RE: [Leica] 35mm versus 120

[Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>]

> according to my resolution tests and experience shooting Rolleis and 
others
> for 20 years, is that is that the film "remembers" the curves it goes
> through prior to getting to the film plane.  The tighter the curve and 
the
> longer it has sat there, the more it will remember it.

I believe that is true to some degree, but NOT anywhere near the degree you 
seem to believe it is the cause of any problem.

Perhaps you could share the resolution tests that showed this phenomenon 
with us?  That would certainly 'resolve' the question of whether this is an 
issue or not.

> Likewise, the
> longer it sits on the film plane, the more likely it will "forget" the 
past
> curves -- some say "relax."

Film, left 'sitting', will also naturally curl along the vertical (edges 
curl in).

>  The
> worst I ever saw in real world shooting was when I  shot an English
> cathedral steeple with my Rollei SL66 on a very cold morning.  The frame
> that had sat on the reverse curl put an out-of-focus line across the 
frame
> (and steeple) that was visible without a loupe.

That makes perfect sense, but for reasons of expansion and contraction 
since it probably went from heat to cold, and conformed to the roller. 
 That is a completely different issue, but certainly one to be aware of.

> In the real world, when I'm shooting MF I simple keep track of how long 
the
> film has sat on the roller.  When shooting a series of shots fairly
> quickly, the issue can be almost ignored.  When I do landscapes, want
> maximum sharpness, and the film generally sits still for some time while 
I
> hike to a different location, I end up shooting every other frame.

You  know, I just don't do any of this, and have never had a problem.  Nor 
do I ever hear (or see) any other professionals say they (or see them) 
perform all these 'techniques' to make up for this alleged problem. 
 Perhaps you could share a few negatives that demonstrate this phenomenon, 
aside from the temperature issue you mentioned above?

> On the GA645 Zi Fuji put two
> rollers on the face of the film just outside the frame that hold the film
> on the pressure plate.  It appears to work well.  I've found I can shoot 
it
> like a 35, virtually ignoring the film flatness problems that are usually
> associated with MF shooting.

The Hasselblad has two rollers on the face of the film just outside the 
frame that 'hold the film on the pressure plate' too (not entirely 
accurate, because it would be the pressure plate that pushes the film 
toward the rollers...but none the less)...  My old Zeiss Favorit has the 
same two rollers opposite the pressure plate...so do my Zeiss Super 
Ikontas...  How are the Fuji ones different?

>  (Moreover, that Fuji zoom is, in some ways,
> better than my Zeiss glass -- amazing.)

I have that camera, and I do not concur.  It IS nice, but hardly a match 
for my Zeiss Hasselblad lenses, and I can't imagine what would lead you to 
say that...  What do you mean 'in some ways'?