Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I'm looking to add a serious MF kit to my mix as well, probably
Bronica SQ stuff (Pentax unfortunatly doesn't offer 6x6 kit)
Of course you can crop the Pentax 6x7 to 6x6 when you wish and still
have the option of a rectangular format when that is more appropriate.
Rectangular isn't an option with my current gear, as my enlarger
maxes out at 6x6.
If you always print to a rectangular format, 6x4.5 will give you the
same effective film area as 6x6 with a savings on film and processing
cost.
Unlike you, I much prefer processing digital capture to print,
regardless of whether I'm doing color or B&W work. Digital capture has
saved me substantially on film and processing costs, but more
importantly on time. Processing 200 exposures captured in RAW format to
a "usable for evaluation" state image, viewable as a positive, is
almost entirely automated and takes about 20-30 minutes on average once
you have established an efficient workflow.
My dream of 25 years ago was to get out of the darkroom and into the
light where I could create the photographs I wanted more easily. A
large part of why I worked in the computer industry for 20 years was in
the idea of making this reality come into being...
Godfrey
MF is the only use for my darkroom gear, I'm running a mixed workflow
for 35mm (Scan/digital print). Generally the develop/scan/print time is
about 1.5x as long as it would be for RAW, simply because I tend to
process each RAW file individually (I'm aware of and competent with
batch processing, but I prefer to do indiviual tweaks) and even then
that's because I edit heavily before processing. However cost-wise, film
is significantly cheaper for me because I process my own, and my choice
in developers (Rodinal) is extremely cheap.
I'm aware of the savings with 645, but since I prefer square format so
far, and dislike cropping, 6x6 is a better option than 645 for me. I was
merely commenting on the reasons I'd choose 6x6 over 6x7.
-Adam
