>>4270997Not a samefag, and not intended as a commentary on the quality of his photos at all, in spite of it being true that I don't like them.
I was saying that they were failures even as test shots, because they exhibit technical deficiencies in the taking and the scanning which are obvious in all previous iterations of his work, and which should have been corrected as a priority before going nuclear on the gear front with equipment that demands technical perfection.
In fact the only thing good about his photos is the snapshit style leading to fun perspectives, which is the main thing that goes away with the big clumsy gear.
>here's some more sharp 35mm, note the absence of fucking dog hair 