>I don't know why we always are on opposite sides. I thought you said they
>were all
>available in 120 and I cited one that isn't. I thought THAT was the
>point. You are
>right, most of them are, but not all. None of the Kodachromes are, to my
>knowledge. 64 used to be but was dis'd a couple years ago. Another that
>would be
>great is HIE in 120, but the mechanics of 120 prevent it. Also, fast Fuji
>films
>(1600), some Ektachromes. I hope I've made the point.
>
>george
>
George,
I think the original thread was based on the assertion that 35mm photo
quality equalled medium format quality because of the improvement of films.
What I was trying to point out as many others have pointed out is that
medium format users are not using 1960 vintage films while 35 mm users have
modern films. That was why I made the statement. The fact that a very few
films are not available in 120 size is not going to prevent medium format
users from buying modern high quality film showing the same improvements as
35mm. That is why your listing of the exceptions was beside the point. The
reason I said, "professional film" is that almost all films labelled as
professional by their manufacturers are available in 120. Kodak does not
label a version of Kodachrome as "professional" and probably rightly so
with its history of poor quality control and its 'legacy' color rendition.
But that is probably another discussion.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|