Re: [Leica] success RATIOS

[ALEXSCIFI@aol.com]

In a message dated 1999-09-04 2:03:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
huntmc2@fuse.net writes:

<< 
 Paul Schiemer wrote:
 
 > Been spending a lot of time in the darkroom lately.
 > While purveying sheets and sheets of processed negatives I began to wonder
 > what ratio of 'keepers' per sheet I had.
 > Forgetting about exposure but concentrating on 'worthwhile' images
 > (something that might look good printed & hung on a wall). It is an
 > interesting, if not provocative undertaking.
 >
 > At the same time I was able to compare productivity in relation to camera
 > types (P645, M6, M3, G2 & FTN). Which cameras gave me the best results (as
 > it related to exposure & keepers)?
 > >From a standing position, negs in sheets spread out on a large light box, 
I
 > could eliminate entire sheets for their 'spotty' results. I found myself
 > gravitating to the medium format, but not just because I could see the 
image
 > clearly from on high. (it's not such a big deal to lean over with the 
lupe.)
 >
 > Results? The P645 first, then M3 & M6 close seconds, G2, and bringing up 
the
 > rear the FTN. [Hate to admit there were rolls in the batch from years ago, 
a
 > hidden stash!]
 > As for getting in close; the bastion of compact miniature format cameras,
 > the P645 was just as successful as the M's & G2.

      Paul, are you using only the normals(75 on the P645)? What about 
portrait
      lenses(150 or 200 on the P645)?

      What film are you using in the P645 and the 35s?

 > Do I take more time (thoughtfully) getting shots with the M's -vs- other
 > cameras? no. Do the M's take more time? yes. [I could perceive 
'opportunity'
 > frittering away as I stepped through the sequence required for a wholly
 > manual process in opposition to the all in one views;

      What about camera shake--the Ms and G2 should have a major
      advantage in available light, no?

> the M3 was not as
 > successful as the M6, for instance.]

       Yet above, you state that the M3 and M6 were close seconds?

 >
 > *Of course; test results may vary, opinions are completely subjective and 
do
 > not reflect the political sensitivity of the author (ie; no troll).
 > >>

Thanks Paul. A very interesting analysis!

Alex