On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, tom wrote: > Negs aren't very interesting to look at. Make some prints.
Agreed, but I did scan them in, which is how I do most everything (no enlarger, so I'll proof through the scanner, then send it off to teh lab for enlargments). > I shot several rolls through a 67II last summer. If I were to to show > you the 8x10's, you couldn't tell them from 8x10's printed from 645 > negs. This seems to be common consensous. > You won't see any difference at that size. You might see some at > 16x20. Which is OK, because as I've said, if I'm intending to get something of that magnitude, I'll pack out the 4x5. If its right place, right time, sheer luck, I guess it'd be more likely I have the 645, not the 67.. When I goto take pictures, its usually planned. When I just go out somewhere with my girl, I take a camera anyway.. I guess in situations liek that, I'd be more likely to pack the 645 and a trio of lenses than the 67 and a trio of lenses. > I was wondering the same thing last year: would 6x7 noticably improve > my prints? I shot the 67, and found that it wouldn't (99% of my prints > are 11x14 or smaller). So, the feeling I'm getting is to just stick with 645, and my intial feelings were right: The extra conviences to be found it in outweigh the benefits, especially since I plan on making it the normal camera I take with me somewhere that I can find photogenic subjects, but photography isn't my primary concern for going (ie, off to teh museum or teh zoo or whatever). Yeah, 645 is probably overkill there, too, but if you're going to do it, you may as well do it big. :) (this is easy to say as I'm trying to force myself to be a primes-only person, and to buy a set of 20/50/135 for my 35mm set; and I presume in 645 it'll be 45/75/150. > I also found the thing to be too damned big and bulky. I don't know if I would have as much of a problem with that, as I'm a pretty big guy, and I'm not sure if it would phase me as much..
