Digital BW, The Print

I think you will do much better with a Minolta Scan Dual II or III 
for b&w 35mm, but the Epson flatbeds do very well with medium and 
large format... ok, I also thought the thread was on digital b&w, but 
if we go into film a great starter 35mm camera would be one of the 
Rebels with some good primes... then when you move into a Canon DSLR 
you will already have the lenses and wouldn't have spent too much on 
the film camera that will go into disuse.  All the Rebel cameras are 
great bargains and will do more than most people ever need (ok, they 
won't impress anyone, but if you only show them your photos...).  For 
larger formats the Century (medium format) and Speed Graphics (4x5") 
are great fun... and if you add a polaroid back you can shoot the 
incredible and hassle-free Type 55 negative film for stunning 
traditional photos from grainless negatives.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> Ernst Dinkla writes:
> 
> "I like to use my MF folders. An Iskra 6x6 and a modified Monitor
> 6x9. Smaller than a 35 mm SLR and a lot of square inches of film.
> My modified Polaroid 110A with 665 film is the slower one with
> even more film space. Though I do have a Nikon 8000 scanner, one
> could use the Epson 3200 (that I also have) as well for smaller
> prints. In price and print quality the combination of a good MF
> camera and the Epson is hard to beat."
> 
> Ernst, you and I must be twins separated at birth.   I agree 
entirely with 
> you here.   I recommended the Rolleiflex because it has great 
optics, is really 
> easy to focus with its big viewfinder, and is a beautiful and an 
elegant tool. 
>   And it can be had in one model or another surprisingly cheaply -- 
I just 
> bought a 3.5 MX-EVS model in good condition on eBay for $155.   
> 
> But my format of choice, like yours, is 6x9 roll film.   I just get 
there a 
> different way.   I have a Sinar Norma 4x5 view camera, to which 
I've mounted an 
> old 8.5" Kodak Commercial Ektar lens and a Graflex 6x9 roll film 
holder.   
> The 6x9 format, the Ektar lens and the movements afforded by the 
Sinar (which I 
> am only now coming to use to great effect in portraiture) blow me 
away.   
> Here's an example:
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24625958
> 
> And another:
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24606005
> 
> I'm with you on scanners as well.   I use a Microtek 120tf for most 
of my MF 
> scanning -- it does a good job on traditional b+w emulsions like 
Tri-X.   But 
> I too also have an Epson 3200 and I agree that it is capable of 
tremendously 
> good scans with a little learning.   The "problem" with the 3200 is 
that its 
> automated routines are too good, and a novice scanner may not 
appreciate the 
> extent to which he/she can control the 3200's output -- I know that 
was true in 
> my case, when I first started with it.
> 
> Someone said (advocating digital) that Tri-X is not the holy 
grail.   True, 
> but not in the way the poster meant.   There are many really good 
film 
> emulsions out there besides Tri-X, each with its own strenths and 
weaknesses.   In 
> addition to the usual alternatives from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, there 
are a number 
> of films from central Europe that are essentially 1940s emulsions --
 
> traditionally formulated with high silver content.   They have 
their own look and 
> texture.   Go to www.jandcphotography.com or 
www.frugalphotographer.com and see 
> their offering of Efke and Classic Pan films, among others.   
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]