Just Couldn't Make A Bad Image Or So It Seemed (A Bit Of Nostalgia)

Exhausted at the end of a long, hot day shoveling coal into the boiler of a steam locomotive. (click to enlarge)
Pentax 6X7; 90mm f/2.8 lens; Kodak Tri-X film

Did you even own a camera that, whenever you used it, it seemed as though everything just fell into place perfectly for you?  That you just couldn't make a bad image with it?  Of course I'm talking figuratively here.  I have.  Or so my memory wants me to believe it is so.

When I shot film (1970-2001) my all time favorite camera was the Pentax 6X7.  If you aren't familiar with what is a Pentax 6X7 camera is it looks like a giant 35mm SLR.  It is about 2.5 times the size of the old pro SLRs.  Everything was manual and my first one  didn't have any light metering.  There was a prism available that had a light meter (see below) but I couldn't afford that one when I first bought mine.  I carried a separate light meter with me and had to manually measure the each exposure before pushing the shutter button.  As you can imagine, not a fast working camera.

Pentax 6X7 (right) as compared to the Olympus E-M1 Mark II.  In my
opinion, there is no practical difference in image quality.

The most notorious aspect of the camera was the sound the shutter made—a loud Ker-Chunk!  Some felt the shutter made such bad vibrations that this camera couldn't be handheld.  Not me.  I never had an issue handholding it.
The negative size was reflected in the camera's name, 6cm X 7cm or 2 1/4" X 2 3/4".  The negative was about 4 times the size of a 35mm negative.  I owned a few of these cameras over 25 or so years.  I still have two with a number of lenses.  

Whenever I used that camera it was as though some sort of magic happened.  Everything just seemed to fall into place with persons, places, things and even the weather.  Even though it was huge, I lugged that camera everywhere along with a huge aluminum Manfrotto tripod.  Nothing like the convenience we have today.  And—to top it off for comparison, when looking at the enlargements I produced with that camera and the ones I make today with my M4/3 gear, I don't see any difference.  In fact, I think the M4/3 images actually resolve more, are sharper and look better.  Wow! Times have changed.

I know it really wasn't exactly the way I remember.  I'm sure my memory is playing with my mind a bit.  But, I took that camera all over the U.S. in my travels and, whether it was a landscape in Yosemite or steam locomotive in New Mexico, an Amish farm in Pennsylvania or a portrait in Virginia, everything just seemed to come out exactly as I envisioned it would.  Even with the Ker-Chunk!

The reason I bought the Pentax was that I was largely dissatisfied with 35mm film cameras.  I just didn't like the way my prints looked so I searched for something better.  The 35mm prints' tonality, color gradations and film grain were bothersome to me.  Even a rather small 8" X 10" enlargement was not to my liking.  However, after trying out a couple of medium format cameras, I found the tonal and color qualities of my negatives and enlargements were sublime.  Very satisfying.  My 35mm work was then mainly relegated to Kodachrome slides while my negative work was with medium format.

Maybe I'm being a bit romantic in my thinking about that old film camera.  Maybe it was the absolutely smooth, satisfying tonal changes and long tonal range that caused met o remember it as I now do.  I don't know.  However, thinking about where I took that camera and the images I made still makes me smile.

For color negative film I mostly used Kodak Vericolor III Professional film.  It was designed as a wedding and portrait film with low contrast, a long gradation and accurate colors.  It was not like the amateur films that were a bit contrasty and punched up the color.  Remember, we didn't have any way of changing contrast when printing so Vericolor worked perfectly outdoors on sunny days with landscapes, steam locomotives and nature photography.  It also had a wonderful skin tone rendition for portraits.  

For black and white, I used Kodak Tri-X.  But one has to remember there were 2 Tri-X films and you had to make sure you bought the right one.  There was Tri-X and Tri-X Pan films.  Tri-X was rated at ASA 400 (now ISO 400) but I normally shot it at ASA 200 to fully capture shadow detail.  Tri-X Pan film was rated at ASA 320 and was an entirely different film mainly for studio use (the difference was in the Characteristic Curve—look it up).  If I am incorrectly remembering, please someone correct me.  It has been a long while.  

The other black and white film I used was Kodak's Panatomic-X, rated at ASA 32.  I shot it at ASA 64 and used Fred Picker's Zone VI developer to produce beautiful black and white negatives.  Believe it or not, I still have some 35mm and 120 Tri-X film in my freezer.  Also, I have some 120 size Kodachrome as well as a rare couple of rolls of Panatomic-X in 120.  I guess I've kept them out of nostalgia more than anything.

I still have thousands of mostly color and black and white negatives (some transparencies as well) made with that camera and those wonderful Pentax lenses that are still in my archives.  I will be copying those in the future so I can, again, remember, reminisce and enjoy all of those times out with the camera which wouldn't allow me to make bad photographs!  

At least that is how I choose to remember it...

My advice?  When this pandemic is over, go out with your cameras and make some wonderful memories so when you look back, as I now do, you can smile as much as I am smiling right now.

Join me over at my website, www.dennismook.com. 

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2019 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.