out to be, giving me headaches about where to trim to make the square shape; it never seemed to be right, even with rotation this way and then the other. A 500 Series was pretty much always on a tripod, and these things could be seen and corrected right away.
The solution, as most can guess, is an FF digital 500 Series, but then I couldn't afford to buy it.
Ciao -
Rob C
P.S. Just thought to add: though the two shots of the boat equipment eventually gave nice tones, some other shots made in different directions simply didn’t allow for good conversions.
That’s the big disadvantage of digital for me, and I guess that even an FF 500 Series digital would have the same flaws on converting... you (I) just can’t depend on it to work.
