I simply don't find the usefulness of a film that gets scanned anyway. So the very same look can be achieved by modifiyng the scanned inage in PS...
14:04 opssss
Of course, but i wanted to point out that there could be a problem for those wanting good sharpness...
Photographic image making isn’t always about sharpness and colour phidelity.
No it cannot. That is a myth that belongs in the time of Dr Spock.
Only film looks like film.
Use that on tech film and be happy. There's actually little to no benefit being hurt by another film offer that is 1) probably temporary and 2) is different enough to merit its existence.Especially when you have spent thousand bucks on a prime...
That's a myth in itself
You can always compensate for this effect by turning the focus ring a few hundredth of a degree away from infinity. Jokes aside, people who shot red scale rarely care about sharpness. If anything critical sharpness is detrimental to "the look".Of course, but i wanted to point out that there could be a problem for those wanting good sharpness...
I'd perhaps venture a more definite word such as definitely itself in place of "maybe" but perhaps the word "anything" in the next sentence may give Harman a little too much scopeMaybe a way to extract money. Anything that keeps Harman healthy I'm all for.
Use that on tech film and be happy. There's actually little to no benefit being hurt by another film offer that is 1) probably temporary and 2) is different enough to merit its existence.
This actually can be detrimental as such whining can and does discourage. In this day and age we need nothing but encouragement if we want improved photographic product diversity.
I'd perhaps venture a more definite word such as definitely itself in place of "maybe" but perhaps the word "anything" in the next sentence may give Harman a little too much scope
pentaxuser
I find it strange that no ire is directed toward "dubblefilm".
Are you people going to debate sleeves on prom dresses next?
The additional costs of putting Phoenix 200 in packaging machines with the emulsion side the other way around - that's all that has been done as one might deduce from videos available.To develop and produce this film Harman incurred costs that weigh on the coffers, money that could have been invested in other ways
The additional costs of putting Phoenix 200 in packaging machines with the emulsion side the other way around - that's all that has been done as one might deduce from videos available.
Meaning - no new film was created, no money spent on R&D. Perhaps a little towards market research, a little on new packaging. Probably hardly any additional expenses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?