Bill, You have a way with words. After having experienced 67 compared to 35mm, I can clearly vouch for the quality difference that you talk about. My 35mm gear is almost never being used anymore.
Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 3:51:26 PM, you wrote: >> > HUH? I know the main points of PRO 35mm Gear has been WR> reliability and >> durability, but image quality is right up there for pros in WR> importantance >> too. WR> Wrongo, me boy. WR> A pro using 35mm only has already compromised his quality. WR> Whats happened is that over the past few decades, consumers have WR> been taught to lower their expectations WRT image quality. WR> Pros call it different things, like "reportage style" WR> photography, but the end result is crap pictures. WR> My parents wedding photography was done on large format. WR> That was the standard of the day, and the photographer used a WR> 5x7 camera for some images, and an 8x10 camera for other images. WR> When compared to the shit most wedding photographers are WR> churning out these days, modern 35mm photography is bottom WR> feeding hack status work at best. WR> Then they have the gaul to toss a copyright on their garbage, WR> and try to make the client pay gobs of money for it. WR> A pro truly interested in making a quality job will be using WR> medium format whenever possible. WR> William Robb
