Re: Hasselblad v Leica

[cmiller@berkshire.net (Curt Miller)]

At the risk of escalating the discussion of the quality of 30X40 cm
enlargements from Hassy and Leica negatives to an out-and-out flame war, let
me add my 2 cents.  I have been working (seriously) with both formats since
1962.  I still use some of the very same lenses today as then (they don't go
'bad').  Films have improved dramatically during this time period, however.
When I photograph with 100 ASA film (TMAX) I use a tripod.  When I print, I
use top quality optics.

Mr. Puts is correct.  When I compare two images side-by-side on TMAX 100,
one from my Hassy, one from my Leica, I can see no difference from a normal
viewing distance of say 2 - 4 feet.  Today's films make this possible.  If I
loupe the images, of course I can tell which is from which.  If I use 400
ASA film in each camera, of course I can tell which is from which.  What is
important here, is that for much of salon work it can be done with Leica.
The benefit for me is that when I go climbing in the mountains, 10 - 15
miles per day and 3000-4000 feet of elevation gain, I can get good images
with FAR less weight.  So what we're talking about is a practical
application rather than theoretical limits at extremes of enlargement.  And
I find the Leica very practical in some applications.

You know, Ansel used 35mm himself.  I read a comment somewhere a while back
where one of his assistants came out of the darkroom exclaiming that Adams
was "making photographs from 35mm that looked like they were from 4X5."
(Tri-X and HC110, I believe)  And these were large prints.  Don't know who
made this comment but perhaps someone else can give proper attribution.
Adams also mentioned in his autobiography that the Hasselblad was his
favorite piece of equipment for the last 20 years of his life.  Many of his
most famous images were MF!  "Moon and Half Dome" comes to mind, which he
indicated was sharp and "held definition up to 30"X40"."  That image was
made on Panatomic-X.  The camera was on tripod.  A 35mm equivalent
enlargement would be 12x16 (roughly).

The point is that much can be done with the small negative with modern films
up to (but not beyond) about 11X14 with superb quality (and
indistinguishable from MF).  The limiting factor is usually technique.  So,
for the doubters in the crowd, read what Mr. Puts said again.  Read what the
masters have to say.  Then, get out your tripods and 100 ASA film and Xtol
developer, meter correctly, print carefully (and with good glass) - and then
report back to the group.

Regards,

Curt


Elizabeth Mei Wong
Henry Curtis Miller, M.P.A.


Pittsfield, Massachusetts
In the Berkshires, next door to Tanglewood