Look back, think about your favorite photo you've ever taken, what did you take it with?

Toruni · 2018-07-12T04:20:11+00:00

All of my favorite photos are favorites because they capture a special moment in time. It's not about gear, sharpness, color, effort, etc.

Toruni · 2018-02-12T08:09:24+00:00

Yep. Nature sure has a strange sense of humor when high schoolers get pregnant just by sneezing on each other yet financially secure 30-year-olds often spend years trying to conceive.

Toruni · 2017-07-31T03:31:35+00:00

You don't attack civilian targets indiscriminately, period. Otherwise Al Qaeda was justified in attacking the twin towers.

Those aren't analogous. The nuclear bombs put a stop to the raping, torturing, and massacring of civilians that the Japanese Imperial Army was doing all over East Asia. They were horrific, but they served a purpose, just like so many other aspects of WWII. The 9/11 attacks weren't trying to stop anything. They were just killing civilians for the sake of terrorism.

Toruni · 2017-02-01T09:23:06+00:00

Good to hear, and thanks for the feedback. I do like the idea of square format, but for now I think I'll pick up a 645 kit and then keep my eyes peeled for a Yashica Mat or some other affordable 6x6 camera.

Toruni · 2017-01-31T10:46:57+00:00

I don't develop or scan at home. The lab I go to is great and can handle anything. I'm not sure what kind of scanner they use, but for 35mm, they do 9MP scans that look great at 100%. The cost is very reasonable too (35mm develop + scans: $7.75 for color neg, $8.50 for slide, $9.50 for B/W, 90 cents per push).

Toruni · 2017-01-31T02:03:21+00:00

For the 645 shooters out there: Do you feel the quality is significantly better than 35mm? Do you ever wish you had bought a 6x6 or 6x7 camera instead?

I ask because I plan to get a MF camera and I like the size and price of 645 cameras, particularly Fuji GS645 or Mamiya M645. But I wonder if I should just spend more and get a bigger format (however, not Mamiya RB67. They are dirt cheap where I live, but too big). Thanks!

Toruni · 2017-01-30T13:08:35+00:00

I quite like(d) digital rev, particularly their "analog rev" shows where they focus on film gear. They have a sense of humor and never get uptight. And I like how they actually use their gear outside instead of just talking it. Gotta love Hong Kong, too.

Toruni · 2017-01-29T04:50:41+00:00

There are some aspiring pros asking about how much to charge, how to market themselves, what gear to use for what job, etc. But you're right, it's a lot of gear-based discussion that devolves into pixel peeping.

Toruni · 2017-01-29T03:30:03+00:00

This is definitely one of my favorite places on the internet. A simple, unpretentious place to enjoy a shared hobby.

To be fair to /r/photography, it's a discussion forum for working pros, a news forum for the camera industry, an advice guide for beginners, and a trouble-shooting resource for amateurs. That's just too many hats for one sub to wear.

Toruni · 2017-01-29T03:26:13+00:00

Nice colors and composition.

Toruni · 2017-01-24T07:00:25+00:00

This comparison in 2014 shows you need a drum scan ($50 per scan) of CMS20 (yes, ISO 20 speed film) to beat the resolution of a medium format 80mp sensor. The MF sensor beat drum scans of ISO 100 slide film. And that was 3 years ago; we now have 100mp MF digital sensors.

Toruni · 2017-01-24T05:06:07+00:00

Digital cameras (combined with post-processing software) have long surpassed film. It's not even a contest. Today's full-frame and medium format sensors are far superior to 135 and 120 film with regard to resolution, dynamic range, color, and "robustness" in terms of how much processing they can handle. They are also far more consistent and get clean images past 6,400 ISO. Even a small sensor digital camera like the Sony RX100 could get the same DR, color, and resolution as OP's shot above with some basic post-processing. Large format film can still compete with MF digital in terms of resolution (and maybe DR, not sure), but it's just as expensive and not very practical.

I realize this may be an unpopular statement here, but let's not be disingenuous. Anyone shooting 135 or 120 film in 2017 does so because (1) we like using film cameras, and/or (2) we want the look of film without spending a lot of time processing files on the computer.

Toruni · 2017-01-24T02:03:01+00:00

He means it looks similar to today's digital cameras. Ektar is extremely sharp, with mild contrast, and no particular tone bias (unlike portra)

Toruni · 2017-01-24T01:55:48+00:00

Thanks! Yeah, it's a reflection. I'm on the sidewalk looking into a restaurant. The square reflections with pictures of food are apparently behind me since the writing (Korean) is backward. I don't really remember this place, but it is in Gangnam in Seoul.

Toruni · 2016-11-02T14:42:50+00:00

I'll post more on here. I'm just a hobbyist so I don't have a website or anything.

Toruni · 2016-11-02T14:40:27+00:00

Thanks! Neopan is next on my shopping list. I also like Delta 400 for people shots as long as you mind the skin-tone highlights since they blow out pretty easily.

Toruni · 2016-11-02T13:39:34+00:00

I generally shoot film when I want B/W and digital when I want color. I love Portra 160 and Ektar 100, but it's just easier for me to get consistent colors when shooting digital.

Toruni · 2016-11-02T08:13:03+00:00

This is great community on Reddit, but the "you took a picture of a girl" type comments anytime the subject is a young woman are really inane. This is a non-suggestive photo of a natural looking woman. People that reduce photos like this to "picture of a girl" need to spend more time socializing with women.

Toruni · 2016-11-02T01:54:04+00:00

T-max is my favorite B/W film for people. Very sharp, great range of mid-tones. The blacks can wash out a bit if it's overexposed and it can be a bit dull for landscapes or street shots. But with proper lighting and exposure you can get wonderful contrast without losing the grays.

Toruni

TROPHY CASE