Gregory's ServerThis year I shot 24 rolls of 35mm film and 15 rolls of 120... So far, at least.
 20 comments
 Rochester NY here thanks for keeping the shadow of the once mighty Kodak empire alive  If you want to see a selection of my work, you can visit my portfolio: https://eugenrochko.com/ @Gargron Sorry, but I can't see the point shooting with chemical films, then develop them, then make copies, then digitize the copies/negative. It is more straight forward shooting with digital machine. All steps reduced in one. @shevek What a depressing view. The process is at least as important as the end result. @Gargron I've been traditional photographer. I used to shoot slides. So I understand the magic of chemical photography for itself, but I don't understand the use of chemical films if the goal is uploading to web. For this purpose digital cameras are the right way, IMHO. @shevek I don't see uploading to the web as the goal of photography, but as a side effect. I keep all my negatives and I print some of them. @Gargron This is a possible answer I was thinking of. The other is, that perhaps scanning a negative yields better results, nowadays, than right shoot with mid-quality DSLR. @shevek Negatives have insane resolution, that's true. And a used analog camera is much cheaper than a DSLR that shoots comparable resolution. @Gargron are you using a specific CMS? Sharing some of my work (need to update blog and portfolio so that I also get that cool "More from" :) )    |
@Gargron Iconic! There is something about film that digital can't reproduce!