data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c80f/4c80fb597242480c9518146b0af2929f159decb1" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2145b/2145b0a95f7c28f8e52f01b4f03c7dd20d1801b6" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a31d/3a31d7896645b1edcbf86f9d5f19c36ef0f51b90" alt=""
...and comparing.
In the forthcoming weeks I will test pairs of (expired) film, old and very old, or different brands. Not very scientifically, I'll use different (contemporary) cameras, or work on different days, but fun nevertheless.
Today: 1966 Plus-X in the 1964 Werra compared with 1993 Tmax in the seventies Canon FTbQL. Bright sun against dull sky. The older combination wins: the 45+ film still great, the "aus Jena" 50mm very sharp, the camera very handy. Better weather also.
Well, that's a surprising outcome!
BeantwoordenVerwijderenThe sixties gave birth to some very strange and remarkable spawn...
BeantwoordenVerwijderenSo much more bite in the older example.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenI have my own Werra and two FTb QL's. I love the Canons.
I really think it's a historical thing. Since 1965 I always had (dozens of) Canons (it was the camera my father gave me) but... no decent camera was made after 1975 [what am I saying now!?! Better soften that with a ;)]
BeantwoordenVerwijderenHmmmmmm, I think we should allow that there were probably a few good cameras created after 1975. But I agree that an older camera in working condition often produces a more compelling image. Of course when in the right hands!
BeantwoordenVerwijderenWell, I think I mean that after '75 the camera took over. The right hands (eyes) lost (some) ground.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen