detail expectation

[Leigh]

I got into LF for some of the same reasons as you, including my desire to make a good big print.

This is funny.

I got into LF because I needed to ensmall the negatives, down to the size of a newspaper column or two.

Shooting basketball available light was challenging.
I needed film speed, and Kodak Royal-X Pan was only available in 4x5.

- Leigh

[Jac@stafford.net]

I got into LF because I needed to ensmall the negatives, down to the size of a newspaper column or two.

Shooting basketball available light was challenging.
I needed film speed, and Kodak Royal-X Pan was only available in 4x5.

Wow! That is an eye-opener! I sucked as a sports photographer, and the worst in the world was basketball in the indoor light of the Sixties. You have my respect.
.

[Bruce Watson]

This is funny.

I got into LF because I needed to ensmall the negatives, down to the size of a newspaper column or two.

Shooting basketball available light was challenging.
I needed film speed, and Kodak Royal-X Pan was only available in 4x5.

- Leigh

Funny indeed -- my first job was sports photographer for the local newspaper. I'm familiar with the trials and tribulations of shooting basketball in a dark high school gym. I've pushed many a roll of Tri-X. Finally gave that up and started lugging around one of the paper's old Singer strobes. Remember those?

Then there was the joy of M3 flashbulbs. I used to use those for night HS football games. Catch plays run to the sidelines.

[Ari]

This is funny.

I got into LF because I needed to ensmall the negatives, down to the size of a newspaper column or two.

Shooting basketball available light was challenging.
I needed film speed, and Kodak Royal-X Pan was only available in 4x5.

- Leigh

I suspect you got into LF so that you could one day use the word "ensmall" in a sentence.

[Leigh]

I suspect you got into LF so that you could one day use the word "ensmall" in a sentence.

Hi Ari,

We're all in LF because we like challenges. The challenges differ.

- Leigh

[Tin Can]

I shot 1969 HS B-ball with a $120 Super 8 kit. I have no idea what film speed but it still looks good now even digitized. Outside high jump looked about the same. My brother was a star for 2 years...

Funny indeed -- my first job was sports photographer for the local newspaper. I'm familiar with the trials and tribulations of shooting basketball in a dark high school gym. I've pushed many a roll of Tri-X. Finally gave that up and started lugging around one of the paper's old Singer strobes. Remember those?

Then there was the joy of M3 flashbulbs. I used to use those for night HS football games. Catch plays run to the sidelines.

[bloodhoundbob]

I shot stills for the yearbook with a 3x4 SG and film packs. When I wasn't playing football, I filmed the games from a rickety scaffold with a Bolex 16mm. We would put the film on a bus late Friday night to Chicago for processing and had it back for viewing by Monday afternoon. Also shot basketball games with the Bolex and SG, not at the same time, of course. When I wasn't filming or playing football, I used the SG with those big ol' #22 bulbs, which turned night into day!

[Randy]

When I scan in at 2400, and I look at 100% crop - what is that likely to be equivalent to when printed out (i.e. is that my nose up against a 10 foot high print?)
I am wondering if I have too high expectations from my equipment or if I need to revise my methods

I haven't read every reply in this thread so forgive me if this has already been addressed - I have at times experienced trouble with my flat-bed Epson scanners (4990 and V750) and their crappy plastic film holders - namely holding the film flat and at the correct distance for sharp scans. So I would advise you to look at the negative through a magnifying loupe to see if it is sharp - if it is, then see if you are getting sharp scans. It is because of these scanning problems that I pretty much gave up on digital printing - I contact print only until I can eventually set my enlarger up again.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] I've pushed many a roll of Tri-X. Finally gave that up and started lugging around one of the paper's old Singer strobes. Remember those?

Sure! I had two, one slaved. Had both the bare tube and reflectors. The battery was what, 510V? It was a mass of 9V batteries soldered in series.

Desperate for speed, we would use 2475 Recording Film processed in HC-110. My boss would joke that he couldn't tell the basketball from the grain.

One of our staff (who went on to National Geographic) shot down-court with a Nikkor 180mm F/2.4 (at that time a rangefinder lens) modified for the Nikon F. It was an eye-opener!

[Bruce Watson]

Sure! I had two, one slaved. Had both the bare tube and reflectors. The battery was what, 510V? It was a mass of 9V batteries soldered in series.

All I remember is how much the battery pack weighed. And shooting HS football at night I didn't get many chances to set it down. One of the advantages of being young and stupid; it didn't bother me that much, because it let me really throw light.

One of our staff (who went on to National Geographic) shot down-court with a Nikkor 180mm F/2.4 (at that time a rangefinder lens) modified for the Nikon F. It was an eye-opener!

Oh yes. I just found my old 180mm f/2.8 that I used to use on my old F2 for the same reason. It's a beast, but when you need to reach out to the middle of the field it's nice to have. Like a 600mm on 5x4 I guess. I put a number of pix in the paper from that lens. But I never went higher than 360mm with 5x4. Different tools for different jobs.