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]

Hi Sanders,

> although I
> do agree
> with his assessment of Hasselblads, which I too find heavy and
> loud and clunky.

Hum.  My 205 w/ 80 FE lense and back weights less than a Leica M-6, or a
Canon F-1 with any fast lense.  As far as loud...well, compared to the Canon
F-1, they are about the same.  The M-6 is certainly quieter.  Clunky, well,
I think now...especially if you use what cameras you refer to below.


> Half the time I use a Rolleiflex
> TLR, which is
> small and light and quiet and elegant -- it feels right in my
> hands.

I also have a GX, and my biggest complaint is poor close focus, which the
Hasselblad FE lenses do superbly.  But, with most any TLR, you have to do
the hand swap game, in order to focus and wind...and with a Hasselblad (held
properly that is), there is not this need.

> and
> allows me to focus more closely than the Rolleiflex.

;-)

I'd suggest if you feel like you do about Hasselblads (at least as far as
heavy and clunky...nothing I can do about loud), perhaps you may not have
much experience with them?  If they were that heavy and clunky, they
wouldn't be THE most popular MF camera, as well as one of the (if not the)
most popular (at least up until decent 35mm digicams came about) "event"
camera (weddings) and professional studio cameras.

Regards,

Austin

> I think now...especially if you use what cameras you refer to below.

Should have been "I think NOT...", sorry.

Austin