[Leica] Re:where oh where is the DMR now Canon

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 7/1/05 6:11 AM, "Stasys Petravicius" <stasys1@cox.net> typed:

> Mark- I get 20 shots on my pentax 6 x 7 with a roll of 220 - except the
> last time I used it- got no shots. The battery died. My spare batteries
> were down the hill. Before use I had checked the battery- Battery
> checks are not what they used to be. Will carry a spare in my pocket
> next time. Live and learn!! Stasys
> On Jun 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
>> 
220 rules as far as I go.
I shoot as much 220 as I can.
I've got great Hewes reels for 2200 which take a licking and keep on
ticking. The cheap ones use wires the same as for 35mm. They screw up if you
look at them funny. Drop them and you might as well trash them.
I'm sure there's Titanium in theses Hewes reels somewhere. :)

So no I don't think 12 I think 24 just like you!

Or 32 for 645 which is an arrangement I've not quite swung yet.
But to me its the quality of brownie film with the spontaneity and convince
of 36 on a roll 35mm making for the ultimate "format" I can think of.
32 on a roll being close enough to 36 for me not not notice.
When I used to roll my own that's what I got anyway.

For years my only Hasselblad was an ELM and my spare battery was my
Rolleiflex.
My only back as a 220 and my Rolleiflex was a 220 capable model.
(which I believe they refer to as an "f".)

For me, to go into what I call "Ansel Adams mode" I shoot slow film.
Even they he shot faster film with his Hassy and I just wonder about that.
(and with the developer he supposedly used (hc-110) I'll frankly say I just
don't believe it)

And Pan f does not come in 220.
Neither does ACROS 100 from Fuji Neopan.
So I use my "studio" film.
What I think of as black and white Kodachrome for it's skin tones; For
landscapes now.
Plus X for Peets sake!
But like anything it's a new ball game in Xtol 1:3.

I will shortly be experimenting with doing such work digitally.
In terms of printing.
And shooting chromegic films both monochrome as well as regular, though slow
220 color neg for 13x19 and larger landscapes and such stuff.

I do have to make a test of the 400 speed chromegic monochrome 220 films
from Kodak to see if they do give plus x a run for it's money.
More than half a chance it will.

It's my understanding that many of the good people are having 300mg scans
made from their large format or medium format negs and the medium of choice
is not Cibachrome: it's modern name,
Not LightJet. Lazer beams from scans on regular color paper. (it so 1999)
But UltraChrome.
Which means Epson printers on very good paper. Matte.
This is where the color landscape fineart thing seems to have gone.
It will be interesting to see how much black and white will be absorbed into
it over the next 5 years.
I predict that even in many years a third of it will still be printed in the
darkroom from film.



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/