Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I quite agree. The fact that you can snap away with digital without a thought of running out of film just makes a rod for your back later, when it comes to editing. IME Frank On 18 Sep, 2009, at 04:50, Douglas Nygren wrote: > I'd like to comment on the following that was written about the > limits of 12 frames per roll of 120 film: > > "Every time I use a Rolleiflex I mutter how "only 12 frames per > roll" can > be limiting." (No 220 for me!). Then I look at the results and > wonder if > it's just the opposite. There's a mysterious beauty in square BW negs > that are just big enough you can appreciate the contact prints without > the aid of a loupe. Not to mention enlargements, which shouldn't stand > up to digital prints, but somehow do and then some. > Maybe it's the level of effort it takes to get the end result that > makes > me appreciate them so. Either that or Leica doesn't have a monopoly on > mystique :-)." > > When I read this, I must admit I had to smile. I recalled what the > large format camera maker, Ron Wisner, once said to me, namely, that > whether you go out with a camera with 36 frames or 12 frames a > roll, you always seem to come back with the same number of printable > photos. He was making the point that the same principle is true when > you shoot with a large format camera, one or two frame per negative > carrier. > > I have found enough truth in Ron's statement to keep remembering it. > I think it holds true, to some extent, even for the large number of > shots we can get on a digital flash card. > > Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information