Subcommandante Marcos

i'm not so keen with the worse head being blurry but it's still a great picture, love the circular blur on the background

It actually is pretty damn rad.

The photo seems to be from '96, by the way, so it would have for sure been shot on film, and it looks like pretty slow film judging my the sharpness and lack of grain. I'd say the out of focus head was probably unavoidable, as the photog would have needed a pretty big aperture to make up for the slow film.

I wonder if this was shot on MF of some sort, the bokeh looks very 645-ish.

>>2782267

More likely to have been shot on LF. 4x5 or 8x10. That's probably also why it seems to be so sharp and grain free. The larger the format, the less noticeable grain becomes.

>>2783599
And that is why FF is better than MFT. You couldn't prove my point any better.

>>2782182
>Subcommandante Marcos
>commandante

looool. retard.

>>2783604
It's negligible, though.

>>2783604
With the jump from 35mm film to large format film, the increase in detail and quality is linear. It is not so with digital (in practice, because a larger sensor is not simply a larger chunk out of the same wafer)

>>2782182

Looks great!

File: 122356763-d2535fe6-5271-4228-b361-bff91bea5614.jpg (67KB, 310x520px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 310x520px

>>2783599
hard to say, buddy has his 8x10 there but is using some sort of SLR. Good eye on the LF call.

>>2783604
Small format is still small format, the differences between 35, apsc, and m43 are fewer than you think.

File: zapata.jpg (193KB, 695x960px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 695x960px

Que caballo!