Hi--

>Bob- Just trying to clear through the bullshit that has been going on
>lately. In the case mentioned I dragged out one of my C-33s and got the
>shot I wanted.

Some of the threads DO go on (and on [and on {and on}];-), with little sense.
And I thought you brought a good finish to one....

>I wouldn't have hung my head in shame if I had only had one of my Canons
>with me but I would have framed it up very tight and would have been very
>fussy with all aspects. I might not have had quite the detail and tonality
>but it would have been damned good.
>There is no doubt about the portability of 35. It sure as hell is a lot
>handier than some of the other formats.

And the lens selection is more interesting, and hand-holding is practical,
and speed lenses are possible, etc......

>I shoot a lot of 6x7 in my baby Linhof (Super Rolex back) and to be honest
>I really can't tell the difference between it and 4x5 if I frame it up
>tight.

The film is thinner, and I think, therefore a bit sharper than sheet film,
though it doesn't stay very flat, alas.....

>You are right about the 8x10 if somebody else will do the "heavy hauling".
>I have not worked with one of those beasts in years. At the time I had a
>"huge" or maybe "Super Huge" Elwood Enlarger in 8x10. Talk about negative
>sag in a carrier. I finally got two sheets of very good glass and put up
>with constant glass cleaning. I also found that shooting downward there
>was considerable negative sag in the film holders.

Ah, the many hazards of really large film....

>Guess I will stick with the more portable sizes. I will have to admit to
>carrying by old Rollie T around a lot. Not much bigger than 35.

I keep a Rollei 3.5F for the same reason - a "mini view", but without
movements, and I like the square format.

>Just thought I would try to get the people thinking a little bit , after
>some of the threads that have been posted.
>Regards and have a good one!
>Gordon (Gordon Root )

Good plan!
David Ruether