The tension is clearly slaying you all, so I feel obliged to put you out of this intense state of misery ;-)
The date was 1967; the camera was a Mamiya TLR with a 180mm Sekor and yes, the film was some version of Ektachrome 64.
It was shot for mutual portfolios - the model's and mine - though I think I held on to the best of the lot even though she was a real muse for several years.
I couldn't afford a 'blad in those days - I could hardly afford the studio, never mind feeding the family, and the 120 outfit consisted of a used Rollei T coupled with a (new!) Mamiya TLR and 180mm for headshots. Though you could get good results with the lens, the parallax problem and working to the top limit of that little red indicator that marked the top of the frame was too much to bear. But once I did make it to Swedish stuff, I realised that 150mm wasn't quite as good a focal length (for my taste) as was the 180mm which, in the 'blad system, still did not exist at that time.
Oh - the lighting: as I couldn't afford Swedes then, neither could I afford studio flash units, so I took a large gents umbrella, gave it many coats of white paint and put it onto a wheeled stand off a spotlight that I had found somewhere (the stand sans light - how much luck can you expect?) and I fitted a domestic light unit socket to the wooden handle into which I plugged a 100W bulb as modeller. The actual power for the shots came courtesy a Braun F700 head that went into a shoe on the wooden handle and bounced off the white paint. The back light in the shot was an even smaller Braun - a grey thing - on another stand. It all worked via one of those double or triple flash plugs you put into the camera socket to synch them. Strangley, it all worked very well, and in fact, it gave me better moving shots in the studio than did the first real mono unit that I bought which was far more powerful, but only because of the very long flash duration. Drawbacks? Well, you couldn't fold it and take it anywhere.
The funny thing about all of this porfolio stuff is that though it did get me work, I wasn't usually given much opportunity to try out walks on the wilder side. In fact, it became rather frustrating. I can't remember if I mentioned this on LuLa before, forgive me if I did, but clients do have strange ideas of what they describe and what it really means. I had one very good client for whom I did many calendars, and for one of them he informed me that he wanted a 'painterly effect' as we were going to Provence to shoot it. Delighted, I returned to his office with illustrations from Sarah Moon's Pirelli opus: muted colours, huge grain structure and models in various stages of charming and casual déshabillé. I had been so wrong. Or he had. We didn't do painterly. Nor déshabillé.
I don't know if anyone here has the latest Pirelli book - various collections of the calendar have been produced - but they do seem to provide a pretty well observed world in microcosm of fashionable style over recent decades.
Thanks for taking part in the wee (if impossible) quiz!