Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Unfortunately, getting the best film is as relevant as what it is inside. That exhibit I was talking about in another post is a strong case in point. At the time that those images were taken in 1983, I was buying Freestyle generic 120, ASA 125 film, which went into a Rollei SL66 (I still have it). The film cost .89 cents a roll or so, which meant I bought a lot of it. Those seascapes at the Susan Shaumberg Gallery are blown up as big as it gets at 8x8. The film, past that size, changes its characteristic. For whatever reason, it prints flatter with a marked reduction in resolution. I changed papers, enlarging lenses, and tried different light sources, all to no avail. Now I buy the best film possible. The only regrets I may get now come from my mistakes and not the materials. Slobodan Dimitrov John Straus wrote: > > on 12/22/01 10:57 PM, kyle cassidy at kcassidy@asc.upenn.edu wrote: > > > in a world where one pays $600 for a 50mm lens there's not much sympathy for > > getting frugal. you spend a thousand bucks on the camera, which is just > > wasted money if you're not shooting film with it ... film is the cheap part > > of this equation.... > > I wasn't asking for sympathy or how to conserve film usage. Film IS the > cheap part, processing is not. > > > sell your leica, buy a pentax k-1000 and five years worth of film and > > processing.... just tell everybody you took your photos with a leica. > > That's the best advice so far...but I prefer the ME Super... > > JS > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html