Digital BW, The Print

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
>
>

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/
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film cameras and negatives


> Another vote for "bigger is better."

You know my wife often say's that, and in a less than encouraging way I
might add.

I might also add that I am not entirely convinced that she is intrested in
matters photographic.

Nevertheless I must surely take heed of honest words as expressed by an
Associate Professor of Photographic Imaging because, being English, I always
defer to those able to display extreme academic excellence.

Mind you I also get nervous when I see a policeman walking towards me and
since my daughter got a first in PP&E I have to make an appointment in
advance if I wish to see her.

Hi Bill,

Actually, I think this thread started when Dickbo felt he should go to a
larger format than 35mm and wondered what others thought would be a good
choice.

I feel this has gone beyond equipment and into certain operating methods and
philosophies, which  while away from the strict discussion of B&W digital
has been very interesting.

When one looks at your web site and sees all the great images you have
produced, what you have stated certainly makes a lot of sense. I also feel
that for others the use of a tri-pod also makes sense. It is the method and
final need that dictates what is best for each person.

A long time ago when I first started doing weddings and did not have contact
with other wedding photographers, I used 35mm. Then, many years later, I was
convinced by my photographic peers that 35mm was an amateur camera and I
needed to go to medium format like most of the other professionals. I
switched to Hasselblad, hired an assistant, started taking portrait lights
and backgrounds to the wedding and did all the portrait and candid
photgraphy with medium format.
I burned out, quit the whole wedding thing and started doing just portraits
and some commercial work using medium format. After several years and a
clearer head, I could look back at the 35mm and the 120 coverage and while
the medium format was technically better, I had not captured the emotions of
the event as well as when using 35mm. Technically better is not always the
best, sometimes the emotion of what's on the paper says it all. That's why,
I, like you have great respect for those who can not only get the emotion,
but can do it with larger format.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,

John in Okc  (For those of you who haven't seen Bill's web site, you are
missing a lot of great images)


| I must have missed the first message in this thread, but it seems to
| be a discussion about everyone's choice of format and why.  I think I
| will go "against the grain"...and vote for 35mm...or maybe I might
| better say "with the grain."    While I own high quality professional
| 4x5 and 2 1/4 outfits which I occasionally use for professional work
| requiring detail or camera movements,  I must confess that I am a
| 35mmm photographer in my soul.  I hate to use tripods and like the
| rapid visualization and discovery that only small format can give.
| Smaller is better for me.  I hate to lug around lots of equipment.
| Also, to my eyes,  the abstract quality of grain is a big plus.
| Infrared is a specialty of mine and it certainly doesn't look real in
| the sense that Tri-x does.
|
| In the future, I will most likely go all digital...as Photoshop is a
| big part of my routine now.  I have been a part-time college
| photography teacher for about 18 years, mostly black and white and
| for the last three have been only teaching  the Digital Imaging
| (Photoshop) class.  I will probably make the switch to all digital
| when the 35mm professional cameras have larger capture devices and a
| 20mm lens takes a 20mm image and not a 28mm image.  Actually I like
| the idea of shooting everything in color and converting in Photoshop
| to get zthe effect I like.  This is similar to what a lot of people
| are doing with color negative film for black and white final prints.
|
| All formats are wonderful in the right hands.  I certainly admire
| other photographers work with large formats, but I can shoot a roll
| of 35 in the time most 4x5 people set up a camera for their first
| shot.  I like that variety and the process of discovery that comes
| with it.  It all simply boils down to a one's personality,
| temperament and individual aesthetic.
|
| Bill Agee
| --
|
| b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
| c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
|
| billagee@...
| http://www.redsilver.com

Or perhaps......................?

Agreed,

John in Okc

----- Original Message -----
From: "butchhul" <butchhul@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film cameras and negatives


| The choice of camera or film in photography for me seems little
| different from the choice any craftsman or artist makes in the
| choice of tools they use to produce their art. You use what works.
| Because of the technology inherent in the digital process, much
| is made of using machines and materials that provide the
| largest amount of information or data, giving us the maximum
| amount of  material to work with. Larger formats and drum scans
| married with ever evolving ink and printing technology seems to
| be the order of the day.
|
| Yet, how much data is enough?
|
| I love working with 35mm, especially small rangerfinders with
| wide lenses and fast films. Probably because of a journalistic
| background. There is a joy that comes with the freedom of the
| format. This bias has not kept me from amassing a room full of
| other cameras in formats ranging from 120 to 8x10, much to the
| dismay of other members of my family. Nor has it kept me from
| trying innumerable chemistries, films and processes to give
| voice to the images I brought home.
|
| Recently, I put up an exhibit of images printed from 35mm negs,
| large prints made on a 7000. After working for years with the
| "limitations" of  such a small format, I was prudent in my
| expectations.  And quite wrong.
|
| The final prints were far better than I had expected. I pushed
| them quite a bit further than I had planned, and they held up.
|
| Were they as good as I could have gotten with a larger format
| and a Howtek, probably not. But did they need to be that good?
|
| People came, looked and seemingly enjoyed. No one pulled out
| a loupe and complained that they saw this problem or that
| problem.
|
| Perhaps the discussion needs to expand, not what camera or
| film is best for the technology, but more about how the
| technology can be stretched to fit the needs of our individual
| vision.
|
| Or perhaps......................?
|
| Butch Hulett
|
|
| An afterthought: The 35mm images I talked about can be seen
| at:
| http://www.keyesgallery.com/artists/bhulett/index.shtml
| (the "Sturgis" group)
|
|
|
|
|
| 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/
|
|

I certainly don't want to push this issue since it is akin to 
arguing about religion but the point wasn't about what can be 
accomplished with various formats. Obviously the tool needs to fit 
the needs of the photographer for the job at hand. The point was in 
wet printing, particularly black and white, in my view and 
experience, a larger negative is simplly easier to print. What may 
be a minor flaw in a 4 X 5 or 5 X 7 can be a boulder when blowing up 
a 35mm.  Adams occasionally used 35mm and produced absolutely 
stunning images with it; consider the pictue of Orville Cox and 
Georgia O'Keeffe that he made with a Contax at Canyon de Chelly in 
1937 for example. He could probably have done the same with an 
oatmeal box and pinhole. On the other hand the images for which he 
is generally renowned were made with something considerably larger 
as were those of Strand, Weston, Imogene Cunningham etc or for that 
matter the portraits by Karsh. Any technology that improves the 
possibilities with 35 mm does the same in spades for a larger 
format. 

Being able to digitally edit and manipulate an image is really 
changing the game from what was necessary with wet printing. Those 
who have not had to spend hours in the darkroom trying to pull a 
fine print from a troublesome negative possibly aren't going to 
understand.  All of this is not a big deal or important issue, and 
certainly isn't intended to attack anyone's machismo, it is simply a 
personal opinion but one gained by a fair number of years.


Roger



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "John" <jackg@p...> wrote:

> Or perhaps......................?
> 
> Agreed,
> 
>SNIP SNIP SNIP

----- Original Message -----

From: "rlsopher" <rlsopher@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film cameras and negatives


> or for that  matter the portraits by Karsh.

Now your talking my man. You don't read much about 'the main man' these
days.