Are differences between 35m camera film, more to do with how well they scan, than other factors?
Which is great, as it brings out the textures of the city beautifully. And, otherwise, how on earth would we be able to take such interesting photographs?
Some more comparison photos from my east London photo jaunt.
Went back to the home town recently, for a number of projects. Obviously the camera was involved in many of these. The city is constantly evolving – it’s different every time I visit it. Anyway, let’s let the pictures do the talking.
OK, not the snappiest title in the world. But anyway, here is the first shot from my recent revisit to locations that I first photographed more or less twenty years ago, in this series.
An archive of apparently eleven million historical photographs, stored deep in a former limestone mine in Pennsylvania, in the US. I was going to dig my own mine in the garden, but decided I’d probably be better off using a couple of hard drives. The Invisible Photograph: Part 1 (Underground) from Carnegie Museum of Art […]
So I was reading an article about Kodak Tri-X film, which quotes Don McCullin discussing the waiting period between taking his photographs and actually viewing the results. Whether what had intended to be captured with the image, was what had actually appeared on the film.
