Digital BW, The Print

Smoothly said brother Prevatt, smoothly said indeed.

I assume and with considerable pleasur,e that from your date stamping style
you are in my age bracket. Indeed you might be older than I am in which case
I would feel an even greater level of pleasure.

I should mention that I was looking at an RB barely 90min ago and I am not
within a million miles from being able to afford the wee beasty.

My current level of overeagerness might well be the photographic equivelent
of premature ejaculation and indeed if it is I know the cause.

The culprit playing the role of the great seducer is non other than this
lists least prolific respondent known to one and all as Mr Nij.

I sincerely hope this chap is not allowed out at night because if he is
North London's photographic community will never know what hit them.

Anyway in the spirit of something given, something recieved I would suggest
a good shufty at the new Canon printers would reap considerable dividends,
because A: They are fast B: They are very quiet C: they have separate ink
carts and D: They have a higher horizontal res than any other comparable
printer in their price bracket.

I on the other hand am completely under the domination of Mr Nij who is
insisting that I look at the Epson 1160 because it is A: Old - B: Slow and
C: Cheap and therefore - or so he claims - matches my own current condition
precisely.

Good luck sir and happy shooting

----- Original Message -----
From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film cameras and negatives


> Another vote for the RB 67. It is a tank. I did a lot of landscape work
> with it - always on a tripod with the mirror up. With using the old
> Kodak Panatomic X file and a fine grain developer like dilute Rodinal,
> you could match the quality of 4x5 TriX- HC110 combination. While I use
> a 4x5 field camera, I still prefer the RB.
>
> Describing 35 mm as the "format from hell" seems about right. The aspect
> ration is not really pleasing to the eye (at least my eye) and for
> quality it is not good past about 5x7. It does have its strong points,
> ever, Cariter-Bresson seemed to do just fine with it thank you very much.
>
> I'm new to this list and have been lurking for awhile. I just started
> digital photography after about 3 months ago but have 30 years of film
> photography - all most all "fine art" black and white - under my belt. I
> spent plenty of time at the MD Institute of Art in Baltimore soaking up
> as much as I could during the early days. During certain time spans in
> the last 30 years when time away from my job allowed it I've been
semi-pro.
>
> I am looking for a printer now and am trying to soak in all information
> to help make the decision.
>
> Truman
>
> rlsopher wrote:
>
> > I can recall some sage advice that one should produce negatives the
> > printer will not have untoward difficulties with. Since the printer
> > in my case was me, I took this to heart. My favorite to print, using
> > an enlarger, was certainly 4 X 5, but a close second was negatives
> > from the big Pentax 6 X 7 SLR using 120 - 220 roll film. It was
> > awkward, heavy and took some time to refine technique since there
> > was a big clunk when the mirror flipped up but the lenses were
> > generally very good and the resulting negatives were usually a joy
> > to print. 35mm on the other hand, to my view, is the format from
> > hell so far as printing is concerned. I also had a 645 Pentax but
> > the negs were not all that much easier to print than from a 35mm. It
> > seems sort of like the mantra one used to hear from the hotrod crowd
> > concerning engine power "There ain't no substitute for cubic inches."
> >
> > Most of my professional use was 35mm in biomedical work but the last
> > few years I dropped using film cameras almost entirely, particularly
> > for photomicrography, and used digital almost exclusively.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>