![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2juHRxn:
torrilin reblogged your post and added:
Jesus. I can’t imagine how much it’d hurt trying to get birds to hold still enough for medium format film. Especially if they like you.
Ah, but the credits mentioned that it was a 100mm f/2.8 lens, which means it’s telephoto and wide-aperture, so it’d let you have a fast shutter speed and be at quite a distance. So it’s possible that the chickens were in there with someone they liked, and the photographer was behind a blind or something. They may not have known he was there. Which is what I’m considering doing, if I want to get portraits myself… But yes, digital is much faster than film, especially medium format.
(also it is hilarious that the post about the chicken book came out of my queue right after I posted a thing about buying fancy chickens, LOL)
torrilin reblogged your post and added:
Jesus. I can’t imagine how much it’d hurt trying to get birds to hold still enough for medium format film. Especially if they like you.
Ah, but the credits mentioned that it was a 100mm f/2.8 lens, which means it’s telephoto and wide-aperture, so it’d let you have a fast shutter speed and be at quite a distance. So it’s possible that the chickens were in there with someone they liked, and the photographer was behind a blind or something. They may not have known he was there. Which is what I’m considering doing, if I want to get portraits myself… But yes, digital is much faster than film, especially medium format.
(also it is hilarious that the post about the chicken book came out of my queue right after I posted a thing about buying fancy chickens, LOL)
