[Leica] More with the Rolleiflex

[Mark Rabiner]

After a while like the early 90's  they Jobo as in Germany made high quality 220 reels which were thick and solid and fit in a normal tall tank and could be trusted and cost some real money but you only had to pay for it once. I used 220 in my Rolleiflex and then my first Hasselblad back was a 220 back.
It's not a regular roll it's really a double roll making for two contact sheets so it's not 80 square inches of film but 160.  But took the same amount of developer so you felt like you were getting a deal. Plus x came in 220 and Tri X pro Iso 320 came in 220. I used the "Tri X" for weddings with color and the Plus x in the studio. It was not really Tri x  though if you looked at the curve it was in no way similar and the 320 was a tip off George Eastman used brand names like that. His next slide projector could have been called Tri x but he name it after a portrait paper instead " Ektagraphic ".
I still have my Rolleiflex and it's in the end table thing with my clock radio on it next to my bed.  I sleep with it being 2 feet from my head. Can't tell you were my Leica and Nikon film cameras are in my apartment but I will probably shoot film again and that will be with my medium format Rolleiflex. And I know it's going to work. My Hasselblad I'd have to bring in my backs and have them all worked on it would cost a ton of money. But my Rolleiflex is just going to work. I was doing laundry in my girlfriend's house in 1977 and a gal was down there and she asked my about the camera around my neck I'd just got. I told her it was a Rolleiflex. Married her a year or so later. It lasted 25 years. Was on the phone with her yesterday.
Mine was an F. which means I think it's got the 120/220 lever. I did mess up one of my first weddings with that lever some of the stand up shots were not there but then I just get better with it. Still got paid. I think I got paid less than what they paid for shrimp sitting in a large bowl on the table. After that we decided I should get more than the shrimp. And no blanks in the pictures.

 
 

-- 

Mark William Rabiner
Photographer

On 5/2/18, 10:34 PM, "LUG on behalf of Brian Reid" <lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> wrote:

    I shot weddings when I was younger. I've done maybe 50.
    I always used a Rollei 3.5 loaded with Verichrome Pan 120.
    I carried a Leica IIIf as a backup but never needed it at a real 
    wedding.
    
    120 film meant I didn't need a telephoto because I could do it in the 
    enlarger.
    I always managed to find a way to shoot the whole-family shots without 
    needing a wide angle.
    
    I borrowed a Rollei modified for 220 once. And the developing spools for 
    it. You should try loading 8 rolls of 220 into 8 24-exposure Nikkor 
    spools on a deadline. I got pretty good at loading 120, but 220 remained 
    a high-stress challenge. There was also the problem of hanging up 220 
    film to dry. It was close to 2 meters long. 120 remained a good 
    compromise.
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information