Re: Wedding photography cont.(long)

[egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx (Eric Goldstein)]

At 12:09 AM 1/23/96, LDAEnt@xxxxxxx wrote:
>(snip) for weddings specifically what I really want
>is a good medium format (6 x 6) stereo camera with interchangeable backs (not
>a twin rig), then I can get those biiiiggg enlargements people want from the
>stereo neg's that I want.

Alan-

I'll defer to you when it comes to wedding photoghraphy, as I don't do it
for a living. I would point out that not a single wedding I've recently
attended (over half a dozen of them) has had a single medium format camera
in use, because they're so bulky for location work, and the emulsions have
improved so dramatically with films such as Ektar 100, that 24 x 36 mm can
be enlarged to 11 by 14 with no problem. Twinned 6 x 6s would be make a
location man's (or woman's) job twice as difficult, and more problematic
than a 35 mm twin rig, which is where all of this discussion started. :-|

>The square Realist format is very good if the print making
>industry would just recognize it.

Problem is with the almost square format, which forces greater magnitudes
of enlargement when compared to 24 x 36 mm for rectangular prints. This is
way over-square medium formats (ie 6 x 7) have become so popular with
studio pros in past years. To my eye, it makes a visible difference. This
problem is further complicated by the cooke triplets found in most 50s
stereos, can perform quite well in the center, but are not noted for their
edge sharpness. This is why Belplasca users typically won't part with their
beloved cameras, as they can enlarge quite well from their 7 perf negs with
Tessar sharpness throughout the frame.

I know there are those on the list who swear by their 11 x 14 enlargements
from 5 perf negs.

I swear at them. :-)



Eric G.
egoldste@xxxxxx



------------------------------