I find that on most of my paying jobs, which are all magazine car shoots these days, I'll expose eight to twelve rolls of 120 film, but supplement that with two or three rolls of 35mm. I find the 35mm in the LX to be a good backup. It's a cover your ass kind of thing for me. I can rip off a lot of shots in a hurry, providing backup on some things that are difficult to do with the 6x7. But I also know that magazine art directors love big negatives. So do I. PaUL
Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Tom, > > I, too, have increased my MF use for paying jobs to almost > exclusively. Only use 35mm when I can't use the MF gear. And I have > also found that even on 400 speed film, grain isn't an issue. Even > 800 speed looks pretty darn good. In fact, I shot some Delta 3200 > rated at 3200 and had some 5X7's printed and the grain isn't really > noticeable. Gotta love that big negative. > > Bruce > > Monday, October 14, 2002, 8:16:28 AM, you wrote: > > t> Weird. I always thought the Fuji was sharper and had finer grain, but > t> preferred the Kodak color rendition on Kodak paper over Fuji. > > t> In the last month or so I've switched from doing about 10% of my work > t> on the 645n to about 75%. Grain isn't really an issue now... > > t> tv
