Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 7/20/04 2:25:15 AM, Ken Carney writes:


> I don't do much 120 since
> I don't see the point, i.e., if you're going to have a big camera with a
> slow lens, a 4x5 field kit takes up less space than a Hasselblad outfit.
> 

Camera choice is such an idiosyncratic process, that it's pointless to debate 
these things -- a lot depends on what feels right in your hands.   That said, 
I disagreed wtih Ken's assessment of 120 film cameras, although I do agree 
with his assessment of Hasselblads, which I too find heavy and loud and clunky.  
 I shoot only 120 roll film.   Half the time I use a Rolleiflex TLR, which is 
small and light and quiet and elegant -- it feels right in my hands.   The 
rest of the time, I use an old Graflex Super D, which was designed to take 3.25 
x 4.25 sheet film (there is a 4x5 model that is bigger and more expensive), 
that I shoot with a 6x9 roll film back.   Why use the Graflex?   It gives a 50% 
bigger negative, allows the use of fantastic old lenses set in barrels, and 
allows me to focus more closely than the Rolleiflex.   But it's more cumbersome 
than the Rolleiflex.

I prefer 120 roll film to sheet film.   But then I live in Manhattan, and I 
don't have the room to build a darkroom to load and process sheet film.   With 
120, I can load exposed rolls into developing tanks with a changing bag or in 
a closet at night, and do the rest in my kitchen.   Sheet film adds a layer of 
complication that I haven't the patience to assume.   

Scanners ...

I have two:   a Microtek 120tf dedicated MF negative scanner, and an Epson 
3200 flatbed.   Both are fine machines, but I use the Epson 90 percent of the 
time.   It is not as sharp a scanner as the Microtek, but it renders skin tones 
more smoothly.   Sometimes you don't want the sharpest lens in your kit, and 
that goes for scanners too.

Sanders McNew


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]