antonio_a.1

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the previous poster - MF film looks miles better than digital. Miles better. I have yet to see a single digital

image that I actually think looks anywhere near as good as film.

Edward, that more and more people use digital cameras for weddings I do not refute. What I object to is that those that shoot film can not

earn a reasonable living from doing so. That is not true. And anybody who thinks a digital camera (any digital camera) is capable of

producing black and white images on a level with MF clearly should be in another profession - either that or get their eyes tested!

<i>That said, it is doubtful you could stay in business using roll film (or any film) unless you can charge premium prices for your work</i>

<p>

This is of course, total unsubstantiated dirvel. Plenty of us use roll film in our businesses and make a very nice living from it thank you

very much. The cost of film is neglicible. I spend more on petrol getting to most assignments than I do on film.

FP4 has more than Tri-X.

;-)

Be carefull, they only rate on cosmetics not on working condition. I have had 3 bad experiences with them buying Exc+ gear that was not

as described and had to be returned. In each case I was out of pocket for shipping costs and import tax.

I was in the darkroom yesterday - did 20 7x9 prints in 30 minutes. Surely that is fast

enough?

I say go film all he way. Film has just as much as a future as digital does and looks a

whole lot better and is nicer to work with. I just shot an entire schools end of year

portraits and group photos using a Hasselblad and HP5/Tri-X. The parents are very

happy with the results which I am able to sell cheaper than the digital photographer

who did the school last year. At the end of the day both film and digital are viable

options - just go with your heart, as that is the path that will improve your photography

no matter what anyone else tells you.

I find the split is easier to use if I insert the screen with the split running vertically, it

doesn't seem to black out as much.

Wesley, you sound as though you already made you mind up before you asked the

question... both 35mm and 120 can be done on the cheap if you put your mind to it. At

the end of the day cost is not really an issue, its really up to you want you want to do,

and like I said, you seem to have already made your mind up, so why ask?

I would recommend a Hasselblad or a Rollefilex (SLR or TLR) and an 80mm lens to get

you started.

Basically you can get Hews reels in two varieties: regular and jobo. The jobo ones,

as you have pointed out, have a larger hole in the centre to accommodate the shaft

you use in jobo tanks, the regular ones dont use this and will fit standard stainless

steel tanks. The calument hewes reels just look like regular Hewes reels to me,

probably sold under some joint branding/marketing arrangement like many

supermarkets have with producers.

I use the regular Hewes reels in 120 size in a stainless steel tank and they are far

and away the best reels I have ever used. They are worth the money.

William, no idea where you can get square plastic pages (I am assuming you mean

the variety that would clip into a ring binder), never heard of them. But I have seen

lots of

archival square photo albums. If you must have plastic pages in a ring binder what's

wrong with just slipping in a square image printed on an uncut 8x10...

As to frames, and mats etc. I use Halbe frames, available square in any size you

want and mats I cut myself.

People have been shooting squares for decades.

William,

What a load of nonsense! Square stuff is readily available if you look for it!

They both can produce "the best all-round results", one produces square negs, the

other rectangular. Either one will suit you very well.

p.s. I am not related to the seller, I am posting just because of the historical interest of

some of the items listed, which would be hard to see any other way....

Sounds like you have the latest model screen. Yes, they can be hard to focus without

the magnifier. You could try an earlier acute-matte (without the D notches) or an even

earlier standard ground glass screen (very cheap second hand on eBay) - darker but

easier to focus. Check out a recent thread on here also about different screens, particularly the comments by Q.G. de Bakker.

Antonio

Jay,

Good to see you back on photo.net. I still use 510 pyro and appreciate all the work you

put into developing it.

Antonio

Robert, where I am coming from with all this is that there are far too many sellers out

there who describe their items as mint when they are far from it, and if we all just sit

back and accept this, as some have recommended, then the situation will just get

worse.

The term mint is generally used to refer to items that are in like new condition (not

necessarily new in box), not items that are in need of a service or otherwise defective.

As long as they dont affect the light path then you are OK. If not there is something

wrong.