Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If I'm not mistaken, some of my favorite Ilford films come only in 120 now, not 220. I can always pick up a 220 back should I discover some films that I like for MF shooting. I haven't really consider a 645 camera, except perhaps the Fuji or Bronica RF's. Don't know, I guess when I think "bigger neg" I want a much bigger neg :-) Yes, I've even toyed with picking up a used 4x5 field camera. But for now, I'd like to develop in the Patterson tank I already have and not completely rejigger my current modus operandi if I don't have to. But shooting and contact printing 5x7 or 8x10 negatives definitely sounds like an experience I'd like to have sometime in my life. Scott Mark Rabiner wrote: >On 7/1/05 6:11 AM, "Stasys Petravicius" <stasys1@cox.net> typed: > > > >>Mark- I get 20 shots on my pentax 6 x 7 with a roll of 220 - except the >>last time I used it- got no shots. The battery died. My spare batteries >>were down the hill. Before use I had checked the battery- Battery >>checks are not what they used to be. Will carry a spare in my pocket >>next time. Live and learn!! Stasys >>On Jun 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> >> >> >220 rules as far as I go. >I shoot as much 220 as I can. >I've got great Hewes reels for 2200 which take a licking and keep on >ticking. The cheap ones use wires the same as for 35mm. They screw up if you >look at them funny. Drop them and you might as well trash them. >I'm sure there's Titanium in theses Hewes reels somewhere. :) > >So no I don't think 12 I think 24 just like you! > >Or 32 for 645 which is an arrangement I've not quite swung yet. >But to me its the quality of brownie film with the spontaneity and convince >of 36 on a roll 35mm making for the ultimate "format" I can think of. >32 on a roll being close enough to 36 for me not not notice. >When I used to roll my own that's what I got anyway. > >For years my only Hasselblad was an ELM and my spare battery was my >Rolleiflex. >My only back as a 220 and my Rolleiflex was a 220 capable model. >(which I believe they refer to as an "f".) > >For me, to go into what I call "Ansel Adams mode" I shoot slow film. >Even they he shot faster film with his Hassy and I just wonder about that. >(and with the developer he supposedly used (hc-110) I'll frankly say I just >don't believe it) > >And Pan f does not come in 220. >Neither does ACROS 100 from Fuji Neopan. >So I use my "studio" film. >What I think of as black and white Kodachrome for it's skin tones; For >landscapes now. >Plus X for Peets sake! >But like anything it's a new ball game in Xtol 1:3. > >I will shortly be experimenting with doing such work digitally. >In terms of printing. >And shooting chromegic films both monochrome as well as regular, though slow >220 color neg for 13x19 and larger landscapes and such stuff. > >I do have to make a test of the 400 speed chromegic monochrome 220 films >from Kodak to see if they do give plus x a run for it's money. >More than half a chance it will. > >It's my understanding that many of the good people are having 300mg scans >made from their large format or medium format negs and the medium of choice >is not Cibachrome: it's modern name, >Not LightJet. Lazer beams from scans on regular color paper. (it so 1999) >But UltraChrome. >Which means Epson printers on very good paper. Matte. >This is where the color landscape fineart thing seems to have gone. >It will be interesting to see how much black and white will be absorbed into >it over the next 5 years. >I predict that even in many years a third of it will still be printed in the >darkroom from film. > > > >Mark Rabiner >Photography >Portland Oregon >http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >