Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2010/08/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] 35 mm format is best?
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:09:38 -0500
References: <380-220108426161316414@M2W121.mail2web.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100826135239.0349f008@med.cornell.edu> <00a901cb454d$76724630$6356d290$@earthlink.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20100826152747.03724008@med.cornell.edu> <AANLkTimeAiSp=whE-gvpgB+=zzECF8SY-siiH-r67qq7@mail.gmail.com>
NOT!
Toting a big camera means 12x20" negatives.
Anything else feels small.
My 12x20 had an 11x14 "reducing" back.
Regards,
George Lottermoser
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Daniel Ridings wrote:
> You guy's haven't toted anything until you've run around with Jim
> Hemenway's Leica. I can't find a picture of it now, but he's posted
> one before.
>
> It takes 11x14 film.
In reply to:
Message from wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (wildlightphoto at earthlink.net) ([Leica] 35 mm format is best?)
Message from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] 35 mm format is best?)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] 35 mm format is best?)
Message from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] 35 mm format is best?)
Message from daniel at dlridings.se (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] 35 mm format is best?)