3 ms·
Maybe some of this is true but I'm talking of cheap medium format things, with a cheap lens, and nobody in my family (before me) ever processed film in their ba
by bambax 4y ago
Maybe some of this is true but I'm talking of cheap medium format things, with a cheap lens, and nobody in my family (before me) ever processed film in their bathroom. I suspect they bought these because that's what everyone around them bought, without giving it much thought.
- 2b3a51 4y agoTrue enough, people tend to buy what they see and can afford. We see that even now with laptops &c. My point exposure forgiveness of the larger negative and lower precision requirements in the camera still stands I think. Did your relatives get their photos processed at the chemist? Did they ever get enlargements of selected frames done? (Amazing how the cheaper smart phone has totally changed the way people use photographs - in less than a decade really) PS: don't underestimate the Cooke-Robinson triplet lens stopped down to around f/8. The main issue with the cheapies was flare and the absence of lens coatings.
- bambax 4y agoI'm really talking about my two grand parents. One was an artist that took wonderful pictures that were enlarged and that are still hanging in my home. The other wasn't and his pictures were all out of focus and mostly pointless (and also, yes, many of his pictures had a flare which rendered half of it over exposed ;-)
- 2b3a51 4y ago50% is a pretty good success rate! Have a look at the grain pattern in one of the enlarged prints. Cheers