🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906181502010.19370@sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz>,
barbie gee  <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>
>>
>> Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>> The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.
>
>This is a camera?
>digital or what?

It's a "medium format" film camera, intended for the professional photographer.
the negative is about 3x the size of full-frame 35mm.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906181502010.19370@sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz>,
> barbie gee  <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>>> The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.
>> This is a camera?
>> digital or what?
> 
> It's a "medium format" film camera, intended for the professional photographer.
> the negative is about 3x the size of full-frame 35mm.
> 

So what are this camera's main uses?  Would it be for portraits? 
  Yeah, I know I could Google the information, but we almost 
never have a good conversation in this group so I figured why not 
ask, maybe we'll learn something interesting.

Frank Sereno <fserenonospam@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:

>>>>Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>>>>The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.

>>>This is a camera?
>>>digital or what?

>>It's a "medium format" film camera, intended for the professional
>>photographer.  the negative is about 3x the size of full-frame 35mm.

>So what are this camera's main uses?  Would it be for portraits? 
>  Yeah, I know I could Google the information, but we almost 
>never have a good conversation in this group so I figured why not 
>ask, maybe we'll learn something interesting.

It takes 120 film, I think. I have a couple of twin-lense reflex cameras
that take 120. They are handy for outdoor scenes. Because you take the
shot at about waist height, generally, you're not looking down on your
subject.

The Mamiya is an SLR variation, on the twin-lense concept as you still
look down through the top but through the actual lense. I assume the
image isn't reversed as it would be in twin lense, but I've never used one.

Hasselblad is SLR medium format, but you look through the back. When the
mechanism moves out of the way, you can feel the camera vibrate. I've never
been convinced that the image doesn't blur slightly at times. It's a big
mechanism versus 35mm SLR.

I used to shoot 120 Kodachrome. Alas, it's not manufactured anymore.

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Frank Sereno <fserenonospam@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> 
>>>>> Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>>>>> The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.
> 
>>>> This is a camera?
>>>> digital or what?
> 
>>> It's a "medium format" film camera, intended for the professional
>>> photographer.  the negative is about 3x the size of full-frame 35mm.
> 
>> So what are this camera's main uses?  Would it be for portraits? 
>>  Yeah, I know I could Google the information, but we almost 
>> never have a good conversation in this group so I figured why not 
>> ask, maybe we'll learn something interesting.
> 
> It takes 120 film, I think. I have a couple of twin-lense reflex cameras
> that take 120. They are handy for outdoor scenes. Because you take the
> shot at about waist height, generally, you're not looking down on your
> subject.
> 
> The Mamiya is an SLR variation, on the twin-lense concept as you still
> look down through the top but through the actual lense. I assume the
> image isn't reversed as it would be in twin lense, but I've never used one.
> 
> Hasselblad is SLR medium format, but you look through the back. When the
> mechanism moves out of the way, you can feel the camera vibrate. I've never
> been convinced that the image doesn't blur slightly at times. It's a big
> mechanism versus 35mm SLR.
> 
> I used to shoot 120 Kodachrome. Alas, it's not manufactured anymore.


Thanks for the info!  Digital is killing film photography except 
for a handful of applications.  Photography today is less of an 
art than it was back 20 years ago or more.

barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> 
>>
>> Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>> The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.
> 
> This is a camera?
> digital or what?

film camera. I just ordered one from KEH, so it's not important anymore.

Frank Sereno <fserenonospam@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906181502010.19370@sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz>,
>> barbie gee  <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>>>> The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.
>>> This is a camera?
>>> digital or what?
>> 
>> It's a "medium format" film camera, intended for the professional photographer.
>> the negative is about 3x the size of full-frame 35mm.
>> 
> 
> So what are this camera's main uses?  Would it be for portraits? 

you can use it for portraits- or anything that doesn't have a subject 
that's moving all over really fast.

it uses 120/220 film, and the image size is 6cm by 4.5cm tall, so it's 
fairly large and the pictures can contain lots of detail, more than 35mm 
and more than most anything digital.

There are diferent viewfinders for these types of cameras. I have one that 
uses a waist level viewfinder, where you look down into a pop up box on 
the camera. Everything is backwards through this finder. focus is manual.

There are viewfinders where you look through the back, like a typical 
camera. Some of these include a light meter so you can set exposure.

Anyways, medium format stuff is fun, and makes you think before you take 
the photos as it's process to setup before you take the picture anways.

The side effect of thinking before you take a picture vs. taking 100 
photos is that the end, you get more photos that don't suck.

Frank Sereno <fserenonospam@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Frank Sereno <fserenonospam@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Anybody have a working Mamiya 645 Pro for sale?
>>>>>> The version of the Pro doesn't really matter.
>> 
>>>>> This is a camera?
>>>>> digital or what?
>> 
>>>> It's a "medium format" film camera, intended for the professional
>>>> photographer.  the negative is about 3x the size of full-frame 35mm.
>> 
>>> So what are this camera's main uses?  Would it be for portraits? 
>>>  Yeah, I know I could Google the information, but we almost 
>>> never have a good conversation in this group so I figured why not 
>>> ask, maybe we'll learn something interesting.
>> 
>> It takes 120 film, I think. I have a couple of twin-lense reflex cameras
>> that take 120. They are handy for outdoor scenes. Because you take the
>> shot at about waist height, generally, you're not looking down on your
>> subject.
>> 
>> The Mamiya is an SLR variation, on the twin-lense concept as you still
>> look down through the top but through the actual lense. I assume the
>> image isn't reversed as it would be in twin lense, but I've never used one.
>> 
>> Hasselblad is SLR medium format, but you look through the back. When the
>> mechanism moves out of the way, you can feel the camera vibrate. I've never
>> been convinced that the image doesn't blur slightly at times. It's a big
>> mechanism versus 35mm SLR.
>> 
>> I used to shoot 120 Kodachrome. Alas, it's not manufactured anymore.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info!  Digital is killing film photography except 
> for a handful of applications.  Photography today is less of an 
> art than it was back 20 years ago or more.

the lineup of film still being made is really confusing. 

in color, you have kodak and fuji. fuji, being japanese uses letters that 
have no meaning at all for their films, or names that have no meaning and 
all sound the same.

kodak on the other hand just keeps discontinuing stuff, then making new 
products with old sounding names, or they change how the packaging looks 
to cause even more confusion.

So apparently the 100 and 400 Ultra Color films were just discontinued, 
and replaced (according to the people at calumet, as kodak doesn't say on 
their website at all) with somethin called "Ektar 100".

in black and white, it's kodak and ilford.

ilford had pretty color coded boxes.

I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
no idea what the difference is between the two.

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
>no idea what the difference is between the two.

The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
sort of has an unreality about it.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
>>no idea what the difference is between the two.
> 
> The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
> used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
> sort of has an unreality about it.

I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
newspapers.

What is an "Unreality"?

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
>>>no idea what the difference is between the two.

>>The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
>>used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
>>sort of has an unreality about it.

>I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
>newspapers.

>What is an "Unreality"?

TRI-X was manufactured in the same speeds for years (200), a high speed
high contrast film with coarse grain. Ideal for newspapers which cannot
reproduce a fine grain image anyway. Super quick to develop and handle in
the darkroom. Typically it was push processed with acceptable results.

TRI-X images were ubiquitous and had an unmistakable look.

T-MAX has grain similar to color film. The emulsions are the finest
grain available and the blacks are much darker. To me, it looks like a
color image with the color removed, not really explaining it properly.
It doesn't have that documentary image look to it.

The two films produce rather different b&w images.

In article <h3oumd$r8$1@news.albasani.net>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
> >>>no idea what the difference is between the two.
> 
> >>The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
> >>used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
> >>sort of has an unreality about it.
> 
> >I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
> >newspapers.
> 
> >What is an "Unreality"?
> 
> TRI-X was manufactured in the same speeds for years (200), a high speed
> high contrast film with coarse grain. Ideal for newspapers which cannot
> reproduce a fine grain image anyway. Super quick to develop and handle in
> the darkroom. Typically it was push processed with acceptable results.
> 
> TRI-X images were ubiquitous and had an unmistakable look.
> 
> T-MAX has grain similar to color film. The emulsions are the finest
> grain available and the blacks are much darker. To me, it looks like a
> color image with the color removed, not really explaining it properly.
> It doesn't have that documentary image look to it.
> 
> The two films produce rather different b&w images.

hey nuthead, just noticed yer post. Yer worng.

Tri-X is 400iso

It's also not ideal for newspapers. absolutely no one is delivering b&w 
prints for reproduction to a newspaper.

Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>>>>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
>>>>>no idea what the difference is between the two.

>>>>The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
>>>>used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
>>>>sort of has an unreality about it.

>>>I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
>>>newspapers.

>>>What is an "Unreality"?

>>TRI-X was manufactured in the same speeds for years (200), a high speed
>>high contrast film with coarse grain. Ideal for newspapers which cannot
>>reproduce a fine grain image anyway. Super quick to develop and handle in
>>the darkroom. Typically it was push processed with acceptable results.

>>TRI-X images were ubiquitous and had an unmistakable look.

>>T-MAX has grain similar to color film. The emulsions are the finest
>>grain available and the blacks are much darker. To me, it looks like a
>>color image with the color removed, not really explaining it properly.
>>It doesn't have that documentary image look to it.

>>The two films produce rather different b&w images.

>hey nuthead, just noticed yer post. Yer worng.

>Tri-X is 400iso

Goody. I was speaking of what I had available to me when I shot pictures
with it. If 400 ASA was available at the time, we didn't use it. We just
pushed processed it.

>It's also not ideal for newspapers. absolutely no one is delivering b&w 
>prints for reproduction to a newspaper.

Who the fuck cares. I don't work at a newspaper today and wouldn't know.

He asked me my opinion of the difference in the images. If you have a
different opinion, feel free to share with the class.

In article <h5fhqn$lci$4@news.albasani.net>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> >>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I have 
> >>>>>no idea what the difference is between the two.
> 
> >>>>The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
> >>>>used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
> >>>>sort of has an unreality about it.
> 
> >>>I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
> >>>newspapers.
> 
> >>>What is an "Unreality"?
> 
> >>TRI-X was manufactured in the same speeds for years (200), a high speed
> >>high contrast film with coarse grain. Ideal for newspapers which cannot
> >>reproduce a fine grain image anyway. Super quick to develop and handle in
> >>the darkroom. Typically it was push processed with acceptable results.
> 
> >>TRI-X images were ubiquitous and had an unmistakable look.
> 
> >>T-MAX has grain similar to color film. The emulsions are the finest
> >>grain available and the blacks are much darker. To me, it looks like a
> >>color image with the color removed, not really explaining it properly.
> >>It doesn't have that documentary image look to it.
> 
> >>The two films produce rather different b&w images.
> 
> >hey nuthead, just noticed yer post. Yer worng.
> 
> >Tri-X is 400iso
> 
> Goody. I was speaking of what I had available to me when I shot pictures
> with it. If 400 ASA was available at the time, we didn't use it. We just
> pushed processed it.
> 
> >It's also not ideal for newspapers. absolutely no one is delivering b&w 
> >prints for reproduction to a newspaper.
> 
> Who the fuck cares. I don't work at a newspaper today and wouldn't know.
> 
> He asked me my opinion of the difference in the images. If you have a
> different opinion, feel free to share with the class.

there was tri-x, at 400, there was plus-x at 125, there was verichrome 
pan at 125, if you rolled it yourself and did the dip and dunk or the 
nikkor reels you prolly used D-76 or rotinal.

if yer gonna be our historian get yer shit straight before sounding all 
perfect and shit

fuck man

Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I
>>>>>>>have no idea what the difference is between the two.

>>>>>>The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
>>>>>>used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
>>>>>>sort of has an unreality about it.

>>>>>I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
>>>>>newspapers.

>>>>>What is an "Unreality"?

>>>>TRI-X was manufactured in the same speeds for years (200), a high speed
>>>>high contrast film with coarse grain. Ideal for newspapers which cannot
>>>>reproduce a fine grain image anyway. Super quick to develop and handle in
>>>>the darkroom. Typically it was push processed with acceptable results.

>>>>TRI-X images were ubiquitous and had an unmistakable look.

>>>>T-MAX has grain similar to color film. The emulsions are the finest
>>>>grain available and the blacks are much darker. To me, it looks like a
>>>>color image with the color removed, not really explaining it properly.
>>>>It doesn't have that documentary image look to it.

>>>>The two films produce rather different b&w images.

>>>hey nuthead, just noticed yer post. Yer worng.

>>>Tri-X is 400iso

>>Goody. I was speaking of what I had available to me when I shot pictures
>>with it. If 400 ASA was available at the time, we didn't use it. We just
>>pushed processed it.

>>>It's also not ideal for newspapers. absolutely no one is delivering b&w 
>>>prints for reproduction to a newspaper.

>>Who the fuck cares. I don't work at a newspaper today and wouldn't know.

>>He asked me my opinion of the difference in the images. If you have a
>>different opinion, feel free to share with the class.

>there was tri-x, at 400, there was plus-x at 125, there was verichrome 
>pan at 125, if you rolled it yourself and did the dip and dunk or the 
>nikkor reels you prolly used D-76 or rotinal.

I didn't use plus-x nor verichrome, and didn't spool the cartridges
myself. No, they were 35 mm cartridges, already loaded with film, in Kodak
boxes. Nobody tells a news photographer to spool his own film. Duh. I
don't care what you claim. They didn't hand me 400 film. If there was
too little light to shoot at 200, it was pushed processed. That's what
TRI-X was designed for.

Everybody knows that some Kodak film labeled as high-speed film didn't
go through certification for whatever reason. It was actually normal
speed film that would be push processed. I don't know if TRI-X 400 is in
that category. Next time I'm at Helix, I'll look at what the box says.

>if yer gonna be our historian get yer shit straight before sounding all 
>perfect and shit

>fuck man

kenji, that's still a tangent and doesn't answer C.L.'s question. You
gonna take a stab at it, or you wanna shut the fuck up?