[Leica] Fwd: Professional use and Professionalism

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

George Some people think they can get larger format results using slow or
ultra slow films that has not been my experience at all.
My signature film my first several years Panatomic x. from my first pro
darkroom in 1977 to when it the film discontinued in 1987 "replaced" by Tmax
100 which was a joke. I was not tested out for tri x with my developer.
Rabinol.
It didn't come close to what I got when I finally got a Rolleiflex with any
film. Totally blew me away total new ball game. Then a few years later I got
my dream camera a hasselblad.

The first time a I put a print in the Dektol I'd exposed with 4x5 film I
thought the place was fire or someone opened the door behind me.  Also a bit
of an out of body 3d experience. Hugely different ballgame from Brownie
film.sheet film is.


Mark William Rabiner
Photography
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/


> From: Lottermoser George <imagist3 at mac.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:25:16 -0600
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Fwd:  Professional use and Professionalism
> 
> 
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
>> George you know damn well there are times you need a bigger neg. or
>> whatever. Trans... Sensor.  Other times a bigger neg/ sensor than that. 
>> You
>> know it, the art director knows. The client knows it. The printer knows 
>> it.
>> Everyone knows it. 35mm did not always cut it. Is it different now with
>> sensors? Don't think so. The format size defines pretty much the camera 
>> and
>> the job at hand. In film days certain things were clearly:
>> 1. Large format jobs (sheet film) and what size sheet maybe. I only ever 
>> had
>> 4x5 I know you went to 8x10.
>> 2. Medium format jobs. (brownie film) hasselblad whatever or roll film 
>> back
>> on view camera.
>> 3. And 35mm jobs. Leica. Whatever. Sure sometimes things are a matter of
>> opinion there are gray areas. But plenty of times the writing is on the 
>> wall
>> on the format job which is being spoken of.
> 
> I certainly appreciate acreage Mark.
> I worked myself up to 12x20 inch negatives
> (and included 11x14 along the way).
> It was an awe inspiring experience.
> 
> However!
> We also need to recognize what 24x36 Panatomic X (or Techpan) was capable 
> of
> with the finest lenses and techniques.
> 
> Your hammering on bigger is better ALWAYS
> does break down as technology refines the possibilities;
> especially when considered along side other realities and necessities.
> 
> When I began mopping floors in a commercial studio at age 14 (1960)
> the ad agency art directors demanded 8x10 Ektachrome for 90% the work.
> And that included both product and work involving models.
> You can see this in the photographs of Avedon working with a Deardorf on
> fashion work of those days.
> 
> By the time I left there in 66 or 67 - the work was 50% 4x5, and 50% 2.25.
> 
> Through most of the rest of my years in the field - product photography was
> 4x5
> and people photography was 2.25"
> with a lot of cutting edge fashion work (during the late 70s, 80s and 90s
> being done on 35 mm Kodachrome.
> 
> I like lots of real estate on film and/or sensors - whether I can afford 
> it or
> not.
> Yet I also appreciate that the technology (whether film or sensors) has
> allowed ever better
> on ever smaller.
> 
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george at imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com/blog
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information