|
I'm thinking of heading to Central/South America to travel for several months. How feasible would it be for me to travel with a film SLR if I mainly plan on backpacking, couch surfing and hitchhiking? I'm thinking it would be a hassle to lug around the camera + film all the time, not to mention the fact that I could be identified as a tourist from miles away with a big backpack + big camera around the neck. Then there's the issue of developing film and mailing it home or whatever. I just can't wrap my head around how I could bring my trusty camera with me. Have you guys ever traveled like this with a camera for extended periods of time, and if so, how did you do it? I'm thinking of copping out and just bringing a small digital camera because that seems to be the most convenient thing.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
A film SLR is probably better suited for a long expedition than a digital one if you think about it. A film SLR like a Pentax MX can run without batteries if necessary. They're cheap, built like tanks and take pictures just as well as they day they were made. As a bonus, manual focus Pentax lenses are dirt cheap too. The only thing is that you have to make sure to take care of your film until you can get it developed. I have a Pentax MX and I would recommend it in a heartbeat. It's more compact than the K1000 and has a few more features. Get yourself a 28mm f/2.8, a 50 f/2 (or faster) and a couple of zooms like an 80-200 and something to fill the gap in between. It shouldn't put you out more than a few hundred dollars at the most. Heck, someone you know may already have one sitting around they could give you for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 06:17
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I'm thinking of heading to Central/South America to travel for several months. How feasible would it be for me to travel with a film SLR if I mainly plan on backpacking, couch surfing and hitchhiking? I'm thinking it would be a hassle to lug around the camera + film all the time, not to mention the fact that I could be identified as a tourist from miles away with a big backpack + big camera around the neck. Then there's the issue of developing film and mailing it home or whatever. I did a 2 month trip to europe and a month in Guatemala in Mexico with my big old Nikkormat FTN and just one or two small primes. I was really happy with it. A manual film camera will take abuse like a champ, its batteries will die maybe once every 2 or 3 years and if it gets stolen (which is less likely, because its weight/dollar value ratio is not high), it can be replaced for at most a couple of hundred dollars. If carrying a lot of film is a concern, remember that you can always process some of what you've shot and mail the negatives home, or at least store them flat. You can also acquire decent consumer grade C-41 film at respectable prices in any moderately sized town or city in the world. Personally, I carried all my film with me and waited until I got home to process it, but you know, whatever works.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 06:49
|
|
|
Of course the down side is that you don't know if you hosed up or not until you get home. Not that that has ever happened to me before or anything. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 07:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:Of course the down side is that you don't know if you hosed up or not until you get home. Not that that has ever happened to me before or anything. This is secretly an upside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 07:13
|
|
|
A couple from my first roll of Ilford Delta through the Minolta 7000i, from a Sunday afternoon bike ride along the Seward Highway south of Anchorage. Hard rockers.  http://www.fotothing.com/photos/2d7/2d73bed6728466128887bb37f3594db6_909.jpg Natural bonsai.  http://www.fotothing.com/photos/c76/c767c98e75b5ee3f149c57b13d5f547c_909.jpg Canon Canoscan 8800, scans 11 35mm at a time and does a decent job of it. Like any other new device, I'm still learning how to use it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 07:44
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Canon Canoscan 8800, scans 11 35mm at a time and does a decent job of it. Like any other new device, I'm still learning how to use it. Make sure you turn off all the automated stuff, like restoration and dust removal. Maybe I'm just seeing things but I see some overly smooth looking patches in the photos that look like they've been passed through one of these terrible filters. I've tried using my Epson V200's dust removal, but it just does an absolutely terrible "clone stamp + gaussian blur" effect wherever there's dust. Got some really bad artifacts. Yours looks pretty good, just make sure you've got all those settings off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
Any recommendations for an inexpensive set of white balance filters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
dunno posted:I did a 2 month trip to europe and a month in Guatemala in Mexico with my big old Nikkormat FTN and just one or two small primes. I was really happy with it. Those photos look great. I'm actually considering heading to Guatemala myself. Did you bring a separate padded bag for your camera or your lenses? and did you have a flash unit with you? Right now I have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 28mm f/2.8, I don't have a zoom lens MrMeowMeow fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Those photos look great. I'm actually considering heading to Guatemala myself. I only brought a 50/1.4 and a 28/3.5 and was quite happy. I just used my usual messenger bag, no special padding or anything. These days I'd probably want to ditch the bag most of the time, I prefer having a minimum of crap weighing me down. edit: Also, I really enjoyed my time in Guatemala, I spent about a week at a spanish school in Quetzaltenango (Xela) and then hung around Lago Atitlan for a bit. dunno fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Apr 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
Welp I had a hankering for a film camera so I bought a Pentax P30T and 50mm f/2 on the cheap ($10) in what seems to be great condition. Basically this jawn. Decent camera, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 10:41
|
|
|
It'll certainly get the job done. Gotta love the prices on all those reliable old cameras, eh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 11:10
|
|
|
well hello there Cryhavoc as it turns out I have just bought a camera as well! NZD99, did I bid too far? Hopefully it will be a good one to carry everywhere and rekindle my interest in 35mm. Well keen on the f/1.7 lens. Edit: it is a Yashica Electro 35 GT. duck pond fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Apr 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 11:14
|
|
|
Mello Clello posted:well hello there Cryhavoc as it turns out I have just bought a camera as well! Sounds like a decent price, the wallet raiding Lomographic Society is trying to sell them for $250 USD. (BTW, if you didn't get the hint already, I don't much like the Lomographic Society and their abuse of trend-making and general ignorance to sell cameras at horribly inflated prices)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 12:32
|
|
|
dunno posted:Sounds like a decent price, the wallet raiding Lomographic Society is trying to sell them for $250 USD. (BTW, if you didn't get the hint already, I don't much like the Lomographic Society and their abuse of trend-making and general ignorance to sell cameras at horribly inflated prices) I don't think anyone who knows anything about photography likes them. On the other hand, they're a textbook example of the usefulness of marketing (IIRC it was started by a bunch of European marketing students). I finally sent my two Olympus XA's off for repair... one of them apparently just had some old plastic in the take-up mechanism, but the tech says he's having trouble fixing the other (wonky shutter times). I hope the little guy pulls through 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 12:40
|
|
|
dunno posted:Sounds like a decent price, the wallet raiding Lomographic Society is trying to sell them for $250 USD. (BTW, if you didn't get the hint already, I don't much like the Lomographic Society and their abuse of trend-making and general ignorance to sell cameras at horribly inflated prices) The other day I saw unofficial Holgas being sold at about half-price (in a generic factory box without any Lomography crap on it) and started grinning like an idiot. I suppose they're kinda like pirated clothes in that they come out of the factory when an enterprising manager decides to make a couple hundred extra in each batch. It really goes to show how much of a ripoff Lomography crap is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 13:40
|
|
|
Even better is making friends with people from the actual former Soviet states. Guess what kinds of grandma cameras are in the back of the closet, to be given away for free?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 15:57
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Even better is making friends with people from the actual former Soviet states. Guess what kinds of grandma cameras are in the back of the closet, to be given away for free? Do they have cameras that automatically edit out political dissidents from photographs yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
Well, just for kicks I'm going to try out some Ilford Delta 3200 and try it in my Contax T2 (38mm, f/2.8) at 6400 (3200 underexposed 1 stop since it only goes to 5000) at a concert tomorrow night. Should be interesting. If it all works out, I'll have one hell of a compact concert camera for when I don't feel like lugging the DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
Hey this was taken in pretty much the same setup. Pushing Ilford 3200 to 6400: Highly recommended. Really there was next to no light at all in this picture. duck pond fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jun 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 09:11
|
|
|
Mello Clello posted:Hey this was taken in pretty much the same setup. Pushing Ilford 3200 to 6400: Highly recommended. You used a Lubitel at a concert? drat. How did that all work out? What developer did you use? I didn't have time to drive out to the decent camera stores so I went to the closest one and all they had was Ilford ID-11, which I understand is similar to D-76. I've got a bunch of Xtol coming in the mail. I'll give it a go with the ID-11 though. Which brings me to another point. Tried to order some HC-110 and Ilfostop from Henry's. Apparently there's a $28 surcharge or something for shipping liquid chemistry in Canada. Guess I'll stick with the local stores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 15:31
|
|
|
I recently managed to find a roll of unshot and refrigerated Panatomic-X from 1963ish and was wondering if there's any use towards trying to shoot with it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 23:58
|
|
|
pipian posted:I recently managed to find a roll of unshot and refrigerated Panatomic-X from 1963ish and was wondering if there's any use towards trying to shoot with it? Based on my experience with some old film I was given, expect low contrast and general fogginess. I'm trying to figure out the circumstances involved with film being refrigerated for the last 45-46 years. Could there be a story behind this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:You used a Lubitel at a concert? drat. How did that all work out? Like this mostly   The clear exposure was 1/15s at f/4.5. No idea what developer it was. I took it to a lab, I didn't have access to the darkroom at uni then, it was January and they were closed for the year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 04:35
|
|
|
Well, the photos turned out okay. The only downside is the massive grain but that's to be expected considering I was running at 6400 and didn't use an optimal developer for push developing. I'm going to another show tonight so this time I'll try my Canon A2E. Part of the problem was that the T2 is largely a point-and-shoot with an odd aperture selection system where you can choose any aperture, but if you choose f/2.8, that kicks it into automatic aperture selection mode so you can't say that you want to keep it in f/2.8 and vary the shutter speed according to the light meter. This time around I'll run it either manual or shutter priority at around 1/180 or something. Link for pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157617218523859/ HPL fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Apr 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 18:42
|
|
|
Yay, got a Rolleiflex and a Canonet QL17 this weekend!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 19:38
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yay, got a Rolleiflex and a Canonet QL17 this weekend! God damnit, how many cameras do you have now?  Edit: Take a picture of all your cameras together! CanuckBassist fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I'm thinking of heading to Central/South America to travel for several months. How feasible would it be for me to travel with a film SLR if I mainly plan on backpacking, couch surfing and hitchhiking? I'm thinking it would be a hassle to lug around the camera + film all the time, not to mention the fact that I could be identified as a tourist from miles away with a big backpack + big camera around the neck. Then there's the issue of developing film and mailing it home or whatever. I missed this one the first time, I primarily shoot digital but almost always have a film camera or two along for the ride. Print film is still widely available (think Kodak Gold rather than Porta or Neopan 1600 though) and you can get it processed just about anywhere; B&W and slide film are generally harder to come by (and get developed) but can be found in most major cities. If there's anything you really like to shoot, you should probably bring it with you. Not sure of its availability overseas, but Kodak's C-41 B&W film is pretty decent if you still want ubiquitous processing available. If you ask the processing place not to cut the negs, you can fit a couple rolls worth inside of an empty film canister. If you look white and/or don't speak the language fluently you're probably already marked as a tourist; a camera or big backpack likely isn't going to make a huge difference. When I left my stuff in my room, I'd put it at the bottom of my dirty laundry bag, and put that inside of a locked backpack. Outright mugging probably isn't as common as you'd think, but it doesn't hurt to take precautions. (My experience was in Southeast Asia, but I think it would probably apply to Central/South America.) Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:God damnit, how many cameras do you have now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:God damnit, how many cameras do you have now? This wouldn't be possible unless another, somebody else's camera was used because it would be all - 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 01:11
|
|
|
HPL posted: j883376 posted:This wouldn't be possible unless another, somebody else's camera was used because it would be all - 1. Well I just want to see his film cameras. It seems like he has collected a number of them in a very short time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
I think I need to get a picture of my collection actually - I'm running above 20 film cameras alone now ... thank god that so many people don't think they have any monetary value these days, you can get some really nice cameras for great prices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
I could understand 5, maybe 10 different sorts of cameras for different purposes, but 20? Do you use them all or are they just part of a collection? No hate, just curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Well I just want to see his film cameras. It seems like he has collected a number of them in a very short time. I was kidding 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 05:58
|
|
|
j883376 posted:I was kidding Yeah, I know. I just needed some content in my post aside from the smiley. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 06:01
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Sorry. Hooray for posting on a cell phone. Anyways, I was trying to say that film cameras are so cheap now that it's easy to hop on any great deals that come up. I got both cameras for much less than what they would go for on eBay or KEH so it was kind of a no-lose situation. A lot of people are looking to cull their collections these days because they're moving or need some cash or whatever so prices are stable for the moment but when the economy gets going again (lord knows when that will be), expect to see prices really take off. So if that happens, either I end up with some stuff I can sell for decent profit or I have a collection that's actually worth something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 06:26
|
|
|
Ignore the one on the left, sorta. But it does share lenses with the one just to the right of it, the 7000i ebay special. The middle camera is my old Sears MXB1000, baby's first SLR, vintage 1976 and still working, given a fresh battery it still meters also. Next is one of 2 Minolta X700s. That one is the busted one that won't meter correctly but works on full manual. The rangefinders are an Argus C3 and a Yashica Elctro 35 GSN. There are other cameras that I should ebay, or maybe I should sit on them for when the cycle comes around and 35mm SLR's are worth something again. I paid more for the Sears camera (new) than all the other film cameras combined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 08:12
|
|
|
How are you guys handling the post of film for viewing on the web? Is it the same techniques that you would use for digital raw files? I am getting my scans done at Ritz now, because scans from Sams Club and Target were not that good. The scans from Ritz has a surprising amount of information in it. Are you finding yourselves with different scan settings to adjust for certain qualities in the negative? I am saving up for an Epson V500 right now, so I can scan all my own color and start shooting B&W again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 16:33
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:How are you guys handling the post of film for viewing on the web? Is it the same techniques that you would use for digital raw files? I am getting my scans done at Ritz now, because scans from Sams Club and Target were not that good. The scans from Ritz has a surprising amount of information in it. One big difference is that I don't bother using Noise Ninja for film scans because film grain seems to be more aesthetically pleasing than digital grain, which can be quite awful, especially pattern noise. It's like a film photo could be quite grainy and still be nice whereas if I had a DSLR photo like that, it would drive me up the wall. Mind you, with film, the grainy subjects I'm dealing with are concerts, which I shoot in black and white anyway, which negates the need for noise reduction even more. Landscapes are like butter to begin with because of the ample light. Also, on another topic, I shot a concert on Saturday with Delta 3200 @ 3200, HP5+ @ 3200 and Arista Premium 400 @ 1600. The results were quite nice. I'll post them later. I'm just scanning all the negatives in now. And as another aside, I have found that taking a hair dryer to the emulsion side of the negative while hanging to dry totally straightens it out and gets rid of any cupping. HPL fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Apr 28, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
I'm looking at a Bronica SQ-Ai w/ speedgrip, ME (metered) prism with some chipping paint, 80mm f/2.8, and a pair of 120 backs for $450 ($260 of it will be a Canon 50mm f/1.4 that I never use). It seems like a pretty okay deal, right?
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 15:54 on May 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 15:47
|
|