|
Alrighty then, I'm committed now, my Bronica ETR-C has arrived with 74mm and 150mm lens and I'm planning a shoot this weekend, hopefully catching some of the interesting winter sunlight we get up here in the frozen north. So now that that is done, I'm looking for opinions on this setup. From our local CL- "zone 6 cold light enlarger (south anc) Reply to: sale-925792626@craigslist.org [?] Date: 2008-11-19, 10:33AM AKST Leaving state. Need to sell a zone 6 cold light enlarger with timer. Has not been set-up for several years. A very nice piece of equipment. Comes with drying screens, chemical bottles, print washer, and lots of other misc equipment. All offers considered. " I emailed for some particulars-a 120 carrier and the proper lens will be mandatory and got this reply (edited for relevance) "80 or. 90 mm schneider lens Yes set of gf filters Yes 120 film carrier I paid over $ 4000 in 1993 I have no idea what it is worth. It is really nice the timer alone was $450. " Given that film equipment in general has tanked value wise, can anyone give me a fair to unfair starting price on this? I'm not even sure what a Zone 6 enlarger is, and looking it up has given me the impression that the Zone 6 part is the light source that attached to a enlarger. Any feedback appreicated.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Gnomad posted:Alrighty then, I'm committed now, my Bronica ETR-C has arrived with 74mm and 150mm lens and I'm planning a shoot this weekend, hopefully catching some of the interesting winter sunlight we get up here in the frozen north. So now that that is done, I'm looking for opinions on this setup. Well i saw you posted this on apug, but I found this with some info on the enlarger. As for a price i have no clue. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/21075-zone-vi-enlarger.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 04:49
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Given that film equipment in general has tanked value wise, can anyone give me a fair to unfair starting price on this? I'm not even sure what a Zone 6 enlarger is, and looking it up has given me the impression that the Zone 6 part is the light source that attached to a enlarger. Any feedback appreicated. If it's a standard 35mm/medium-format enlarger, $400-$450 is pretty much the most he could sell it for, depending on what your local market's like. He bought it fairly recently, and new enlargers still cost into the thousands, so he may be reluctant to part with it if you make him too low an offer. A large-format enlarger can go for more, but without knowing the model it's hard to say. From what we know, and the fact that it comes with pretty much everything, $400 might be a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 05:53
|
|
|
I just licked the exposed tape on some 120 ilford for the first time and was surprised to find a pleasant mint taste. Yummy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 05:55
|
|
|
jollygrinch posted:Thanks! Yeah, I'm trying to get over my hang ups about taking people's pictures on the street, protests help. wait, wha??? they came to Portland?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 06:11
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:wait, wha??? they came to Portland? Yeah. Well, 4 of them. They seemed bored. They started off at PSU and then went to the German and Swedish consulates, because God hates them, apparently. They went down to Silverton to protest the new mayor, Stu. I went to high school in Silverton. Stu is a man, but dresses like a woman and has had breast implants. He isn't actually gay, he has a girlfriend. I'm not up on my terminology, so I don't know what that makes him. The Westboro people inform me that God hates him anyway. I didn't really get any shots I was terribly happy with. I didn't notice at first that they're all standing on flags (all 4 of them...). Ok, sorry for hijacking the thread, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 07:06
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:I just licked the exposed tape on some 120 ilford for the first time and was surprised to find a pleasant mint taste. Yummy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2008 16:47
|
|
|
jollygrinch posted:They went down to Silverton to protest the new mayor, Stu. I went to high school in Silverton. Stu is a man, but dresses like a woman and has had breast implants. He isn't actually gay, he has a girlfriend. I'm not up on my terminology, so I don't know what that makes him. The Westboro people inform me that God hates him anyway. zuh, seriously? that's not something I'd ever expect to happen in Silverton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2008 19:36
|
|
|
My first two rolls of film (Neopan 400) have been developed and several problems have cropped up. First of all, the scanner I borrowed isn't the best, but the friend I borrowed it from mentioned his mother has an unused film scanner so I might snap that up. Until then, my pictures are going to look an extra 50 years older. In the first photo, I'm not sure whether my Yashica GSN has a backfocusing problem or it's a mistake I made when focusing the subject in the center, then recomposing. EDIT: Found a different way to edit the negatives and replaced the photo with an updated version 
Fragrag fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Nov 29, 2008 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2008 10:25
|
|
|
Is there a consensus that developing T-max film using dilution "b" with hc110 is to fast and a 1:63 (doubled) dilution allows for better control when developing? I have read contradictory statement from Kodax explaining that diluting that far causes more grain and a slower ISO. Also hc-110 develops T-max400 at ISO 320 not sure what that means for my film and developing times can anyone tell me how they go about the process? Right now I am using the 1:63 ratio with satisfactory results though I need to adjust the developing times to be longer but I started with this dilution from the begining and have not tried the published times or dilution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2008 23:57
|
|
|
Dilution B works just great for Tmax films. It is what almost everyone in my school's photo lab uses, and I've seen some great results from it. Tmax itself isn't to my liking, but if you like rather grainless, full tonal negs, then it's a great combo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2008 00:02
|
|
|
Went and bought a Bronica ETR-C, tried to find my processing gear and enlarger. Found the tank and reel for 120, and also found a stash of old negatives that I hadn't seen for a loooong time now, from 1983. These were taken on HP5 in a Yashica MAT 124G. That camera has been gone for years, I sold it a decade ago for roughly what I paid for it-when I was looking at medium format stuff on ebay, I saw that the 124's weren't that far off from list price, but other gear sure is. I'm glad I didn't have a bunch of high priced Bronica and Hasselblad gear laying around, that stuff is pennies on the dollar these days. The scanner I'm using is a second hand store Epson Perfection 1670. It came without a film holder, and the film holder isn't set up for 120 anyway, so I made my own, which took a fair bit of experimentation. Mostly, I wanted to see if it was going to be at all practical to combine analog and digital work before spending the money on a "real" scanner, I'm thinking Epson V500.    All these were taken along the Seward Highway in Alaska in February 1983.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2008 04:34
|
|
|
Found a good deal (free, lol) on two rolls of expired (4 months) Ilford Delta 3200. I shot it at 6400 (night street life), and was wondering if I should go with diafine or a traditional process? I liked tri-x 400 @ 1250 ISO in diafine, and I think for what I shot, grain would probably be a plus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2008 07:04
|
|
|
Does anybody have any experience with Voigtlander rangefinders? I get the impression they're basically just a poor man's Leica. True? The r2a/r3a in particular have me pretty interested but I think it'll have to wait until after I'm able to save my pennies up for a 5d MkII. http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm I especially like these results
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2008 22:59
|
|
|
The Voigtlander RFs are by no means a "poor man's Leica." They are in some ways better than the Leica RFs. They are newer, have more modern feature-sets, and yes, are much, much cheaper.The Leicas are great cameras, but I'd put them closer to equals, just different tradeoffs for each. Some people will tout Leica's supposedly better build quality, but this should not be taken to mean that the Bessas are poorly made. They can take a beating, and feel solid. I have no doubt my Bessa could take a few falls and would keep on ticking. That, and they are made to use ltm/m mount lenses, which are the real draw for most serious Leica users (not collectors). You will be able to choose from all of the Leica catalogue, in addition to the wonderful offerings from Zeiss, Voigtlander (Cosina), Minolta, and many others. Also: Really nice, bright framelines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 00:20
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:The Voigtlander RFs are by no means a "poor man's Leica." They are in some ways better than the Leica RFs. They are newer, have more modern feature-sets, and yes, are much, much cheaper.The Leicas are great cameras, but I'd put them closer to equals, just different tradeoffs for each. which frame do you have? Is there such a thing as an autofocus RF? Unfortunately I've never known anyone with a rangefinder to actually be able to try them out. Since I do primarily concert photography I'd be looking at buying the widest aperture lens I could find, likely a 40mm f/1.4, and realistically I'd be shooting wide open or nearly wide open at most venues I go to. (I suppose that's not the case if I use iso 3200 though). My major concern is that when I'm shooting wide open the action moves too fast for me to use manual focus. I'm constantly switching subjects and the performers are moving back and forth all through the show. I've heard range finders are easier to determine proper focus with in low light settings but never having used one I just don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 04:02
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:which frame do you have? Is there such a thing as an autofocus RF? Unfortunately I've never known anyone with a rangefinder to actually be able to try them out. Since I do primarily concert photography I'd be looking at buying the widest aperture lens I could find, likely a 40mm f/1.4, and realistically I'd be shooting wide open or nearly wide open at most venues I go to. (I suppose that's not the case if I use iso 3200 though). AF Rangefinders do exist, but are not popular. The contax G-series are AF only (except for a neutered MF), and have some astounding lenses, though the AF isn't great. The Nokton 40/1.4 is a great lens, and you should be able to focus it well on any of the Bessas with 50mm framelines. You're going to have to get used to manual focus if you want to move to using an RF for fast motion situations. It's all about practice and knowing how to previsualize. A lot of what I do in fast motion situations is pre-focusing and adjusting blindly to the situation (guessing). But if you know your gear well enough, it often works out quite well. Depending on what you're planning to shoot, an RF might not be the best choice. I wouldn't recommend them for sports or wildlife, for instance, but other fast situations are where they shine (street, journalism). I've seen some great concert photography with Rangefinders, but ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 04:16
|
|
|
I borrowed an AE-1 from a friend to see if I wanted to start playing with film again. Turns out I got bit by the film bug hard, so I'm looking to get an AE-1 of my own. Is ebay generally a good place for photo equipment this old? I'm worried that I'll get one and have light leaks or something when I get it. That said, how much would it cost to get one serviced?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 06:18
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:I borrowed an AE-1 from a friend to see if I wanted to start playing with film again. Turns out I got bit by the film bug hard, so I'm looking to get an AE-1 of my own. Is ebay generally a good place for photo equipment this old? I'm worried that I'll get one and have light leaks or something when I get it. Edit-or you could check Craigslist. Thsi would be just what the doctor ordered, eh? http://anchorage.craigslist.org/pho/953479571.html Have you checked your local second hand stores, Starvation Army, Goodwill, etc? There are some bargains turning up there these days, also, pawn shops are practically tossing film gear at you just fro walking in the door. I saw a guy buy a Leica for $100..... guess I missed that one. A local sewing/craft shop had 2mm foam squares, the perfect thickness for light seals. All of 59 cents a square. I trimmed off some thin strips and resealed my creaky old Minolta X-700. As for the rest of what a service costs, can't help you there, likely it will run you as much or more than the camera itself if you shop carefully. Gnomad fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Dec 11, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 09:12
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:I borrowed an AE-1 from a friend to see if I wanted to start playing with film again. Turns out I got bit by the film bug hard, so I'm looking to get an AE-1 of my own. Is ebay generally a good place for photo equipment this old? I'm worried that I'll get one and have light leaks or something when I get it. I've always gotten the bodies from eBay and lenses from KEH for Canon FD mount gear. Garry's Camera charges $53 including shipping for clean, lube and adjust (CLA) of a Canon AE-1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 13:10
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:/b8e/b8e9a9e823e221bb3d155dc766addbeb_00a.jpg[/timg] I like this one. You can see significant banding in the other two, especially in the sky, but is it really worth the money...you're probably better off with the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 13:57
|
|
|
Am I the only one who think that out of focus background (bokeh if you will) looks better on film for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 14:26
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:also, pawn shops are practically tossing film gear at you just fro walking in the door. I saw a guy buy a Leica for $100..... guess I missed that one. drat, I'm gonna have to check up on this. Good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 14:40
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:drat, I'm gonna have to check up on this. Good idea. One local Cash America had an older OM1 for $30, and a Nikon N65 with the quantaray kit zoom for $50. Keep in mind that even Cash America will dicker a bit and you can treat the one time state of the art cameras like one shot disposables, or keep trying different cameras until you find the one you like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 16:10
|
|
|
Becks posted:Am I the only one who think that out of focus background (bokeh if you will) looks better on film for some reason? Film, as compared to APS-c digital sensors, will have smaller DOF at similar fields of view, so it generally looks as though more of the frame is out of focus, or more out of focus, but aside from that I hadn't really noticed a difference. Though I suspect if you asked that question of Flickr everyone would agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 17:12
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a cheapish film SLR for someone who has never used film before? I'm getting a Holga next week to play around with as it's cheap, but if I get into film I might buy a film SLR. I've got a Nikon dSLR with the 50mm 1.8D, 18-55 kit lens, 18-200, and the 105mm 2.8 VR micro lenses, so I'd probably get a Nikon (F-mount) so I can use the same lenses, probably the 50mm the most. I'd also get it off eBay or somewhere like that, I'm not bothered about it being new. I'm in the UK by the way. Edit: Also I wouldn't be averse to other kinds of cameras, e.g. rangefinders. I only mention getting an SLR as I already have some lenses for my D50 that I could use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 17:14
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:I borrowed an AE-1 from a friend to see if I wanted to start playing with film again. Turns out I got bit by the film bug hard, so I'm looking to get an AE-1 of my own. Is ebay generally a good place for photo equipment this old? I'm worried that I'll get one and have light leaks or something when I get it. Get the T70 instead if you can find it. Basically the same camera just with more nifty tech stuff (like autoexposure etc)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 17:25
|
|
|
Xanin posted:Can anyone recommend a cheapish film SLR for someone who has never used film before? I'm getting a Holga next week to play around with as it's cheap, but if I get into film I might buy a film SLR. Look up lens compatibility; only the 50 and 105 are suitable for film, and the 105 would need a more modern camera b/c its aperture is set digitally. As an aside, all Nikons are F-mounts since the 50s or 60s or something, but not all are safe to mount on all cameras.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 18:48
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Does anybody have any experience with Voigtlander rangefinders? I get the impression they're basically just a poor man's Leica. True? dorkasaurus_rex posted:Get the T70 instead if you can find it. Basically the same camera just with more nifty tech stuff (like autoexposure etc)  I'd take an AE-1 or an A-1 any day over one of those... or at least a T90.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 19:51
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The Voigtlander rangefinders are pretty sweet. They're not built to the same standard as a Leica, but they're very good quality machines, and the lenses are great. I promised myself I wouldn't baby my R3M, and it's been nothing but reliable in the years I've owned it (samples here). I don't suppose you know anyone in Portland that I could rent/borrow a rangefinder from? I just want to get my hands on one to try them out at a concert and see how well I can determine wide aperture focusing in the low-light conditions of a music venue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2008 20:09
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:also, pawn shops are practically tossing film gear at you just fro walking in the door. I saw a guy buy a Leica for $100..... guess I missed that one. I wish that were the case here, the local pawn shops are ridiculous. Beat up Nikon N80? $300. Beat up Sears brand 70-200 lens? $200. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 01:14
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I wish that were the case here, the local pawn shops are ridiculous. Beat up Nikon N80? $300. Beat up Sears brand 70-200 lens? $200. Etc. Yeah, people have some fanciful notions about the value of their old gear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 01:48
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I don't suppose you know anyone in Portland that I could rent/borrow a rangefinder from? I just want to get my hands on one to try them out at a concert and see how well I can determine wide aperture focusing in the low-light conditions of a music venue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 02:37
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I wish that were the case here, the local pawn shops are ridiculous. Beat up Nikon N80? $300. Beat up Sears brand 70-200 lens? $200. Etc. Decent digital gear is getting down under that level. Nobody around here is that delusional. I'm guessing they loaned out a lot more than it's worth a while back and haven't kept up with reality. Edit-get to know the folks at your local Starvation Army. I went in today to have a look around, I've missed some stuff in the recent past but today was my lucky-ish day. From behind the counter, hadn't even been officially offered up yet, came a Nikon FA with a motor drive, 35-105 Nikkor zoom and a Rokinon 28, a SB15 Speedlight and a case. $65 all together. Beter than a $300 N80. 
Gnomad fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Dec 13, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2008 03:46
|
|
|
Last night I had a dream about exploring Tibetan mountains and in some busted up shack I found a perfectly good Hasselblad and bought it off some dude for $20. I was pretty disappointed when I woke up and realized that I didn't have a new camera. On the plus side, my girlfriend is going to lend me her dad's camera. Apparently it's some Russian camera from the 80's? I have no clue, but I am stoked to see what it is. I was wondering if any of you guys wear headphones/earbuds while wearing a neckstrap. I have yet to find a comfortable way to listen to music while lugging around my camera, I always end up with the headphone cords tugging at my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 04:12
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I was wondering if any of you guys wear headphones/earbuds while wearing a neckstrap. I have yet to find a comfortable way to listen to music while lugging around my camera, I always end up with the headphone cords tugging at my head. I just do away with the neckstrap, personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 07:45
|
|
|
Would the pressure plate on a Rolleiflex being just slightly out of position cause focus issues? I had a whole roll out of focus, all of them increasingly so toward the bottom of each frame. It wasn't all the way over into the other position, just slightly off which held it back a little. I hope. I don't have any other ideas. Also, FP4+ is pretty nice stuff. I'd probably have more to say if I weren't so distracted by the focus crap. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 12:42
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The Voigtlander rangefinders are pretty sweet. They're not built to the same standard as a Leica, but they're very good quality machines, and the lenses are great. I promised myself I wouldn't baby my R3M, and it's been nothing but reliable in the years I've owned it (samples here). What's so gross about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 23:22
|
|
|
jollygrinch posted:Would the pressure plate on a Rolleiflex being just slightly out of position cause focus issues? I had a whole roll out of focus, all of them increasingly so toward the bottom of each frame. It wasn't all the way over into the other position, just slightly off which held it back a little. I hope. I don't have any other ideas. It looks like it's been tilt/shifted, the pressure plate might not be holding the film flat all over, which would explain why some areas are oof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2008 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
jollygrinch posted:Would the pressure plate on a Rolleiflex being just slightly out of position cause focus issues? I had a whole roll out of focus, all of them increasingly so toward the bottom of each frame. It wasn't all the way over into the other position, just slightly off which held it back a little. I hope. I don't have any other ideas. If this is your first roll with the camera, check that the previous owner (or shop) hasn't taken the lens apart to clean it and mistakenly reassembled it slightly crooked. I had something similar (though much more extreme) happen with a Summicron I'd reassembled with a reversed rear element. dorkasaurus_rex posted:What's so gross about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 07:52
|
|