>>3824026>>3824029Yes, it's not a film you want to use to document a place realistically, let's say. Too much detail lost. But it's easier to obtain dramatic pictures, that's why these two ones work the best to me.
>>3823929Thank you! I waited for a while for that one.
>>3824018When I started taking pictures with a shitty panasonic 7/8 years ago, I was only taking vertical pictures because they were all looking better, in fact most of them were bad but the proportion were making them artificially more dynamic. And if you want to "read" a picture, it's better to have it in landscape. Like a movie. Also, most of the time, you'll watch photographs on a horizontal screen even if it's less and less true. I'm a bit autistic about it, but I just try not to take too many of them.
Yes, I set the iso at 3200 and don't pull it. I don't develop myself. I always have a orange filter with me, so the shutter speed is equivalent to iso1600/800. You guessed it, it's mainly convenience. Thank you for your interesting comment!
